1971-02-18

PRIVILEGE


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have given notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege concerning the publication by Information Canada at public expense of a booklet called "How Your Tax Dollar Is Spent". If you find my question of privilege is well taken I will be prepared to introduce a motion.
In the introduction to this booklet the President of the Treasury Board makes it known that the tabling of the estimates is being used as an occasion upon which to provide a greater amount of information about the estimates. He also advises that the booklet will be available to members of the general public through Information Canada upon request. He states that the publication also describes the allocations recommended for the particular year 1971-72 in terms of the priorities of the nation, and, consequently, of the government.
I agree that the public is entitled to the maximum amount of public information, but we must be concerned lest such an instrument of information as Information Canada be converted into an instrument of propaganda. Over the past years we have attempted to obtain consultant reports in order that the people of Canada may know what is going on, but in most cases these have been denied to us. Now the public, by means of the booklet in question, and at large public expense, is being given a shot of strictly government propaganda through the publication of this booklet by Information Canada which we were told would never be used for this purpose. I would refer Your Honour to just a couple of paragraphs in an effort to make my point. On page 10 the following words appear:
In these discussions ministers considered certain basic facts. One of the more basic was that while Canada as a whole enjoys one of the world's highest standards of living, many Canadians are finding it difficult to get by.
A little further down the page we read:
The federal government has for some years been attempting to narrow this gap between rich and poor provinces and since 1968 has intensified these efforts.
On page 11 we find the following:
Before it decides how to allocate your dollars, the government must determine how big its total spending program should be. It is no easy matter to arrive at a total such as the $14,352 million the government has proposed to Parliament for 1971-72. More than a year ahead, a forecast is made of the state of the economy.
This appears accompanied by a side heading "Decisions, Decisions".
If material such as this is allowed to continue to be published at public expense, and the opposition has no means of countering such propaganda, what is the purpose of this House? If the government is allowed to use public moneys to finance the publication of what they wish to put out for public consumption, to what length will the government go in the course of the so-called rationalization of government information?
In conclusion, I would say that Information Canada should not be used for the dissemination of political party propaganda. I sincerely urge you to recognize the dangers inherent in the absence of controls over the nature of the services to be provided. The only way in which this could be done would be by means of an all-party understanding, and for this to be reached it would be necessary for a committee of the House to explore the charges I have made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given the Chair notice of his intention to raise the matter to which he has just referred by way of a question of privilege. The Chair has had an opportunity to give the matter some thought. I have listened closely and with interest to the comments made by the hon. member. I have to advise the House that, although there may be a grievance in what the hon. member has said, there cannot be a question of privilege. In the circumstances I do not think that the motion to which the hon. member has alluded can be put at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity I propose to ask the unanimous consent of the House to put a motion. The justified anxiety of Canadians about the ever-increasing pollution of the Canadian heritage-our lands, our seas, our inland waters and the air we breathe-is reflected in the legislation that was enacted by this Parliament in the last session and in the several bills now under consideration by this House. A developing threat to our west coast seas and thereby to present and future residents of British Columbia, among whom are our coastal Indians, has become a clear and present danger with the TAPS

February 18, 1971
Possible Sale of Publishing Firm
hearing in Washington by the United States Department of the Interior. If the House would consent, I would therefore move:
That this House urges the government forthwith to express Canada's opposition to the TAPS proposal; and further urges the government to inform the government of the United States that both nations must participate in a joint task force to reach a solution to the problem that will best protect the environment of any route used.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Peace River which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the leave of the House to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I can explain my reasons for so doing in one sentence. This morning McClelland and Stewart, the publishing firm, announced its intention to sell, and while it indicated that it would be reluctant to sell to foreign concerns it did not exclude that possibility. This is the third major Canadian publishing house to be placed in this position in the last six months. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That this House urges the government to consider specific measures to prevent the third major Canadian book publisher in six months, McClelland and Stewart, from being purchased by foreign interests, and immediate action, such as the provision of long-term, low-interest loans to Canadian book publishers and the creation of a Canadian book development corporation in order to prevent the imminent collapse of the Canadian publishing industry.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member under the provisions of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 THE CANADIAN ECONOMY PROJECTED TAKEOVER OF HOME OIL BY UNITED STATES COMPANY

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the statement made in the House of Commons yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) that Home Oil Company Limited of Calgary had not yet been sold and this morning's press reports that a sale is imminent, and hence the need for Parliament to debate this vitally important matter and to consider methods of preventing the last major Canadian-owned and controlled oil company from being sold to non-residents.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has given the notice required under this Standing Order 26. As hon. members know, this same matter was brought to the attention of the House about a week ago. At that time the Chair indicated that this was the kind of matter or type of situation contemplated by the provisions of Standing Order 26.
At that time I indicated that in view of the fact there were to be two days of debate on the budget that would be an ideal occasion for the House to consider this very important and urgent matter. Unfortunately that debate did not relate to this particular matter. There was a debate on unemployment and the subject matter raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was not touched upon. I am of the same opinion today in that I believe this is the type of situation contemplated by the Standing Order and that under such circumstances the Chair should be prepared to put the motion to the House.
I might say in passing that I have some objection to the form of the motion put by the hon. member, specifically the reference to the statement by the minister. This would perhaps give the impression that what the hon. member wishes the House to discuss is the statement of the minister. At that point we might perhaps get into the type of debate which I am sure the hon. member does not envisage at this time.
Having said all this and having given the matter very serious consideration, and taking into account the probability that the very important debate in the House this afternoon on veterans affairs legislation is likely to be completed before this evening, I would think that hon. members would want to have the opportunity to express their views on this subject. Therefore I propose to ask whether the hon. member has the leave of the House to put his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 18, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: The motion will therefore stand for consideration at eight o'clock this evening.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the appropriate minister, who I believe is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has he any information to give the House about the imminent sale of the firm of McClelland and Stewart? Has he had any contact with this firm in this regard and, if so, what steps does he propose to take?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no personal information, but immediately after the question period I will make inquiries. I understand Mr. McClelland is a prominent member of a committee which has as its prime purpose the maintaining of Canada for Canadians. I would be surprised if he intended to sell to foreigners. I have been informed by my valuable Parliamentary Assistant that Mr. McClelland has said in public he has not made that decision.


Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In light of this takeover of another Canadian publishing company, is the minister prepared to release the recommendations of the study he had undertaken by the officials of his department into the Canadian book publishing industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it was tabled in the House quite a number of weeks ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be prepared to indicate to the House whether he is considering specific action, such as the institution of long-term, low-interest loans to Canadian book publishers and the creation of a Canadian book development corporation in order to prevent such action within the Canadian publishing industry in the future?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, at the time of a previous takeover, and I am not assuming we have another one now, an interdepartmental committee was set up for the purpose of looking into this situation. I will undertake to inquire where the study now stands.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce if he will discuss with his colleague the Minister of National Revenue, who is working on the government policy in respect of foreign ownership, the possibility of developing an interim policy to deal with this very immediate and urgent situation?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will bring this to my friend's attention.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a wire or communication in respect of the sale of Banff Oil, a Canadian company, to the Aquitaine Company of Canada which is a wholly foreign-owned French company, I understand?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt whether this is a supplementary question. My understanding is that the original question of the Leader of the Opposition dealt with a specific problem having to do with the question of foreign ownership. Perhaps we are getting away from that subject, and it may be that the hon. member will have an opportunity to raise his question in a minute or so. I will recognize him as soon as possible. In the meantime I believe the Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, from the answer given by the minister am I to understand that he has had no communication from this firm with regard to any difficulties which might lead to a sale, that he has had no indication to date of any difficulties which might bring about the sale of this company?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was very clear on that. I thought that by giving Mr. McClelland's credentials I would throw a little cold water on the subject, but I intend to get in touch with him as soon as I can.



INCREASE IN PRICE OF VENEZUELAN CRUDE-EXTENSION OF PIPELINE TO MONTREAL

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the announcement in this morning's press that the Venezuelan oil producers have announced they are going to raise the price of crude oil by 25 per cent effective next month. In view of the fact that some 50 per cent of Canada's oil supplies come from Venezuela, can the Prime Minister assure the House that the government will take whatever steps are necessary to have the interprovincial pipe line extended into the Montreal area so as to give the people of that area some protection against this very large increase in the price of crude oil?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I will refer the question to the minister responsible for energy, mines and resources. Of course, if Venezuela wants to act by next month I do not believe the action the hon. member suggests could be taken in time to alleviate that problem.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company is making an application to the National Energy Board during hearings which are to begin on March 16 in which it will ask for additional operations in the parts of

February 18, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Canada it now serves, would the Canadian government be prepared to intervene at the hearing to ask the National Energy Board to take whatever steps are necessary to get the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company to extend its pipeline, particularly in view of the fact that there is a conflict of interest in that it is owned by a company which is bringing Venezuelan oil into the Montreal market?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, this would seem to be hypothetical; if the company does feel it is an economic proposition and if it should make an application, then I am sure if these hypotheses are met the National Energy Board will hear them fairly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the government's intention to leave this matter entirely to the discretion of the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company in view of the fact that it is owned by an American company which is bringing in oil from Venezuela and is therefore unwilling to have western Canadian oil brought to the Montreal area in competition with their own oil from Venezuela?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am asked what the government's intention would be in a hypothetical situation. I do not think the government can answer that.



SUGGESTED FEASIBILITY STUDY OF ECONOMICS OF BUILDING PIPELINE FROM WEST TO SERVE EASTERN CANADA

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question is along the same lines. Two days ago I asked the Prime Minister whether the government would set up an economic study on the feasibility of building a pipeline to eastern markets. I drew to the Prime Minister's attention that other ministers had said they would leave it to free enterprise. In view of the fact that the same corporation that might transport crude petroleum to the east is also importing it into Canada, would the Prime Minister now consider establishing an independent economic study to look into the feasibility of building and extending the pipeline in question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will refer the matter to the minister responsible.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I follow that through, Mr. Speaker. May I bring to the Prime Minister's attention, with the greatest respect, that two days ago he took this question as notice. I understood from that that he would give me an answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When I take a question as notice for other ministers it is referred to the ministers so they can answer the questions that should be asked of them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think this is a question of some national importance in which he might take some initiatives?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Can he tell us whether he is satisfied to see the government increasing its expenditures for fiscal year 1971-72 by $1,400 million while reducing by almost $30 million the budget of agriculture, that of the most underprivileged class of society?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is argumentative. He is asking a minister whether he is satisfied with a certain situation, thus inviting the minister to express an opinion. If the hon. member has no objection, I will say the question is out of order.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for
the Minister without Portfolio who answers for Information Canada. It relates to the booklet referred to earlier by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. In view of the fact that this rhapsody in blue constitutes a blurb and puffery for the Liberal government, will the minister see that equal funds are made available out of the public purse for the opposition parties to deal with the same issue?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonfon East):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can indicate to the House whether the government now has guidelines under which industry can operate so they do not have to operate under the handicap of government intervention when sales are contemplated and particularly when negotiations are in progress?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not get the purport of the question.


William Skoreyko: I will ask it again. Can the minister indicate to the House whether the government now has guidelines under which businesses in Canada can operate so that they do not have to operate under the handicap of government intervention when sales are contemplated, and particularly when they are being negotiated?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not see why this question concerns in particular the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
February 18, 1971



LIFT PROGRAM REGULATIONS FOR CALCULATION OF SUMMERFALLOW-EQUITABLE PAYMENT OF FARMERS

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the interpretation of certain regulations in the Lift program dealing with the calculation of summerfallow using 1968 crop figures, resulting in some farmers being paid and others in identical circumstances not being paid, and as the legal opinion was belatedly announced in December, 1970, is the minister looking into this matter so that payment will be made in an equitable manner to all?


Hon. Otio E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: If the hon. member would give me the details of the problem to which he is referring, I would be glad to look into it.



REASON FOR SHIPS HAVING TO WAIT TO BE LOADED AT VANCOUVER

Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. I have asked him a number of questions relating to the number of ships standing by in Vancouver harbour waiting to be loaded. Has he any comment to make on the fact that there appear to be 19 ships in Vancouver harbour, 12 of which are standing by because of lack of grain to load?


Otto Emil Lang: I had my office get in touch with Vancouver at noon today and I understand that at this very moment 11 ships are waiting, having passed inspection and seven are being loaded. As I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition several days ago, there is quite an accumulation of ships destined to arrive in February as a result of failure to arrive earlier. As I understand it, there may be as many as 17 or 18 more vessels due to arrive in the month of February. If they do all arrive we can expect to see some lengthy queues in the process of moving toward record loadings at the port of Vancouver.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he is assuring the House that the appropriate grades and quality of grain are there to be loaded on these ships that are waiting?


Otto Emil Lang: What 1 can assure the House is that the block system is working very well-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Answer the question.


Otto Emil Lang: -and that the programming of grain from Winnipeg by the Wheat Board, in co-operation with the railroads and elevator companies, is taking place with the nominated ships in mind so that an attempt is made to have the right grain there at the right time. It is because of the efficiency of this system that we may be approaching record loadings.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be too persistent, but would the minister be good enough to
Inquiries of the Ministry
answer my question? Is there grain there at Vancouver to be put on these vessels that are waiting?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the facts-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: -on the exact quantities of grain in store and the amount required by the number of ships, but what I would tell the Leader of the Opposition is that if you count the grain in the pipeline, that is the grain in the railway system on its way to Vancouver, a very efficient job is being done in attempting to see that the grain is there to meet record loadings in the month of February.



REQUESTED DELAY IN REPAYMENT OF CASH ADVANCES UNTIL SEEDING COMPLETED

Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the very tight cash situation of the Prairie grain farmer and in view of the request by the National Farmers Union at its recent meeting with the cabinet, will the minister give consideration to delaying the collection of cash advance payments at least until after seeding?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have some further discussions with the National Farmers Union to see what they had in mind. Generally speaking, I think they agree with the proposition that cash advances should be repaid within the course of a year. I believe the reference was to some particular problems of small farmers or of farmers with particularly small quotas, and I would be glad to have further discussion with them on this matter.



SUGGESTED PRICE GUARANTEE TO FARMERS ON EXPORTS

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Having regard to the failure of the Geneva conference to reach a conclusive agreement, is any consideration being given by the government to establishing a realistic price guarantee for grains destined for export based on current production costs, which would serve to relieve the producers of some of the disastrous effects of the cut-throat selling policies of other exporting countries?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have said a number of times that we should not be so pessimistic as to believe competition of that sort need follow. I might also say that I do not think we will ever be in a position to adopt a guaranteed income approach which covers full costs regardless of the price obtained for these products in the international markets.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, does the minister expect the producers of this country to shoulder all the vagaries of the international marketplace?

February 18, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of news reports today that several countries, including Great Britain, intend to withdraw from any further participation in the joint wheat aid programs under the previous agreements, does the minister still adhere to the statement he made in the House the other day that there has been no dramatic change as the result of the failure to reach a further agreement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ALLEGED FAILURE TO REACH INTERNATIONAL WHEAT PRICE AGREEMENT BECAUSE OF CHANGING OF CANADIAN GRADING SYSTEM

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether, in view of reports emanating from the United States that an agreement was not concluded at Geneva because Canada was changing its grading system, he would care to comment on that aspect or make a statement in the House denying these allegations?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, certainly any suggestion that that was the reason for failure I would label as completely erroneous. Certainly the question of protein grading in Canada, and therefore its impact on grades and the possible change of names for some of our leading grains, did enter into the discussions, but I would not agree that was the basis for failure.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question on summer employment for students.
Since 45 per cent of the unemployed in Canada are under 25, is the Prime Minister considering a reassessment of employment programs for students, so as to bring substantial changes to his manpower policy and to let this mass of young unemployed participate efficiently in the economic life of our country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems that the question of the hon. member was asked yesterday during the oral question period. Unless there have been developments since, I do not feel that this question is acceptable.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Justice.
In view of the position of the fighting wing of his party regarding contempt of court and the events which recently took place in the courts, will the minister consider amending shortly the provisions of the Criminal Code pertaining to contempt of court so that the accused may have a full defence, and that persons convicted for contempt of court may have a de piano right of appeal?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that his question may be somewhat thorny. He knows as well as I do about the limitations which must be taken into account when putting a question relating to a current trial.
If the hon. member chooses to ask the question in a general manner, without any reference to any specific situation, it could perhaps be in order and the minister might wish to answer it.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, my question will be brief and very simple.
Does the Minister of Justice intend to amend the Criminal Code in the near future with regard to contempt of Court?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question by saying that all provisions of the Criminal Code are under constant review by the Department of Justice.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, before asking my question I would like to take this opportunity to welcome back the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka who has just walked into the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis-Roland Comeau: My question is not to him but to the Minister of Public Works and I believe he has been advised of it. Can he state whether it is a fact that the Digby-Saint John ferry which, Mr. Speaker, is a matter you have not heard raised for a long time, will be operating by the end of March as stated, or whether there is truth to the rumours that there is a hold-up and, if so, why?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question cannot be asked in those terms. Perhaps we might overlook the second part of the question and assume the first part was asked directly and allow the minister to reply.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a delay in this project which was originally expected to be completed in April, 1971.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A delay?
[Mr. Mazankowski.l
February 18, 1971


Arthur Laing: This is a major job. There was difficulty with the first protective pipe that was ordered and that caused a delay of some three or four months. My engineers now tell me that it may be August 1 before the docks are completed at each end. This is an embarrassment to us because we understand the ship is going to be commissioned very shortly.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: A supplementary question to the minister. In view of the fact that a private company, the CPR, has invested a tremendous amount of money in this vessel and as the heavy tourist season is very important to them, will the minister give the assurance that alternative sites will be considered and, if necessary, have full discussions with the company in this regard?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we are in communication with the company now and foresee the possibility of accelerating the work and accommodating the company at the earliest possible time. I want to remind my hon. friend that the people of Canada also have a tremendous investment in these two docks.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Are changes being considered in the Canadian tariff structure with regard to tires? I refer to changes affecting tire manufacturers other than Michelin.
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Max Saltsman: Could the minister indicate what those changes are? If he is not in a position to indicate this today, perhaps he can tell us when he will make a statement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions I have referred to the general purpose of our project of rationalization of the tire industry in Canada. I have referred to the 160-odd types of tires that we produce constituting 6 per cent of the Canadian production. The need for rationalization is recognized by everybody. My hon. friend is familiar with our approach, that is, the allowance of imports of certain types of tires tariff free in return for concentration on certain types of tires for the domestic and for export markets. That is the same approach as the one taken by the Minister of Finance in the case of Michelin. Our department is working hard on that project.



INCLUDING OF NURSING AND CUSTODIAL CARE HOMES UNDER HOSPITALIZATION PLAN

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare,
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Speaker. Some time ago I asked the minister what progress was being made in bringing nursing and custodial care homes under hospitalization, thus relieving the terrible distress and anxiety of older citizens who find themselves without money or a place to go when discharged from hospital. If the minister has not got a ready answer, perhaps he will make a statement on motions on Monday.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: That is not necessary, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question. The whole question of including such institutions under hospitalization, which would widen the legislative framework of that particular Act, is under review now with the health ministers. If we arrive at such a conclusion it would be subject to the approval of the government and we would have to come back to the House. In the meantime, I would remind the hon. member that those in need of custodial care can qualify for cost-sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I wonder if the minister is aware just how long it takes that operation to get going.


John Carr Munro: It is going right now.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brefon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but in his absence and because of the urgency of the matter I should like to direct it to the first minister. In view of the information relayed in the House a few days ago by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in reference to the urgent requirement for housing on the Eskasoni reserve in Nova Scotia, the largest reserve in the Atlantic provinces, that 29 new houses will be constructed and in view of the information contained in the telegram from Chief Dan K. Stevens that 15 houses only have been approved in the budget whereas 47 houses are required for families who have no homes or housing whatsoever, would the Prime Minister not only take this question as notice but also urge that an investigation into this urgent matter be carried out immediately?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will do the former, Mr. Speaker, and then I will decide if the latter is necessary.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence and I have

February 18, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
given corridor notice of it already. May I ask the minister to suggest to his colleague the Minister of Transport that he consider whether the monument to the merchant seamen of the world wars located at the southeast end of Halifax could become a signal for shipping so that this light will not have to go out? I ask this question because the private veterans organization that has been responsible for it is no longer able to meet the utility bills.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: I thank the hon. member for enlightening me on this question, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] * *



MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, on February 9 the Secretary of State for External Affairs took as notice a question I asked about negotiations with the United States regarding possible alterations to the Migratory Birds Convention Act which would give recognition to the aboriginal rights of the native people. I hope that the minister may have an answer for me today because, as he may have noticed from reading the press, this is becoming increasingly a matter of controversy and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked the question and perhaps he should give the minister the opportunity to reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there were preliminary discussions with the United States at the official level two years ago. However, since that time there has been no substantive discussion. Last fall efforts were made by Canada to renew the subject but because of changes in the top personnel of the United States Department of the Interior which occurred at about the same time it has not been possible to make firm arrangements for a meeting. At the moment, therefore, we cannot indicate when consultations might be renewed.



TAXATION


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Does he intend to introduce in the near future his tax reform bill and specify what are the tax reforms he intends to propose, owing to the uncertainty of Canadian and foreign investors as a result of which they are prevented from investing further in Canada?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in the House when I would expect to be able to bring forward the legislation with respect to tax reform.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether one of his ministers caused a request to be made to the Brown interests and the Ashland interests that the letter of intent involving the control of Home Oil Company dated in January be maintained on a confidential basis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know no more about this than the minister said in the House in answer to a question a couple of days ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this is an important subject and one upon which a debate is to take place tonight. The minister indicated that he knew of the agreement. It has not been made public, and the report is circulating that the government requested that the parties involved keep silent about it. In view of the importance of this matter, would the Prime Minister or someone on behalf of the government clarify this issue? I also make this request because other investors were trading in these shares in the meantime.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. I wonder if he has received any other representations beyond those of the Canadian Lumbermens' Association or if he has seen the report of the meeting of the Canadian Lumbermens' Association claiming that Canada's tax structure, particularly estate taxes, is designed specifically to encourage United States takeovers of Canadian lumber firms?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen this report.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Has the minister received any representations from the lumber operators of this country to the effect that the unpegging of the dollar has cost them about $50 million in revenue so far and has resulted in the industry operating at only about

February 18, 1971

60 per cent of capacity, thereby causing a great deal of unemployment ?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the fact that the Canadian dollar is stronger has an effect on export sales.



POLLUTION


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: In light of the commitment made on Monday by the United States Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Morton, to examine present and potential shipping problems on the west coast of the continent, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Canadian government has as yet been invited to co-operate in this study?


Mitchell William Sharp: The United States government has not invited us to consult with them but I have invited the United States Secretary of State to consult with us.



THREAT POSED BY TANKER TRANSPORT OF OIL FROM VALDEZ, ALASKA, TO CHERRY POINT, WASHINGTON-DIRECT REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, there have been repeated appeals by Canadians and Americans protesting the shipping of Alaskan oil from Valdez to Cherry Point. Why has the Canadian government not made any direct representations to the government of the United States regarding the pollution hazard that would be entailed by such shipments?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the reason is that there are hearings being held by the American authorities and I do not think it would be proper for the Canadian government to appear before a United States tribunal of this kind. On the other hand, I think it is most important that during the period while the hearings are being held Canadians and Americans should realize the potential risks involved and speak out and speak out clearly.



YUKON MINERALS ACT


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a question for the Prime Minister based on the several letters, telegrams and briefs that have been forwarded to him from the Yukon and western Canada in connection with Bill C-187 now standing on the order paper, respecting the Yukon Minerals Act. Is the Prime Minister going to accede to the request of the Chamber of Mines which has written to
Inquiries of the Ministry
him, a copy of which I received in my mail today, that Bill C-187 be withdrawn from Parliament and that the Yukon Quartz Mining Act remain as the mining code for the Yukon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the bill is on the order paper. The government has no intention of withdrawing it. Of course, during the debate on the bill we will be glad to give consideration to and discuss any arguments put forward.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio who reports for Information Canada. Will he reply to the question I asked yesterday in his absence with regard to whether he would consider making an early statement on the situation with respect to the substantial increases in the staffs and expenses of the information sections of various government departments since the establishment of the coordinating agency, Information Canada?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minisier without Portfolio):: thank the hon. member for again raising the question. I apologize for having to leave the chamber a few minutes before the question period expired yesterday. I think there will be an early opportunity to go into this whole matter when the estimates are before committees. In the meantime, I might explain that Information Canada does not have authority over the budgets of other departments. We hope to have a beneficial influence on them but, as indicated at the beginning of Information Canada's existence, it would probably take about a year after it was in full operation before these effects could be felt, particularly in view of the fact that the estimates of departments have to be formulated far in advance of the time at which the hiring is done.


Barry Mather: Is the minister aware that the government task force on information which preceded the establishment of Information Canada criticized the size and expenses of some of these departmental information sections?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With Your Honour's permission I will now direct the question to the Prime Minister which I put as a supplementary with regard to foreign investment. Is the Prime Minister aware either through his office or any of the ministers' offices whether there has been communication with regard to Banff Oil Limited, a Canadian company, which

February 18, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
is now being purchased by the Aquitaine Company of Canada which is owned by French interests?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did make a quick check, Mr. Speaker. I have no knowledge of such representations having been made to my office as yet. If they do come, I will consider them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the Prime Minister consider this in the same way that the American purchase of Home Oil is being considered? This is a purchase by another foreign company. Will the cabinet consider this in the same way that they considered the other matter this morning?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the minister indicated, Mr. Speaker, we have been considering the matter of Home Oil. No doubt we will want to include this in our consideration. It would be helpful if we had a clear statement of what the opposition suggests should be done in these cases.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a question of privilege. If the Prime Minister will grace this institution with his presence this evening, he will hear our position in that regard.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Darimouth-Halifax East):: My
question is for the Minister of National Defence. Earlier this week I asked the minister whether his department is giving consideration to implementing quotas, notwithstanding trade quotas or particular skill quotas that may be required, in terms of absolute numbers with regard to those taken into the armed forces from province to province.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I expect to have an answer to this tomorrow.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is for the
Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In view of the fact that the capital budget of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, tabled by the minister last week, indicates 16.1 per cent less federal spending on housing compared with the CMHC budget of last year, which took into account the innovative fund, and the minister expects a 15.8 per cent increase in housing starts, will he make a statement on motions indicating how he expects to increase housing starts by decreasing the capital budget for 1971?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is asked in the form of an argument. I doubt whether it is acceptable. At the same time he asked the minister whether he would make a statement on motions. If the minister can reply to this quickly, the question might be accepted in those terms.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: do not intend to make a statement on motions because I made a statement the other day when I tabled the capital budget in the House.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of housing. Does his reply to the question of the hon. member for Broadview indicate that in the low income levels the government is prepared to grant subsidies either by way of principal or interest to help these objectives to be realized?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make such a commitment at this stage.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilion West):: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing with regard to urban problems. In view of the fact the Prime Minister has indicated his reluctance, because of the constitution, to meet the mayors of this country, whose problems still continue and are becoming more aggravated, has the minister abandoned any interest in a tri-level conference or setting up an urban council?


Robert Knight Andras: No, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Prime Minister's statement indicated a confirmation of what he has said in the House on two or three occasions. If the provinces are willing to have us meet with the mayors to consult on urban problems, we will be delighted to join in such a conference. That is the thrust of our position.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is the answer the minister responsible for housing gave the other day when I posed the same question on this problem. Is the minister now in a position to advise the House whether he has discussed this situation with his provincial counterparts? If so, what have their answers been?


Robert Knight Andras: I think I made that clear in the answer I gave the hon. member a few days ago. To repeat, I have been in communication with the Ministers of Municipal Affairs about tri-level consultation. I have not received formal replies from all of them. The replies I have received so far indicate that this is a good possibility.

February 18, 1971



HOUSING


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Last Friday I directed a question to the minister in charge of housing. He did not hear the question and Your Honour indicated that he might take note of the question and reply at some other time. The question related to the fact that in 1969 there were 4,425 housing starts in Saskatchewan and only 993 in 1970. Will the minister give serious consideration to this situation?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are taking it under serious consideration. A few minutes ago I signed a letter with the details of the answer. It is now on the way to the hon. member's office.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, we know the business for this afternoon and Your Honour has fixed the business for tonight, but I wish to ask the Government House Leader what the business will be for tomorrow and the first few days of next week.


Mr. Downey:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that we are on a point of order. We can only have one point of order at a time. The hon. member for Peace River rose on a point of order. If it was not a point of order, the question could not be asked. The question period expired a moment ago. I assume that the question was raised on this basis and the minister might be allowed to reply.


Mr. MacEachen:: As indicated, today we will deal with veterans legislation. This will be followed by the crop insurance bill and the income tax bill. The program will obviously be affected by the debate this evening. Tomorrow we will begin with the air quality bill, followed by the Canada-Jamaica taxation bill, the CNR financing bill and the statutory instruments bill. On Monday we will begin with the Canada Development Corporation. In the remaining days until Thursday, we will complete the Canada Development Corporation and any other uncompleted items mentioned for the previous days. On Thursday I would propose the business of supply. In connection with Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada, I propose to have discussions with Opposition House Leaders to determine whether an agreement can be made as to the additional time required to complete consideration of this item of public business.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a point of order, I intend to present a motion on the report stage of the statutory instruments bill and I think this arrangement would preclude it from being discussed tomorrow. I call attention to this because
Pension Acts
apparently the President of the Privy Council has lost sight of the rules.


Cliff Downey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I find it has become increasingly difficult to be recognized during the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cliff Downey: I notice, and have noticed for some time, that it is not a matter of what the question is; it is who asks it. It is becoming increasingly evident of late that questioners are selected on the basis of how much trouble they can cause the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I invite the hon. member to resume his seat. He has no right to impugn the conduct of the Chair in this way. He can only do so in one manner, and that is by a substantive motion. I will not hear anything further on this point of order. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-203, to amend the Pension Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:: That Bill C-203, An Act to amend the Pension Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act be amended by
(a) adding thereto immediately after clause 34 on page 41 the following clause:
"35. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following Part:
part xm



PRISONERS OF WAR OF THE JAPANESE

[Stage Direction]
76.	In this Part, "prisoner of war of the Japanese" means
(a)	a person described in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of section 7, or
(b)	a person described in section 17,
who was during World War II a prisoner of war of the Japanese for a period of one year or more.
77.	A pension in an amount equal to the pension payable for a disability assessed at fifty per cent shall, on application; be awarded in accordance with the rates set out in Schedule A to the Pension Act to or in respect of a person who was a prisoner of war of the Japanese and has any assessable disability.
78.	A pension shall, on application, be awarded to any person to whom a pension could be awarded under Part III of the Pension Act, in respect of a person who was a prisoner of war of the Japanese and who died prior to the coming into force of
3518
[Stage Direction]
February 18, 1971
Pension Acts
this Part, in an amount equal to the amount that would be payable in respect of that person under Part III of the Pension Act if, at the time of his death, he had been in receipt of a pension for a disability assessed at fifty per cent."	; and
(b) renumbering clause 35 on page 41 as clause 36.
[Stage Direction]
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to extend to merchant seamen and to members of the Auxiliary Forces who were prisoners of war of the Japanese during World War II, the same special consideration as Hong Kong veterans are to receive under the relevant provisions of this bill.
In its present form, the bill provides that veterans who were prisoners of war of the Japanese for a year or more will be entitled to a 50 per cent disability pension if they have any assessable disability. This will also mean that at their death their widow will be entitled to a widow's pension. In addition, a widow's pension will be payable to widows of veterans who were prisoners of war of the Japanese.
The government considers that these important new benefits are entirely appropriate in view of the experiences suffered by the veterans of Hong Kong and of other far eastern operations. We are satisfied that those who spent up to four years as prisoners of the Japanese are in a unique category among veterans. The rigorous and debilitating conditions experienced by this group led to clearly identifiable disabilities not duplicated among other groups of Canadian veterans, and also led to obscure Asiatic ailments which medical experts have found almost impossible to assess.
In addition to these veterans there are a small number of persons who, as merchant seamen, or as members of the Auxiliary Forces, also became prisoners of war of the Japanese and suffered the same kind of hardship for periods of up to four years. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has suggested, and the government entirely agrees, that these persons should have the same pension benefits as the Hong Kong group. The amendment will give effect to this change.
I might add one technical point. The Standing Committee suggested that this amendment be included in the portion of the bill relating to the Pension Act. However, as the exiting legislation affecting the pension rights of these persons is embodied in the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the amendment applies to the portion of the present bill relating to that act rather than to the Pension Act. The practical result, of course, is exactly the same: the effect will be that all Canadians, whether technically classified as veterans or not, who were prisoners of war of the Japanese for a year or more will be entitled to the same special benefits.
These are the explanations I have to offer in connection with this motion.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I see you had the choice of two Knowles. Thank you for recognizing me. We on this side of the House welcome the speed with which the minister
has brought in this bill for third and final reading. We intend to do everything we can to see that it receives a speedy passage. We are pleased to hear the amendment which the minister has proposed.
Before I resume my seat I intend to suggest two further possible amendments which I hope the minister will see fit to accept. Before doing that, however, I should like to say a sincere word of tribute to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae) who has laboured so long in the cause of veterans rights and privileges here in the House of Commons, having served on that committee during his whole life in Parliament. I especially appreciate his efforts, because on occasions when I was unable to be present in the committee he carried the ball for the Official Opposition. I should also like to pay a word of tribute to the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Legault) who presided with extreme fairness, good humour and a desire to get things done as speedily as possible.
The two amendments which I should like the hon. minister to find in his heart to make, concerns clause 59(3). Perhaps they could be best explained by reading part of a letter from the War Amputations of Canada signed by Mr. Chatterton. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put certain parts of that letter on the record.
Under the new legislation an Exceptional Incapacity Allowance may be paid to a small number of 100 per cent pensioners as compensation for special problems-including pain and suffering, and shortening of life expectancy.
Specifically, the offending proviso is contained in Clause 59(3) of the Bill, to the effect that this allowance may be decreased if pension authorities decide that the disability can be lessened by wearing a prosthesis. This could have the effect of reducing the allowance for severely-disabled veterans, should they attempt to overcome their disability by the use of artificial arms or legs.
This proviso is in direct conflict with a recommendation in the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs of June 22, 1970, which proposed that such allowances be paid as of right, and included the statement: "This right will not be affected by the pensioner's means or his degree of rehabilitation".
The committee report was concurred in by the House on June 23, 1970. Bill C-203 contains many improvements in veterans' pension legislation. It is regrettable that the bill should be marred by the inclusion of this seeming imperfection.
Then, moving on a couple of paragraphs:
We believe that, in the main, this proviso would affect some 200 double amputation cases, whose allowance could be reduced by an average $400 per annum (from $1,200 to $800). Thus, the additional cost of Bill C-203 if this proviso were deleted would be approximately $80,000 per annum. Our concern, however, is with the principle, and the amount of added benefit to the seriously-disabled pensioner is of secondary importance.
We recognize, of course, the medical principle that a good fitting prosthesis can be of considerable assistance to an amputee. We must, however, give priority to the rehabilitation aspect, and it is our experience that incentive is often needed to encourage a severely disabled person to make use of artificial limbs. Hence, our objection in this matter is based on the simple fact that it will represent an economic penalty for the disabled pensioner who attempts to overcome his handicap. It will place him in a disadvantageous position in relation to his fellow pensioner who does not make the effort to use a prosthesis. The latter group comprises a small percentage of war amputees: also it is emphasized that in some instances the

February 18, 1971

reluctance of such amputees to wear the often crude appliances is quite legitimate.
Another factor giving concern is the departure from a long-accepted principle of our pension administration, which compensates all amputees for their anatomical loss, based on the location of the amputation.
I think perhaps that is enough to make the point, and I earnestly ask the minister to give very serious consideration to including this proposal among any other amendments that he may make.
The other portion of the legislation which I feel perhaps the minister may be interested in amending is about which relates to the entitlement of a widow to the pension of a veteran with a disability of less than 45 per cent. There are many, many cases of severe hardship experienced by widows of our war veterans who perhaps had 38 per cent or 44 per cent disability, just below the line, thus eliminating the entitlement of the widow to their pension. If only this right could be given to them it would certainly alleviate the hardship and suffering that many of their widows are now forced to experience.
Without taking the matter further may I simply ask the minister whether, as I said at the beginning, he will consider adding to the amendment that he has already made these two suggestions that we in the official opposition propose.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow my hon. friend from Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles). Despite our being in different parties, we seem to agree on almost all subjects. There is only one subject on which we have a strong disagreement, but that is not before us today.
We are at the report stage of this bill, and I suppose we have to face the fact that, technically speaking, all that is before the House at the moment is the amendment moved by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) which would extend the rights in the Hong Kong provision to merchant seamen and any others who were prisoners of war of the Japanese during the last four years of World War II.
We welcome the amendment that the minister has moved, and there is no question that it will receive the unanimous support of the House. As the minister pointed out, this was a recommendation that was made by the veterans affairs committee, on the motion of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae), to whom a just tribute has already been paid. We put it forward as a recommendation rather than as our own amendment to the bill because, since it involves the expenditure of money, we cannot put it in the form of an amendment. It requires the minister to assure us that the Governor General agrees, and since the minister has done so we are happy to support the amendment.
We understand, of course, that it will not affect very many people. There might be three, four or five merchant seamen or others who were not engaged in the actual services but were, nevertheless, prisoners of the Japanese during the years in question. However, even though the amendment affects 4, 5 or half a dozen people
23966-11$
Pension Acts
at the most, it is the right action to take and we are glad
it is being taken.
Like my namesake, there are a number of other amendments that we wish the minister were making, but perhaps I will get to them when we reach third reading stage of the bill where there is a little wider latitude. I support the suggestions which have just been made by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand, but I should like to take a few seconds to underline in particular our disappointment that the minister has not accepted the other recommendation that our committee made. It was a unanimous recommendation and has to do with the maximum amount of exceptional incapacity allowance.
This recommendation is on all fours with the one now being accepted in that it was the subject of a recommendation of the committee. It was also supported by the committee unanimously, and we are quite disappointed that the minister has not yet seen fit to accept it. Whereas the one he has accepted will affect only four or five people, the other recommendation would affect a few hundred people and we think it too should be accepted.
However, rather than indulge in repetition, since I plan to say something about this at the third stage and to move an appropriate amendment at that time, I shall not continue to discuss the matter now. I rise simply to say that as far as the item actually before us is concerned we support wholeheartedly the proposition that merchant seamen and others who were prisoners of war of the Japanese should get the same pension arrangements that are provided for the service personnel who were prisoners in Hong Kong.
Motion (Mr. Dube) agreed to.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: that Bill C-203, to amend the Pension Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at this stage I should like to express my appreciation and gratitude to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, to its present chairman and its former chairman, for the speedy and excellent way in which they have carried out the review of this bill to amend the Pension Act. I was delighted but not surprised that the committee endorsed all of its main provisions. They have made a number of amendments to the bill itself, but none of these improvements change the principle of the bill and are quite acceptable to the government.

February 18, 1971
Pension Acts
I do not wish to speak again at length on this bill, but I do want to say it has been extremely well received by all concerned, including the House of Commons, the standing committee, veterans associations and the veterans themselves. On many occasions I have explained the subject matter, and it has been thoroughly examined and debated. The first step was the tabling of the government white paper, and this was followed by a thorough examination by the committee. There was a full discussion of the matter in this House during the second reading stage of the bill. Apart from these studies, the debates in this House and in the committee, this bill has been the focus of extensive and favourable discussion at many meetings of veterans and veterans organizations across the country. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to again explain the provisions of the bill.
I should like to underline very quickly five of the most important improvements contained in the bill. The first is, of course, the modernization and streamlining of the entire process of pension applications, and the establishment of an independent pension review board. The second is the establishment of a bureau of pensions advocates reporting directly to the minister. The third is a completely new allowance payable, as of right, to those who are exceptionally disabled and entitled to 100 per cent pensions. The fourth, which I should like to underline as being a very important improvement, is special pension provisions for Hong Kong veterans and others who were prisoners of war under the Japanese for at least one year. The fifth improvement to be brought about by the adoption of this bill, and perhaps the most important in the minds of many, is a new, broader and more generous definition of the "benefit of doubt" provision which applies to all provisions of the act.
In conclusion, I should like to state again that the veterans of Canada have hailed this measure as providing "the most extensive immprovements in half a century". I am confident that hon. members of this House will also wish to give it their warm and swift approval.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when I was on my feet a few minutes ago, all that was before us procedurally at that point was an amendment which has now been passed and incorporated in the bill. I also indicated there were a number of things on which I wished to say a few words, and I avail myself of this third reading stage in order to do so.
I should like to join with the minister and the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), as well as others, in paying well deserved tribute to the two chairmen of the committee, the former and present, to the officials of the department who sat with us for many hours during many days, and particularly the representatives of the veterans organizations who were really a tremendous help to us in arriving at the final version of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I must also pay tribute to the members of the committee. We in this institution, and I do not think we should, never completely forget our differences. We belong to different parties and we have differing ideas. That is why we are here; to try to resolve these differences. But this is one of the committees in which the differences fade into the background, because of our desire to do a job on behalf of the people of Canada for the veterans of this nation.
I agree that this bill we are now passing is an important milestone in the field of veterans legislation and that it makes many improvements which we in this party warmly welcome. I suggest at the same time this does not deny us the right to point out that it does have some very real shortcomings. We have not reached a Utopia. We have not seen the end of complaints, grievances or disappointments of veterans who will continue to write to their Members of Parliament as well as to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
As the minister has just pointed out, one of the major things to be done is a restructuring of the handling of disability pensions. We have been over the details in this regard many t.mes and there is no point in my going over them at this stage.
There is also a major improvement in the recasting of the "benefit of the doubt" provision. As a matter of fact, in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs I suggested that one or two versions of that "benefit of the doubt" provision, which have been put in the bill, should appear in 24 point type. They are extremely important and they should underline every decision made in the cases of veterans, particularly those in doubtful areas.
In all fairness I think we should at the same time issue a word of warning. There has been so much said about this new "benefit of the doubt" clause I suspect there are many veterans in this country, particularly the older ones from World War I, who feel that now is their chance to reopen their cases under this new legislation and obtain favourable decisions, although they have not been able to obtain such decisions over the past 50 years. A warning must be issued. Some of them will obtain favourable decisions, but I am sure some will be disappointed.
This bill writes into the act a new clause 1A which I read into the record on a previous occasion and will not repeat. It calls for a liberal construction of this legislation in order that the recognized obligation of the people and the government of Canada to veterans will be implemented. Nevertheless, there are still clauses in this bill which will result in decisions in borderline cases being made against veterans.
I rise on this occasion to say that the committee in my view did make one improvement in this respect. At page 10 of the bill, as originally introduced, there was a clause which provided that the presumption of physical fitness at the time of enlistment might be rebutted by medical evidence that the disability must have existed prior to enlistment. We had a long discussion in the committee about that wording. Some of us felt that even though we

February 18, 1971

might have been indulging in semantics, the phrase
something must have existed" was a dangerous one. Well, we did get that changed to a wording which now states that the presumption of physical fitness on enlistment cannot be rebutted quite that easily but can still be rebutted and I now quote the bill as it presently reads- by medical evidence that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the disability or disabling condition existed prior to enlistment. I think that is a little better than the previous wording "must have existed". However, it still leaves an opening which in some cases may be resolved against the veteran. I hope this will not happen but I think we would be misleading the veterans of Canada if we gave all those who have been disappointed in the past the impression that their cases will now be resolved more favourably. Nevertheless, I hope it will turn out that by improving the benefit of doubt clause we have made the position better for our veterans.
Like the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand I feel we did not go far enough in the clause having to do with the exceptional incapacity allowance when we improved the wording about those who are provided with a prosthesis. I think the case that is still being made to us by the War Amputations of Canada, namely that such an allowance should not be affected by whether or not one is fitted with a prosthesis, is a good case. I am sorry that in the committee we were unable to go all the way. Again, it is one of the good things about committee treatment of a bill of this kind that we did get an improvement. I dare to hope that the sympathy and concern of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Canadian Pension Commission will be such that if it should turn out in a year or two that that clause needs to be amended and improved the government will bring in such a proposal.
I want to say again, as I have said on previous occasions, how much I regret the unwillingness of the government to go along with the committee's support for recommendation 106 in the Woods report. That recommendation had to do with the position of widows of veterans where the veteran at his death had a pension of less than 48 per cent. As the law stands, there is no pension as of right for such widows. The Woods committee recommended that in such cases there be a proportionate pension as a matter of right. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, when dealing with the Woods report and the white paper, recommended that the Woods report recommendation be implemented. Even so, the government did not include it in the bill. In the committee when we were studying this bill we tried again and were unable to get majority support at that time as we had previously, and so it is not in the bill. I believe this is unfortunate.
Speaking of widows, another improvement we made to the bill in the standing committee had to do with a group known as widowed mothers. They are part of the group known as dependant parents. We discovered that a provision had found its way into the bill-I had a word in my mind which I think perhaps I should not use-that would permit the dependant parents' pension to be taken away. As it now stands, once a widowed mother receives a
Pension Acts
dependant parent's pension she may keep it, no matter what other earnings she might have after she has gone on the pension. A provision found its way into the bill that would make it possible to cut off a parent's pension in such a case. Members of the committee will remember the very interesting time we had on that, but in the end we were able to get a unanimous decision that such a withdrawal of a right should not be there and so the bill was worded in such a way that the act would remain as it is.
So, Mr. Speaker, these are the various things with which we dealt in the committee. We had a few votes in which we actually divided. Generally, we reached either a kind of compromise or unanimity and, on the whole, I submit we have done fairly well. There is one item to which I referred earlier, and which I shall leave to the last because I intend to make it the subject of an amendment. Before I come to that, may I say I am becoming a little apprehensive about when and how we will deal with the companion operation to this, namely the 10 per cent increase in disability pensions and the 15 per cent increase in war veterans allowances. Even though the CBC does not know it, I know it is not part of this bill. I was awakened this morning with the news that today we were to debate a bill to provide for a 10 per cent increase in pensions and a 15 per cent increase in allowances on April 1. That is not in this bill. We are all aware of that. But I ask, when and how is that to be done. We were told it would be done by an estimate or estimates. The estimates for 1971-72 were tabled yesterday and I do not find any such provisions in those estimates.
When I asked the President of the Treasury Board about this he said he would have to take the question as notice. There are one or two items in the estimates in which there is reference to authority for the Treasury Board to increase or decrease certain grants, and when I see things like that I become a little anxious. My fear is we may be jockeyed out of our right to debate these increases or that they may be put off until we are so close to April we will be told if we debate them at all we will delay their coming into effect. We do not do that in respect of veterans matters. I believe we should have the right to discuss these things and, in particular, any changes the government is making by way of regulations in respect of war veterans allowances. Many veterans who receive these allowances are disturbed now because they have received from Mr. Donald Thompson, the new chairman of that board, a notice to the effect that they must apply for the guaranteed income supplement. First, they had a letter advising them it was in their interest to do so. Then, they had a second letter saying the matter had been reviewed and they were advised to accept it because if they did not they would be considered as having received it in any event.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker,-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my friend is rising on a point of order, perhaps I might be allowed to finish, and save his time and mine. I realize that war veterans allowances are not before us in this bill, but I submit this is a related matter. My plea to the minister is

February 18, 1971
Pension Acts
simply that he look at the problem I questioned him about two days ago, and look into the matter of our having a discussion of war veterans allowances before changes are made in the regulations that would embarrass or humiliate our veterans. If the minister does not find a way for us to discuss this matter some of us will.
I believe that pretty well covers the things I want to say at this point, other than the matter which I am making the subject of an amendment. There is one other thing, however. I realize the force of what the minister said about the Hong Kong prisoners having suffered particular hardships and difficulties as a result of which they developed an identifiable condition which seemed to apply to all of them, thus making possible the special treatment they are now being accorded by this bill. It seems to me, however, that the National Prisoners of War Association and the Dieppe Prisoners of War Association have a case in asking for equal or at least comparable treatment. The situation of this group was discussed at great length in the committee both times, when we were on the white paper and again when we were on the bill. The government's position-by that I mean the position of the officials because there were Liberal members in the committee who took the same view we did, but they were not able to prevail-was repeatedly that there is an identifiable condition that attaches to those who were in Hong Kong. We contend that there are also identifiable conditions that apply to prisoners of war under other conditions. I am sorry that in this bill, which is so good and in which we are doing so much, we are not dealing with that group.
As I said, one hopes that now that we have had this very thorough review of veterans legislation it will not be a case of putting it aside for five, ten or 20 years. Let us come back to it in a year or two if, as a result of the workings of this new setup and of the application of the new principles, it becomes obvious to all of us that further improvements should be made. As I said, that is my submission but for one point. I think we have done a pretty good job; I think things will be better, but there are still a number of shortcomings, so many in fact that our mail from disappointed veterans and veterans' widows who feel that we have not yet carried out the obligation of the government of Canada as set out in the proposed new section 1-A of the bill will not be lessened.
I come to my last point which has to do with the maximum amount of the exceptional incapacity allowance. Those who have already spoken today have again indicated what this is, namely a provision to the effect that a 100 per cent pensioner, that is a veteran who is receiving a 100 per cent pension, may under certain conditions qualify for this exceptional incapacity allowance. There is much detail in it that I will not go into at this point, but I have one particular point in mind, namely, the maximum possible amount of that allowance. The Woods report recommended a formula that made possible certain combinations, the result of which could be a maximum allowance of $7,950 a year. Without getting into an argument as to whether or not that is too

much-I do not think anything is too much in that area- that was the figure in the Woods report with which we started, namely, $7,950 a year.
When we received the government's white paper and took it to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the proposed maximum was $1,200. You can realize that that struck us as an awful comedown from $7,950. The veterans organizations which appeared before us briefed us effectively through their representatives. They dealt with it in the working parties that were set up between their representives and the officials, and we came up with a compromise of $3,500. I emphasize the point that when that figure was arrived at, it was supported by the committee unanimously. Some of us thought we had gone too far down, but in the spirit of the committee we agreed to it, and so recommended to Parliament when the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), as chairman of that committee, filed our report.
I think that was good committee work, and we were happy about the results of those negotiations. But then we got Bill C-203, and the government offered $2,400 instead. The line taken by the minister was that the government had doubled its previous offer. That does not mean much. If the government had offered $1 in the first place and made it $2 later, that would be doubling the first offer. Two thousand four hundred dollars may be twice $1,200, but it is a lot less than the Woods recommendation of $7,950. I do not think it was fair to the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, who were unanimous on this point, to do this shortchanging and to put the amount at only $2,400.


An hon. Member:: What good is the committee system?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, that is a good question, but it is still true that the committee did a lot of good work. On this point, the committee showed the value of the committee system because the committee which just reported the bill a couple of days ago again recommended by unanimous vote that the amount be $3,500, but the minister today showed no sign of accepting that recommendation. Every member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs voted twice for the maximum figure to be $3,500, and I think it is an insult to the members of that committee for the government, in the first place, to put $2,400 in the bill, and secondly, for the minister to say nothing in respect of our second recommendation on this point. I think all of us on that committee should ask the government to reconsider this matter. I could not move such an amendment at the report stage. I though of doing this even though I knew it was out of order, but I did not follow that course. It involves the expenditure of money so a private member cannot move it. However, I can move that the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the standing committee for the purpose of reconsidering that clause, and that is what I shall move in a moment.
I do not want anyone to stand up and say that this is delaying the progress of the bill. It will take a matter of minutes, an hour at the most, if the government is willing to agree to it. If the government is not willing to agree, then of course that is the end of it. I hope that the
February 18, 1971

members of the Veterans Affairs Committee from ali parties will speak and vote as members of that committee, rather than as partisans, on this amendment. As a committee we have spoken twice. We have said that we want the maximum to be $3,500, not $2,400, and I think we should say so again. My motion does not have the figure in it. I am taking no risk of its being out of order. But I am also leaving no doubt as to what it means. My amendment asks for a reconsideration of the proposed section 59(1) on page 25 of the bill, and if you look at the proposed section 59(1) you will see the following words in line 26 "and not more than $2,400 per annum". That is what I want reconsidered because I believe that figure should be $3,500. That is what the vote on my amendment will be, a vote for or against $3,500.
For all the differences and the arguments, and all the times that we say there are still shortcomings, my total impression about the work of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on the white paper and on the bill is good. It has been enjoyable, and I think we have done a good job. Let us not leave this bit of unhappiness resulting from the fact our committee has been snubbed twice. Let the House of Commons say that we want that clause reconsidered. We want the government to say that it is now willing to put the figure at $3,500.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That Bill C-203 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for the purpose of reconsidering the proposed section 59 (1) on page 25 of the said bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this is my only appearance in the debate on this bill, other than a brief intervention at the second reading stage with regard to a couple of points which I would now like to make again. The principal point that I wish to make does not require any amendment to the bill. It was unfortunate, and I complained privately to the then chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, that the committee failed to deal with a very important segment of veterans affairs, namely, the after care of prisoners of war. I am not talking about Hong Kong prisoners of war-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I interrupt the hon. member for just a moment. As he will have noted there is an amendment before the House at the present time. I appreciate that he, being an expert on the rules of the House, will take that into account. I was hoping that we would not get into a general discussion on third reading until we disposed of the amendment. I thought I should bring this aspect of our proceedings to the attention of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and of other hon. members who may want to take part in the debate. I think that for the time being we should, as much as possible, limit contributions to the amendment before the House. At the same time, I do not want to be difficult. This is a bill on which there seems to be general agreement in the House, and I do not want to complicate matters by being too technical. However, there is an
Pension Acts
amendment before the House and, as all hon. members know, the rule of relevancy requires that we discuss the amendment which is before the House, and not the clause or the bill which it seeks to amend.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I may have transgressed a bit, according to your way of thinking. I was going to deal with the particular point of the amendment and, in doing so, I was setting forth the priorities of the points that I wish to cover at third reading stage. Otherwise, I would only have to come back after we dispose of the amendment, try to get Your Honour's eye, and run the risk of being challenged that I was attempting to speak for a second time on third reading. It was with that in mind that I wished to outline my main points. If Your Honour says that we should limit our contributions to the amendment I will do that, but I hope I will get the floor again to continue my speech.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows as well as I do that there will be no difficulty about that. We have a debate now on the amendment. When it is completed, all hon. members who have not spoken up to this point in the debate can then speak on third reading, including the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right. It is a question of priorities, and this particular point that has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is one I would like to support. It seems to me that in disregarding this particular point the government has indicated it closes its mind to any amendments to legislation, once the legislation has been presented. I find that once a bill has been printed not even the forces of God will change some ministerial or administrative minds.
There is also the fact that provision has been made in the estimates, that the estimates book has been printed, and that is the end of it. It would be just too much trouble for the government to accept any amendment, besides which the government might have to come back with an amended recommendation. But it seems to me that this sort of administrative convenience should not stand in the way of accomplishing the end that is sought by hon. members. I am sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not say anything incorrect and that the committee, with a majority of government members on it, repeated its previous recommendation. But I am surprised that the minister did not take that recommendation back to his colleagues or, if he did, that they did not recognize the justice of the case.
There is no question but that at any point the figures are arbitrary. They are arbitrary at $1,200 per annum. They are arbitrary at $2,400, or $3,500. There has to be a degree of choice determined, but surely the minister and the administration must recognize that they are not omniscient in matters of this kind. They should realize that if members here are to do the kind of work that is expected of them, and they have done it not once but twice, then an explanation must be given. There should

February 18, 1971
Pension Acts
not be a mere dismissal, given with the back of the administration's hand. I have not heard any reason given why the figure should not be changed.
Perhaps I am a little subjective in this matter. I have not had responsibility as the chairman of our party committee with regard to veterans affairs, but I did have responsibility for a time as minister for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and perhaps as a veteran I appreciate the matter a little differently. It seems to me that having sensed the feeling of the House, and having twice been given the committee's recommendations, the government should have acceded to it at report stage.
Was the committee merely going through an exercise in futility? In the present situation it seems it was merely told, "Go play with your own marbles." I am disappointed. We have not been given the requisite explanation. I can only repeat the hope of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that members of the Veterans Affairs Committee will vote in this House the same way as they voted in the committee, and that hon. members generally will support the amendment, giving the government a third opportunity to correct a lapse in its thinking.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I say with all humility possible, as a veteran who had long experience in the last war, that while I appreciate what they said, nevertheless, for reasons I will attempt to give to the House, I feel the government has been fair in the figures it has used so far as the exceptional incapacity allowance is concerned.
When one refers to a subject such as this, Mr. Speaker, really one is putting his political neck out because he is, in effect, speaking against motherhood. When one thinks of the great sacrifices the people who will be eligible for this pension made for their king and country, and indeed for the citizens of the free world, then certainly an argument could be advanced that no amount is too much to give to these unfortunate people. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, may I say my experience during the war has led me to believe that many who lost their lives really did not give quite as much as some of the unfortunate people who today are totally incapacitated in our hospitals or in their private homes. When I say totally incapacitated, Mr. Speaker, I mean exactly that.
On the other hand, I appreciate very much what the Committee of Veterans Affairs has done over the past couple of years. I happen to be a member of that committee and have followed everything that happened there with a great deal of interest. Along with the other members who have spoken, I wish to give my very best and sincere thanks to the officers of the department, to various veterans associations that appeared before us, to the great work that was done by our chairman and, indeed, by all of the members of that committee.
But today, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am in rather a fortunate position. As a result of other commitments on

other committees of which I am a member, I was unable to attend either of the Veterans Affairs Committee meetings which recommended finally that a figure of $3,500 be used instead of the $2,400 that is now in Bill C-203. I must say that, while I had every sympathy for these people and, for some time, I felt there was simply not enough money in Canada to reimburse them for what they have given for the freedom of this great nation, nevertheless I must say that had I been present at the committee the other day I would have voted against the amendment suggested by the committee that the figure be now changed to $3,500. I would do so for the following reasons.
I have already stated that I do not think we could pay too much but, on the other hand, I feel that they should get all that is required for a decent living in Canada. If they need housing, these veterans should get it. If they need attention, they should get it. Certainly, paraplegics, as an example, should be able to own an automobile so that they can go for a drive. They should have furniture that is appropriate for the way they want to live. They should he able to buy things like coloured television sets and be able to have some of the extras in life that mean so much to them. They are not able to enjoy many things in life as much as we do.
But how do we arrive at a fair figure, Mr. Speaker? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has suggested that in turning down the figure of $3,500 the government has snubbed the Veterans Affairs Committee.


John Gilbert: Right.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Now, Mr. Speaker, may I say this? If we accept the hon. member's statement as he gave it and agree that the committee was actually snubbed, then I can only say that the government has complimented the committee at least 50 times by accepting the recommendations of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: They have complimented the committee in numerous ways and on numerous occasions. As a matter of fact, the government accepted practically all the recommendations that the committee worked so hard to form, except in one or two instances. In the case of the exception about which we are now talking, instead of using a top figure of $3,500 the government decided that $2,400 was the correct figure. However, under the committee system of the House of Commons, of which the Veterans Affairs Committee is a part, we, as committee members, recommend to the government. We do not tell the government anything, we simply recommend. The government must accept responsibility for raising the money from the taxpayers of Canada to pay these pensions. This responsibility includes collecting taxes from all of the other veterans of Canada, many of whom have given a great deal also for their country.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I thought the statement by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, if I heard him correctly, that he didn't care how high the figure
February 18, 1971

went, was quite irresponsible. I, as the member for the riding of Bruce, care how high these figures go because I always remember that no matter how much we pay out in the form of benefits we must collect the same amount from taxpayers of this country. Consequently, what I am interested in is a fair and realistic figure for these unfortunate people who have given their all for their country.
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out today by the two previous members, that the government's white paper indicated that the maximum amount of this new allowance might be $1,200 a year. This was the original figure given to the committee. I agree that the Woods report had suggested a much higher figure but the standing committee, following its review of the white paper, suggested that this maximum be raised to $3,500 a year. In response to the committee's recommendation, the government doubled the maximum figure published in the white paper and set it at $2,400 in the present bill.
This new allowance should be considered in its full financial context, rather than in isolation. As has been pointed out in evidence before the standing committee, after April 1, a married pensioner with no children, who receives the maximum allowance for incapacity and the maximum attendants allowance, will receive, first, a pension of $4,464 a year; second, an attendants allowance of $3,000 per year; third, an exceptional incapacity allowance of $2,400 per year, making a total of $9,864 a year apart from clothing allowance. Since all these payments are exempt from income tax, as they certainly should be, they are the equivalent of a gross income, if taxable, under the present income tax laws, of $13,600, These amounts will apply to all of the most severe cases. I should perhaps mention that while in theory the attendants allowance is paid in recognition of extra costs, in fact most veterans concerned are attended by members of their family, usually the wife, so that the allowance is really an added part of the family resources like the pension itself.
The pension, the attendants allowance and the exceptional incapacity allowance are all payable for life. There are also pension survivor benefits. Therefore, no provision need be made from them for superannuation or retirement income. Furthermore, apart from these various payments, if the veteran is over 65 years of age, he is entitled also to receive another $3,600 in benefits under the Old Age Security Act. Therefore, in some cases, some veterans would receive a possible maximum income that is the equivalent of over $16,600 a year. May I say perhaps that is not enough. However, neither is a million dollars enough. We have to draw the line somewhere. Some time we have to stop people from standing up in the House of Commons and in other legislatures in Canada and saying "give me, give me, give me" and in the next breath "cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes". It simply cannot be done.


Mr. Peiers:: That's not true. Talk to the minister responsible for housing. He says you can cut the amount of money and still give more.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
Pension Acts


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I have pointed out that no maximum figure can be pinpointed as being correct. The new maximum of $2,400 per year represents an important extra benefit to veterans. I have no doubt it will be warmly welcomed. As a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, an active member for years in the Royal Canadian Legion, vice president of one branch, a former zone commander of one of the great zones in the province of Ontario-


An hon. Member:: Do you think you are the only one?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then, don't boast about it.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I am not boasting about it. I give that as background information to explain why I have no hesitation in supporting the legislation as far as this point is concerned. I have no hesitation in voting against the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because I believe the government and the minister have been as fair as possible in very difficult circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The more I hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speak, the more I realize what a great man he is. We call him "Mr. Parliament" and "Mr. Pension". Today, we saw him exercise prophetic powers. When the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) attempted to rise in his seat, he anticipated his question and, by his prophetic powers, he answered it. This indicates the strength, experience and compassion that the hon. member possesses.


Mr. Nowlan:: Knowles for leader.


John Gilbert: After listening to the remarks of the last speaker with regard to the amendment, I am more convinced that members from both sides of the House should support it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: The members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs have had experience in World War I, World War II and other theatres. When I think of the wide knowledge that they possess, the letters and requests they receive from veterans and the attention they give to them, I am fully convinced that they are experts in this field. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I thought we possessed a certain specialized knowledge and nonpartisanship. After hearing the speeches that were made today, I am fully convinced that the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs far exceed the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, perhaps not from the standpoint of quality and calibre, but certainly in terms of experience and
3526

February 18, 1971
Pension Acts
passion. This is one of the main elements that should permeate the thinking of the members.
I have had experience with the government's inattention and callousness with regard to the problems of pensioners. I recall, when we were dealing with the old age security legislation prior to Christmas, the generous attitude which the government displayed with regard to increasing the old age security pension from $79.58 to $80, a net increase of 42 cents. This is what scares me. This is why I am convinced that we should accept the recommendation of the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to increase the amount to $3,500, even though the Woods report stated the amount should be $7,950.
I am not persuaded by the argument made by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) that we have to look for the money. Surely, the money we allocate for the payment of pensions to war veterans should be a priority in government spending. I thought the hon. member for Bruce would have been persuaded by the unanimous decision of the members of the committee that the amount should be increased to $3,500. If the member was not present when the committee made this decision, it is unfortunate. I underline the fact that the members of the Liberal party voted unanimously in favour of the recommendation. I like to think that the other members acted out of compassion for the war veterans.
I have watched the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) since his appointment to the cabinet. I think he is very fair minded. Any letters I have sent to the minister on behalf of pensioners have received the kindest attention, and for that I thank him. However, I have noticed that the minister exercises a certain cautiousness and diffidence. I am sure the minister is capable of exercising courage and boldness. Since his appointment as Minister of Veterans Affairs, he has been aware of the problems of veterans. I ask him to exercise his experience, sympathy, knowledge, courage and boldness by accepting the recommendation of the committee that the amount be increased to $3,500.
I am not impressed by a government which slices things in half. If the need is $1,200, I am not interested in any suggestion to increase it to $2,400. That is not the issue. The issue is the actual needs of the veterans. The Woods Committee stated that $7,950 was necessary to take care of the needs of veterans. The committee reached a compromise and set the figure at $3,500. The government should not slice measures in half the way that it does. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is in the chamber. He supported the legislation which increased the old age security payment by 42 cents. In view of all the letters he has received in this regard, I am sure if he had to do it over again he would be far more generous and compassionate.
In conclusion, I ask the minister, in whom I have confidence and respect, instead of showing cautiousness and diffidence, to show a spirit of courage and initiative by going over the top as some of these mighty men did
during the war. Surely, he should join them and go over the top in this important matter.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join my colleagues, especially the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who moved a logical and clear amendment to the effect that all prisoners of war are not treated on an equal footing.
I am pleased to support this amendment on behalf of our veterans who suffered dreadful atrocities and who would enjoy life more if they were in better health. I feel the government should do something for those men who fought for our country. Their living conditions have been brought to the attention of the committee and Parliament and it has been thought advisable to treat these people at least on an equal footing with everyone else, or according to their merit.
I strongly support this amendment. Furthermore, I should like to see the pension increased to $3,500 instead of $2,400 as it is at present, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has rightly suggested.
The hon. member has given all possible details as far as these veterans are concerned, and especially the Hong Kong prisoners. As a matter of fact, this question has been discussed for a long time. Veterans find the time long. They feel the increases in their pensions are not quick in coming, because the cost of living goes up for them as for everyone else.
Later, other suggestions will be made concerning the Dieppe veterans. I have heard a great deal of comment. I am told that the Dieppe survivors should be treated the same way as those of Hong Kong. This is not the purpose of today's discussion, but I know that the Dieppe survivors have also been ill-treated in many ways. I know it was total war there as it was in Hong Kong. I therefore ask the minister to reconsider the problem and reexamine all the proposals made by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs as regards Dieppe survivors.
Once again, I am pleased to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning veterans and hope that the latter will at least be granted what they are entitled to-a little more justice.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to comment on the remarks which were made by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), remarks which have also been made on a number of occasions in committee. He always gives the impression that the country is not prepared to meet the kind of cost involved here. While I am aware in his part of the country that view is general, I do not think it is one which is accepted by Canadians as a whole.
I believe most members of this House have told someone, since their election, that we in Canada have one of the best veterans charters of any country in the world, particularly as it affects veterans of the first and second
[Mr. Gilbert.)
February 18, 1971

world wars. I, myself, believe this to be true, and I do not mind having to pay for this distinction. This feeling is shared, I would say, by almost everyone in the country. The one area of expenditure which the public is not reluctant to support is expenditure on veterans affairs.
In my opinion the question which was raised did not involve the $7,900, as recommended by the Woods Committee for 100 per cent disability, but was really three and a half times the total recommended in the Woods Committee Report. At that time, if I remember correctly, the hon. member for Bruce was using figures of $21,000 and intimating that the Canadian public could not possibly pay $21,000 to a veteran. We have certainly gone a long way, in the recommendations of the committee, from the recommendations contained in the Woods committee report which indicated we might pay a limited number of very badly disabled veterans an additional sum amounting to three an a half times the 100 per cent disability payment. We have gone a long way from that. The Woods committee report recommendation was calculated at $7,950. Then, there was the white paper recommendation of $1,200, and now the committee has unanimously agreed to $3,500.
I do not think anyone who has ever visited a veterans hospital would begrudge this sum. I am sure the hon. member for Bruce has visited hospitals and that he was as saddened as I and other members of the committee have been at the degree of disablement of some of the veterans there. Their loss is incalculable and there is no way in which the nation can compensate these people for the disabilities they have incurred. The Woods committee did not suggest we should provide them with luxury living. Indeed, luxury living is impossible for them. Money will not buy what they have lost. Of course, there is no way in which they can take back the contribution which they made and, this being so, we are under an obligation to them. I suggest there are very few people in this country who will disagree-I have in mind quadruple amputees and people in that category. I have seen them. I spent some time in the Christie Street Hospital during the last war. There was a young chap there who had been a victim of the first world war. Young? How could you tell? He was three feet long, he had no arms or legs and lived in a basket for many years. I cannot imagine the general public objecting to such men being given any kind of compensation which could be provided to them, as long as they could use it. Nobody has suggested we should establish a bank account for posterity. But we have maintained that all the assistance possible should be given in such cases, and I do not think anyone in the country would object to that.
I realize the minister has been faced with a difficult economic decision, not only in this instance but in many other instances. But I believe the committee gained a special insight into these questions during its examination of the witnesses appearing before it. Perhaps the minister ought to sit with these committees; maybe he should have to attend. I know the argument about ministers not becoming involved. I recall a difficulty which arose in another committee when a minister of the Crown sat as an adviser. But we were brought face to
23966-12}
Pension Acts
face with many problems about which the minister may have heard only indirectly. In view of the many problems that the committee found, it made a recommendation that $3,500 should be the sum to be paid to those severely handicapped, in addition to the other benefits. I hope that even at this late stage the minister will accept the amendment. The number of people affected is not very large.
I do not want the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Which-er) to leave the impression that he was talking for very many people in Canada when he used the argument of economy. Since he raised the economic argument, we must not forget that the number of people affected is going to diminish as the years pass. The pensions we are paying our veterans today may look in 20 years' time like the early $20 old age pension looks to the old age pensioners today who are trying to get along on $112. The pension must be increased, and it was for this reason, I think, that the Woods report applied the multiplier principle rather than setting a certain amount. On behalf of the veterans I know and the veterans organizations to which I belong, I do not want the impression left that the general public is unwilling to make a reasonable contribution to the after care of these veterans and the elimination of their financial worries on the ground that it costs too much. I do not believe that the people of this country think in that way. Certainly, the members of the committee do not and I am sure the minister does not.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this amendment because I felt that every member of the House would support it wholeheartedly. While I think it should be brought to a vote as soon as possible, the remarks made by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) leave me no alternative but to let the House know that the hon. member for Bruce certainly does not speak for me as a member of the veterans affairs committee.
The hon. member for Bruce would leave the House with the impression that he speaks for all Canadians; that he is protecting the interests of the taxpayers. Let me remind him that the Woods report originally recommended a maximum pension for these exceptionally incapacitated veterans of $7,950 per annum. When the Woods report first came before the committee it was pulled apart and discussed clause by clause. In the first report of the veterans affairs committee submitted in June of 1970 an upper limit of $3,500 was suggested, which was a compromise between the $7,950 recommended by the Woods report and the $1,200, or whatever it was, suggested by the white paper. The recommendation made in the report was an unanimous one.
The hon. member for Bruce told the House that he was not present when the committee drafted its last report. Perhaps he was not present when the report was drafted in June 1970, I do not know, though he did tell us that he attended the meetings of the committee very regularly. But may I point out to him that this recommendation of $3,500 was made by the standing committee not once but

February 18, 1971
Pension Acts
twice, and as I say the report was unanimous. The argument that has been raised that this proposal will cost a great deal of money and be a burden on the taxpayers is a lot of nonsense. We are talking here about a very few individuals, the completely incapacitated veterans. I do not know how many there are, some 10 or 20, but at any rate the number is very small. So, all the talk about the taxpayers being burdened is nonsense.
This proposal does not represent much in terms of money but it does represent the considered opinion of the committee on veterans affairs as well as the considered opinion of the Woods committee, which actually recommended a greater amount. It also represents the submissions of the national veterans organizations of Canada. Incidentally, I should like to emphasize that in the submission of this particular body to the veterans affairs committee a guesstimate was given-only a guesstimate, but it is close-that the additional cost of implementing the recommendation of the standing committee to increase the maximum from $2,400 to $3,500 would possibly be $500,000 a year. So, how can any member of this House stand in his place and make an impassioned plea for patriotism, as did the hon. member, and at the same time leave the inference that we are talking here of a cost of millions of dollars, when in reality the cost is about half a million dollars?
I say this amendment is a reasoned one. It supports the unanimous recommendation of a standing committee of this House, a recommendation made not once but twice. As far as I am concerned, members on both sides of the House have no alternative but to vote for the amendment.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lamblon):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the veterans affairs committee and as one who not only helped prepare the first report but also the second one, I did think for a couple of days or so that I had put myself into a box here. This proposal was, in fact, an unanimous recommendation of the veterans affairs committee. In going over the bill as amended and in considering the many amendments the minister was prepared to accept as the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) has stated, it seemed to me that this was one instance when the minister was apprised of the position of the veterans affairs committee, namely that consideration should be given to raising the pension not to $2,400 but to $3,500.
Although committees make recommendations, somewhere along the line a final decision has to be made. In this case the minister has decided, in his wisdom, that we have tried to put a little too much icing on the cake. I think the veterans are entitled to the icing and this was why I voted in committee in favour of this particular recommendation. Subsequent to the vote in the committee, I did a little bit of research. I feel, as a result, that the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) is somewhat mistaken in his guesstimate. I believe that we are looking at an expenditure of something in the neighbourhood of an additional three-quarters of a million dollars if we bring the pension up to $3,500.


Charles Humbert Thomas: It is still peanuts.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is all right for members of the opposition to cry "peanuts". Of course, it is peanuts. As the minister said before the committee, not once but twice, there is no way on a quantitative basis that these men can be compensated, and I agree. But somewhere along the line the government has the responsibility of making a decision, and it decided to double the original offer. I feel that the committee did a great job in a non-partisan way when it made its recommendations to the minister; but the decision has been made that the recommendation is not acceptable.
This would be a completely new benefit paid to the veterans. I agree with hon. members opposite that there is no way to compensate these veterans. Although it may be peanuts to them, it is $750,000 to the taxpayers. I think the hon. member for Bruce put it correctly when he said it was difficult to speak in the fashion he did because it sounded as though he were against what the veterans were asking. I have had to do a lot of thinking on this particular question, and I take second place to no man on the veterans affairs committee. The only meetings of the committee I have ever missed were either as the result of sickness or because I was on some other committee. I have been a regular attender and went all through the discussion of the bill in the committee on more than one occasion. I have examined the recommendations made by the Woods committee, all 148 of them, many of which the government accepted. What I am afraid of is that we might lose the benefit of this wonderful piece of legislation simply because we are nit-picking over whether the amount should be $2,400 or $3,500. The $7,950 to me, as to the Canadian taxpayers, does not represent nit-picking. I have no hesitancy in voting against this amendment because this bill should come before the House for third reading in order that these benefits can be provided to the veterans as soon a? possible.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would accept a question in view of the fact he has some time left? My question relates to the point he made of the fact that the minister accepted many of the recommendations of veterans and the Woods committee reports. While this statement is very true, I should like to point out the significance of the situation of the disabled we are referring to at the moment. During the committee meetings, everyone hung tight and tough on this matter. The Woods committee and the veterans organizations felt this offer was very good. Everybody had to give up something, and we are not quarreling with that, but the feeling of almost everyone was that we should give an extra amount to the totally disabled. Would the hon. member not agree with that suggestion?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think the situation was that we examined all the circumstances and decided something extra should be given. The minister was prepared to double the amount the government had originally offered. The veterans affairs organizations felt the amount should be $3,500 and a saw-off at $2,400 was
February 18, 1971

agreed upon. I have no hesitancy in voting against this particular amendment because I feel the government has indicated clearly to the committee it has gone as far as it is prepared to go. I feel we have done our job. In the final analysis, a decision had to be made. That decision has been made, and I support the government on this splendid piece of legislation which veterans organizations have called the best piece of legislation to come forward in 50 years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit one further question? Is it not a fact that it was after the minister had made the decision to set the amount at $2,400 by putting it in the bill that the committee made the second request, unanimously, that it be raised to $3,500?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I tried to make that clear when I referred to all the hearings, not just the first one, at which the recommendation was made. I believe I said that at the second meeting of the committee the minister suggested there was no way this recommendation could be accepted. The government offered to double its original offer. We did not go as far as we might have gone, and had we done so perhaps the government might have agreed to something higher than the $2,400. In any event, we were successful in getting the government to at least double the amount to which it originally agreed. If that is not good committee work, I do not know what it is.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion.
All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to advise you that after some consultation with members opposite there does appear to be a disposition to extending unanimous consent to proceed with this measure until six o'clock.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, that is quite correct. In our desire to advance good legislation we are prepared to agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this was our proposal. We are glad it has been accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, to resume the remarks from which I had been gently turned aside by Your Honour in order that we might deal exclusively with the amendment, I was speaking about what I had regretfully thought was a lapse in the thinking of the committee. I will agree it does not appear as such in the bill, but I am referring to the request that has been made on a number of occasions by myself and some of my colleagues on this side of the House, and also by veterans' organizations representing prisoners of war in the European theatre or, should I say, those not included in the Hong Kong and Far East category. I think I share the views of the majority of those prisoners, since I was one of them, and their request is, not for the same consideration as was given to the Hong Kong prisoners, but for recognition of the fact that they should have been, and now all should be, medically examined by treatment services of the Canadian Pension Commission in order to establish their present state of health.
Some people will say there is nothing wrong with these former prisoners, and they are not going to do it. All I say to them is that they have their heads buried deep in the sand, and I say this also to the minister. They do not wish to appear concerned about the state of health of those men. I will admit that a number of them are pensionable, have appeared before the Pension Commission, and that there is a quite competent record as to their state of health. This is so, but I will tell the minister and the officials of the department that there are hundreds of prisoners of war whom I know who have not
yet, and who cannot because they have no entitlement, appeared before the Pension Commission although they are not well.
After 25 years since release, I know some whose condition has markedly deteriorated in the past five years. There is something funny afoot if one can use that term. There is something rather funny because it is not. There is something disquieting with regard to the health of a great number of prisoners of war. Some prisoners of war were in good camps, some in bad camps. Some conditions were poor, some not as poor. I was in one where the conditions were among the best. Some of my mutual colleagues and relatives of prisoners of war who are in the same camp as I was are saying "he is a changed man". I appear at gatherings of my regimental association. I see a lot of these men. I can tell that.
Over the years we have missed a real opportunity from a medical point of view by not assessing these men after World War II and reassessing them later to see what, if any, changes were brought about. It was only by examining the Hong Kong prisoners of war that we have reached the stage we are at with them today. I remember members on both sides of the House making representations concerning them at least four years ago. When nothing was being done about the situation. We have reached this stage with regard to the Hong Kong veterans because an identifiable condition has been found. How do we know there is not an identifiable condition among all prisoners of war? It was not all "The Great Escape," "The Trojan Horse" or some of the other conditions shown in films that have glamorized prisoner of war life.
What if hon. members had to go on long marches with a diet of frozen sugar beets for weeks on end? What long-range effect does this have on the ultimate health of a man. What about ill-fitting boots, cold and persistent chilblains? After the age of 50 there may be an earlier onset of arthritis as a result of persistent chilblains suffered during winters spent in Germany, Poland or Italy. No one seems to care about this. But we must be reasonable. In addition to legislation, there must be administrative action and a decision now to start going through the records to find these men. There are not all that many Canadians who were in prisoner of war camps in World War II. I dare say there were more in the airforce than in the army and even less in the navy. The bulk of those in the army formed the Dieppe prisoner of war organization. They have made representations. There is an airforce prisoner of war association in Toronto. I dare say they have also made representations. However, there is a vast body of these people who have never seen or said anything to anyone. It is these men that we should go after.
If the fortunes of political warfare had been such that I had remained as the minister, it was my intention to do something about this. However, this was quite some time-


An hon. Member:: Five years.

February 18, 1971


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let's not hear five years. I had a very short period in office. Prior to that I was minding my business, learning the business of this House and occupying the Chair. I say to the hon. member who interrupted from the seat of his trousers that this would have been done. A great deal was done at that time. I can assure the hon. member that I know what the state of Veterans Affairs was in 1956 and when we took it over in 1957. Until 1957 and 1958 there was not even a Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to look after these matters. A good deal of progress has been made. The presentation of the present bill does not make a second coming of Christ. There was a great deal done to improve the situation with regard to veterans administration. That is because there was a degree of unanimity on both sides of the House. It did not matter who was responsible for the administration. The attitude was to move ahead. I encourage the government and the minister to move ahead and take the necessary action.
The prisoners of war will not come crawling on their hands and knees to ask for treatment. It is the members of this House who must encourage the minister to take this positive step. All the minister has to do is to get together with his deputy minister and the head of treatment services to get such a program organized. It would not take much. A lot of people would have to be traced. If there are overpayments of pensions and allowances, it certainly does not take long to trace the recipients. It would not take long to find the prisoners of war who are entitled to benefits. Let's make the effort. In two or three months it will be 26 years since I came out of a prisoner of war camp. I hope I have indicated the road the minister should follow. I want to be reasonable, but let's have some action.
My second point has already been referred to by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Widows of pensioners who had received 48 per cent or less pensions should receive a proportionate pension. What is the justification in a widow receiving a proportion of the 60 per cent pension her husband received before he died, yet if the pensioner received a 45 per cent pension, there is no entitlement whatsoever. I cannot see this arbitrary distinction. I have failed to see it for a long time.
We on this side have advocated for a long time that these changes be made. There is always a starting point for changes in the Pension Act. The fact that the need for cerlain changes was discovered within the last five years does not derogate from the validity of the proposals. Otherwise one could say that all the recommendations made by the Legion in its annual briefs were of less and less validity unless they started back in 1920. I know the cost involved here would have been somewhat less than $10 million a year; I have heard figures ranging anywhere from $5 million to $10 million a year. But it seems to me this would have been the right thing to have done and I am sorry it has not been done.
Pension Acts
I suppose we can keep trying. But it takes a giant can-opener to open an act merely to insert one new provision. All I can say is that maybe the people affected will have to wait three or four years unless, happily, there is a change in the administration next year and then we can guarantee it within a couple of years. But failing that, I cannot see how this particular feature will come forward again.
I shall not talk about war veterans allowances because they are not dealt with in the bill. I note, though, that the government is keen about bringing in omnibus bills; there is one before us now to which the House is giving considerable attention. Had amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act been brought down at the same time as this bill-it is a related measure-we could have dealt with some of the problems raised by other hon. members in the opposition and, in particular, with one which has not been referred to so far today though I have drawn attention to it on previous occasions. I refer to the desirability of eliminating the requirement that one year's residence in Canada is needed to qualify for veterans allowance.
Again this past summer I saw a number of people in the United Kingdom who have lived there since World War I or World War II. They should be entitled to war veterans allowance, but there is no way in which they can return to Canada to put in a year's residence. This is nonsensical. The government will not agree to change this situation, for some undemonstrable reason except alleged difficulty with some veterans in the United States. The fact is that veterans in the United States, if they were qualified there, would get better treatment than they do here because their level of return would be higher. This is what I have been told by people in the know-Canadian veterans living abroad may be denied any claim to war veterans allowance.
We do look after, as we should, members of allied forces who are now in Canada. After all, they fought along with us. But to our veterans who happen to be living in France, Belgium, Holland or Britain we say: You have not come back here for a year and therefore you cannot qualify for war veterans allowance. I say, shame.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: I say you are not on the subject.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I fully realize I am reiterating what should have been done by bringing in a companion bill. Certainly this could have been done by bringing in amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: That is not the bill before us.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I fully realize that, and I am not going to be as legalistic as you are about it. It is odd we should hear this type of objection put to us now, when in other circumstances we are asked to debate omnibus bills dealing with subjects which are not related in any way. I find this double standard difficult to accept. A lot of good has been done. I have been critical as to omissions so far, but a lot of good has been done by this
bin.

February 18, 1971
Pension Acts


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would be churlish if I did not acknowledge that there has been some progress, having participated in a limited way in the deliberations of the committee and noted the good will shown by committee members from both sides of the House. But there is always room from improvement and I have been suggesting directions in which improvements could be made. I hope that in due course the bill before us will receive the approval of Parliament.


Mr. Carl Legault (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate briefly in the debate which will make a reality this legislation which is the result of an extensive study into the question of proper recognition of our veterans, in particular those who have suffered injuries in various conflicts throughout the world. I say "extensive" because this study is one which goes back to the decision to appoint the Woods committee, to the receipt of a report from that committee and, following that, consideration of the report by the Veterans Affairs Committee and by the government. We have to realize that the processes of democracy are slow. Every member of the committee, as well as representatives of the numerous veterans organizations, was concerned about the time which elapsed before ensuring proper compensation to those who have for so many years endured the consequences of afflictions directly related to their participation in the defence of our country, of our convictions, of our freedom and of our democratic system.

Mr. Speaker, I believe all hon. members intend to speed up the passing of the legislation so that it can be incorporated into the statutes and thus bring assistance to our veterans as soon as possible.
The committee made a thorough study of the Woods report, and of the white paper. All veterans' organizations that wanted to and asked to express their opinions had the opportunity to do so. Those viewpoints are certainly reflected in the bill before us. Although it is not perfect, most veterans feel that it gives them a better deal and improves their situation quite a bit.
At this point, I would like to congratulate the members of organizations who came and made representations for the sake of their fellow citizens.
I would like to congratulate also the members of the committee for their conscientious participation in the proceedings and for their concern about the way our war disabled are treated.

The bill before us represents the results of our assessment of this thorough study. I believe this is one example of a proper democratic way of doing things. I believe, too, that our committee system, organized as it is today, is revealing itself as being a vital instrument in our parliamentary procedure. The major question which was being asked following the presentation of the white paper was whether the government would abide by certain recommendations of the committee. The terms of the bill
before us show that most of the opinions expressed by the committee have been accepted. The necessary amendments have now been brought down by the minister and I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate him for his well-disposed attitude and the co-operation he has given the committee. Once this legislation is passed I believe our country will have the best possible machinery for recognizing and satisfying the needs of veterans.

Mr. Speaker, if we compare Canada's treatment of its veterans with that of other countries, we can say that on the whole it is the best that can exist today. There is certainly room for improvement, and I think the committee is to pursue its efforts in order to correct some anomalies.
Officials and commissioners will be very busy in the next few months, for a multitude of applications will be brought to their attention. My fear is that individual cases may be examined in a hasty manner. Nevertheless, this problem should be corrected without undue delay.
The members of the committee were presented with a brief from the National Prisoners of War Association. I think this bill is going to protect these veterans in a very special way. The fact that prisoners of war of the Japanese are to receive compensation of not less than 50 per cent is a kind of protection and safeguard for other prisoners of war who suffered from extreme conditions.
The new interpretation and application of the act and the practice of granting the benefit of the doubt will remove many difficulties for these valiant men who suffer as a result of hardships endured during their incarceration.

I do not think that at this time it is appropriate to enumerate the statistics and examples given, which were well covered during the committee's deliberations. I know every member wants this legislation passed immediately.


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have not entered the debate so far because I am anxious that this bill be passed today. However, we have a few moments left and I presume that when I finish my remarks that will be the end of the debate on the bill and the end of the business before six o'clock.
I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the previous speaker, the chairman of the committee. The chairman of the committee, the previous chairman and I have had a very happy relationship in the work we did on the bill, which is the culmination of 18 months' work. This was preceded by almost 3J years' work on the part of the Woods committee and a study by the government, the translation and all the other steps that have been taken.
Although I am interested in all the provisions of the bill, there are two or three parts that interest me especially. One of them concerns the Hong Kong veterans. I have been deeply interested in this group ever since I

February 18, 1971

saw them embark for Hong Kong. I saw them when they returned. Many of my own kinfolk were among them and I saw the condition in which they returned to this country. I also observed the conditions under which they have tried to make their way through civilian life since that time. If we have done nothing else for these men during the last few months, we have given them a better deal.
As has been said many times, there are many good features in this bill. However, we are disappointed at the omission of some provisions and we expressed this disapproval in the committee as part of the democratic process. But as I say, generally speaking the committee was a good one and gave us the opportunity to talk things over. I enjoyed my work because in committee you could let your hair down. I could not, but at least others could. Although, as I say, certain things are lacking, if the minister is open-minded and members are conscientious, the bill can be amended if we find further amendments are required. With that, I close by saying how happy I am to see this bill through the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, before we call it six o'clock may I raise a question of privilege? I made a remark earlier today with respect to the business of the House for tomorrow, but I did so under a misunderstanding of the rules of the House. Therefore, I should like to bare my breast and make my confession before the day is out.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-185 has had an exhaustive debate in this House as well as in committee. I understand that it is very uncontentious and could be passed through the report stage at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, those who wish to take part in the third reading debate are not in a position to do so just now. I think the understanding was that we gave up private members' hour for the purpose of completing Bill C-203. This having been done, in the same spirit I think we should agree that it is six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.45 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 26, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Doug-
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company las), seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), moves:
That this house do now adjourn.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I moved a motion under Standing Order 26 in respect of a matter that I thought was of specific importance and required urgent public consideration. It had to do with the report in the Globe and Mail of this morning to the effect that the ownership, interest and control of Home Oil Company Limited of Calgary will pass into United States' hands within the next few days. This statement was buttressed by the knowledge that a letter of intent between the Home Oil Company Limited of Calgary and Ashland Oil Incorporated of Kentucky has already been filed in the United States.
It is true that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) told the House yesterday that no deal had been completed. However, Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members will recognize the fact that there is little value in this House becoming alarmed about a situation after a deal has been completed. If we are going to concern ourselves with the takeover of one of the last remaining Canadian-owned oil companies it seems to me this House must concern itself now, before the deal is completed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I sometimes think that most Canadians are not fully aware of how vital and important the oil and gas industry is to the economy of Canada. It is estimated that over the next ten years the demand for oil in the world will increase by 50 per cent and that the demand for natural gas will increase by 100 per cent. The recent increase in the price of oil from the Middle East and the announcement this morning that Venezuela is raising the price of its oil by 25 per cent, effective next month, indicates there will be an increasing demand for Canadian oil.
Last year the Canadian Petroleum Association estimated that the potential for liquid petroleum in Canada is in the neighbourhood of 140 billion barrels. Carl Nickle, a former member of this House, now the editor of an oil magazine, estimates that the potential value of this oil and gas, if sold at present prices, is in the neighbourhood of $1,118 billion. The estimate for the 1970s is that the gross revenue from gas and oil will amount to $28 billion.
Many who are familiar with world oil geology are predicting that the Canadian Arctic will become another Middle East and that Canada over the next quarter of a century will become one of the major suppliers of oil and gas in the world. It seems to me that this House must be concerned about how we use this vast treasure house and dispose of this great reservoir of oil to the benefit of the people of Canada not only of this generation but of succeeding generations.
This is not a renewable resource; it is a resource which once disposed of will be gone for all time. We are

February 18, 1971
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company merely the trustees of this vast accumulation of wealth which nature has placed under our soil.
The Canadian Parliament must decide whether or not in the development and sale of these vast quantities of oil and gas Canadians will get a piece of the action. They have not been getting a piece of the action. Approximately 85 per cent of the oil and gas well production in this country is in the hands of foreign corporations, and 99 per cent of the oil refining is in the hands of foreign corporations.
We will never get a piece of the action unless there are developed in Canada several major oil producing companies. We have a number of independent producers and small companies, but we have never been able to develop a major company. One of the few companies which has any hope of becoming a major producer of oil is the Home Oil Company of Calgary. That is why it is so important we consider this matter now. I am convinced that if the Home Oil Company of Calgary is sold to a foreign company we will lose virtually our last chance as Canadians to have a piece of the action in the development of the oil industry of Canada.
It has been known for some time that the Ashland Oil Company of Kentucky has been seeking to buy out Canadian companies. Last year it bought up Grid Oil and recently has been dickering with Mr. R. A. Brown, president of Home Oil. Mr. Brown owns over 50 per cent of the shares of Cygnus, which in turn owns over 10 per cent of the voting shares of Home Oil and also a part of the non-voting shares of Home Oil. Although he has only 10 per cent of the voting shares, Mr. Brown has effective control of the company.
Home Oil is important, not only because it is one of the few remaining Canadian-owned oil companies and is large enough that it could become a major producer but also because last year it bought $52 million of the equity stock of Richfield Oil, a United States company which has been doing exploration work on the north shore of Alaska. This was an attempt by a Canadian company to get into the northern oil picture.
Home Oil also owns 10 per cent, and a year ago owned 15J per cent, of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. It sold half a million shares last year and now has over 800,000 shares, or 10 per cent of the equity of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, which makes it the second largest shareholder in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. Most people interested in the oil industry have known that these negotiations have been going on for some time, but it has been difficult to obtain definite information. A week or two ago I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he could tell the House whether a virtual agreement had been signed between Home Oil and Ashland Oil Incorporated.
The minister's reply what that there was no such thing as a virtual agreement, that there either was or was not an agreement. The minister may be technically correct. The fact is at that time a letter of intent had been signed dated January 18, 1971. I think the minister knew about that letter of intent. I believe it would have been better had he told the House frankly that there was to his knowledge a letter of intent. I see no reason, since the information was to become public anyway when filed in

the United States, why he could not have taken the House into his confidence.
What is the effect of the letter of intent? The effect of the letter of intent is that while technically for a while the ownership of Home Oil will stay in Canadian hands, effective control of Home Oil will be transferred to Ashland Oil Incorporated of Kentucky. Mr. Brown will sell some of his shares in Cygnus for the sum of $10 million and the balance of his shares will be sold for not less than $8 per share or at a figure above that to be determined, the sale to take place within three months after his death or not later than within ten years. This means that by May 1, 1972, the control of Home Oil to all intents and purposes will have passed from Canadian hands into the hands of a United States company.
The purpose in asking for this debate is to urge the government to make a clearcut statement about what it proposes to do in face of this situation. It is not enough to give us some soothing syrup, to tell us the deal is not complete, that the minister desires to see this company remain under Canadian control and Canadian ownership, and that he has the best will in the world. I am not questioning the minister's desire or his intention. We want to know tonight what action the government proposes to take to ensure that one of the last remaining Canadian-owned and controlled oil companies will stay in the hands of Canadians, and that the one company that has some hope of becoming a major oil producer will remain Canadian so that Canadians will at least receive part of the benefit of the oil industry in their own country.
There are some things the government can do. First of all, the government can do what it did last May when it intervened to prevent Denison Mines being sold, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that Canadian ownership in the uranium industry should not fall below 40 per cent. We all supported him in that step. There is not much use arguing, as did the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) the other day, that there is a difference between oil and uranium and that uranium has been declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.
The uranium industry is relatively small compared with the oil industry. Even if Denison Mines had been sold there would still have been uranium mines owned by Canadians and we would have had one of the largest uranium mines owned by the people of Canada through a Crown corporation, Eldorado Mining Company. We would not have been sold out completely. But here is a case in respect of the oil industry where we will be pushed entirely out of the picture if the government does not take action.
I say the situation is sufficiently serious that the government should take the same action it took last May and show some muscle and courage. It should say to Home Oil that this sale will not go through. It is significant that in the letter of intent, as reported in the press, there is a statement to the effect that this arrangement may not be completed because the government of Canada may intervene. The Home Oil Company and Ashland Oil Incorporated know the government can intervene. We on this
February 18, 1971

side of the House know the government can intervene. We want to know now whether the government knows it can intervene and whether it proposes to do so.
The second thing the government can do is bankroll a consortium of small companies controlled by Canadians to buy the interest in Home Oil. I understand there are at least two companies, one based in Montreal and the other in Toronto, which have shown an interest. I believe there are other companies which have shown an interest. There are one or two independent petroleum producers with the technical know-how; they may lack the capital. If they had the capital it would be possible for them to buy out effective control of Home Oil in the same manner that Ashland is proposing to do. It would not require a large sum of money-$15 million within the next ten years.
We have in Canada the Industrial Development Bank. Surely this is what it was set up for. I was in the House when the Industrial Development Bank Act was passed in 1944. At that time we were told by the Minister of Finance that this was exactly the kind of thing the Industrial Development Bank would do, namely, help finance the development of Canadian industries. Here is an excellent opportunity to use the Industrial Development Bank to supply the necessary capital resources with which to buy Home Oil, if it wants to sell, and enable Canadian companies to take over this operation.
The third option open to the government is to have Panarctic Oils, in which the federal government has a 45 per cent equity, buy out Home Oil. It would work admirably with their operations, because while they are interested in the Arctic they also need to spread their risks and engage in oil exploration in various parts of this continent. This would be an excellent opportunity for Panarctic, if the government so decides. If the government does not want to do any of these things, it could set up a Crown corporation to buy out Home Oil and later turn it over to a public Canada Development Corporation, because that corporation will be in the oil business since it will be given the responsibility of handling Panarctic Oils. So the government can step into this picture if it wishes.
The government is not without alternatives. It can do any one of the four things I have suggested; I am not wedded to any one of these propositions. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has a better idea, we will be glad to hear it. The one thing we do not want to hear is a lot of excuses as to why the government is not going to do anything.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We
want the government to tell the people of Canada, through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that the government is not only desirous of seeing the Home Oil Company of Calgary remain in Canadian hands but that they propose to take the steps necessary to ensure that it will remain in Canadian hands. That is what we want from the government. I hope the minister will not be satisfied merely to tell us that discussions are
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company going on, that he has the best intentions in the world, that he has expressed his views to the parties concerned and that he has used all the powers of moral suasion that he has. The government has the responsibility to do much more than that. It has the responsibility to use the powers that it has to ensure that the vast reservoirs of oil under the surface of this country are developed for the benefit of the Canadian people.
The government has a responsibility to ensure that we do not become like the Middle East and Venezuela in which the whole oil industry is owned by foreign corporations and they merely sit by and watch the wealth being sucked out from under their feet. The government and this Parliament have a responsibility to see that the generations who will live here after we are gone have an opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the treasures which nature has placed in our soil, and that this birthright is not frittered away for a mess of pottage merely because the government is too gutless to act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP has emphasized the importance of the petroleum and natural gas industry and its byproducts not only to western Canada but to Canada generally, and has summarized what this wealth means not only to this generation but to future generations. I do not want to confine my remarks to Home Oil alone. Since 1963 we have had a Liberal government which has talked about foreign ownership since the days of Walter Gordon. The government has continued to talk about it in every election since then, but has done nothing about it and has not set up guidelines or priorities. This might be due to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) pragmatism to which reference was made during the last election.
In speaking to this motion I would point out that I come from Calgary where there has been a serious endeavour by the people of Alberta, as well as by the government of that province, to encourage the development of our resources. As a consequence, Alberta has been classified as one of the "have" provinces. In fact, before the wheat crisis brought on by the government-I still think it was brought on by the government, because Canada has dropped to sixth place as an exporting nation from first place which we held previously-Saskatchewan was one of the "have" provinces. It takes, of course, large pools of risk capital to develop any resource industry, particularly the petroleum industry. The development of these resources has been good for the country and good for the province.
Tonight our attention has been directed to the possible sale of the controlling interest in one of the last major Canadian oil companies. It seems to me that what we need is a new national development policy to make certain that the pools of capital that exist in Canada are available for resource development. The necessary climate should be established by a reasonable, responsible and energetic government, with initiative, to make certain that pools of capital which exist in Canada are made available for resource development.

February 18, 1971
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company
Mr. Brown and his directors are to be congratulated for their efforts in creating up to now such a viable corporate force in Canada. This is a company owned by Canadians, developing resources for Canadians, developing trade for Canadians and producing a product which adds to the growth of our gross national product and to the employment of thousands of Canadians, not only in Alberta but elsewhere, particularly in view of the industrial side-effects when you consider its by-products and the manufactured goods that are purchased from central Canada by the oil industry, which brings wealth to this part of the country.
This is a government of crisis. It moves only when something comes up that makes it move. That is why the Prime Minister has been getting so irritated lately and has been losing his cool: it is because he has crisis after crisis in his cabinet and in this House. When we ask questions seeking information, what does he do? I leave that question to you, Mr. Speaker.
Whatever answer is worked out to solve this problem, it must be a formula that is fair to the shareholders and fair to the company. But there have been no guidelines to date. What have we been doing since 1963 in this field? What has the Liberal government been doing since then? While it tergiversated, procrastinated and vacillated in this as in other fields, an uncertain atmosphere has been developing in the business community everywhere. I believe that Mr. Arnold Hart, the chairman and chief executive officer of the Bank of Montreal, put the matter in its proper light when he was dealing with this uncertainty. He said:
One of the most unsettling aspects of the past year's discussion of the white paper on tax reform was the strong impression it created that officials in Ottawa are convinced that governments cannot perform their functions without taking an increasing share of the national output in taxes. This impression was not dispelled by a recent speech by the Minister of Finance in which he strongly implied that a reduction in taxes to promote economic growth could not be contemplated if it meant that existing government programs would have to be curtailed.
Is it not fair to ask how changing needs and priorities can ever be accommodated if existing programs cannot be considered candidates for curtailment? And is it not especially important in present circumstances to have a hard look at these programs to see whether resources cannot be more effectively used to assist in the creation of employment opportunities in those regions of the country where slack economic growth is the source of much discontent and social friction?
My first point is that the white paper has scared away Canadian investors. It has frightened away those who were ready to invest in risk ventures. Mr. Bryce, the economic adviser to the Prime Minister, who never pays any attention to this place, said when I examined him in committee that of course the white paper on taxation would scare off investors but that Canadians were ready to pay. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are paying tonight: they are paying through the nose because one of the last Canadian oil companies is being forced into the hands of foreign investors because of the fear being created by the white paper on taxation.
Canadian companies are placed at a disadvantage when competing with American and other foreign organizations in the exploration, development and indeed in the finding of crude petroleum and natural gas and all the byproducts that go with them. The white paper on taxation has done nothing to correct this disadvantage. We should at this time create tax incentives and advantages for Canadians and Canadian corporations, not only to put them on an equal footing with American companies but to give them an advantage over foreign companies. This would encourage the Canadian investor to invest in these industries. The sins of the government are now coming home to roost. This is due to the fear created by the white paper on taxation.
The government should come out with a clear cut statement as to what taxes will be implemented, whether there will be special advantages in respect of depletion allowances, what the capital gains tax will be, if any, how it will affect the Canadian investor, and indeed how it will affect Canadian corporations developing resources here as well as abroad. Here was one of the problems. Home Oil went into Alaska to drill wells, and came up with dry holes. Supposing it spent a $6 million on drilling there, although I do not have the books of the company on my desk? If it is bought out by a foreign company, the foreign company can write off those losses, whereas if Canadian Pacific Investments or any other Canadian corporation were to buy Home Oil it would not have that privilege. Surely there must be provision for equal competition; but what has happened here is unequal competition which is working against all Canadians.
There are many other tax advantages which foreign corporations have when operating in Canada and Canadian corporations do not enjoy. This is particularly true in the resources field. If such a corporation buys shares in another company, the interest on the money it borrows to buy those shares is tax deductible. I could go on ad infinitum. Yet the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) talks about the assets of the white paper on tax alien and his puppets around him support the statements he makes not only in this House but in committee.
The Globe and Mail of today's date carries a story about the long negotiations concerning the purchase of controlling interest in Home Oil by Ashland. It states that according to sources in Calgary and Ottawa, last-ditch efforts to save the company from foreign control have failed. Why did they fail, Mr. Speaker? They failed, not through lack of capital in Canada but because of conditions imposed by the government which drove Mr. Brown, Home Oil president, into a foreign field to get the necessary capital. What were those conditions? Why have those conditions been kept secret from members of the opposition?
My leader, myself, other members of this party and, indeed, members of the NDP have been asking questions, seeking information, but we have not been getting it. All we get is evasive answers, dishonest statements, ending up with a fictitious fuddle-duddle. That is what the government is doing-fuddling and duddling around. I want to know those conditions. If the Canadian government-
[Mr. Woolliams.l
February 18, 1971

and this is my charge-has imposed conditions which in fact and in law have been more helpful to a foreign takeover than to a Canadian takeover, then its efforts have been negative and not positive.
What about this letter of intent? Yesterday, as recorded at page 3480 of Hansard, I asked this question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources:
May I direct a supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the answer he gave to the Leader of the Opposition in which he said that he had no knowledge of the sale. Does the minister have knowledge of a letter dated January 18?
I was the first to put my finger on that letter.
It is a letter of intent relating to the parties and in it his name is mentioned in connection with the sale in question.
I repeat that the name Mr. Greene appears in that letter of intent, and in one of the paragraphs of the letter the impression was left that he had imposed certain conditions. Mr. Speaker, there are responsible businessmen on both sides of the matter. If the minister's name is in the letter, how could he stand in his place yesterday and say he did not know anything about the letter? Then I nailed him for the third time and asked:
Is the minister aware of the letter?


Mr. Gheene:: I am aware that there was a written document-
This is evasion. You cannot get information from the government. There is a letter of intent and the minister knows there is a letter of intent. The minister knows a lot about this sale. I have come to the conclusion, after listening to the minister during question period and on television, hearing the wishy-washy answers he gives in this House, that he is like a ballet dancer dancing around and you do not where he is going to land next. He goes one moment to Denver and makes a great, strong nationalist speech to woo the young people across this nation, then comes back and repudiates everything he said. That is the kind of minister who is looking after resource development in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Another Jimmy Gardiner.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Jimmy Gardiner couldn't hold a candle to these boys. First, the minister said he knew nothing about a letter of intent and he sidestepped like a ballet dancer. If a regulatory body in the United States has knowledge of this letter, and if this government felt they had to get their hands into the deal, why tell an untruth about it? Did the government tell Mr. Brown to keep the letter secret? Did the government tell Ashland that they had to keep the letter secret? They are like boys who paddle on a lake, become so involved in what they are doing that they fall in beyond their depth, and because they can't swim they drown. Mr. Speaker, this government is drowning. The government got themselves involved when they prevented Canadian investors matching foreign offers. That explains their silence and, indeed, their deceit.
It is suggested that it was the imposition of silence on Mr. Brown and Ashland that caused the trouble. Mr. Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company Brown now says that he is in trouble with the securities commission of the United States as a result of the letter of intent, because the government and the minister got their hands ino the deal but refused to act. I hold in my hand the transcript of a great interview held on the program "Question Period" on February 8. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was interviewed by Peter Stursberg, Don Newman and Douglas Fisher. The host was Max Keeping. One of the interviewers asked this question:
But in the case of Denison Mines a year ago you moved in to prohibit it and now you're backing it up with legislation. Why not with the oil industry?
I do not know where the minister stands on this question. Surely, if the industry is entitled to know anything it is entitled to know where the government stands on the constitutional question, in order that investor confidence may be maintained. As the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) so ably said, the government talks about uranium as coming under the Constitution because it is a public work for the good of Canada. If we can do this with respect to one industry, why cannot we do it with respect to oil? What is the government's position on the constitutional law in this respect? On this question I would have thought the government would have sought advice from the law officers of the Crown and that it would have been forewarned about its powers in this regard. The present uncertainty is killing investment. Canadians cannot obtain dollars for the purchasing of the controlling interest in Home Oil or any other company that is up for sale in this land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In this interview the minister gave the following answer to a question:
Q: Isn't the sale imminent though? Is not the sale of Home Oil imminent?
A: Well, the discussions have been going on for some time and I think it's imminent but I am confident that the continuing good will of the parties, buyers and seller, that we can work out a method whereby this company will continue to be Canadian without having to resort to-
This is the question I should like to ask: Is this fair? For how long will American buyers continue to come up here and make offers if every time offers are made with respect to companies such as Home Oil we say, "We want a Canadian company to buy this company at that price." The Americans are pretty tough businessmen and they are not used to being treated as donkeys in this country. If they make an offer, they want to know that they have the right to have it accepted. I say that one must show good faith.
In this country there ought to be priorities and guidelines with respect to tax incentives. If we had such priorities and guidelines, Canadians would voluntarily move into the field. Canadians ought to be given encouragement to enter the field. Our chartered banks should loosen their policies and lend money to Canadians so that our people can develop our resources and our enterprises can participate in development equally with the Ameri-

February 18, 1971
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company cans. After all, Americans borrow Canadian dollars; therefore, why cannot Canadians borrow Canadian dollars?
At least in the banking business the people concerned know where they stand. They know that so many shares must be held by Canadians and how many may be held by foreign investors. Unless we change our tax structure and taxation attitudes we shall kill investor confidence; we shall kill our investment business, kill our resources business and kill development. You will kill the possibility of Canadians owning their own corporations.
I could read more from the interview to which I referred. The minister finally said, "You know, we must create jobs for Canadians." We know we must create jobs. Yet the government's white paper on taxation has scared the development industry to such an extent that people are being laid off. That is what is happening.


Mr. Ricard:: The government is creating unemployment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister claims that present policies will benefit the little man. Are they good for the little man when he finds himself without work? I think he would rather pay taxes and keep his job. The effect of the white paper on tax reform has been to create unemployment. The white paper has taken away the little man's job and put him on the street. It has prevented our university graduates from obtaining jobs in the oil industry or other resource industries.
Look at the uneven contest that is going on. What is this uneven contest, Mr. Speaker? In such an uneven contest there is no way in which Canadians could compete in Gulf Oil ownership of British American Oil. Actually, they bought out British American Oil. In the case of the Shell Oil takeover of Canadian Oils, other factors were at work. Shell was a big company in oil production but it lacked a marketing facility in Canada. Canadian Oils had such a facility. It was possible, because of internal company requirements, for Shell Oil to offer $15 more a share for Canadian Oils' stock than Canadians could afford to pay for it.


An hon. member:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: For over 20 years Canadians from Alberta have been lobbying Canada for equal tax treatment with the Americans. Several years ago, after all the available prospecting oil land in Alberta had long since been gobbled up, Ottawa made a grudging concession in connection with land acquisition costs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to inform him that under the Standing Order his time has now expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree unanimously?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently there is not unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, continue.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall ask the House again whether the hon. member has the consent of the House to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The second round seems to be favourable to the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to finish my point. I thank hon. members and appreciate their generosity in allowing me to continue. I will try to be brief.


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Is it not a fact that Canadian Oils and British American Oil were both taken over when the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) was Prime Minister of the country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I will not go into that. I deliberately said that this has gone on for 20 years or more. I say that the taxation structure of this country is such-and we did not put those tax laws on the statute books-as to encourage foreign takeover.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Would the hon. member now answer the question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In the case of Home Oil, the huge accumulation of tax losses in Alaska and elsewhere-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has the floor.


An hon. Member:: He ought to answer the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -may make it attractive to American companies, which it cannot be to Canadians. The commercial preferences and taxation advantages at home provide the financial muscle for United States expansion abroad. My main point, therefore, is that Canadians must enjoy equality with foreigners in the field of incentive taxes. I make another point. Every time we ship a ton of minerals, a barrel of crude petroleum or anything else out of this country we are shipping Canadian jobs with it. We must launch a new national program in Canada. We must process our own raw materials, which we have in abundance, to make sure that more young men and women have jobs throughout the land. We can only do that if Canadians enjoy equality of tax opportunity with foreigners operating here.
I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), when he was a member of another party, espouse this position while speaking on the political platform. I think he agrees with what I have just said. The tax situation in this country and the uncertainty created by the white paper have, together, brought about the takeover of the majority of our resource industry. I am speaking of resource corporations which are active in the development of the north. It is my hope that this government
February 18, 1971

will set up a task force that will be independent of corporations which send oil to eastern Canada. The task force ought to undertake an economic study to see if pipelines could be built from western Canada or from the Arctic to bring oil to eastern Canada, where it should go.
That question can only be determined after the economics of the situation have been studied and after it has been determined that such pipelines are feasible. If such pipelines are built, it will mean more jobs for throughout Canada. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members for allowing me to speak for a few extra moments.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, this debate is taking place at a critical time for our economy. We are clearly getting less from our economy than we would like to get from it. While the evidence is that we are on the path toward a better economic performance, it is obvious to the victims of inflation to the victims of unemployment and to the victims, in international trade terms, of our very hard dollar, that we have a fair distance to go.
The Home Oil issue reflects the new dimension of the demands we are making on our economy a problem we have been sweeping under the rug for decades. I regret that the hon. member who just spoke did not acknowledge that the government which he supported swept the problem under the rug as much as Liberal governments in the past.


An hon. Member:: And present.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Traditionally we have asked our economy to provide us with full employment, reasonable price stability, steady growth, a satisfactory balance of international payments and a fair distribution of the benefits of growth. However, a growing number of Canadians now recognize that even if we achieve all these things we may not have an economy which satisfies our aspirations. We might have a high standard of living and yet be a derivative economy, relying on another country for our direction. We might have industrial development but all geared to foreign input of technology, research and development.
We might have an economy whose activity is assembling parts and implementing ideas shipped to us from abroad, accepting styles of life and goods created elsewhere. All this can happen while our standard of living continues to rise. If that happens, Mr. Speaker, we should not be surprised if our brightest and most able people go to the source country to find jobs which are challenging, fun and offer opportunities to become creators of economic events. If these people leave us for these reasons, what will happen to the rest of Canada's life? How will this affect our culture and national identity?
Such an economy and such a destiny would be unacceptable to me and, I believe, to most Canadians. We can consider the remote example of the American revolution. A factor in that revolution was taxation without representation. Another, and perhaps more important, was the resistance of the American people to the shaping of their economy, by imperial policy, into colonial subser-
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company vience to the mother economy. The revolutionary analogy breaks down, however, because in Canada we already have the political power. How shall it be used?
On the one hand, we want foreign capital if it will increase our standard of living and bring us, as well, know-how, innovation, technology and market access which will permit us to market better products more efficiently. On the other hand, we want to see in our economy the development of a unique identity, a dynamic autonomy, an internal generative power which can push us ahead of other nations in efficiency, creativity, technology and economic style-setting.
We like to refer to the natural resources of Canada as a stock of untold riches. They are riches, as are our vast resources of timber, fertile land and a strong, healthy and industrious people. However, these riches should not be confused with capital. Without capital, resources lie unused. Capital is not resources but command over resources, a means to exploit resources, power to bring them into the market place and the economy.
A national commitment is required to elaborate an economic strategy to achieve these goals. We are told that the development of the strategy is under way in cabinet. It is long overdue. I cannot attemp here to formulate the strategy myself, except to note that it will not be simple and will have to reflect a variety of interests. However, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of assessing the Home Oil question, I believe one obvious limitation exists which, I submit, should assist the government in dealing with the difficult question which must be resolved on an urgent basis.
The proposal I wish to make stems from the observation that Canadian capital will always be in shorter supply than we would like in order to achieve all possible economic goals. We are going to have to choose the areas which are to be protected from foreign investment. How should we decide which to protect? Operating from this premise, I submit that the natural resource industries are the last which should be protected from foreign encroachment. I make this observation recognizing that the general public view tends to be the opposite. The public seems to believe there is some special national interest which requires the exclusion of foreigners from resource development. This may be an elaboration of the territorial imperative but it is a public sentiment which I very much regret.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the products of the basic natural resource industry contribute very little, if anything, to the Canadian life-style. What is our lifestyle? In the material sense it is our books, food, clothing, educational and entertainment systems, homes, buildings, art and our transportation systems. These are the material things which will make Canadians unique in physical terms, if anything will. I believe a policy of Canadian identity should stress these areas. By contrast, the production of the natural resource industries are neutral international goods devoid of personality. Clearly, the national identity of the owner has a remote impact, if any, on the character of production.
There is a second, more compelling reason why foreign ownership of the natural resource industry represents no

February 18, 1971
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company threat to Canadian identity. There is no industry in which government control can be so effective and complete, irrespective of ownership. A natural resource investment once made is captive, even hostage in a way that no other industry is, to national policy.
Contrast a mining operation on the one hand with an advanced electronic business, typically an international corporation, on the other. The development work of the mining company must be done here physically. For the electric company it can be done in thin air, in a foreign country or in mid-Atlantic. In typical international electronic companies, no single product is made wholly in one country. Even a simple electric razor, typewriter or radio is a multinational product. The offshore operation provides the only market and often the principal supplier of a Canadian branch.
Against such an operation, national priorities of any particular host government are marginal. The international corporation's bargaining position is excellent. It is true that the Canadian plant and equipment may be hostage, but such assets are useless without the rest of the international operation.
A basic natural resource industry, by contrast, is all here. The government priorities must be accepted. There is no bargaining position except future investment which, as it chooses, the government can welcome or not. The labour policies and standards such as the employment of native personnel, degrees of processing, pricing, including a two-price system, export permits which permit embargoes, are all within the power of the host government and, in fact, have all been imposed by federal and provincial governments of Canada in varying degrees. In fact, all these measures I have been describing have been imposed by federal and provincial governments in varying degrees in recent times.
I wish the minister well in his search for a Canadian customer for Home Oil. All Canadians wish him well. If it works, everyone will be happy. If he is unsuccessful, I urge the government to consider buying the company either for the Crown or to offer to the CDC when it is established. But I deeply hope no action will be taken which would lead international mining investors to steer around Canada. This country does not need, and cannot afford, such a policy.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the House is now studying the problem of the sale of Home Oil to American interests through the transfer of the shares held by Mr. Brown, the main shareholder, to an American.
This problem, Mr. Speaker, which the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas), brought up shows us the need for a Canadian economic policy. To get the picture, let us remember that Home Oil is the main Canadian oil producer. Indeed, it is the most important independent Canadian oil company. It has assets of over $240 million. Home Oil sells more than 350 million gallons of liquid oil annually, and holds about 10 per cent of

the shares of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. It is now a proposal of sale to the American Ashland Oil Company for $10 million.
Mr. Speaker, it would seem that Cygnus Corporation now owns 43.5 per cent of the shares of Home Oil, and that Mr. R. A. Brown holds in his own name 50.3 per cent of the share of Cygnus Corporation. The reason for the sale is that Mr. Brown, the president of Home Oil, has now short-term debts of $90 million and he must pay more than $200,000 in monthly interests on that loan. He apparently borrowed $24 million payable on demand from the Bank of Nova Scotia and over $1,431,000 from the Imperial Bank of Commerce of Canada. Finally, Mr. Brown controls Home Oil since 1952. That is to say that this truly Canadian oil company has been operating in Canada since 1952. I must say "operating", because according to available information which moreover is at variance with the position of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), it seems that this company is no longer Canadian.
The minister insists that he offered some kind of pious opposition to the American Securities Commission, because that transaction would not be acceptable to the Canadian government, but if we refer to his answers during the question period today, obviously, these sessions of "fancy skating" will last for quite a while yet.
If we put this particular problem in a Canadian context, we must realize that presently, more than 87 per cent of Canadian oil and gas producers are in the hands of foreign interests. Thus, 99 per cent of refineries are foreign-owned. What is Canadian in the oil industry? Capital? No. Management? Neither. In fact, the greatest part of the oil industry in Canada belongs to foreign interests. What we have, in Canada, are natural resources that we beg foreigners to come and develop for us, because we lack the capital needed to do it ourselves. We are always faced with the same basic problem, that of Canadian capital.
Mr. Speaker, for a long time in Quebec, we have been told that while we were learning how we had been defeated on the Plains of Abraham, in English Canada people were taught that 2 plus 2 makes 4, plus so much per cent interest. It was said to be a valid explanation of the reason why Quebec did not belong to Quebecers and American capital controlled the province.
The same thing applies to natural resources. As far as Quebec is concerned, it will be remembered that a premier by the name of Duplessis gave away the iron ore of the province to Americans for a mess of pottage, begging them to process it in secondary industries so that we may buy it back at high prices.
Today's policy is not new. For too long in Canada we have left to others the task of developing our own natural resources so that today, if we place the Home Oil problem in the overall picture, we realize that the situation has become very serious. Home Oil is a Canadian business in the process of becoming American. That is the tragedy, and it is not new. Slowly but surely, our leaders-if one can call them that since their leadership does not extend over much and since all our raw materials
February 18, 1971

belong to foreigners-have let foreigners take over our basic industries.
This vast country, which at one time belonged to us, does not belong to us now. We have become tenants. A tenant should not be asked to boast of the values and qualities of a house that no longer belongs to him. That is why I am so surprised by the speech made by the hon. member who preceded me, who talked of the pride of being Canadians, who sang the praise of Canadian unity, or of this vast country that is described in picture books.
Mr. Speaker, that is a stupid policy, because the country no longer belongs to us. It did at one time, but today it belongs to foreigners.
Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that Canadians take no pride whatsoever in being Canadians, because all they get in Canada is taxes. Their lot is to be hustled by the government which, wittingly and knowingly, sold Canada down the river to the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I shall quote precise figures, and I must point out that since they were published in 1967, the situation has been getting worse.
In the soft drinks industry, 26 per cent of interests was in foreign hands and 14 per cent under foreign control.
The rubber industry was 88 per cent in foreign-owned and 99 per cent foreign-controlled.
"The minister with the smile", Jean-Luc Pepin, boasts about the fact that we have a Canadian textile industry but, Mr. Speaker, he was one of those who gave this industry away, for 24 per cent of shares are in foreign hands and 23 per cent under foreign control.
In the pulp and paper industry, 51 per cent of shares are in foreign hands and 46 per cent under foreign control.
In the farm machinery industry, 47 per cent of shares are in foreign hands and 54 per cent under foreign control.
In the automobile industry, 90 per cent of shares are in foreign hands and 97 per cent under foreign control.
In the transport equipment industry, 58 per cent of shares are in foreign hands and 71 per cent under foreign control.
The same applies to electrical appliances, iron and steel, oil and natural gas and the mining industry.
As for oil and natural gas, 87 of shares are in foreign hands.
I was aware, a few minutes ago, of a dispute between the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), who were giving each other tit for tat, asking which of them was responsible, through inertia, for the sale of Canadian interests to foreigners.
Mr. Speaker, the figures I have just cited are by no means heartening. I recall that during the 1957 and 1958 election campaigns, the right hon. member for Prince Albert travelled the country and stated dramatically and
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company bombastically "Canada to Canadians", all for the evident purpose of getting votes.
From 1957 to 1961, with the Conservative administration, foreign ownership increased from 54 to 56 per cent, and foreign control jumped from 61 to 64 per cent.
The Liberals may think it funny because it suits their purpose, but they were in power themselves from 1935 to 1957. Were they more Canadian than the Conservatives? They may well say that they achieved unity, that they were the only ones to do so, but the fact still remains that they had some shady role in that. The Liberals were first responsible for the U.S. take-over of our economy. When I see them crying and apologizing today, it reminds me of crocodile tears. Their wailing sounds remind me of bleating sheep happy to be shorn by the Americans and going "baa .. . baa ... baa ..."
In 1935, 37 per cent of our economy as well as 45 per cent of our mining industry belonged to foreigners. After 20 years of Liberal administration, in the name of the famous economic liberalism, men like the hon. Walter Gordon, who advocated a nationalistic economic policy, were expulsed from the party because, as they were saying, that upsets our projects. Yet, this man was a Canadian. They preferred selling Canadians to the United States rather than keeping Canadian people in the Liberal party.
After 20 years of Liberal administration, foreigners controlled more than 56 per cent of our industries. Indeed, 80 per cent of the capital controlling us is American capital. That is saying a good deal.
We can almost hear already the pompous speeches that will be delivered by eloquent government members to say nothing. The situation will nevertheless be tolerated and the Home Oil Company will fall into American hands. Why? Because the Canadian government has no national economic policy, because it discourages the investment of Canadian capital, because it puts out white papers like the one on fiscal reform for instance, which prevents Canadians from investing their profits in the Canadian economy.
The government wants to tax and discourage the Canadian people. Home Oil will fall into American hands because this government is the Americans' pay instead of being at the service of the Canadian people. Home Oil will be taken over by the Americans because the Canadian government is controlled by high finance and not by the Canadian people.
That is why I am convinced that Home Oil will fall into American hands and that again the development of our natural resources will be left to others. And yet, it would be so easy to develop a Canadian economic policy, a development policy for our natural resources, a policy that would enable us to invite young Canadians, particularly the 45 per cent of the unemployed under 25, to bring in their contribution. They are quite willing to participate in the building of their country but if the government continues to boost unemployment with their phony fight against inflation while giving away our natural resources, we shall not have to wonder why young Canadians do not believe any more in Canada. Therefore, it should be understood that Canadians want a truly

February 18, 1971
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company
Canadian government. One would wonder whether this government is not an American government.
Mr. Speaker, this situation is hopeless. We have several solutions to offer. We could legislate to prevent Home Oil Company from being sold to American interests as has already been done in the case of the selling of Denison Mines to the Hudson Bay Oil & Gas Company last year.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is just smilling as does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the others sold to the Americans. The first one remains idle and contents himself with denying, and pretending he knows nothing. If a minister knows nothing, this is a serious situation.
Here is a solution. I do not suggest it is the best but if this government is truly Canadian they will quickly find a solution so that Home Oil Company will remain Canadian as has been done for Denison Mines.
I would like to offer another solution to the minister. The choice will be his. Since he does not seem to have any idea, then I will give him one. The government itself could buy Home Oil Company and later sell it to Polymer Corporation or to the Canada Development Corporation.
That is another solution but it is not pleasing because it is tinted with socialism. If the government takes over private enterprise, that does not please me. I say it again: That solution is tinted with socialism.
It would be better if that company became a crown corporation with a mixed economy, which would permit to buy back the shares of Home Oil, instead of seeing the company fall into American hands. That solution would be a poultice on a wooden leg, but at least a Canadian poultice.
Mr. Speaker, in one thing at least I am different from the leader of the New Democratic party; he does not make any distinction between crown corporations, because he dreams of socialism, while I hope at least that that corporation will have a mixed economy, so that it would be possible to invite Canadian investors to contribute, by their capital, to the management of that new corporation, which could be advised by the Polymer Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, a third solution could be considered. I do not deem it excellent in itself, but it is a possible solution that might allow the Canadian people to keep their own resources.
That third solution be the following: the government would vouch for the liabilities of the Home Oil Company. I believe that this would be the best answer.
Mr. Speaker, the main problem of Mr. Brown, president of Home Oil, is that considering the existing fiscal system, he had to borrow tremendous amounts of money and must pay in interest fees only over $200,000 per month. Such liabilities that he can no longer meet because he is now being stifled by high finance, the latter enjoying the Canadian government's protection, of course, compel him to sell Home Oil to Americans. All this is happening because the government does not control the Canadian economy. Why could it not guarantee the debts of the Home Oil Company? This would prevent it from selling itself to Americans.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government grants interest-free loans to foreign countries, for instance, India. Up to now, over $201 million have been loaned to India, interest-free, for a 60-year period. This means that the Canadian government is guaranteeing the development of that country.
Not long ago, our right hon. national traveller, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), at a cost of many millions of dollars, visited that country on behalf of the Canadian people, whereas we were still involving ourselves into new debts and were still being crushed under the weight of interest charges. For his part, he went around, strutting like a peacock and leaving behind here and there millions of dollars, interest free and refundable over a 60-year period, while the Canadian people were crushed under financial obligations. Such loans were granted for the development of those countries, to spare them the fate of the Middle East countries, as was stated by the leader of the New Democratic Party, where resources are almost wholly foreign-owned.
This government grants interest-free loans to some countries to help them develop and control their own resources while, at the same time, it crushes Canadians. It does absolutely nothing to save Canadian industry and provokes through inertia and lethargy the sell-out of Canadian enterprises to American hands.
Mr. Speaker, we of the Ralliement Creditiste strongly advocate an economic policy that would give back Canadian industries to Canadians through the use of credit based on the real credit of the nation. Natural resources do not belong either to the ome Oil Company or to the Americans, but to all Canadians. Natural resources do not belong either to the Home Oil Company do not belong to a Canadian in particular, not anymore than to the present Prime Minister or to the right hon. member for Prince Albert-the two persons who sold us out-but to all Canadians. It is the government's duty to give these natural resources back to Canadians through a national economic policy and it should guarantee the Home Oil debts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. friends for their kindness. I was precisely in the process of rounding up my remarks.
[Mr. Fortin.)
February 18, 1971

We are asking the government to vouch for the Home Oil indebtedness in order that this company may from now on operate without being chained down by interest rates. Actually, they have to pay out $200,000 in monthly interest. If the government could vouch for this company's indebtedness, it would amount to handing it back to the Canadian people. When we know that approximately 99 per cent of the Canadian oil industry is in American hands, this is the least the government can do if it is truly Canadian. The government must act immediately and unambiguously. It must assume not just a short-term policy but also a long-term one aimed not at kicking the Americans out of Canada but rather at convincing them that Canada belongs to Canadians.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I hoped to follow the minister. Since this is a debate which has been called on the basis of urgency, I thought the minister would speak after the lead-off speakers of the three opposition parties had had their say, if only to indicate the government's position. This matter is of enormous concern to this country and it is important that we know the government's intention. I suggest there is more involved in this question than just the Home Oil Company. We must put this in the context of what is happening internationally in order to assess its importance and the importance of having in Canada a company which does not react to and depend upon the international oil situation.
For years the major oil companies of the world have been able to play the interests of one oil producing nation against another. There has been a long pattern of James Bond intrigue. By following this pattern these companies have been able to assure control of international oil markets. The only exception has been in respect of countries like Italy and others in Europe which got into the oil business on their own. The oil producing nations of the world decided to get together to counter this kind of international activity on the part of oil companies. We are now faced with a situation in this country, or will be shortly, that is faced by other countries which do not have oil, do not have conservation policies and do not control the oil industries which exist. We will soon find ourselves blackmailed as well, not only by our national oil companies but by the international companies.
This fact points out the importance of maintaining strong Canadian participation in our oil industry. The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) suggested that the government could regulate this industry. We have observed a long history of this type of regulation by government in respect of the gas and oil industry. After looking at the record in this regard we can decide that the National Energy Board has been the patsy of the oil companies. The oil companies have won every round in this battle.


John James Greene: Shame.
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company


Max Saltsman: Yes, shame on the National Energy Board and the government which evades its responsibility.


John James Greene: Shame.


Max Saltsman: There is a hearing now taking place before the National Energy Board.


John James Greene: You are attacking public servants.


Max Saltsman: I am not attacking public servants; I am attacking stupid politicians on that side of the House.


John James Greene: We are not members of the National Energy Board.


Max Saltsman: They are the ones who sit idly by while this country is sold out. I challenge the minister to rise tonight and tell us about his plan to do something about the oil industry in Canada. I had intended to point out what had taken place before the inception of the National Energy Board. After 1966, following a long debate in this House about a natural gas pipe line, the government decided to provide a route through the United States but attached some conditions. Now, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines is not delivering the amount of gas required in Canada in spite of its promises at that time. There was a package deal arranged which allowed for an increase in the amount delivered on the basis of a higher price. This is what the companies want. That is not what was decided in 1966.
How does the government propose to untangle this mess? I suggest that the problem will be resolved in the usual way, with the oil companies getting what they want. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) referred to the oil industry in relation to the white paper on taxation. The white paper has not been implemented and has not been discussed for some time. Why has the oil industry in Canada been sold out to United States interests? It has been suggested that this has some connection with the tax structure. I suggest it has not happened because of taxes. The amount of tax paid by the oil industry in Canada has been decreasing. If we look at the documentation in Walter Gordon's book "Choice for Canada" we see how much in taxes the oil companies have contributed to Canada. So it is not a problem of taxes. Taxes on the oil industry will not change anything.
The truth of the matter is that a Canadian company, limited to its own resources, cannot compete economically in the international cartelization that goes in the world today. For years Home Oil has come to the Canadian people and the Canadian government and said, "Build a pipe line to Montreal. Give us a chance. If you do not, we will be stuck with the internationals who allocate where the oil goes and does not go". We have refused the pipeline to Montreal. Why? Is it because it is uneconomic? In the oil industry we do not talk about uneconomic things. The oil industry is political from start to finish. The international oil policy is political.

February 18, 1971
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company
The national oil policy was designed on the basis that whatever offshore crude the Canadian oil displaced in the United States, mid-west markets would be taken in at Montreal. For many years we asked in this House about a national oil policy. We asked if such a deal had been made and if this was part of the policy. No one was willing to say, until one day the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) blurted it out; then everyone was aware of it. I do not know whether he blurted it out or was a little more honest than others; I suspect he was a little more honest.
The point is that you cannot separate oil from politics. Talk about economics does not make sense. My leader made the mildest proposals tonight. He suggested that as an immediate course we should do something to make sure this oil company is not sold out to the Americans. We are not talking about public or private ownership. We need at least one company in Canada which has a sense of obligation to the Canadian public instead of to a great big club around the world known as the international oil cartel.
Home Oil, whatever its difficulties and attitudes may be-and we are not particularly lovers of the oil industry-has a voice that is Canadian. The appeal it made to this government was that it have a voice with the international oil companies. Why did they want the pipeline to Montreal? They commissioned a very extensive study for that purpose because they were the only ones with a big interest in having a pipeline to Montreal. The internationals did not care; it did not make any difference to them whether they sold oil from Venezuela, Arabia or Alberta. What was the sense of pushing Canadian oil if they could send Venezuelan crude here?
There have been a number of studies in respect of the peipeline. I know of three. The one the oil companies commissioned was a study by W. J. Levy Inc., entitled "Outlook for Canadian Crude Production and Markets". In examining the pipeline proposal to Montreal it suggested it was not a good idea. One reason is that the internationals would cut our price to make sure we could not sell oil at any price but theirs. They are quite capable of doing this because their profit margins are high enough. So whatever price we could deliver to Montreal would be cut.
P. S. Auf Der Maur conducted an extensive study in 1968. He pointed out the advantages of bringing western crude to Montreal. He said there is a pollution factor involved and Canadian crude is much purer in the sense that you do not have to refine it extensively in order to make it pollution free. He stated it is a better type of oil for that reason. But again price enters the picture. There was a study commissioned by the department of research and development of Canadian National Railways entitled, "Some Implications of Marketing Canadian Crude in Montreal". It showed that at that time the differential, even given the posted price of oil at Montreal, as against western crude brought in by a private pipe line to Montreal was 28 cents a barrel. That is not a great difference when one considers that with the increase that will inevitably take place in respect of international crude prices, the 28 cents a barrel would be wiped out.
It would seem to me, aside from the immediate problem, we should be ensuring that we are not put at the mercy of offshore oil and are not placed in the position of being blackmailed in this respect. Let us remember one thing. This does not mean that the price of Canadian oil or gasoline will be cheaper west of Montreal. At the moment it is supposed to be a little cheaper west of Ottawa. But I am quite convinced the Canadian oil producers will waste no time in raising their prices to match international prices at the moment.
When we are talking about a pipe line I should like to put on record the significant difference between a publicly-owned pipe line and a privately-owned pipe line. One of the greatest mistakes ever made in the history of our country was letting the Trans-Canada pipe line be built by private people rather than by the government. We have paid a terrible price ever since that dreadful decision. I should like to refer to the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Development, for June 21, 1966.
Mr. McKinnon was before the committee and was asked whether he had studied the cost of moving western crude to Montreal. He was asked what it would cost to move a barrel of crude from the west to Montreal. He asked whether this would be done privately or publicly, because it would appear that if it were done privately the cost would probably be between 60 cents and 70 cents but if it were done publicly the cost would be 50 cents a very significant difference. This seemed to be a very compelling argument for a publicly-owned pipe line.
What, then, do we do tonight? If I know the minister, he loves to evade answers. Very often he makes great political speeches. He made one last year at the Liberal convention which did not do him much good but got him a lot of applause. I am sure he is lurking around somewhere with a pad and pencil and that instead of telling us what his government will do he will say the Conservatives want us to do one thing, the NDP want something else, the Creditistes something different and Mr. Salts-man wants something else. We are not in a position to make proposals. It should not be of very much concern to him that all of us have different ideas about what should be done.
One thing is obvious in this House tonight. Everyone on this side recognizes the vital importance of Home Oil Company remaining in Canadian hands in some way, whether by tax concessions or some other way. All of us are concerned that something be done, and we will not be pawned off by any sort of juvenile trick the minister may have up his sleeve. I would make a suggestion that I think has some merit, because in the long run simply selling Home Oil to another Canadian company would not solve the problem. It would give us some breathing space, which is important, and therefore I am in favour of it. It would give us the time we need to look at the situation. However, I do not think it would solve the problem because I do not believe a Canadian company, dependent on its own resources and financing, will ever be able to compete with the kind of dominance achieved by the international giants in the oil industry.

February 18, 1971

This is the kind of thing the Canadian Development Corporation could do. I think the Canadian government must ensure that if a Canadian buyer is not found, the government itself will become that buyer, because in the long run control of oil and politics are the same. The hon. member who spoke earlier felt that it was not very important whether or not we got into the natural resource industries. He could think of some things that were much better, and he tended to pooh-pooh the importance of the oil industry. Let me remind the hon. member that these natural resources vitally affect us in this country because today oil is the primary product in the textile industry. It is the base for the chemical world in which we live.
Oil, and who controls oil, determine to a very large extent what kind of measures will be taken regarding our environment in terms of pollution and things related to it. It vitally affects our life-style. It is true that governments have the power to regulate the industry but it is not true that there is any evidence that the Liberal party has ever used that power or is willing to use it. Their ideological hang-up, their commitment to the market is so strong that they can only react when faced with an immediate disaster.
The only time the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) acted precipitously was with reference to Denison Mines. I hope he does so now, but time is short. Why do we have to wait until we are on the edge of the cliff, ready to fall off, before someone throws us a rope? Surely this matter could have been anticipated. Surely it was obvious what was happening in the industry and plans could have been made, instead of the fooling around that is going on at this time. Therefore, I would suggest that under no circumstances should Home Oil Company be permitted to fall into foreign hands. The government must come up with an answer that will ensure this company remains in Canadian hands, so we can have a base of some kind and a Canadian voice of some kind, or the government of Canada itself, on behalf of the people of Canada, should purchase Home Oil.


Mr. Alastair Gillespie (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the one thing which this House recognizes tonight is the importance of the issue we are discussing. I do not think there is any question that the members of this House are speaking and reflecting on a matter of major concern to Canadians, and I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate this evening.
I think Canadians all across this country are asking themselves whether yet another Canadian corporation is to go the way that so many already have gone. We all know that over the last eight years hundreds of Canadian firms have been taken over in the absence of any national or provincial policies in this area, and perhaps many thinking Canadians are asking what chance there is for Canada to maintain its political independence if we stand idly by as one firm after another is taken over by foreign owners. Many of you may have seen in the last
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company week or two figures presented from Colura. Those figures indicated that slightly over 42 per cent of all the corporate profits-that is 42 per cent of the profits of all incorporated firms in Canada-are earned by foreign-controlled firms. In many ways this seems to me to be a more significant figure than the percentage of our foreign-controlled industry.
This evening we are talking about the Home Oil Company in particular, although I think it raises issues far wider, as the previous speaker, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) indicated. As we know, Home Oil is the largest of the independent oil companies left in Canadian hands. Most of us applaud the minister for the sense of commitment he has shown in these negotiations and we wish him well in his efforts. We may question whether he has the power, but we wish him well.
A year ago the expectations of Canadians were raised significantly when the Canadian government stepped in and halted the sale of control to foreign owners of Denison Mines. During this period of a year Canadians have been waiting patiently for a statement of policy in this area. During this period we have seen two of the major remaining textbook publishing firms sold to U.S. owners. As a result of this sale, 95 per cent of all the books used in Canadian elementary and high schools are now published by firms which are controlled by non-Canadians. Only 5 per cent of the books used in Canadian schools today are published by Canadian-controlled firms.
I do not propose to deal with the cultural identity argument this evening although I acknowledge, as did the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) that the question of cultural identity is absolutely central to this issue. But it is not the only issue. Cultural sovereignty is one issue. I would argue that economic sovereignty is another and that they are twin pillars in building and developing an independent Canada. It seems to me that there is every likelihood that in the ensuing months other major or significant Canadian corporations will be faced with a similar situation as that now facing Home Oil Company.
Do we stand idly by agonizing on the sidelines? Do we say that we have not the federal power to deal with the situation? We can, as we did with regard to textbooks, indicate that this is primarily a provincial matter, and I think that is right. But are we to encourage those who would purchase Canadian industry? Are we to clap them on the back, as perhaps Stanley Randal might be prompted to do? His remarks recently have indicated that he would repudiate the position that might be taken by candidates of the Conservative party running for leadership in Ontario, with respect to the question of foreign ownership. I say that we have a major problem and that we cannot afford to sit idly by.
We cannot take decisions by default. There is no question in my mind and I think, as I have already said, that this is reflected in the views of those who have spoken this evening, that the Canadian people are concerned about this matter. Recent Gallup polls published in the newspapers would support this view. Equally, there have

February 18, 1971
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company been Gallup polls supporting a positive and aggressive position for the Canada Development Corporation.
It might well be that Canadians would say, "Why do we not in some way get the Canada Development Corporation to deal with this situation? Isn't this the very situation that the Canada Development Corporation was designed to deal with?" I think the clear answer is no. The Canada Development Corporation is not designed to deal with this kind of situation. I think that this situation, better than anything else, points out the problems when we look at the pre-emptive purchase. Take the situation, for example, of Home Oil. It might be that Home Oil will be worth more to a foreign buyer than to a Canadian buyer because, integrated with other foreign firms, the value of that integration, or the synergetic effect will be worth a premium to a foreign owner. For these reasons, those who have read the Canada Development Corporation legislation will recognize that corporation is not well designed for this kind of situation.
As the hon. member for Waterloo said in his remarks, we are dealing with a subject which is far greater in extent than just the question of one takeover. While I would not agree with his views on what we need in the way of an industrial strategy, I would suggest that broadly speaking we should be considering an industrial strategy for Canada, and foreign ownership is part of such an industrial strategy.
I think the debate this evening has obscured some of the main issues. For instance, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) in his loud and noisy bluster did not distinguish between investment on the one hand and foreign ownership on the other. I think it important, if we are going to deal with this issue, that we make that distinction. Nor, Mr. Speaker, can I agree with all the sentiments of the hon. member for Don Valley when he said he felt the natural resource industry is the last area we should be concerned with when we come to formulating foreign ownership policies. In my view it is one of the first areas we should concern ourselves with, partly because natural resource industries are the dominant industrial group in Canada and partly because they alone have the major opportunity for going multinational, and certainly because they are the industries on which we rely most heavily for our export sales. One might also add it is more likely that the natural resource industries will integrate, and integrate down in such a way that an even larger proportion of Canadian industry will be affected when there is a foreign takeover in a natural resource industry.
So I would say that in considering the issues raised in this debate we should place the need for an industrial policy close to the top, and we should recognize the importance of the multinational corporation in the seventies and beyond. We should see the multinational corporation, not in a defensive way, something to resist, but in the opportunity sense. It seems to me that for too long Canadians have reacted defensively against the multinational corporation. They have seen it not as an opportunity, as it should be, but as a threat.
It might help those who still feel this way to note that 70 per cent of the exports of Canadian subsidiaries of
U.S. corporations are sold or exported to firms which are associated with those subsidiaries. In other words, the flow of trade is not the way it used to be in a commodity sense, but between the subsidiary and the associated companies within the group. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we need to distinguish the capacity of resource industry to go multinational, and I think in the Home Oil Company we have such an opportunity. It represents for Canada and Canadians an opportunity to build something larger around the last large, independent Canadian corporation.
Similarly, I think we need to distinguish two other aspects when we talk about foreign investment and foreign ownership policies. We need to distinguish on the one hand a general category of new plants, and on the other a different category of existing Canadian plants which may be taken over by foreign owners. Within the new plants category we need to distinguish between the branch plant which is producing a carbon copy of the same item that the parent is making. Surely this is less attractive in terms of long-term policy as an industrial strategy than satellite plants, which I would argue are different. A satellite plant would be a plant manufacturing a component to be exported to the foreign corporation, probably a component which no other corporation within the group is presently manufacturing. Without trouble, one could think of other distinctions. I leave one more with the House-that of autonomous plants which are not necessarily producing components but are producing a product which is viable on its own, which is distinctive and perhaps fits the product line in a complementary way but not necessarily in a complementary way.
Turning now to the category of the takeovers, let me say that I think we need a special policy with respect to takeovers which is distinctive and different from the policies I have been talking about in the areas of investment for new plant and resource industry. I think we need it just as much to protect existing Canadian entrepreneurship as we do to protect our capacity to develop Canadian entrepreneurship in the future. Every time a Canadian firm is taken over the capacity of Canadians to develop a distinctive Canadian enterprise is affected and sometimes eliminated.
In my remarks I have tried to indicate that this whole area is immensely complicated. I have no doubt this is the reason why it has taken so long to produce a foreign ownership policy for Canada. The more one gets into it, the more one realizes the interrelationship and the difficulties. This evening I would like to place before the House several recommendations which I think might help in developing such a policy. When this policy comes down it should contain provisions to protect the control and the ownership-and I think it is important that we distinguish between control and ownership-of existing and potential multinational firms. The Home Oil Company is such a firm. It meets that test: it is a potential multinational corporation within the Canadian scheme of things.


Mr. Benjamin:: Don't stretch your imagination.

February 18, 1971


Alastair William Gillespie: If you had imagination, you would see it had potential. I think we need investment rules with respect to foreign investment and I suggest we should have a rule for future foreign investment of 50 per cent Canadian ownership. I would say to the private sector, make your own deals. Meet the 50 per cent requirement, but make your own deals and, if you cannot get sufficient Canadian partners to go along with you, talk to the Canada Development Corporation. That corporation, I would suggest, would be a very useful instrument in this field of meeting the Canadian content test. It should, of course, consider such a proposal only if it meet the test of profitability.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I, for one, am impressed with the sense of commitment the minister has displayed in dealing with this very difficult problem. I wish that he did not have to rely on his powers of persuasion, which are considerable. I wish that legislation was in being which would enable him and the government to act with expedition. There is, however, no such legislation in this country at this time; nor have I heard any members of the opposition propose the kinds of items which ought to be included in such legislation.


An hon. Member:: That is not correct.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We are talking about Home Oil, not about general legislation.


Alastair William Gillespie: I think I have said more than once that we ought to distinguish between an over-all investment policy and a policy which deals with the takeover.


An hon. Member:: We want Joe.


Alastair William Gillespie: I argue that our No. 1 priority ought to be the development of a policy which will anticipate the problem that may be raised by the sale of other firms. I urge the government to bring in new policies which would establish takeover rules and, if possible, a mechanism or instrument to deal with takeovers. Other countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Japan and France have dealt with this problem. It is high time that we did so. If we do not deal with it now we are very likely to be embarrassed in one month, or two months. In my view, we cannot wait.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak this evening on this motion because I, too, am concerned about the amount of foreign ownership in Canada. I am concerned that the decisions with regard to our resources are not being made by Canadians. The power to make those decisions is being taken out of Canadian hands. These days we hear a great deal of discussion about the quality of life and the standard of living. What those two phrases really mean to me is that we must have some right, some ability, to make decisions that affect our own livelihood and personal well-being.
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company Little by little, as the power to make these decisions slips into the hands of foreign corporations, so slips away the power that Canadians may enjoy in the years ahead to control the quality of their lives.
I think that we need a government inspired by a sense of national mission. Its mission must be to create hope and opportunity for Canadians, so that they may enjoy the highest quality of life possible. I say again that we must have the right to make decisions in the years ahead which will affect the quality of our lives. I do not think the government has shown any willingness to act in a way which will retain Home Oil under Canadian ownership. The previous speaker dealt at length with what the minister has been doing. He hoped the minister will be successful. During the last week or so questions during the oral question period have been directed to the minister on this subject; yet the minister has not explained in any way, shape or form just what is going on or what he hopes to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We have sat patiently for two hours this evening watching the minister flit in and out of the House. I expect he will make a speech some time this evening. It would have been a much better debate if the minister had been the first or second participant. Then, we would have known what the government intended to do. But, no, the minister did not do that. I can only conclude that the minister's position is rather weak. He must be quite defenceless against these arguments. He does not want anybody to follow him in the debate. He wants to be the last speaker so he can truthfully say that, after he spoke, nobody made any constructive suggestions; that the opposition had nothing constructive to offer. That is not a good excuse.
The government possesses the facts. It knows who owns the shares, what shares are holding shares and which ones are not. It knows the details of the deal. It is in the best position to recommend some action and to lay before the House the facts of the case. The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asked the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), "What would the opposition do?" He seemed to be devoid of ideas. That is how it often appears to me. To me, the government is not displaying leadership. This is a weak government, without imagination; it is not a government that can lead the Canadian people and offer them guidance.
What has been going on in the oil industry during the past number of years? It is plain to anyone who knows the oil industry in this country that that industry needed a large amount of investment capital. One cannot overemphasize the fact that investment in the oil industry involves high risk capital, as anybody who has read Carl Nickle's periodic oil report from Calgary will realize. That report keeps on saying that the oil industry faces uncertain times as the result of federal government tax policies relating to oil exports, and as a result of the federal government changing the rules and regulations applying in the north. I see the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) present in the House; he

February 18, 1971
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company knows what is taking place in the north. He knows that the oil industry faces uncertainties.


Mr. Orange:: There have been certain changes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member can make his own speech. His voice is probably in better shape than mine. He knows that the oil industry is not particularly happy about the changes which have taken place. He knows that industry has lost a great deal of money; I expect he also knows that Mr. Brown of Home Oil lost substantial amounts of money in the far north as the result of oil exploration.


An hon. Member:: In Alaska.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In Alaska, certainly. I ask, were they encouraged to go into the north? They were not encouraged. The whole industry is in a state of flux. I know the minister went to Denver and made his famous speech, and now the Americans are saying, "Fill your pipelines with Canadian oil. They are saying this because of the situation in the Middle East and because the Arabs want to dictate the price and quantity of oil moving to the western world. That is why the Americans want to fill their pipelines with Canadian oil. It is not because the minister went down there and made a speech in which he severely chastised them for their actions with regard to Canada.
There has been a great deal of talk about the supply of oil in Canada today. There is no doubt about what the white paper will do. I wish to quote from a recent speech of Mr. Robert Bryce which appears in "Canada Month":
Why be upset? asks the former deputy-minister of taxation, Robert Bryce. As he explained in a speech to the civil service, private savings will not be dissipated by the White Paper; they will merely be replaced by public savings.
I suppose this is what the government expects when they start the new company, the Canada Development Corporation. However we must hearken back to what the minister said when he introduced that bill in the House. He said the Corporation will not be used to buy back Canada and it will not be a Corporation of last resort. One wonders how it would help in this particular case. Perhaps the minister will have some enlightening news. Perhaps he has encouraged Panarctic to buy Home Oil.
The whole question of providing leadership to encourage Canadians to own their own resources must be balanced with the question of available money and priorities. Politicians have been talking about priorities for many years. I quote from today's Ottawa Journal:
It will cost the federal treasury about $31.5 million during fiscal 1971-72 to maintain the National Arts Centre, the National Film Board, the National Library, the National Museums and the Public Archives.
I am not saying that money should not be spent. However, here we have a resource, the last major Canadian oil company sliding out of our hands. What efforts are we making? The minister can say that money does not grow on trees. He can say we do not have $10 million because
we must spend $31 million on other things. An article in the same paper is headed:
Language Training To Cost $8.8 Million
It all boils down to what we really think is important. Do we think that Canada's resources should be exploited by companies to a greater extent than they already are or do we think that we can own Canada to any real extent and reap the benefits of these resources by allowing them to slowly slide away? We have to get into the question of regulations and other methods the government can adopt. I quote from an article in today's Globe and Mail:
According to industry and federal sources, existing tax regulations squeezed Home Oil to the point where it cannot but accept a helping hand from the U.S. oil company.
It is a pretty sad situation if we are so madly in search of money that we have to force the last major Canadian oil company out of existence. The doubts about the white paper on taxation has been around for too long. The minister should have clarified the position a long time ago. When asked about certain aspects of the white paper, the minister said the committees were still studying it and he could not say what portions would, or would not remain. Both the committee of this House and the Senate committee have completed their examination of the white paper and made their recommendations to the minister. It would be very easy for the minister to say that certain portions of the white paper will not be implemented. He could have done that six months ago. He could clearly state what he is going to do with the capital gains tax. This also could have been stated six months ago when the committees brought in their recommendations.
The minister has allowed the country to remain in an atmosphere of uncertainty whereby Canadians are not encouraged to invest in Canadian primary industry. When in Saskatchewan last week, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) stated that perhaps we need more Crown corporations in order that enough jobs will be created. Maybe that is what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) has in his hip pocket. If we wait long enough tonight, maybe we will hear about it. These things should have been said some time ago. I personally, do not believe the government cannot employ everyone in Canada. I think the people have to use their own initiative in this country as they have in the past. Last year the Department of Regional Economic Expansion spent $98 million to create a little more than 15,000 jobs. This gives some idea of how much the government can do in that regard. Compared to the 668,000 who are unemployed today, 15,000 or 16,000 jobs is a pretty small drop in the bucket.
The government is not doing enough to encourage Canadians to invest in this country. It is encouraging Canadians to withdraw their savings and put them somewhere else. They will invest in foreign corporations or spend their money on some other aspect of their daily lives. This is a deplorable situation. Canadian corporations have been encouraged to make less profit. In fact, the corporations have made less profit in the last year or

February 18, 1971

so. This has created a situation where the money is not being ploughed back into the industry. They have only earned enough for operating cash.
In a young and growing country, a situation should be created whereby it is not a sin to make a profit. If that profit is ploughed back into raw materials and resources, it will create more jobs. It is interesting to note that in some of his rare moments, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has recognized the fact that profits are not a sin. When he introduced the Canada Development Corporation bill, he said it was for the purpose of investing in companies to make a profit. I understand that the Canada Development Corporation will not be subject to income tax.
We cannot allow companies to make a profit and then take away nearly all that profit through some severe sort of taxation. The companies will flounder and sell out to American firms which get a better tax break. Many Canadian companies are moving their head offices out of Canada because of our tax laws. One member who spoke earlier mentioned international and multinational companies; but it would be a tragedy if the head offices of all these companies were outside Canada. More than one company has moved out. They prefer to pay a 15 per cent tax rather than a 50 or 60 per cent tax.
I will itemize what this government has done wrong in so far as the oil and gas industry is concerned. It has tightened and discouraged the forming of large amounts of investment capital; created an uncertainty with regard to the depletion allowance, and changed the regulations in the north, thus causing great uncertainty. The minister's speech in Denver about the oil and gas industry caused such a kerfuffle that the minister had to go to Calgary to pacify the industry and tell them he was really not that bad a person.
_ Then again, included in the white paper is the suggestion that there should be a capital gains tax, something which would discourage investment in Canadian corporations. Also included in the white paper is a proposal for an evaluation tax on shares. In my opinion, this is an unworkable suggestion and one which will not be implemented, but the minister has not yet wiped the slate clean in this regard. So, the government has proposed a number of things which have resulted in takeovers of companies in every sector of our society and it is time they were put on the mat for their actions in this regard. Canada cannot become the great country it is capable of becoming unless we state a goal and lay down national rules under which the country can develop in an atmosphere of security for investors and of reward for effort. In these circumstances, Canadians would be encouraged to work to save so that they might be in a position to make a greater investment in Canada in the years ahead.


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: My
remarks this evening will be brief, but what I want to say will be in support of the thesis that in no circumstances should we permit the sale of Home Oil to foreign interests. The debate this evening comes at a most oppor-
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company tune time in that it permits the House to give some guidance to the government in a serious dilemma. The dilemma arises partly from the fact that the owners of Home Oil have done nothing wrong. They have broken no laws and there is no legislation to prevent them from selling their company to foreigners. There are no guidelines yet in place. So, the debate comes at an opportune time to enable us to express some views in this area where policy has not yet emerged. As most of us understand, I believe, it will be some months yet before the government is in a position to discuss or to publish guidelines with respect to foreign takeovers. It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to speak our minds on this particular issue and I, for one, find no difficulty in expressing my views.
I should like to allude to what I believe to be a major concern in the minds of people across Canada. This is the concern that in many areas of national life some things are running almost beyond control. I think this feeling is true with respect to pollution. The chemicals being put into the air and the water are so numerous and so complex that we may be going beyond the point of no return. A similar fear arises with respect to urbanization, and the same feeling affects people in connection with the technological revolution, that things are running beyond control and that Parliament is unable to cope with them. I believe we find this feeling, too, over the question of foreign ownership. There is a growing fear that by failing to take the necessary steps when they are clearly called for we are permitting the situation to develop past the point of no return. This becomes a more pressing question for all of us as we stand on the verge of a scientific and technological revolution, the consequences of which we do not clearly foresee.
What concerns people is the thought that we might look back in ten years time and realize that by failing to take steps when we had the opportunity we had gone so far in allowing control of our economy to slip away that we could not reverse the direction of events. This feeling finds its way into the debate on Home Oil, and it will find its way into debates on many other questions involving foreign takeovers since people will see in each particular instance the general spectre of events running out of control, with machinery not yet in place and with a Parliament which does not seem to have the will to take the necessary action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. O'Connell:: We, in this House, are responding to that sort of feeling in the country, but this is not enough guidance in itself for a government which has to take responsibility. And simply to express feelings of this kind would not be a substitute for guidance in this particular case. There would have to be other solid reasons for doing what I suggest to the government that it ought to do.
First, whatever is done ought to be consistent with whatever long term policy is likely to emerge. I think the denial of the sale of Home Oil would be consistent with long term policy. We cannot, however, simply deny the

February 18, 1971
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company sale, particularly when the major owner is understood to be in financial difficulty, as perhaps was done in the case of Denison, without being prepared to give him an alternative. If we cannot find an alternative Canadian buyer for Home Oil I suggest to the government it should make a fair and reasonable bid for Home Oil and be prepared to purchase it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Under what statutory authority?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: There are several instruments in the Crown corporation field which could take on Home Oil. However, I do not think it would be good policy for us to suggest that this is the sort of thing the CDC should be expected to do. Very likely the CDC would be in a position to make a bid for Home Oil. I hope it would be. But it is not for the government to purchase an oil company and then press it upon the CDC. This would only confirm the fears of many persons that the CDC would be a basket for the dumping of companies purchased under political pressures. If we are prepared to purchase Home Oil, as I think we ought to do, we should be prepared to manage it as a public company. We should also be prepared to sell it to private Canadian interests if a good deal can be made, or be prepared to offer it to the CDC without any pressures.
It would seem to me that Panarctic Oils is a natural vehicle. I hope the minister is already in touch with that company with a view to keeping it advised of the situation and offering it the facilities of the government, financial and otherwise, to make a decent bid for Home Oil. Majority control of Panarctic does not he with the government, and if that company appears not to be interested, then Eldorado Mining Corporation is another natural company in this energy field. I hope the minister would use his influence to bring about the purchase by Eldorado of Home Oil.
There is no question that if the Canadian people come to own Home Oil they will have made an excellent purchase. It is a good company with good land and good oil reserves. It is not the company which is in difficulty but the owners. It has an international reputation and would be able to maintain itself in the international field where it has a demonstrated record of success. We would not be buying an enterprise as an act of last resort. We would be buying a viable, successful Canadian company which could become the building block or the cornerstone for a publicly-owned oil concern. We need a national or multi-national company in this field. We need to compete internationally in all spheres, not only in the resource field, though I think this would be a natural base for competition. I repeat that there are suitable vehicles available. But I do not believe in pressuring them into a purchase. If they are unable to bring themselves to a decision, then we should make it a separate government-owned Canadian company.
It seems to me that behind these proposals is a necessary decision on the part of the government. It is one thing to try to encourage Canadian companies to pur-

chase Home Oil; but if the owner finds a better deal elsewhere, then in the normal course of commercial practice he will accept the deal. It is one thing to suggest that Eldorado, Panarctic, Polymer or some other company in which the government has a major interest should get in touch with Home. But behind such a suggestion ought to be a clear pronouncement on the part of the government-I am prepared to see the government make such an announcement; some hon. members of the opposition are not-that under no circumstances will the government permit the sale of that company to foreign interests. I think that is the foundation block on which all other negotiations have to take place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What does the minister say.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: My hon. friend will hear from the minister later on. From what one understands, the minister has been doing a remarkably sturdy job in trying to bring about a resolution of the matter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Pure faith.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: It is not pure faith at all. He has been trying to bring about a resolution of this dilemma in the voluntary way by finding Canadian buyers. This is the right way to go about it. It is true that we have a precedent in the Denison case, but that is a precedent which, I am sure we will all agree ought not to be repeated if it can be avoided. It is not good government policy to step in, in a retroactive sense, and deny the sale of a company. In some rare instances there is no time to wait for the policy that is coming forward, no time to wait for legislation, and in those circumstances I think the government has to weigh all the matters in balance. I think the government is doing this, and that the minister is doing the right thing in making every possible effort to resolve the issue.
What I am trying to say to the minister and to the government is that if those efforts fail, then I think the sense of the country is that we should take the next step and say that the company will not be sold abroad. Then, if we cannot find a consortium of Canadian companies to come forward, we will have to operate the company through the government's system.
Some hon. members had something to say about the north, but I do not want to get far into the question of the importance a company like Home Oil would have as a policy instrument in the matter of northern oil exploration and development. Canadians do want a vehicle of this kind; they want an opportunity to participate in resource development. They want this vehicle to reside in a successful company of which they can be proud.
It has been suggested that the regulations regarding development of the north should be changed because some uncertainty may have been created. There are billions of dollars going into northern exploration. Northern exploration has not ceased. The policies relating to exploration of the north were set in 1959, 1960, 1961 by a previous government. It makes no sense to have stayed with those regulations after Prudhoe Bay, and I agree it
February 18, 1971

is time they were changed. I believe that a company like Home Oil would be very suitable as a company participating in leasing, and leasing competitively, in the Canadian north. I would go further and say that a crown owned company ought to have devolved upon it a certain percentage of all the Crown lands that revert when one leases. That is taking a major step, and I would go that far.
The effort made by some members of the opposition to discuss the white paper on taxation is a subterfuge to conceal their policy. We have to face this question of what to do about Home Oil, and face it now.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Then, face it.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I will, and I should like to hear your suggestions too, Sir. The point about the north-if I have a few moments left, Mr. Speaker-is this: Many members of the House realize that it is the normal practice, when a discovery is made on a permit area, that one-half the permit area reverts to the Crown. In the area south of the 60th parallel these leasehold Crown lots are sold at auction to the highest bidder, and current revenue goes to the provincial government in that sense. But this has not been the practice followed in the north. In the north, the practice has been to permit the discovering company to take on the rest of the land that has reverted to the Crown by paying higher royalties for it. That means, in effect, that we forgo current revenues in the interests of future revenues through the royalty system. It seems to me it is time that system was changed. If indeed we run the risk of forgoing current revenue for the sake of future revenue, then we also ought to cover such risk by having an equity position through a company like Home Oil or Panarctic in the action that is taking place.
For a number of reasons similar to this, I find it wise and proper for the government to make up its mind to prohibit the sale of Home Oil and to make its best effort to find a Canadian purchaser. Failing that, it should purchase the company itself; and if it is necessary to do that, then there should not be the presumption that the company will be forced into the CDC. In my view it should be offered for sale to private Canadian companies, or to the CDC if, in the end the CDC turns out to be interested in the company.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to relinquish the floor to the minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) if he feels like participating in the debate. I think that the two speeches by members of our party so far have made our point very well, namely that this is an urgent matter. We even have some members on the government side of the House agreeing with us that this problem is urgent. I commend the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) for some of the points that he made. I think he spoke good, common sense and it is obvious that he is very concerned about the matter. I suggest, though, that the members the parliamentary secretary will have the most difficulty convincing are the members of his own party. He does not have to convince us, because we are already concerned.
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company
In the past, we have suffered from a deficiency in Canada of capital, expertise and technology in the handling of our own oil industry, but I do not think this is any longer true. The market in Canada for oil is increasing, the same as it is everywhere else. Other speakers earlier this evening placed on the record how oE consumption has increased and what demands in the future will be, so I will not go into that again. I would suggest that we have sufficient capital, expertise, technology and markets in Canada to handle Canadian oil. We should concern ourselves and gear ourselves to this end. As I read the Canadian political scene at this moment there appear to be three things more important than all others about which Canadians are concerned.


An hon. Member:: Where are they pubhshed?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Where are they published; they are published probably by a United States owned Canadian publishing company. This is foreign ownership. Secondly, and I do not list these necessarEy in the order of importance, Canadians are concerned with unemployment and thirdly they are concerned with pollution control.
I think all parties in Canada should assist in suggesting means to accomplish or discover solutions to these problems. Hon. members in this House should not merely say what the government has done or has not done. We should contribute ideas which will help to control or help the situation.
I am very concerned about the issue being debated tonight. I feel a little bit like a pauper in the land of my birth. I wonder if I can caU my soul my own.


John James Greene: Has he got one, Stan?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I suggest that much of the control by foreigners in Canada has come about under the aegis of Liberal governments past and present. I do not think hon. members opposite can make any excuse for this fact. Certainly in the last few years, during which we have improved our technology and increased available capital in this nation, it seems to me that Canadian laws have made it easier for foreigners to own businesses in Canada than Canadians. It is high time we did something constructive about this situation.
Oil companies are being purchased by United States companies which want to make a profit here. Large companies are being purchased by United States interests. When are the ministers going to do something about this situation?


An hon. Member:: When are they going to start?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I can just envisage how Canadians wiE be in a few years.


An hon. Member:: Soon we will have United States ministers performing funerals.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Can't you see Canadians owning nothing else but a plot for his grave attending a funeral being performed by a United States firm?

February 18, 1971
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company
That Canadian body will be carried to the undertaker's parlour in an automobile manufactured by a United States firm, using oil produced by a United States firm with the services being read from a book manufactured by a United States owned company.


An hon. Member:: What about the pallbearers?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: A minister said yesterday that the Liberal government will take care of unemployment and will take care of this takeover by foreigners. Hopefully that poor Canadian will have six feet of Canadian soil which he can claim as his own, but the way things are going today he will likely have to be cremated because he won't even own that.


An hon. Member:: What about the pallbearers?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I suggest a Canadian owned firm should have Canadian interests at heart.


An hon. Member:: I wonder how much further you are going to go.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: It may be that the Canadian owned firms are efficient, but I think it would be to our interest to have a strong and viable Canadian firm producing oil in Canada.
There is an advantage to Canadian owned companies. While some companies may have international co-operation with international companies, when they are owned by someone else they do not necessarily have Canadian interests at heart. It is in our interest to have at least one Canadian firm in the oil producing market, and I think it is high time we took some steps to see that this is the case.
The hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie) made some comments.


An hon. Member:: You mean the hon. member for coke.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I had in mind the hon. member for Etobicoke, coke, or coal, but he listed promises in connection with the immediate situation. We do not need a list of these promises or problems which exist as we know them already. He made some minor suggestions in respect of solutions. He suggested we needed more legislation. I suggest he inform the minister that the government is responsible for providing legislation.
Does the hon. member for Etobicoke suggest that we as members should provide the government with ideas by means of private members bills? Does this government have no ideas of its own? I suggest that the government should accept some responsibility.
There are two oil fields in my riding and it may well be that I should have provided some ideas by means of private members bills in order to solve some of these problems. I plead guilty if that is the case. I will give some thought to this idea. There does not seem to be many ideas forthcoming from members on the government side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: At the present time I am considering a private members bill in respect of another field. It involves a serious matter. Perhaps while I am considering it I should take a little bit more time and provide the government with suggestions in respect of solutions to this oil problem.
The hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) suggested an immediate problem with which we must deal. One of the reasons it is an immediate problem is that the government has had no policy.
I scold the government for not developing a policy to deal with this problem which now exists.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Perrault).


Some hon. Members:: We don't want Perrault, we want Joe.


Mr. Perrault:: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the opposition will endeavour to develop the virtue of patience and understanding during this debate.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are confusing us, so carry on.


Raymond J. Perrault: No one underestimates the importance of this debate.


An hon. Member:: Don't speak in your usual whisper.


Raymond J. Perrault: This matter is of major concern to government members as well as to the hon. members on the opposition side of the House. All of us are concerned with ownership of industry in Canada now and in years to come. Probably no other subject occupies the mind of the public more than the question of the degree of foreign ownership of Canadian resources and industries which may be desirable.
I am one who believes that every effort must be made to maintain as much Canadian ownership as possible. I endorse some of the constructive statements made by my colleagues in respect of proposed methods to be employed to maintain Canadian ownership.


An hon. Member:: Hip, hip hooray!


Raymond J. Perrault: I have listened with amusement-yes, amazement-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Here it comes now.


Raymond J. Perrault: -to some of the ideas advanced with ardent nationalistic enthusiasm and fervour by our friends opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond J. Perrault: Especially the remarks of certain opposition members from Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: They are the only ones who have spoken.


Raymond J. Perrault: Some have stated with pride that they have oil wells in their constituencies. Almost none of them were brought in under the auspices of the CCF-
February 18, 1971

NDP when that government occupied the seat of power in Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Louder, louder.


Raymond J. Perrault: Both official opposition members and members of the NDP have read to members of this House a stern lecture about the need to protect our resources.
The leader of the NDP said to the House "there can be no excuses . . . we want action. .. .it's not good enough to say we haven't the power". I recall his words when he said to us in a thrilling and stirring appeal to nationalism: "our national resources are important. We can't stand by and watch foreign investors suck all of our resources from us".


An hon. Member:: Amen, amen!


An hon. Member:: Hallelujah!


Raymond J. Perrault: Some hon. members have that prairie fervor tonight, Mr. Speaker. And we on this side want to bring them up the sawdust trail of conversion to our thinking. That is all. The big tent is out. When the Socialist party came to power in Saskatchewan, two major oil companies were engaged in developing oil resources in that province. They had high hopes of spending millions of dollars in order to develop the oil resources of that province.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We want Joe.


Raymond J. Perrault: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 18, 1971
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company


Raymond J. Perrault: We should not be invoking ghosts of the type which our friends on the other side have been invoking this evening. They have been saying the government in some way is going to allow the American bogey man to take over a major Canadian oil company. In actual fact, when they were entrusted with government they negotiated extensively with that same United States industrial power which they so freely criticize.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I insist on hearing Joe.


Raymond J. Perrault: I will not prolong my remarks.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Good.


Raymond J. Perrault: There is much more I could tell about the record, but time does not permit. This is an important debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was.


Raymond J. Perrault: As members of all parties we must act to ensure continuing Canadian ownership of this company. If this means government ownership of the company or government participation in the company-and there are no other alternatives-then I favour consideration being given to these measures and I believe many other members of the House support such action. But let us not cloud the basic issue with the type of spurious comments advanced by some on the other side who suggest that somehow the rumoured sale is linked with the white paper on tax reform or that it is a "sell-out" to United States "interests" and that there is a "plot afoot". Canadians from coast to coast are becoming increasingly concerned about the degree of outside involvement in and ownership of some of our basic industries. This is an important question before us. Let us not cloud it with other spurious considerations.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, we would certainly have liked to have heard the minister, particularly since I am now informed he has already spoken on television about this problem. He has, in fact, acted in complete contempt of your opinion, Mr. Speaker.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Nonsense.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would like to see the
hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) speak from his seat and bring some light on this subject, rather than stand behind the curtain and say "nonsense".
Standing Order 26 reads:
.. .for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration...
On examination of the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), Your Honour decided this matter to be important and urgent, and that it should be brought on for immediate consideration. Yes, members on all sides of the House have demonstrated so far that they would like to see a solution, but the man who has the most information on hand, the man who has all the knowledge of the

dealings, who has been in contact and perhaps acting on behalf of the government, has chosen to remain silent. He can remain silent and sphinx like until six o'clock in the morning.


Mr. Green:: Like Solomon.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, sphinx-like. Solomon spoke and acted. The minister decided to let this debate go forward. We have heard scholarly exercises in economic nationalism, try-outs for a debate next week on the CDC when some people will essay their wings of economic nationalism. A number of proposals have been put forward that the government should act and buy Home Oil. I would simply ask the hon. gentlemen who made that proposal, under what statutory authority would the government do so? What act would allow them to put forward the first dollar to purchase the company as a buyer of last resort? Even if they did suggest that some of the Crown corporations could buy Home Oil, have any of those Crown corporations the legal power to so act?
Second, if any of those Crown corporations have the personnel who know anything and who could act in a managerial capacity, is there authority for those companies to borrow money from the federal government if that were deemed to be the avenue of approach? These are just wild guesses. I would have thought that when the parliamentary secretaries were making this proposal they would have verified whether or not that course would be possible before bringing it forward for serious consideration. This is why perhaps the minister should have been the second person to speak tonight, when he could have given the information and we could have discussed the matter perhaps a little more intelligently than we are doing now.
I must confess that in many instances I am relying on newspaper reports, conjectures, and information that I can gather here and there. But the minister is the man who knows, and I place the full responsibility on him for this continuing debate which has gone far beyond the time that it should because he has refused to say anything Yet, I am told that he has spilled his heart and waxed eloquent before the television cameras. Sure, he had to make the eleven o'clock news; that is why we had these disappearances from the House.
Now, I want to deal with a few of the proposals that have been put forward. The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) spoke about purchase by the government. I ask, where, how, and by whom? Then, the CDC was mentioned. I presume that the hon. members who have referred to CDC tonight have not read the press release and the remarks in print and on television made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in which he said that in no way was this company to be a buyer of last resort. Are they going to tell the Minister of Finance that he was talking through his hat? The minister will surely tell them on Monday that CDC is not established to bail out any organizations that are in some difficulty or under pressure. These are purchases under duress.
February 18, 1971

As a matter of fact, there is a question as to whether there is a binding agreement in existence at present. Only the minister could tell us that. A veil of secrecy has descended to the point where, in fact, Mr. Brown had to commit a technical breach of the SEC regulations by withholding filing for insider trading in buying additional shares of Home Oil. According to the press, he tells us that he was under instructions of the government of Canada, not of the United States, not to make the disclosures and not to speak about his dealings and negotiations. That is something that we want to be cleared up.
Next, I should like to come to the questions which I wish to examine in this particular matter. First, we want to know whether there is a binding contract or a projected sale. If there is a binding contract, then the remarks of the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) in which he deprecated the action of the government with regard to Denison Mines would have full application in this instance. If there were a binding agreement,-was it last week or a month ago that Mr. Brown entered into an option agreement to sell-then there would have been that degree of retroactivity which the parliamentary secretary deprecated and he would have to level the same criticism on the head of the government that he levelled against the Denison deal.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects all members of the House. We have now gone through three hours and ten minutes of debate on this question during which everyone urged the minister to rise and speak. He has remained silent in the House. However, he went on national television and said that a deal is being made and that he is confident that within two weeks an announcement will be made that Home Oil will remain Canadian. He said that there is no fear and no need to worry. Why did he not say so in the House? By appearing on the national network and by ignoring the concern of members of his own party and of every member of the House which has been expressed during the three hours and ten minutes of debate, he has attempted to destroy Parliament. He has sat there like a sphinx, like a mummy. I could use a lot of other words in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) vocabulary, but I am not so well acquainted with them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is one more step in downgrading Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I welcome the intervention of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) because it points out precisely the complaint which I expressed at the beginning. The action of the minister is in contempt of the House and in contempt of you, Sir, because when the matter was put to you this afternoon you judged it to be a matter coming fully within Standing Order 26. Those words were not weighed lightly. Certainly, Your Honour never weighs them lightly. You consider them very carefully, as you should, and today you have done so. Yet, this minister has the ultimate gall
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company to have this House debate the question while he appears on television and spills the beans, tells everyone but this House. Sir, I do not know if there is any purpose in continuing the debate here because of this type of behavior.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Arrogant! Arrogant!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I cannot express in terms that are strong enough my contempt for the minister's action. What is the purpose of such a debate if we get this sort of treatment? I do not know how much the Minister has said. According to the hon. member for Crowfoot, and presumably he has an accurate report, the minister said that the deal is going to take another two weeks and that he is satisfied there is going to be a preservation of some sort of Canadianization, or Canadian quality, or what have you with respect to this company.
We want to know is it actual ownership that is going to be maintained in Canada, or is the operational control going to move to others? Is it the deal that there will be a new board for Cygnus, with four nominees for Mr. Brown and three for Ashland, but the three real operatives being Ashland nominees? Is there a secondary agreement between Mr. Brown and Ashland that he will guarantee delivery at some future time, or within a set period after his death, such shares of Home Oil as will give absolute ownership control to Ashland?
Can the minister tell us what are the obligations of Home Oil under TAPS, the syndicate that is to put a pipeline across Alaska, in which Home Oil has a participating interest? What further obligations has Home Oil got? What is its real interest in Atlantic Richfield? Are the shareholdings of Home Oil in Atlantic Richfield the pot at the end of the rainbow for which Ashland is reaching? What about the remaining 10 per cent that Home Oil has in Trans-Canada Pipe?
I quote from the brief Mr. Brown submitted last June to the Finance Committee examining the white paper, from appendix A-3 to volume 50 of the transcript of evidence, page 198, as follows:
Home is one of the largest shareholders of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. Dividends are now received by Home from Trans-Canada tax free.
Home's investment in Trans-Canada Pipe dates back to 1957 when several large blocks of common shares were bought from non-residents bringing Home's interests to 15.7 per cent of the voting shares of Trans-Canada Pipe. One can readily see that Home's interest was that of a major shareholder. What happens to that interest in this deal? Is that protected in any way? What are the special circumstances surrounding the sale? I am not trying to delve into Mr. Brown's personal matters. It is the tax laws of this country which are at the root of most of the sales of Canadian enterprise to foreigners. We heard a litany of other oil companies apparently recited with glee by hon. members opposite who had forgotten the dates of their acquisition by American companies. But all hon. members know that North Star and Canada Oils were

February 18, 1971
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company sold as the result of the incidence of estate tax and succession duty taxes.
It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is not in the chamber because I could tell him that the government of his province, through punitive succession duty laws, has driven Canadians to dispose of their companies before death or, in the event that they were caught unexpectedly, caused their executors to put up their shares at fire sale prices. The same applies to the level of succession duties in Ontario, and then there is the federal government taxation on top of that. One has only to recall North Star which was absorbed by Shell. The same thing happened to Canadian Oils. I suppose one could say to the provinces that they should not levy succession duties, but they do. They have that right. This is where we, as Canadians, have the wrong end of the stick. We think we can live like the prodigal son off the fat of our endeavours, but far beyond our capacity to produce. We want all sorts of frills, but the economic core of this country must do the producing, and we always seem to bleed that core. My hon. friends to my left would not even want it to live. They would kill it.
This economic core is what provides the money for all the things they ask. Of course, the NDP have a shelf full, a nest full, or a bag full of people who are expert in running all these industries that they want to take over. But we can point to certain examples in Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: What sort of government have you got in Ontario?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They do not have a great number of Crown corporations, but Crown corporations are not a good example when it comes to dealing with labour, or anything like that. I am not going to make myself an apologist for Crown corporations.
Just compare the high incidence of taxation on Canadian corporate earnings as compared with the situation in the United States, the high taxation on dividends in Canada as compared with the situation in the United States, and the unequal tax treatment given investment in resource development programs in Canada as compared with the United States. An American, not even engaged in the oil business, can invest money here in Canada and get full allowance for it, regardless of whether it is his major source of income. But to Canadians we say that it must be their principal business. The result is that Americans have run circles around us.
Let us look at what Mr. Brown had to say about the activities of Home Oil as recorded at page 50:58 of the committee hearings:
During the past ten years we have raised $170 million. I submit this is a real achievement for a company the size of Home, and especially so when one realizes that at the same time it has been possible to retain over 90 per cent of our voting shares in Canada. It is also noteworthy to point out that only 19 per cent of these funds were obtained in Canada under relatively favourable tax rules.
Our ability to raise capital in the future, particularly in Canada, will depend to a great extent on the tax incentives provided both to the industry and to individual investors. The white paper proposals would reduce these important tax incentives to the industry. The proposed investment incentives fail to encourage

high risk investments by Canadians. Preference is given to investment in low risk, well established companies. Resource investments are further penalized by the proposed tax on capital gains, which will have a relatively greater effect on this form of investment. The high rates of tax proposed for the transitional period would drastically reduce investment in the industry at a most critical time. As you know, exploration in Canada is becoming more costly and more risky as we move to the more remote northern regions of Canada.
I know that my time is limited, Mr. Speaker. I hope the House will extend to me the courtesy it extended to other hon. members and allow me to finish. We can see the background to this transaction. I trust that after I sit down the minister will stand up and give us the details of what has happened. Since he was satisfied to go on television and say that he is hopeful about the situation, I trust he will tell the House what the situation is. Then we shall be able to judge whether it is possible, in this particular instance, to salvage a company of this nature. I will not cry about economic nationalism at this time. This is neither the time nor the place to do that. But we must have information if we are to embark upon an intelligent debate, and I think the information has been withheld from the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) has refused to take part in this debate, and since he has shown his contempt for what is going on here by making a statement outside the House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: *

I ask leave, on behalf of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), and as his seconder, to withdraw the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked for leave to withdraw the motion. I am not sure whether he can do that on behalf of the mover of the motion who is not in the House at present.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have his authority.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says that he has the authority and I do not doubt that. It is still somewhat irregular. At the same time, there must be unanimous consent to allow the motion to be witdrawn.


John James Greene: ' No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 18, 1971


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have taken the position on this motion, and if I have erred I apologize to the House, that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: The minister has been here long enough to know that he should not make a statement on television before making a statement to the House.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Arnold Peters: We will not give the minister time to speak now.


An hon. Member:: Why should we?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has the floor on a point of order. Perhaps he should be given an opportunity to express himself.


William Arnold Peters: Let him do it on television.


John James Greene: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, many speakers wished to speak in the debate. The list of speakers was posted. I thought I would show hon. members and the Chair courtesy by listening to those hon. members who wished to speak. This I have done. This evening's debate was most useful. I thought my purpose in the debate would be most usefully served if I replied to hon. members after they had all had a chance to speak.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister should not have spoken on television first. One does not speak on television before addressing the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If nobody seeks the floor, the Chair will assume that the motion has been carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I hoped to wait until all hon. members who wished to speak had spoken. I thought that would be the proper procedure. I think all hon. members of this House are equal. I believe that the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) in his speech referred to the first speaker as the most important speaker. I think all hon. members of this House are equal and I think they all have an equal right to speak.
I ought to explain, with respect to any television appearance I made which appears to concern hon. members, that I stated on television what I stated in this House and what I have stated publicly for some time, namely, that the government is concerned about the ownership of this company remaining Canadian and I am confident that the actions taken by the government and the negotiations taking place with respect to Home Oil will enable Home Oil to remain a Canadian company.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company


John James Greene: I am pleased to see that most if not all hon. members, if I understood their representations correctly, are in favour of the position of the government, namely, that this company should remain a Canadian company and that such action as is necessary should be taken in order to ensure the maintenance of this company as a Canadian company.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John James Greene: Since I was not in the House during the question period today, I understand from reading what is to appear in Hansard that the basis of this motion is a newspaper article which was specifically referred to by the mover of the motion and by many hon. members tonight. The facts in the newspaper article are based on three premises appearing in three different places. The first basis for the article is the wording in the first paragraph. It states, "according to sources in Calgary and Ottawa". That was the first basis. Secondly, it states that an officer of Home Oil, unnamed, was the source of this article. Farther down it states, "according to industry and federal sources." Those are the sources for this article.
It is on such a flimsy basis that this motion is moved. I think hon. members have the responsibility of giving to the Chair their authority; they ought to check their facts in respect of that authority. Frankly, I do not know how hon. members can ask the Chair, on the basis of a newspaper article which is based on three unknown sources, to take up the time of the House with a motion like this.


An hon. Member:: Why did the minister not give us the facts?


John James Greene: The Chair, of course, takes the representations of hon. members as fact. The Chair considers, I suggest, that these facts have been checked. I do not intend to answer allegations contained in a newspaper article; that would constitute a most reprehensible precedent for this House. It would be most reprehensible if under Standing Order 26 a motion could be moved requiring government members to answer allegations contained in a newspaper article. I can say to my hon. friends that there are many inaccuracies in that article and it is unfortunate that they did not see fit to check with me before bringing a motion under Standing Order 26 and taking up important time of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John James Greene: I will now try to answer some of the queries and questions posed by my hon. friends on both sides of the House. 1 wish to point out to hon. members that I cannot, and do not, intend at this time to make a full statement on everything that has gone on with respect to the negotiations concerning Home Oil. I have a very heavy responsibility in this respect, which I am carrying out to the very best of my ability. It is my responsibility to see that this company remains Canadian, which is what hon. members have been urging. I am confident that we shall achieve this result.
3558

February 18, 1971
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company
I have for some months been speaking to and negotiating with various parties, Canadian and non-Canadian, to try to achieve that result. Those negotiations have been confidential. I have treated them as such. I must say that every one of the private parties with whom I have dealt and spoken has dealt with me most honourably and candidly and has maintained, in confidence, the hope that the transaction would be satisfactorily settled. If I am to continue to play a useful part in bringing about the result that hon. members profess to desire, namely, that this company shall remain a Canadian company, the dealings I have had must be maintained on the basis of confidentiality.
I am certain that hon. members are sincerely desirous of achieving the hoped for end result and that they do not wish to play politics with this issue. If they are desirous of the end result, namely, that this company shall be retained as a Canadian company, they will understand the delicacy of my position. When success is achieved, as I hope and believe it will be, with the consent of the parties with whom I have negotiated in good faith and confidence, I shall be able to make to the House as full a statement as possible. But that can only be done with their consent. I hope hon. members will bear with me. I will disclose as much as I can as many facts pertaining to the negotiations as may be disclosed and put on the public record without a breach of confidence. I hope that will assure hon. members who have expressed a very valid concern about this company.
With respect to the questions asked, there are many which I do not think hon. members would want me to deal with at this time. Those on the white paper were forcibly and ably presented, as is always his way, by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). They would be better dealt with when the tax measures come before the House. If I have opportunity to take part in that debate vis-a-vis resources, I will be pleased to try and answer his questions on the white paper at that time.
The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) made a powerful and cogent argument with respect to building a pipeline to Montreal. I can establish very effectively that such a pipeline would not be economical. It would either mean that we would impose higher product prices on the consumers in Montreal, which I do not think the hon. member or his colleagues would want or, alternatively, we would foist upon the people of Canada the cost of a pipeline that is not profitable. If it were profitable under our law, private interests would have made application to the National Energy Board for building such a pipeline. Either the consumers of the Montreal area or the Canadian people as a whole would bear the uneconomic cost of such a pipeline. I do not think it would be in the public interest. This may be a side issue. I am trying to answer some of the direct issues.
The leader of the New Democratic Party made a very strong argument. He has been very keenly interested in this issue from the start. I regret that I have not been able to keep him and others concerned posted on a day-to-day basis with regard to negotiations in respect of my dealings with the private parties who are concerned.

However, I think hon. members will understand that had I done so, my usefulness in bringing Canadian buyers into this picture and hopefully enabling an end result where the company would remain Canadian, would have been at an end. I say with candor and respect that this is not one of those cases where I could keep the House fully informed, though no one respects this House more than I do.


Mr. McKinley:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having been in business for some length of time, I respect what the minister is saying. I agree with him. However, I do not agree that he should have stated over television prior to this time, that it is his intention to keep Home Oil in Canadian hands. That is all I have to say.


John James Greene: If I were in contempt of this House, I can assure hon. members that I would be the first to apologize. I repeated tonight what I stated a week ago Sunday during an interview program. There was nothing new to add. The reporters asked me, as is their way,-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The timing was cute.


John James Greene: 
An hon. Member:: How about the IDB?


John James Greene: A third suggestion made was that Panarctic should acquire this company. Well, only 45 per cent of the shares of Panarctic are government-owned. The other 55 per cent are in the hands of private shareholders. The company has a board of directors which operates independently of government. To the best of my knowledge, and I can say this without disclosing any confidences, the directors have not indicated any interest in Home Oil. I do not know why. I do not believe the government has the right to intimate to Panarctic-


An hon. Member:: It has a 45 per cent right.


John James Greene: It must be permitted to operate with the knowledge of the directors in the best interests of Panarctic. Had they been interested in Home Oil this might have been a possible avenue. However, to date the proceedings have gone in such a direction that I have been confident. I hope my confidence is not misplaced. I do not believe it is. I could be naive but I do not think so in this particular instance. I have been confident from the nature of the discussions I have had both with the vendor, Mr. Brown, with the Ashland Company and with potential Canadian buyers that we can work this out together in confidence, because that is the only way in which such transactions can be carried out, so as to maintain this as a Canadian company without any legislation being passed which has a retroactive aspect to it. That might be necessary if things go wrong, if I turn out to be wrong as an intermediary of the government and as an intermediary, as I understand it, now, for the will of Parliament, because it is quite clear tonight that this Parliament is determined that the company be maintained as a Canadian company. It is quite clear that members here tonight are very determined that this company be maintained as a Canadian company.
I have with me some of the matters which I can disclose. I do not know how helpful they will be to hon. members, but these are pretty well the limits of the areas I can disclose without breaching confidences which have been reposed in me during the course of these negotia-23966-14J
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company tions. I shall give the House some of the facts. Before I do so I think I should clear up the situation about the newspaper article which I think misled some hon. members, though it is difficult to check these things. I think they could have been forewarned by three references in the article to unnamed sources; that should have raised their suspicions. But let me clear up the point for Hansard. I think I have a duty to the House to do this and to put on the record my knowledge of any written agreement or otherwise.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) asked me about an agreement which referred to myself. I know of no such agreement. This agreement also referred to the government preventing the sale which this newspaper article alleges exists. At the time I stated that I knew of no such agreement, but I did know of a document. I am not sure of its legal context, but it was not to the best of my knowledge-I am convinced of this fact- an executed agreement of sale. It was the possibility of a sale, a general agreement that might later be followed by an agreement of sale. I knew of such document-


Stanley Howard Knowles: A letter of intent?


John James Greene: I do not think I would describe it as a letter of intent. I am not sure of the legal definition of a letter of intent. The document to which I was privy was one which stated terms that would form the general basis for an agreement if one were later entered into. It was, if you like, a preliminary agreement. But it certainly cannot have been the one referred to in the article and referred to in the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North, because the document that I saw made no reference to myself and certainly made no reference to the Canadian government having a part in the matter at all. Incidentally, although I was told of the existence of such document as I have described, I did not see it until Friday of last week. I think I can safely disclose this to the House now that some of its terms have been made public. So much for the point with respect to the agreement and Hansard, which I think hon. members have a perfect right to have cleared up.
There are in fact discussions continuing between Mr. R. A. Brown, Jr., of Calgary and Rabsco Investments Limited, a company associated with Mr. Brown, for the sale of their combined holdings totalling in excess of 50 per cent of the class B voting shares of Cygnus Corporation Limited of Calgary. I should like to make clear to the House, within the limits of what I believe to be proper and as maintaining the confidences which have been placed in me, some of the facts of the situation. Firstly, Home Oil Company Limited was incorporated in 1929 under the laws of Canada. It is engaged in exploration for and production and transportation of petroleum, natural gas and associated substances, with assets of approximately $250 million and an annual gross income of approximately $28 million. It is a leading Canadian independent in the petroleum industry, as hon. members made so clear in their presentations tonight.

February 18, 1971
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company
In addition to an active exploration program in western Canada which has resulted in production of approximately 21,000 barrels of oil per day, Home Oil has been active in the United Kingdom, the North Sea, Malta and in Alaska. Home has a large investment in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, representing about 10 per cent of the outstanding shares of that company, and in Atlantic Richfield Company, which, though substantial in amount, do not represent a significant amount of the total shares issued by Atlantic Richfield.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but I must do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister may continue with unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John James Greene: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members for being so patient with me at this late hour. I think that a review of the operations of Home clearly indicate that the views of hon. members as expressed in this House have been very useful. They have been very useful to me and I am sure will be of interest to the government. They are well founded. This is an extremely important company to Canada, and this is an extremely important building block in the oil industry in Canada for the future.
Home Oil Company Limited has two classes of shares outstanding. The class A shares are non-voting under present circumstances. The class B shares are voting stock. There are 4,706,194 class A shares outstanding and 2,295,899 class B shares outstanding, after deducting 275,506 shares held by subsidiaries of Home Oil.
Cygnus Corporation Limited is a holding company incorporated under the laws of Canada in 1964. Simply put, Cygnus holds the controlling block of voting shares of Home, which constitutes one million class B shares of Home, or 43.6 per cent of the class B shares of Home. I am advised that, in the investment community, this is considered to represent effective control of Home. Cygnus Corporation Limited also has class A shares which are non-voting under present circumstances and class B shares which are voting shares. The oustanding class A shares total 1,370,289 and the class B shares total 2,694,374. I am advised that Mr. R. A. Brown, Jr. and his associated company, Rabsco Investments Limited, are the holders of approximately 50.4 per cent of the class B shares of Cygnus. Accordingly, I believe it will be clear to the House that the class B shares of Cygnus control the class B shares of Home Oil, which constitutes effective control of the affairs of Home Oil, and that Mr. R. A. Brown and his associated company, Rabsco Investments Limited, effectively control Cygnus.
All of this has been stated to the House because I want to make it clear at this point that my advice is that Mr. Brown and Rabsco, for reasons of their own-again to the best of my knowledge, and this is not because of any
action of this government, because of any existing tax laws, but for motivations of their own which I do not think are my business, and I have not pried into them and they have not been drawn to my attention as some hon. members across the floor have alleged-have decided that it is in their interests to sell 49 per cent of their holdings of class B shares of Cygnus at this time. I believe this first sale will be made by Mr. Brown, personally.
The decision is to sell the balance of 51 per cent of their holdings at a later time on a formula, however, which would be agreed to at the time of the first sale. While the first stage of the sale might not transfer control from Mr. Brown's hands, thus from Canadian hands to a non-Canadian company, certainly at the time the second sale is effected, control of Cygnus and therefore of Home would pass to the purchaser.
I should like to tell the House that Mr. R. A. Brown, Jr. has had a distinguished business career in the oil industry in Canada and has been one of the leading Canadians active in that industry. Home Oil has had a dramatic growth during his term as head of this company. Mr. Brown has received several honours, including a position for several years on the board of directors of Canadian National Railways and the conferring upon him by the University of Calgary, in his home city, of an honorary doctorate.
In saying that, I say in all sincerity that my position has been to try to achieve the transfer to a Canadian company in accord with Mr. Brown's desires without if possible in any way impairing Mr. Brown's personal position. I think, surely, that was the right approach and the only possible approach. If the worst comes to the worst, then the national interest must be paramount; and if something must be done which impairs Mr. Brown's interest, then that must be, because the national interest must come first. But I had a responsibility, and tried to exercise it, of seeing whether we could make an effective transfer to a Canadian company without impairing Mr. Brown's private right to receive the optimum price for this transfer.
I want the House to know that on my instructions, my deputy minister began to discuss the question of control of Home Oil with Mr. Brown as early as June 21, 1970, and with Mr. Brown's co-operation the government has been kept apprised of Mr. Brown's intentions. There may be an impression in the minds of some hon. members that the men who head some of these giant corporations are somewhat lesser Canadians or are different from us, but I want to emphasize that in these negotiations I have not found such to be the case. Mr. Brown has been sensitive to the national interest to which members have referred today, and wishes to keep this company Canadian if he can possibly do so with justice to his own private interests which he has every right to try to protect.
From the beginning of Mr. Brown's negotiations in respect of the sale of his position in Cygnus he has been aware of the desire of the government that he make a

February 18, 1971

sale to a Canadian purchaser where the terms of the purchase available to him were reasonably competitive with the offer which he might receive from a foreign buyer. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Brown has made and is continuing to make a real effort to find a Canadian buyer on such terms and that at all times he has had such co-operation as I could give him, or which my department could give him, in this pursuit.
I was advised by Mr. Brown that he had entered into a letter of understanding-which was the way it was described to me-with Ashland Oil Incorporated in mid-January which set out the general terms of an agreement which could be entered into with that company. That is the way it was put to me, and 1 have accepted what was told to me completely, because everything that had happened to that date had been told straight and completely to me by all parties concerned.
So this was given to me as an agreement which could be entered into with the Ashland company. The letter made it very clear that that was not an agreement. I did not see any written document until Friday of last week, when I attended at Vancouver for the purpose of trying to help ensure the continuity of this company as a Canadian company. The intention, if the agreement with Ashland was to be proceeded with, was that the parties would enter into what they called a definitive agreement some time later. While that letter has been described to me, as I say at no time had I been in possession of it or seen it. I had not seen it except that time in Vancouver, but I understand a copy of it was made available today to my deputy minister.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) referred to a letter of intent in which my name is mentioned. Again I checked this, and I think I cleared the Hansard record, and I am advised upon further checking that no letter of intent entered into by Mr. Brown or no communication mentioned my name at any time. This is just one of the many misrepresentations in that unfortunate article which may have misled hon. members.
As I advised the House earlier, I was not aware of any documentation which implemented and executed a sale agreement, and to the best of my information and belief there is no such documentation, nor has Mr. Brown and RABSCO entered into a firm and binding agreement of sale at this time.
I said earlier that these negotiations were extremely sensitive, extremely confidential. They involve private rights and very large amounts of money. I have received information from various parties which has been given to me on the understanding that I would not disclose their respective positions, and I feel obliged to honour that undertaking, not only by reason of this transaction but if I am to be useful to the government and to Parliament in my future dealings, it is surely paramount that private persons who deal with me on a confidential basis know that despite the pressures put on me even by Parliament at times to disclose the information, I will maintain the undertaking until I have the authority to release the information to the House.
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company
I can say at this time that Mr. Brown is actively dealing with more than one Canadian company to try to maintain Home Oil as a Canadian company. I advised the House earlier today, and previously, of my position that it is in the interests of Canada to maintain control and majority ownership of Home Oil. I think hon. members unanimously indicated tonight they wished that also. The measures I have taken have been to fully acquaint myself of the facts of Mr. Brown's circumstances and of the Cygnus and Home corporations, to make clear to Mr. Brown the desire of the government that a sale is made to a Canadian buyer, and to actively encourage discussions between Mr. Brown and Canadian buyers which he had indicated were acceptable to him, as well as to attempt to bring him together with such Canadian buyers, if I was able to do so by my own intervention or by the good offices of my department.
As I said, the question is a delicate one regarding the extent to which the government of Canada should interfere with the private affairs of a Canadian citizen because there is an urgent and overriding national interest. There are certainly circumstances in which this is done, such as the ones to which I referred earlier. Certainly, the rights of private property, be it corporate property or real estate or otherwise are not so absolute, as were the rights of private enterprise of yesteryears. That is as it should be in the kind of world in which we live. At the same time, it must be clear that the interests of the private subject have to be considered most carefully, and should not be interfered with lightly or unnecessarily, in justice to the individual concerned. At this point 1 have to state publicly-and I think I should do so in fairness to the parties with whom I have dealt-that I have received the full co-operation of the president of Ashland Oil Incorporated, Mr. Orin Atkins, with respect to this transaction. He also has kept me completely briefed, has honoured any undertaking that he has given to me, and I think I certainly do owe him the courtesy of acknowledging his candour, good will and honesty in his dealings with the Canadian government.
Incidentally, Ashland is an important refiner of Canadian oil in the United States and has an investment of over $100 million in Canadian production. Questions have been raised in the House about a tax advantage under the present rules to a U.S. buyer in the situation of the possible change of control of Home Oil. I want to address myself to that very briefly. It is true as some hon. members, particularly in the official opposition, have alleged, that U.S. companies in certain circumstances can write off their exploration expenditures in Canada from their general income, while Canadian companies are not permitted to write off from Canadian income exploration expenses incurred outside Canada.
[DOT] (Midnight)
There is no doubt in my mind that the oil industry in Canada needs vast sums of capital for its development. Members of the House should indeed pause to consider whether our needs to develop our oil industry are the same as those of the United States and other foreign

February 18, 1971
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company
countries, and whether we should encourage the transfer of capital out of Canada for exploration in other parts of the world. I look forward very much to the discussion on that important issue when the tax reform measures come before the House, because I look upon this matter as important in the future of the Canadian oil industry. I am not presuming to answer the question at this time, Mr. Speaker, because 1 think that would hardly be appropriate.
Finally, I must say to the House that the decision of the government, in the event that there is no Canadian buyer willing to make an offer of approximately the same benefits to Mr. Brown and Rabsco, cannot be communicated this evening. There is no decision yet on what we will do in the event that my confidence in the likely success of these negotiations proves to be misplaced. There may well be necessary action.
Again, I think this debate has been most useful to the government in that regard. It indicates to the government-which is the very function of Parliament-the will of this House and thereby the will of the country. I cannot think of any more useful debate than that which has taken place tonight. I repeat, and I believe, that the procedures have up to now been the right ones. I am confident that they will succeed. If they do not succeed, it may be that harder measures will be required. I hope this will not be the case and I do not believe it will be.
I have tried to disclose to the House, to the best of my ability, anything I thought I could without violating confidences. I apologize to hon. members if they think I should have done this earlier in the evening. I repeat that I thought I should let all hon. members speak and listen to them.


An hon. Member:: You would have saved time.


John James Greene: If that is the case, then on another occasion I will speak early and listen later. But 1 can assure hon. members that it was not done in any spirit of contempt of the House. I thank hon. members for being so patient with me at this late hour.


Max Saltsman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and with the indulgence of the House, may I be permitted to direct a question to the minister?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


John James Greene: If I can answer, I will.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the minister has taken a rather reasonable position tonight. The fuller explanation he has given might have saved our time if given earlier. In his remarks he indicated the dilemma facing us generally with regard to foreign ownership: it is simply that many Canadian companies are worth more to foreign organizations because of the nature of their operations and, in some cases, because of foreign tax laws. But the question I put to the minister is this: Is he not being somewhat unfair in trying to reconcile the private interests with the public interests?
No one wants to disadvantage a private owner, and I am quite sure Mr. Brown has been a good Canadian and

is deserving of all the consideration we can give him. But is it not unfair to leave this state of affairs in limbo without any policy on foreign ownership? Nobody seems to know the rules of the game; this is the reason we are getting into this fix. Has the minister some views on this question? Can he say what he intends to do about it, so that we can avoid such head-on collisions at the last moment, whether with Mr. Brown in the oil field or with Mr. Roman in the uranium field?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very valid question and possibly it is a very valid criticism of the government's actions to date. These are not easy questions of policy. As the hon. member knows, one of my cabinet colleagues is presently undertaking a comprehensive survey and will come up with a policy for the government or for Parliament, I am not sure which. In the meantime, I think that my hon. friend will see the dilemma that I was faced with personally. There is not yet a clear, overt and manifest policy on this issue. When we debate this issue, when we try to arrive at a policy, hon. members will see that this is not an easy subject. We need foreign capital in this country; we all agree on that, I think. We must treat foreign capital fairly and justly, to enable it to obtain a fair return, otherwise it will not come here. How we do this and yet assure a greater and continually improving ownership position for Canadians in Canada will be the challenge we must meet. There is no over-all policy in this field yet; therefore, for the time being, these cases must be dealt with on an ad hoc basis as they come along. I have the responsibility, and if I have interpreted the speeches in the House tonight correctly I have fulfilled my responsibilities as the House would wish me to, of trying to maintain companies that are now Canadian as Canadian companies, pending any resolution of over-all policy with regard to foreign ownership.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, before the minister sits down I wonder whether he would permit a question. I wanted to say how happy I am that the negotiations to which he referred have come along so well. May I say to the minister that although he has hinted the answer on several occasions, he still has not given us any clearcut reply to one important question. It is the absence of this answer that has made the House uneasy about the future of Home Oil and which is the reason for this debate. The question we should like to have answered is this: can the minister guarantee to this House that, whether or not the negotiations on which he is now engaged succeed, Home Oil will remain a Canadian company, under Canadian ownership and Canadian control?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as I tried to indicate at the conclusion of my remarks, in the event that these negotiations about which I am sanguine do not succeed, the government will decide what action should be taken at that time. I cannot guarantee that the negotiations will succeed, of course. Hopefully, we will succeed and I do not think that we ought to look ahead of the event. I have no authority to say to the House what the govern-
February 18, 1971

ment will do in the event that the present procedures, about which I am hopeful, do not succeed.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, will the minister permit a further question. Is he confident that there is enough Canadian financial interest to maintain this company as a Canadian company?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, my confidence is based on the fact that there are Canadian companies which are financially capable of handling this transaction which have manifested a very clear intention in this regard. It is my confident belief that they can be brought together with the vendor, and that the company will remain Canadian.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would permit one more question before he concludes his speech. Before I ask my question, may I be permitted to join with other hon. members in what has been said. We thank the minister for the information he has given to the House tonight. I think an earlier intervention on his part might have avoided some of the irrelevancies which were introduced by hon. members such as the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault). My question is this. The minister indicated that the document that he has seen relating to Mr. Brown and the Ashland Oil Company is not, according to his interpretation, an agreement.
Since he also declined to accept the suggestion that it be termed a letter of intent, can he in fact define the nature of this document, or is it the case that he does not wish to do so at this stage because of the nature of the negotiations? If it has not been determined yet, will the minister undertake to determine how this document may be defined, and inform the House? Does the minister consider that this document in any way limits the action he can take to fulfil the objectives he has stated in keeping this company a Canadian company? Does it limit his power to do so within the scope of the powers now available to him?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not exactly know how to define in legal terms the agreement or document. I have not had it checked by lawyers or anything of this
Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company
nature. I understand it is a document wherein the parties wrote down the general nature of the terms under which they would deal if an agreement could be subsequently entered into. Those are the terms which would be implemented. It was a preliminary agreement. Whether it limits our ability to act in law, I have no legal opinion.
My personal opinion is that it does not limit our ability to act because it is not an executed and binding agreement upon which Parliament could act. Even an executed and binding agreement could be abrogated by Parliament. I do not think this document goes that far. From my discussions to date, I do not think it limits our ability to ensure the end purpose of maintaining Home Oil, at the end of the negotiations, and the ultimate offspring of the negotiations, as a Canadian company.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Is the minister prepared-


Thomas Miller Bell: I object.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising to take part in the debate?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I was wondering if I could address a question to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members realize that the minister has answered a number of questions. I wonder whether we are now exaggerating a little. The minister's time expired a long time ago and he can continue only with the unanimous consent of the House. We do not appear to have that unanimous consent. Procedurally, I think this is a time to suggest that no further questions may be asked.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if that is the position, perhaps in a 30-second intervention I might persuade the House to call it a night. I hope the minister will be able to persuade the government that the message he got from Parliament tonight is one that must be implemented. We want this company to remain Canadian.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 26(13), it appears, and I am so satisfied, that the debate has been concluded. I therefore declare the motion carried.
At 12.16 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, February 19, 1971