1972-06-26

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, notice of which I sent to Your Honour under the provisions of Standing Order 17(2).
Last Thursday mgm, in fact at about two-thirty o'clock on Friday morning, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) made the point that a vote once cast must stand and cannot be changed.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: But I wasn't upheld.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Therefore I should like to draw the attention of Your Honour, the right hon. member for Prince Albert and other members of the House to the fact that as recorded on pages 3433 and 3444 of Hansard for Thursday, June 22, 1972, all of the Progressive Conservatives who were present voted with us against the entire appropriation for the maintenance of the Senate.
I have been trying for a long while to get support for this proposition. I welcome the fact that the Tories have now voted that way. Mind you, I am sorry for the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Deakon) and the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan) because they are recorded as having voted for the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I expect you may tell me that this is an error in Hansard. I certainly do not blame Hansard for any confusion during that long, sad night. But the point I wish to make is that in view of the dictum pronounced the other night by the right hon. member for Prince Albert I assume that the vote of the Official Opposition against the Senate must stand.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member can get any amusement out of that facetious statement, I have no objection. I shall not waffle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My understanding is that the House is to proceed this morning with consideration of the
motions respecting Bill C-201. Perhaps the Chair might make some brief observations in relation to proposed or suggested groupings of some of these motions. I do not expect that all of them will be disposed of this morning, so there will be opportunities during the hours and perhaps days ahead to review possible groupings of these different motions.
In any event, after looking at these motions over the weekend the Chair would like to suggest that motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 21 and 28 be combined for the purpose of debate, and that a division on motion No. 1 would also dispose of the other four motions. These motions appear to relate to the same matter. I think it would be difficult to have different debates on each one of these motions. I would think that one debate could very well cover the field of discussion in relation to Nos. 1, 2, 3, 21 and 28.
The next group would be motions Nos. 4 and 18 which could be combined for the purpose of debate, and a division on motion No. 4 would also dispose of motion No. 18.
Motions Nos. 5 to 9 inclusive might also be combined for the purpose of debate. Motion No. 5 might be disposed of separately. A division on motion No. 6 would also dispose of motions Nos. 7, 8 and 9. I do not think I should attempt to cover the whole field at this time, but perhaps I should at this point refer to motion No. 9. The printed version of this motion is incorrect. The corrected version should read as follows:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended as follows:
In subparagraph 3(3)(c) by substituting the figure 10 per cent for the figure 5 per cent in line 31; and in line 36 by substituting the figure 40 per cent for the figure 20 per cent.
Perhaps we might leave it at that for the moment and review the matter later after we have disposed of some of the motions to which I have alluded. Further groupings might be considered by hon. members in the meantime.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have found some difficulty in relating the amendments as they appear on the notice paper. They obviously relate to lineation and pagination of the reprinted bill, but in the haste of trying to get on with this debate hon. members, unfortunately, have not received the reprinted bill. My staff has been having a terrible time trying to tie in these amendments to the appropriate sections.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the reprinted bill is included in the files that hon. members have at their desks at the present time. Perhaps we might deal only with the first one of the groupings which I think is quite obvious to any hon. member. This would give hon. mem-
3472

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
bers an opportunity to think about the other groupings to which I have referred. In other words, I think there should be no objection to the suggestion that Nos. 1, 2, 3, 21 and 28 be combined for purposes of debate and be the subject on one division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we accept the suggestion that motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 21 and 28 be combined for the purposes of debate. While that debate is going on, Your Honour, we will be able to study the other groupings that Your Honour has suggested. We may agree to them as well but possibly we can defer our acceptance until later.


Mr. Speaker:: A memorandum will be circulated among the House leaders in order that hon. members who are interested may suggest further groupings in advance. These will be proposed from the Chair in due course, but it might give hon. members a chance to look at the different motions and decide whether the groupings suggested by the Chair are logical and acceptable to hon. members.


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the NDP proposes to withdraw any of its amendments in view of the development over the weekend?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-201, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: We will proceed with motion Nos. 1, 2, 3, 21 and 28. Mr. Saltsman, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by inserting the following words after the word "economic" in subsection (1) of clause 2 on line 13 on page 1:
", political and social".
Mr. Burton, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by inserting the following words after the word "Canada" in subsection (1) of clause 2 on line 1 on page 2:
"and is likely to enhance the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment".
Mr. Knight, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by

certain persons, be amended by inserting therein, immediately preceding paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of clause 2 on page 2 the following:
"(a) the likelihood that the acquisition will enhance the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment;"
and by renumbering the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Mr. Knight, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons be amended by inserting the following words after the word "Canada" in clause 9, subsection (1) on line 44 of page 17:
"and is likely to enhance the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment".
Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by inserting the following words after the word "Canada" in subsection (6) of clause 18 on lines 20 and 21 on page 27:
"and is likely to enhance the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment".


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in moving motion No. 1, that the words "political and social" be added following the word "economic" in clause 2, I want to make the point that unless these words are included the bill is a fabce. One of the reasons we are concerned about foreign ownership is that the so-called decisions affecting foreign ownership have been made on purely economic grounds or on what appear to be purely economic grounds.
The argument has always been that foreign ownership makes us richer and therefore, regardless of the consequences for the work structure and regardless of the political costs, it is desirable. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the word "economic" were to stand alone in the preamble outlining the purpose of the bill, we would be right back where we were before except that the government now has legislation to justify doing what it has always done-permit unlimited foreign ownership in Canada. The criteria for permitting foreign ownership must be broader than economic. There are important arguments against foreign ownership on economic grounds alone, but I believe the criteria must go beyond that and so I have put forward this amendment.
We think it is important that this bill receive full debate. It has not received full debate because the government drummed it through the committee. They made no bones about their haste in getting it through the committee and curtailing the number of witnesses to appear there. Their argument was that the bill was so important that it had to be dealt with in that manner. I have not been able to accept that argument, nor have many other people in Canada. In its present form the bill is hardly worth passing; it is meaningless and in some ways it will be a step backward.
In looking at some of the actions that this government has taken regarding foreign ownership let us consider two cases that come to mind. There was the incident involving Denison Mines when the government stepped in-
June 26, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the hon. member proposes to relate his remarks to the motion before the House. The hon. member knows that if we have a general debate on every one of theses 28 or so amendments we will not in that way respect the rules. I would invite hon. members to relate their remarks to the motions actually before the House. If a general debate is to take place it should normally take place on third reading rather than on consideration of individual amendments. I appreciate that the hon. member's amendment is general in nature and perhaps his remarks do in fact relate to this motion, but I feel I should bring this point to the attention of all members at this time.


Max Saltsman: I appreciate your concern, Mr. Speaker, and I want to assure you that I am limiting my remarks to the particular aspect of this amendment. As I proceed I think it will become clear that I am doing so.
If we look at the two cases the government has stepped in to prevent a foreign takeover, Denison Mines and Home Oil, we have to wonder whether, if this legislation had been in force at that time, the government would not have permitted the takeovers rather than stop them. On purely economic grounds, the people who wanted to take over Home Oil could probably have made a very good economic argument on why foreign ownership of the company would be more desirable than Canadian ownership. The reason for prohibiting that takeover was that it had significance in other areas.
If this legislation had been in force the government would have said that the takeover clearly fell within the criteria of the legislation and therefore they were bound by the law and the takeover should be concluded. This is why I say that in some ways this legislation is worse than not having anything at all because the decision that the government had to make in regard to Home Oil was to a large extent a political rather than an economic decision. The nation was upset about the possibility of the last major Canadian oil company falling under foreign ownership. It was not upset about the economic indications alone but rather about the entire range of possibilities involved in such a takeover. The government, subject to this kind of public pressure and public concern, responded in the way it should have responded, namely, with a political act. If it could have hidden behind this kind of legislation, there are grave doubts whether it would have acted as it did.
Again, if we look at the Denison Mines situation, what was the reason for the government prohibiting the takeover of Denison Mines by a foreign investor? Was it an economic argument? I do not think so because the foreign investor could have made an excellent case why Denison would have flourished or sales of uranium might have been greater under foreign than under Canadian ownership. The reason the sale of Denison Mines to foreign ownership was prohibited was largely political rather than economic. I realize that to try to draw a line between economic, social and political considerations is very difficult, but in advocating this position I say that nevertheless these things have to be taken into consideration, and
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
in those cases where the government stepped in they were in fact taken into consideration.
We do not know, even to this date, what the full story of Denison Mines was. We have never really had an explanation from the government of why it stepped in and prohibited the sale, but we can speculate. Suggestions have been made that the reasons were that if it came under foreign ownership perhaps some of our sales to foreign countries would have been affected. Our sales in the United States would have increased but our sales in other countries to which we are trying to sell nuclear reactors might have been affected because of American legislation that would come into play with the foreign owner. The foreign owner would in fact have been subject to the trading with the enemy laws of the United States, and if the countries to which we want to sell uranium were in fact on the prohibited list we could not have sold it. We do not know the full story, but the point is that the government did step in and take some action. If this legislation had been in force and the foreign corporation that wished to take over Denison Mines had come before the government and said, "we in fact conform to virtually every part of this legislation and we are agreeable to going along with your economic criteria", the government might very well have permitted the takeover of Denison Mines.
There is tremendous danger in this legislation which is being advanced before the House as being a step forward, a move in the direction of doing something about foreign ownership, starting with takeovers. It is in fact a menace and could very well provide the government with the excuse it needs to enable more rather than fewer takeovers in Canada. It is for that reason that the terms of reference in the preamble must be enlarged. It is for that reason that we must add "political and social" after "economic". We are in the mess in which we find ourselves today because the government has insisted that we are only making economic judgments. We have the present degree of foreign ownership because the government has been saying that the marketplace will sort it out. We do not want that any more. Unless this legislation provides other criteria, then it is useless and, more than useless, it is dangerous.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), who speaks so ably for the government, may say, as we have said, that the legislation represents an advance, that it is a step forward, although it is not everything he or we would like. On the other hand, he may say-and there have been hints to this effect-that if this legislation is not passed before the adjournment it will be on the opposition's heads. He may say, "Let them answer to the country and explain why this legislation did not pass, even though it is a small step so far as the government is concerned". I wonder whether there is that much brass on the government benches to make that kind of accusation.
On a number of occasions we have raised the matter of the interim problem before the takeover legislation comes into force. After all, foreign ownership and takeovers are not new. This country has been debating the subject for at least 10 to 12 years. The government has shown no fear whatsoever of what may happen during that period of time. Even while this legislation was being discussed there
25319-34J

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
were assurances from the opposite side when some of us raised the question of retroactivity and of what should be done in the interim. We were told that it does not make any difference really because once these companies know that we intend to pass legislation at this time they will hopefully behave accordingly and in the light of the impending legislation.
In the past there has not been any sense of urgency on the part of the government. Why is there this new sense of urgency, why this drumming of the legislation through the committee and now the obvious desire of the government to drum it through the House in a short period of time during a week when many other pieces of legislation are supposed to be considered? The reason is that the government simply does not want any examination of its foreign policy objectives. It does not want any real, significant debate on takeovers and their relationship to foreign ownership in Canada. What it is hoping for is to defuse the entire problem of foreign ownership in this country. It wants to be able to go into an election and say that foreign ownership is no longer an issue, that it has taken care of it and that the legislation is on the books. It is in that context that the legislation is dangerous. The government does not want a debate on foreign ownership; it wants to shove the matter under the rug, to hide it in a closet where no one will see it, and then go on with what it will invent as issues in the election.
Takeovers and foreign ownership in Canada are far too serious a problem to be dismissed in the way the government wants it dismissed. We are not prepared to see it shoved to the side in this way. We think the question is serious enough that those members who have things to say about foreign ownership should say them. We think it is important enough for the debate to continue. After all, there has not been a debate in the House on foreign ownership and on legislation affecting it with the possible exception of some sections in the Bank Act. If this legislation is passed there may not be a debate on foreign ownership in the House or anywhere until an election is called.
Let me raise some of the issues surrounding the question of foreign takeovers that should be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I have to remind the hon. member that as much as possible he should relate his remarks to the amendment before the House which he himself has brought to the attention of the House. I have listened to him closely for a minute or so, more closely than before, and it does appear to me that he is now making a speech which he might have made on second reading or which he might make later on third reading. I think an effort must be made by hon. members not to make general speeches when we have before us a very specific amendment.


Max Saltsman: I want to discuss some of the social implications of foreign takeovers, and I think that this relates directly to the amendment. Let us take the situation of an international corporation that wants to take over effectively in the province of Quebec. Is the government simply going to look at this kind of takeover in economic terms alone, as important as economics are, or will it ask other important questions?

Quebec is moving in the direction of greater reliance on French as the working language of the province. Will the government ask an interantional corporation proposing a takeover what its policy is on language and whether, in Quebec, the working language of that corporation is to be French as it should be? Or will the government say that this is not its concern because the bill deals only with economics, not with the French language or social conditions in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, and therefore the takeover ought to be permitted? If that is the criterion to be used, if that is the way the government is to judge these matters, we are heading for trouble. One cannot separate economic and social conditions in a province. In a poor society where people are on the verge of starvation, economic considerations rule entirely. However, in a society that has achieved some degree of substance the people want something else as well. They consider the quality of life important, as well as the environment. Their social milieu is most important in their eyes. Yet this bill does not consider these areas. This bill, which might be most welcome in some primitive, underdeveloped country, makes no sense in Canada, a country with social and political objectives.
Are we, for instance, to look at a takeover and consider it only on economic grounds if the effect of the takeover might be the raising of consumer prices because of heavy advertising, product differentiation, and so on? Is the government to decide on economic grounds alone? Will the consumer not be considered? Will takeovers be permitted in all cases where it can be shown that a company's operations will be profitable and create employment? If a company involved in a takeover will create pollution through the introduction of certain techniques, will questions not be asked about this? Will the government not ask if the company is prepared to do research in Canada and employ this country's graduates and thus provide for a future Canadian technological capability? Will the government not ask such questions, or will it simply permit takeovers on general economic grounds? I agree it is not always possible to judge the benefits of research in straight economic terms because the implications of research go beyond economics, but how will the government judge in cases like that?
After repeated questioning, members of the government still have not told us clearly how many firms are involved in the United States DISC program, for the very good reason that they do not know. Actually, it seemed that there was no way it could know how many firms are involved. Now the government is undertaking extensive detective work and trying to ferret out those companies which have "shafted it" or double-crossed it. The government is learning who its good corporate friends are. It is watching the situation.
If certain companies attempt to take over Canadian companies, will the government ask them: Will you be applying for DISC, or will you say that in operating in Canada you will not respond to programs like DISC which may shift production from Canada to the United States or some other country? I say this, Mr. Speaker, because other countries besides the United States are involved in programs of this type. DISC, of course, is a
June 26, 1972

purely American program, but other countries have instituted similar programs. What is the point of allowing a takeover on economic grounds which may look advantageous at the time unless the company taking over the Canadian company assures us that it will not respond, in its Canadian operations, to legislation passed in the country in which the parent of the international corporation operates? We must be assured that companies coming to this country will not respond to programs instituted in the United States which might permit them to take advantage of certain tax concessions.
One criterion governing companies that seek to take over Canadian companies must be that they shall obey the laws of Canada only and not the laws of other countries; otherwise we shall, in the future, lose control of our economy and lose our social and political freedom. The bill contains no provisions in this area. The bill does not even touch on it. For instance, how is the government to say to such companies: You must assure us that you will continue your operations in Canada and not transfer them out of the country if any tax benefits under programs like DISC are offered to you?
Will the government look at the history and background of a foreign corporation wanting to take over a Canadian company and assess its labour policies? Many companies in the United States and other parts of the world, including Canada, have been notorious for their terrible labour-management relations. Are we to permit companies like that to operate in Canada without scrutinizing them? Are we to permit companies like that to enter on purely economic grounds? Are we to allow companies to operate in this country if their policies would be reprehensible in our social climate? I am not talking about witch hunts or the John Birch Society, much as I dislike it, or anything like that. I do not know how you can keep people like that out. I am talking about companies of the United States which have adopted anti-trade union or anti-labour stances. Are we to let companies like that operate in Canada when the prevailing sentiment in Canada recognizes the value of trade unions and recognizes that labour-management negotiations in a civilized form ought to be encouraged? Those are the factors we must look at. If we overlook them, we may create an enormous amount of chaos in our society.
The government, however, has a perfect excuse under this legislation if anything goes wrong. It can always say: It is too bad that companies with bad labour-management records have come into this country, but the act does not say anything about it; it only deals with economics and therefore, although we may not like these companies, we cannot do anything about them since we are restricted by the act. Instead of allowing us to develop in freedom, the act will become a sort of strait jacket that the government has voluntarily put on.
At present the government has power to control foreign takeovers. It has exercised these powers. Therefore it must not tell us that if this bill is not passed by the end of the session the responsibility will be on our heads because it has no powers to prevent takeovers. It has prevented them before when a takeover was against the public interest and when there was public pressure to block it. This bill will give the government a beautiful out. It will not
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
need to respond to public opinion or political pressure because it can hide behind this legislation. For example, will the government ask the foreign company to assure the Canadian people that the Trading with the Enemy Act of the United States will not apply to that company's operations in Canada? The government can say that this legislation does not cover matters like that, that it covers takeovers on economic grounds alone, and that therefore a company will be allowed to enter this country if it can show that its operations will be profitable, that it can produce so many gadgets and create more jobs.
The government will be able to say that political considerations do not come under the act. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that political considerations are important and can seriously affect our foreign policy. There is no reason in the world to permit companies coming into Canada to operate under a dual loyalty. Perhaps the primary loyalty of the company may be to that country in which its parent has its head office. But let us make no mistake. The United States Trading with the Enemy Act does not exempt the branch plant of a United States corporation from its provisions. The subsidiary of an American corporation is subject to the provisions of that act and other acts of that type that may be passed by the United States.
It might be argued that there is not a great deal of evidence to indicate that the Trading with the Enemy Act of the United States has seriously inhibited the operations of Canadian branches of foreign corporations, but there is enough evidence to indicate that it has to some extent in the past and may in the future have some very serious effect. Even if the effect is slight, we as a nation should feel insulted to think that for the sake of a takeover and bringing more capital into this country, we are prepared to limit our sovereignty seriously in relation to those with whom we do business, have cultural relationships and normal contact. We should not have to go about the country watching those who are subject to pressure based on political judgments in the United States.
Other problems will arise such as the amalgamation of firms in Canada. In a system like ours the situation is seldom the same from year to year. The number of competitors in industry will vary as technology becomes more and more expensive and as the need for size and skill increases. Mergers will then have to take place. Conversely, as the amount of money that is needed to acquire certain kinds of technology diminishes, some of these corporations should be split into smaller units because it is more economical. These changes have to take place in society. They are not taking place in Canadian society because of American legislation.
American corporations are subject to the Sherman act, the combines legislation of the United States. Even where it appears that some mergers between branch plants of foreign corporations in Canada are desirable, they are afraid to do so. They are not only afraid but they are unable to do so because they are subject to the laws of another country.
When looking at takeovers the government should ask these corporations whether they will willingly agree not to

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
be subject to the Sherman act but will act according to the needs of the Canadian marketplace and the social and political context in which we live. Is the government going to seek these assurances? There is no evidence that they intend to do so. I think the government would be afraid to even raise the question of the Sherman act or other acts of this nature. I see the minister shaking his head to indicate that he is not scared out of his handsome head. He will have an opportunity later to reply in a somewhat more articulate manner. These are the kinds of problems we are going to face if this legislation is passed in this form.
I want to raise one other point. If I do not raise it, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will. Perhaps he will say that we do not have a right to make social and political judgments with regard to takeovers because we do not make social and political judgments with regard to anybody else, and therefore, the takeover people will be subject to all the laws of Canada as they now stand. If the minister implies that, he has his head in the sand. He will in fact be saying that an international corporation responds in the same way as a Canadian-owned corporation, but it does not. An American corporation does not respond in the same way as a Canadian or a German corporation. They have different attitudes and rules. The minister will also be saying that because we have failed to make these kinds of distinctions in our economy we should not only continue this kind of failure but also reinforce it.
We are trying to break away from the failures of the past. We in this country have come to the conclusion that foreign ownership is not the great gift we thought it was originally. We know that it has damaged our economy and has created serious problems for us. This legislation is supposed to deal with that. If it does not, what good is it? It is time we dealt with this situation.
We are asking that an attempt be made to deal with this matter in a realistic way. We suggest that all the necessary criteria of economic, social and political judgments be combined when looking at a takeover. In some ways the minister should welcome this amendment because it is going to be very difficult to separate these things when an economic judgment has to be made. It would be much healthier and much easier for whoever is making this judgment to have the power to look at it in its total context. It might be argued that there is no context and that the government has no program, plan or social objective. To a large extent this is true, but the government knows there are some things in this country that are sociably desirable and wanted by the Canadian people. By accepting this amendment, the minister will have an opportunity to take these things into consideration.
The legislation sets out that the government is going to look at things, but it does not say what they have to do in any specific case. If this legislation is to be effective and have any meaning whatsoever, the entire gamut of Canadian needs has to be taken into account. It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that we urge acceptance of this amendment.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments in support of the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman).

In the past few months I have had occasion to read the two volumes written by Pierre Burton on the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway from east to west. I recommend that during the summer recess the minister find the time to read them. The message that comes across loud and clear in these two superb books is that if the decision to build a railway from Montreal to Vancouver had been made on purely economic grounds the railway would never have been built. If Sir John A. Macdonald and the Conservative Party of Canada had looked at the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway on a purely dollars and cents basis, the railway would not have been built. With a country extending for thousands of miles from east to west, with a very small population huddled close to the United States border, and Toronto, Montreal and even Winnipeg all less than 100 miles from the American border, it is obvious it would have been sensible to build railway connections from Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Winnipeg and Vancouver to the closest cities south of the border. Had Sir John A. Macdonald and the Conservative Party followed the kind of .thinking inherent in the bill before us today drafted by the government, the Canadian Pacific Railway would not have been built. If the CPR had not been built there Would be no Canada today, there would be no Parliament and we would not be meeting here to debate this bill.
Why was the CPR built? As hon. members know, I am not a great supporter of the way in which it was built or of the kind of subsidies which were given in the form of cash and land grants. But the CPR was built, in the end, despite tremendous opposition from certain financial and political interests in this country as a result of the determination of a Conservative government led by Sir John A. Macdonald who had reached the conclusion that a railway was needed if this country were to survive. This decision was made for political and social reasons. It was not made because of economic reasons. If Macdonald had been called upon to decide the issue on the basis of business considerations alone, the railway would never have been built. So I urge the minister to be less partisan, to be less obstinate in his approach to this amendment. Let him not persist in believing that the bill before us is the be all and end all of what is required. Let him consider all the benefits he will derive in the administration of this legislation if he agrees to the amendment my hon. friend has proposed.
Allow me to give two illustrations which will make it clear why I believe the kind of amendment we are proposing is needed. I shall deal first with the Kootenay and Elk Railway in British Columbia. As hon. members know there are tremendous coal deposits in that province. That coal is presently being removed and sold almost exclusively to Japan. It is being hauled over Canadian railway lines to the west coast where it is shipped. It is now proposed by certain financial interests that a line be built, the Kootenay and Elk line, to the United States border so that the coal can be shipped mainly over United States railway systems and through United States territory to Cherry Point.


Mr. Pepin:: Is this on the subject of transportation or takeover?


David Orlikow: The minister must have had a difficult weekend because he is usually intelligent, but his interjections today indicate to me that he has had a rough weekend; he is being as stupid as some of his colleagues usually are.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Orlikow: The minister knows as well as I do that a ruling by the Canadian Transport Commission forbidding such movement was overthrown by the courts. If the bill before us goes through, on what basis can similar operations be prevented? I am sure the people who propose shipment of this coal over United States lines will be able to demonstrate that it would be cheaper to move it over United States railways rather than via the Canadian Pacific or Canadian National. Obviously, if it were not cheaper they would not be proposing this operation. So I suggest to the minister that if there were a clause in the bill giving the government the right to prevent takeovers on political or social grounds he could intervene to ensure that plans such as I have been describing are not carried out.
I say to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Deachman), who is looking askance at me, that he ought to consider these operations in terms of what they would mean if related to job opportunities in British Columbia. Let him remember that not long ago 9 per cent of the labour force in Vancouver was unemployed; there were more unemployed in that city than in Montreal which traditionally has the highest rate of unemployment.
Let me give one other illustration. The hon. member for Waterloo talked about the effects upon United States corporations of legislation such as the Trading with the Enemy Act. It has been frequently suggested that Canadian subsidiaries of United States corporations are not very much influenced by their head offices in the United States. I can think of one case in which such influence could have had a very adverse effect on the people of Canada, particularly those of western Canada.
Several years ago the government of Canada, a Liberal government, made a deal with the Soviet Union agreeing to sell a large quantity of wheat and flour. The Russians then asked that a substantial part of this wheat and flour should be shipped to Cuba instead of being shipped first to the Soviet Union. It so happened, fortunately in one way and unfortunately in another, that there was a substantial overcapacity for flour production in this country at that time. This was the situation: some 80 per cent of the flour production facilities in this country is controlled by United States companies whose head offices are outside the country, and they were forbidden to produce flour for Cuba. Suppose this surplus capacity had not been available. Had this been the case we could not have fulfilled the wishes of the Soviet Union with respect to shipment at a time when we were desperately looking for markets for our wheat and flour.
I suggest to the minister that unless in this legislation there is included a provision such as is proposed by my hon. friend permitting the government to decide the ques-
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
tion of takeovers not simply on the basis of economics but on the basis of political and social requirements we shall be in precisely the same position after this bill has been passed as we are now. The government will have a bill the provisions of which it will be unable to implement in order to prevent takeovers. I predict that this is what will happen. I am very sceptical that, with the present minister and government in office, many questions will be asked or takeovers prevented, though I hope I am wrong and that when the legislation does pass the minister will demonstrate that he is a tiger instead of a pussycat. However, I suggest that if any United States company or company whose headquarters is in some other country considers a takeover really worth while from its point of view, the minister will face the same situation as in the case of the Kootenay and Elk railway which I talked about a few moments ago. If such is the case, the company will be told that under the law a takeover is not permitted. The only reason the minister will have for such decision is that the takeover does not suit the economic interests of this country.
The company in question will then do precisely what the Kootenay and Elk railway did, which is to go to the court.
I am sure that companies like General Motors or some of these multinational giants will have the economic, statistical and financial resources at least to match those of the government of Canada, and they will be able to demonstrate, at least to the satisfaction of the court, that from the point of view of economics, from the point of view of the company itself, from the point of view of the producer and so on, a takeover is a good thing. Under those circumstances the court will probably rule, as it did in the Kootenay and Elk Railway case, that the minister does not have the authority to do what he proposes to do even if he proposes to do it, which I doubt.
Therefore, in all seriousness and in my usual non-partisan way I suggest that the minister agree to the amendment proposed by my colleague which will give him the kind of power he needs if this bill is to enable him to do what he told the people of Canada he wants done.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful for me to say a few words at this point in the discussion to prevent useless interventions.
I presume no one in this House has the monopoly of intelligence, good will or good intentions and, for my part, I do not totally disagree with the intentions or motives which inspire my hon. friends in the presentation of the amendments before the House. We will agree readily on that point.
But an act is not a patriotic oration such as those we hear on St. John the Baptist's Day, nor is it a speech on the Canadian Pacific. It must be characterized by some logic, by well defined objectives, factors or criteria of judgment. In an act, we must also distinguish between what is essential and subordinate. A subordinate matter can be extremely important, but in the context of the provisions, we must grant it less importance than something to which we give priority.

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
It is from that point of view, Mr. Speaker, that the bill now under consideration and more especially clause 2 has a certain logic which I will now try to explain.
There are three concepts which we must bear in mind. First, the concern in Canada. Second, the objectives of the legislation. Third, the factors which must be taken into consideration to assess whether the acquisition of control is acceptable.
Three words, then, should hold our attention: "concern", "objectives" and "factors".
At the beginning of clause 2, it is clearly established that the Canadians, the government and the Parliament of Canada are concerned about the weakness of the effective control of Canadians over their economic environment, owing in part to the considerable foreign investments in Canada.
The economic concern is underlined as the most important. That does not mean that the economic situation does not have political, social and cultural effects which do not also concern us; it is a matter of insisting on what is essential, that is the concern about the economic factor. The other consequences result from it.
In order to underline that, mention has been made here only of the effective control by Canadians of their economic environment, and not of the effective control of their environment politically, socially, culturally, and what have you.
In other words-I know this is all very subtle, but as I am addressing a very sophisticated audience, I do not hesitate to do so-had the concern been essentially political or cultural, a totally different bill might have been put before the house.
And I also stress, particularly for the benefit of my hon. friend from Hamilton-West (Mr. Alexander), the practical difficulty in making the distinction between economic, social and political aspects of such issues, and the danger involved in defining the purpose of the bill as economic, social, cultural and political. There definitely is a danger there. At a certain point of the discussion, the wording now recommended by the hon. member for Hamilton West may have been considered, but the purpose, I repeat again, was to determine what the bill would focus on, and it does emphasize the economic aspect. Political, social, and cultural consequences of the economic situation are not being ignored, but the key point, the emphasis is on the economic aspect.
Why so? For a very practical reason. It is in fact very difficult to determine the social, cultural, and political factors involved in deciding whether a takeover is valid. This could lead to all kinds of considerations quite remote from the main concern as expressed in the bill, which is economic.
The hon. member for Hamilton West did put specific questions. He asked me, for instance, whether research and development will be considered in the decision.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Hamilton West is rising on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am continually hearing the minister refer to the hon. member from Hamilton. I appreciate his ability to recognize my input in this House, but this is not my motion. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal will be expressing his thoughts, but I think the minister should give the credit to the member who has put the motion on the order paper.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, let me say I realize it is very difficult to distinguish between myself and the hon. member for Hamilton West, but I am shorter than he is.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member for Waterloo asked me if the government was going to consider factors like research and development and the Trading with the Enemy Act in an assessment of the significance or otherwise of the benefits for Canadians in a takeover. The answer is, most probably, and certainly in the case of research and development and in the case of the Trading with the Enemy Act because these are essentially economic considerations. There may be a social or cultural aspect to research and development, but basically research and development is an economic matter. There is no doubt about that, and consequently research and development intentions will be factors borne in mind. As a matter of fact, this is indicated as such in Clause 2 (2).
The hon. member brought up a number of other considerations such as language and behaviour of the company in respect of unions. I could mention a number of other such aspects of company behaviour, for example, allowing employees to be candidates in the political arena.
As we leave the more precise economic considerations and indulge in social and economic factors there is much more room for judgment than there is in the straight economic field. Let me give you a straight example. Suppose a possible acquirer has a very bad record for unlawful pollution in France, Germany or anywhere else; then I would think this might become a factor in the analysis.
With regard to language, because of the possible consequences, I would hesitate to consider that sort of thing because it might get us involved in the business of implementing provincial legislation which itself is in the process of debate. I am not giving legal advice because obviously I cannot, but in the case of language I would say to the potential acquirer that if he is going to Quebec he should certainly be aware that the Quebec government and the Quebec population have specific views about the use of the French language in plants. The potential acquirer should be aware of that. I was talking to a new investor yesterday and he was very much aware of it.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister to point out to me which one of the five factors set out in subsection 2 of clause 2 he would use as his authority for dealing with the matter of language as he has just outlined it to the House?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is exactly what I am saying; I am not going to deal with language. I am not going to make it a factor for the allowance or otherwise of a takeover because it is not covered specifically in the factors. That is
June 26, 1972

exactly why we want this bill to concentrate on economic matters and not on social, political or cultural matters. You are making the case for me because language is not covered in the bill.
In order to be practical, if I were involved in this business of screening I would certainly make sure that the company about to proceed to take over was aware that there is discussion and debate and the possibility of some future laws in Quebec about the use of French. As a service, an unpaid one, to the potential acquirer, I would make sure he was aware of these facts. That is why the preoccupation and concern of this bill are couched in economic terms. I am the first one to say that political, social and cultural consequences are not unrelated to the importance of foreign investment in Canada, but that is not the first preoccupation of this bill. I started my remarks by saying that this bill tries to make clear what should be clear.

The second concept I have pinpointed relates to "objectives". The second amendment suggested to us recommends that the main objective be two fold, that is first to aim at profits, "significant benefit" to Canada but also as a second main objective, namely "ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment."
In fact, this amendment would tend to establish a double main objective. First, increased profits for Canada and secondly "ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment".
Mr. Speaker-and as always I am speaking quite frankly-if we consider on the same basis two objectives-that is benefit to Canada and ability of Canadians to control their economy, I think we would create great difficulties.
Why? Because it may very well be that in certain situations, or in a takeover, the ability of Canadians to control their own economy will not be their major concern. I shall give you a concrete example.
Let us consider the case where a foreign-owned company would want to take over a branch of another foreign-owned company in Canada. Following an inspection, or a screening of that take over; we would discover that there are all sorts of advantages, such as, for instance, from the point of view of economic activity, research and development, exports, but, on the other hand, that the increase in Canadian control may very well not be an important gain in this takeover of a branch, a subsidiary already operating in Canada. I hope this is clear enough.
If we accept amendment No. 2, it would become mandatory to show in such a case that there is an increase in the ability of Canadians to control their own economy, and that is not necessarily so. There are others benefits, but that one is not of prime importance.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I cannot admit that the ability of Canadians to control their own economy be considered under this measure as an objective on the same level as the "significant benefit" that would derive for Canada.
I hope I have made myself clear; if not, I would gladly start over again.
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
The third amendment, Mr. Speaker, is a repetition of the second with the difference that here the ability of Canadians to control their own economic environment is taken, not as an objective, as in amendment No. 2, but as one of the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a takeover is acceptable or not. I hope I have made this point clear.
My answer is very simple; it is that this concern is already included in the factors enumerated in clause 2(2) of the bill, and more specifically in subclause (b). Once again, to assess the admissibility of a takeover, to see if it brings about "significant benefit" to Canada, five factors will be taken into account and among these, the one included in subclause (b). It reads:
(b) the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise and in any industry or industries in Canada of which it forms a part;
Let me put this in English now. The suggested amendment says that we should bear in mind the ability or capacity of Canadians to control their own economy. I simply answer that this is already in the bill under clause 2(2)(b) which reads:
the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise and in any industry or industries in Canada of which it forms a part;
So when we look at a potential takeover we will look, among other things-I underline this-at what it will bring in terms of Canadian participation, in terms of Canadian directors, in terms of Canadian management, in terms of Canadian ownership. We will look at all that with respect to the particular takeover and we will look at it-and this is in answer to my friend, the hon. member for Waterloo- in terms of the industrial sector in which that particular takeover is taking place.
In the case which he submitted to us of Denison Mines the screening authority would have looked at the Denison case also in terms of Canadian participation in that sector of the Canadian industry. They would ask themselves: if Denison disappears, what will happen to the Canadian presence in the uranium field?
I do not want to pursue my remark because amendments 21 and 28 are just a continuation of amendments 1, 2 and 3, but let me sum up what I tried to say. I said that we have three concepts here: first, the concern of the population which can be political and social but which is basically economic. The other two considerations follow the economic situation. Second, I said that the objective of this bill is to bring out advantages and benefits which are significant for Canada. The main purpose or an equally direct purpose of this bill is not to enhance the capacity of Canadians to direct their own economy. I believe strongly that the first will help the second, that if you bring about more research and development through a takeover you will enhance the capacity of Canadians to control their economy, but I repeat that this is not the main objective of this bill. I say that I hope this amendment will be defeated. If it were accepted it would create all kinds of difficulties because there are cases when the enhancement of the capacity of Canadians to control their economy cannot

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
and will not be the main preoccupation of those who will have the job of screening takeovers. Third, I said that the very desirable secondary objective submitted in these amendments, that is, the capacity of Canadians to enhance their control over the economy, is already contained in the bill as a factor to be taken into account.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a pity that amendment No. 1 is grouped with amendments 2, 3, 21 and 28. However, that issue has presumably been settled by the Chair. It might have meant that there could have been a different response on the part of my party had amendment No. 1 been separated from amendments 2, 3, 21 and 28.
It seems to me, with great respect, that the NDP is engaged in what I suggest is a futile attempt to breathe life into a rather innocuous bill. The truth is that takeovers represented 15 per cent of Canada's foreign investment in 1968 and 5 per cent in 1969. This is from memory, and memory is often a bad judge. The figures may be reversed, but I am willing to be tested on them. They are trying to tie political and social considerations to a bill which is of such weakness and is so fragile that it cannot, I suggest, withstand this type of major surgery. Furthermore, I really think that it would subject the bill to a constitutional test of very serious implications. It may well be argued, and I suspect it will be by some of my colleagues and the Bar Association, that the amendment would be a major ground for constitutional challenge to the bill itself, but this is not part of my argument at the moment. I do not think we should be mystified by the fact that people want to make amendments and tinker with the bill. After all, the bill was heralded.
The minister made great play of the fact that he is candid. Candour is an estimable quality of the minister, but if he was being totally candid he would admit that after a couple of years of study of the matter of foreign investment out popped this bill, the trumpet sounded, and this was supposed to be the answer. I suggested earlier that the trumpet sound was somewhat uncertain. The NDP, who apparently had an interesting weekend drumming out part of their party, are now engaged in trying to drown out my few remarks by musical interjections. This may be an interesting role for them; I leave it to them. I wonder who had the worst weekend.
I think that in paragraph (e) of subclause 2 of clause 2 the absence of enunciated national and industrial policies for this country also adds to the dilemma we have in debating the bill with any intelligence. Really it is an Alice in Wonderland world. The word which the bill uses is "factors", but we have never heard or been told the essential components of those factors. This makes it rather awkward to have any certainty about the full implications of the bill. I suggest that in trying to sharpen the bill as a weapon in dealing with the whole matter of foreign investment and the control that Canadians obviously want to have over their economic destiny, it is better not to try to make amendments that may go to the very consitutional-ity of the bill itself. Rather, it would be better to oppose motions Nos. 1, 3, 21 and 28, and that is what this party proposes to do.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this is the opening of the debate on the bill following its reference to the committee, and I think it is incumbent upon me to comment upon the committee hearings and upon the reactions of the public to the decision of the committee with respect to receiving representations.
I suggest there has been a totally indecent haste on the part of the government in trying to put the bill through the House. The committee finished its hearings on Thursday, and here we are not much beyond the legal 48 hours discussing the bill at the report stage. Time and time again the briefs from the public indicated they would have preferred more opportunity to comment on a number of questions, but because of the haste with which they had to prepare their briefs they were not in a position to do so. In fact, Mr. Speaker, many organizations must hold national consultations before submitting briefs.
As indicated by my colleague from Fundy-Royal, the government took nigh on two years to come to its conclusion. It issued a form of report, accompanied by a bill, and then immediately jumped in and said: Look, this bill has to be considered right now and passed into law. I think it was silly and irresponsible of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to make such a comment. In fact, I think he went much farther than that. I think he was trying to blackjack the House into a routine consideration of a unilateral step taken by the government when moving into an area that is shared with the provinces. He then made the threat that any disabilities or any consequences of takeovers that might take place between the time he was speaking and when the bill became law would be visited upon the heads of members of this House. That was patent nonsense, Mr. Speaker. It is the type of nonsense the Prime Minister speaks as soon as he steps into the economic area.
This bill goes much beyond the question of so-called takeovers. It provides for a mechanism to screen the acquisition of ownership, to screen even a small percentage of ownership which every witness, outside of government circles, indicated was beyond any question of control. Equally so, Mr. Speaker, the minister's own witnesses indicated that they have not devised the regulations, they have not devised the procedures, and certainly up until the time of the committee hearings they had not chosen the registrar or the review board.
The minister and I may have a difference of opinion about the number of weeks that will pass before this bill becomes law. I point out that it is to come into force not upon assent by Parliament but upon proclamation. It is quite conceivable that two or three months could pass before the bill becomes law. What becomes, then, of those so-called takeovers that take place between the time the House adjourns on June 30, if it does adjourn, and the date the bill becomes law?
When he made his threat the Prime Minister exhibited an abysmal ignorance of the bill or else tried to mislead the public when he made such a statement. That is where I would put it. It was just windowdressing on his part to attempt to show that the government is taking vigorous action on the question of foreign ownership.
June 26, 1972

This bill confuses control and takeovers with the question of ownership. I would commend to the minister and his advisers a very careful study into the performance of foreign-owned firms in Canada, made at the behest of the Canadian-American Committee by a group headed by Professor Safarian of Toronto. This study makes far more sense than the so-called Gray report, or the so-called leaked report of last fall. In my estimation it shows the confusion in the government's mind over ownership and control.
The first amendment proposed by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) deals with much more than mere economic development of the country. I question whether the Parliament of Canada has sufficient jurisdiction, without agreement with the provinces, to move to control provincially incorporated businesses operating strictly within the province of incorporation. I question whether it has jurisdiction to touch a foreign corporation that is registered under the foreign companies act within any province and is limited in its operations to that province. This amendment goes much farther than that and talks about the political and social environment.
Because of the non-performance of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) before the committee, the reactions of the provinces to this bill remain the most sacrosanct state secret. The minister himself indicated that there was a range of opinions but he did not indicate what they were. He said that he intends to have consultations, but what he and his officials consider to be consultations may differ widely from what provincial administrations consider to be consultations. A classic example, which appears in public print, is the attitude of my own province where the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Getty, stated that he is not satisfied with this unilateral action on the part of the government of Canada and that consultation might be information after the event.
There is not the machinery nor is there the personnel available within the government for the purpose of judging the significant economic benefit to Canada of transactions taking place in certain activities. The minister cannot give one instance of any expertise in oil and gas or any part of the petroleum industry. Yet by the very nature of the transactions taking place daily in Alberta, the centre of exploration for and production of oil and gas, which is a highly complex business-


Jean-Luc Pepin: You don't want to build at all.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, that interjection shows the attitude of this government, an attitude reflected from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that if we criticize anything we are against it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was just trying to tease you.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I suggest to the minister that the government has no monopoly on concern about the degree of foreign participation in our industry. Somehow or other they think they are the saviours of the people and pose as knights on white chargers in regard to this subject. We have been at pains to show that there are
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
other ways of achieving this. This bill does not do one blessed thing to enable Canadians to participate more actively in the ownership and control of their industry. There is nothing in it which is designed to encourage Canadians to participate. There is some sort of attempt, as it says, "to maintain effective control over their economic environment". The motion adds the words: "political and social".
I have called into question the jurisdiction of the government to move unilaterally in the matter of the economic environment. Surely it is without question that, if the amendment were to appear in this bill, by tomorrow morning challenges would come from the provinces because we know that many of the provinces put much greater emphasis on the political and social aspects than on the economic. Therefore, in this the New Democratic Party is showing its ambivalence between its traditional wing and its now to be expurgated Waffle. It now wants to set up some sort of economic czardom. They have some sort of fetish that they will have planners, boys in the back room and ivory-tower academics who will handle Canada's economic life through an instrument such as a takeover bill.
I reiterate the concern of my colleague the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) about the grouping of the first amendment with the other four. They are all quite different.


Mr. Deachman:: You didn't do anything about it so don't complain now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Deachman) is well known for speaking from his seat in any discussion of the matter at hand.


Grant Deachman: You are losing the thread of your argument, but go ahead.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In any event, Mr. Speaker, this amendment would extend the considerations that the bill would have. I have queried the present ambit of the bill from its constitutional point of view. This, to me, takes it much further.
I should like to put on record an excerpt from a letter sent to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) by Conwest Exploration Company, Limited, a company owned by Canadians. The letter reads in part:
With respect to companies, our experience, in the Canadian mining industry, is that "effective control" through holdings of issued voting shares varies from company to company. In a company with a large number of shareholders (i.e. in excess of 200 shareholders) and a relatively even distribution of the issued voting shares (i.e. no single shareholder holding more than 1 per cent of such issued shares), effective control might in unusual circumstances be available with as little as 20 per cent of the issued voting shares; whereas in a company which has fewer shareholders effective control would probably require holdings in excess of 35 per cent of the issued voting shares. With respect to companies with a large number of shareholders, we believe that 20 per cent of the issued voting shares would not, in ordinary circumstances, represent effective control and even 30 per cent would be very vulnerable. Therefore the bill should contain realistic percentages with respect to voting rights when dealing with the broad spectrum presumption as to "non-eligible persons".

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act This is an argument that will come ud again, but the question is "effective control over their economic environment". There has been some confusion by the government with regard to the low percentage figure, the threshhold figure of ownership which involves calling into play the machinery under this bill. There is no review process. Even though there may be rebuttable presumptions and so forth, it is still part of the process. I say that there is no way that this bill, with its low threshhold of shareholdings, will have anything to do with the political and social environment. I say that this amendment appearing as No. 1 is meaningless within this bill and unfortunately it has been linked with the others. One could express some sympathy with regard to the second amendment, the substance of which reads as follows:
... and is likely to enhance the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment.
What it boils down to is this: How is one to judge what is of significant benefit to Canada? I maintain, of course, that many transactions of a mutual nature will be affected by this bill. Hopefully, they will continue to take place. If they must meet the standard of significant benefit to Canada as well as those additional standards, requests or amplifications put forward in other amendments, I can only say that the picture will be so materially changed as to suggest that this matter has not been thought through. In my view, the first set of amendments cannot be supported.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I must, first, take note of the comments made by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), who spoke on behalf of his party. At least, he was the first member of his party to speak on this matter in this debate. I lent a sympathetic ear to the remarks he made on the amendments now under consideration which have been moved by members of the New Democratic Party. He suggested that these amendments represent a futile attempt to breathe life into this legislation. I can assure the hon. member that we certainly wrestled with the matter because we think this legislation is so hopeless and so inadequate that it is most difficult to insert meaningful changes into the bill. At the same time, I think this is a most useful exercise because this bill permits us to see whether the government's heart is where its mouth is. I suggest that we must take these amendments most seriously because they will provide some indication whether the government seriously intends to do something under this legislation. If the government is willing to accept the amendments we have put forward it will show us that it is trying to do something beneficial, even though we are dealing with a pretty inadequate piece of legislation.
In commenting on the remarks of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, may I say that if the hon. member really meant what he said, namely, that we should just oppose this legislation even though it is pretty inadequate, his suggestion, the sincerity of which I do not doubt, would have been more appropriate if the members of his party had taken a more vigorous stance on the bill at the second reading stage and previously. I might remind the House that the hon. member's party was unanimous in support-

ing the bill on second reading. It seems to me the hon. member is trying to divert attention from some difficulties existing within the Progressive Conservative party. At the same time, the difficulties and dilemmas of the Progressive Conservative party could not have been more clearly demonstrated than by the speeches of the hon. members for Fundy-Royal and Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). The hon. member for Fundy-Royal presented the "Progressive" point of view and the hon. member for Edmonton West presented the "Conservative" point of view. I can understand why some years ago that party decided to insert "Progressive" into its name and become the Progressive Conservative party. Once again it has demonstrated the sort of stance it has adopted for some years on many issues which have come before the House.
Certainly, this legislation is a futile exercise. I should like to hear the hon. member for Fundy-Royal reconcile his position with the fact that his party has submitted 15 amendments, as listed on the order paper, at the report stage. I also find it somewhat curious that the hon. member, after talking about this futile exercise, should so successfully straddle the fence by saying: We will support one of these amendments but oppose the others that are under consideration at present. His party would oppose the other amendments even though they deal essentially with the same area as the one it supports.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With respect, no, they do not.


John Stratford Burton: The hon. member felt that he ought to support one amendment but oppose the rest. I suggest that shows very curious logic.
In dealing with the amendments before us, the first point that ought to be made clear in the minds of hon. members is that this matter is being approached as a political issue by the government. The government has demonstrated, by the structure of the legislation it seeks to introduce which provides that authority and control with respect to the implementation and administration of this legislation rests not with some board, not with officials, but with the minister, that this is a political matter. It is the minister who is to make the recommendations to the Governor in Council, and it is the Governor in Council that is to make the final decision. Clearly, this is a political matter and will be dealt with in a political way. That is evident from the very basis and structure of the bill the government has presented to the House.
When the minister placed the emphasis, as he did in his speech, on economic considerations, or, rather, on the paramountcy of economic considerations and suggested that that is what this country is all about, I suggest he demonstrated that he does not know the history of Canada and does not know what this country is all about.
I suggest that the amendments now before us are an attempt to give this bill some meaning. We are trying to give some further indication that we, in Canada, are trying to deal with some of the problems that this bill alludes to, certainly in clause 2. However, instead of introducing legislation which is really effective, which really could deal with basic issues, the government, I suggest, has brought in a sterile, impotent eunoch. Having listened to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. June 26, 1972

Pepin), it has become clear to me that this legislation is really a sham and hoax and not an attempt to deal with our difficulties connected with takeovers and the entire issue of foreign ownership, the issue we have been considering for so long. When this bill was being considered by the finance committee-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will note that it is now one o'clock. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk has laid on the table the sixth report of the Clerk of Petitions.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL ISSUE OF BILINGUAL ORDER PAPER

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will notice that a bilingual edition of the order paper in the same style and format as bilingual bills has been placed on their desks in addition to the regular English and French editions.
In line with a suggestion from the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, the Chair will be pleased to hear whether the combined version is more suitable and useful to hon. members than the separate English and French editions. This arrangement will continue for the balance of this session to make it possible to obtain hon. members' views.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third Report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-Mr. Foster.
[Editors Note: For text of above Report, see today's Votes and Proceedings]

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

Mr. Noble: 1.	What progress is the government making towards promoting the development and production of the DHC-7 Stol aircraft?
2.	What is the amount of the government investment in this project?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Negotiations have been conducted by the department with the Havilland Canada Limited covering the complete program for the development to certification of the DHC-7 STOL aircraft. The result of those negotiations remain subject to final approval by the government.
2.	The government's investment to date on the DHC-7 STOL aircraft is $5.73 million.


BILINGUAL POLICY AT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Does the federal government make contributions to national historic buildings in Canada for the purpose of implementing the government's bilingual policy at these national sites?
2.	Did the Charlottetown Confederation Centre approach the federal government for aid in adapting their signs to bilingual ones and, if so, what was the contribution of the federal government to this project?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Secretary of State as follows: 1. All building signs in our National Historic Parks and Sites are fully bilingual. All recent national historic plaques attached to buildings across Canada not owned by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are bilingual. A program is now under way to make all national historic plaques bilingual.
2.	No.


ESTIMATED COST OF ADMINISTERING FAMILY ALLOWANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Robinson: What is the estimated cost of administering the family allowance program in accordance with the selectivity criteria for payments?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: After implementation, the cost of administration of the Family Income Security Plan for one full year is expected to be approximately $17 million. This figure represents 2.1 per cent of anticipated expenditures on FISP benefits to families.


CANADIAN-OWNED PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS
Mr. Rowland: 1.	What percentage of the pharmaceutical manufacturers operating in Canada are Canadian-owned companies?
2.	What percentage of the total volume of prescription drugs used in Canada do Canadian-owned pharmaceutical manufacturers produce?

June 26, 1972
Questions


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: 1. Information gathered under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act indicates that in 1969, the most recent year for which data are available, 33 per cent of all pharmaceutical manufacturers operating in Canada were Canadian owned, accounting for 10 per cent of the industry's assets, and 11 per cent of its sales.
2. Information not available. However, it is estimated that Canadian-owned pharmaceutical manufacturers produce approximately 5 p. cent of the prescription drugs used in Canada.


REGIONAL STATISTICS
Mr. Nystrom: Which department has jurisdiction over the development of regional statistics?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Statistics Canada reports that: Statistics Canada has a responsibility to provide statistics on all aspects of economic and social activities and within the resources available, is developing and producing regional statistics as part of its program.


EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT ACT-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 524-Mr. Mazankowski: (Supplementary) Under the provisions of the Employment Support Act (a) what agricultural commodities received financial assistance (b) what was the amount in lieu of each commodity (c) how were the funds distributed?
Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Under the provisions of the Employment Support Act, assistance is limited to "manufacturers" as defined in Section 2 of this Act. Consequently, agricultural commodities were not supported directly under the Act but only indirectly to the extent that food processors received assistance in respect of their manufacturing activity. Statistics covering the administration of the Act until March 31, 1972, indicate that 64 grants totalling $853,310 for the support of 1308 jobs were approved to firms in the agriculture, fisheries and food products sector of the Canadian manufacturing industry.


BEEF IMPORTS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did Canada import any beef during 1971 and, if so (a) from what countries and in what quantities (b) at what price by grade?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Statistics Canada reports that: (a) The attached table provides data on the import of beef into Canada during 1971 by country of origin, in accordance with the Import Commodity Classification used by Statistics Canada, (b) Statistic Canada does not compile information on imports of beef by grade.

Imports of beef during 1971:
	Quantity	Value
	(cwt.)	($'000)
Beef, fresh or frozen		
United Kingdom	
7	-Australia	
221,911	11,984New Zealand	
611,470	28,237United States	
175,282	16,206T otal	
1,008,670	56,427Cwt.	$'000Veal, fresh or frozen	Australia	
25,679	1,515New Zealand	
228	9United States	
73	17Total	
25,980	1,541Cwt.	$'000Beef, cured	Bahamas	
28	1United States	
121,684	5,733T otal	
121,712	5,734Lb.N.	$'000Beef and veal, canned	United Kingdom	
925,978	309Germany West	
5,125	3Italy	
618,492	557Australia	
1,998,396	967Argentina	
1,220,759	762Brazil	
3,469,984	2,185Paraguay	
1,425,082	882United States	
9,469	5T otal	
9,673,285	5,670


TRANSLATION BUREAU, OTTAWA
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	How many employees work for the government Translation Bureau in Ottawa?
2.	During the past three years how many persons hired by the Translation Bureau were natives of Europe and the Middle East?
3.	Of this total number hired during the past three years, how many have resigned?
4.	How many people are working for the Translation Bureau as editors?
5.	How many people have been hired during the past three years as editors?
6.	What is the salary of an editor?
7.	What is the salary of a translator?
8.	During the years 1968-69-70-71-72, has the Government of Canada granted scholarships for improvement, either directly or indirectly, to subsidize students and to assist certain universities in offering courses in translation and, if so (a) what is the amount of such grants to students (b) what universities received grants and in what amounts?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: In so far as
the department and the Public Service Commission are concerned: 1. Eight hundred and forty.
2. Records in the Public Service Commission are not maintained in such a manner as to permit the capturing of this information.
June 26, 1972

3.	Number of persons who left the TR Group: 1969-1970, 33; 1970-1971, 41; 1971-1972, 37. No statistics are available in this respect for other categories.
4.	One hundred and seven.
5.	Seven persons have been hired during the past three years as editors.
6.	Editors TR 3, $14,001 to $17,501.
7.	Translators: TR 1 $5,960 to $11,900; Translators: TR 2, $11,166 to $14,694.
8.	(a) Amount of grants to students attending courses in translation 1968-1969; Subsistence allowance, $1,900; Tuition fees, $500; 1969-1972: Subsistence allowance, $2,050; Tuition fees $500; (b) Universities and amounts of grants:
Universities		Years		
1968-1969	1969-1970	1970-1971	1971-1972$	$	S	iLaurentian	
Laval	
Montreal	
Ottawa	. 10,000	15,500 4,500	1,000 6,000 17.000 10.000	500 10.500 15.500 7,500


FEDERAL, ASSISTANCE TO &quot;LES CUISINES DE QUEBEC INC.&quot;
Mr. Godin: Has the government ever subsidized Les Cuisines de Quebec Inc. through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and, if so (a) what was the total amount of the grand (b) how many jobs were created (c) is the plant still in operation (d) what is the total staff?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has never offered any assistance to Les Cuisines de Quebec Inc.


AIR DISTANCES AND FARES FROM CANADA TO MILAN, ITALY
Mr. Ryan: 1.	What is the air distance from Montreal to Milan and from Toronto to Milan?
2.	What will be the fare for a single, roundtrip, economy passage in July from Montreal to Milan and from Toronto to Milan via Alitalia?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Montreal to Milan, 3,814 statute miles; Toronto to Milan, 4,129 statute miles.
2. Montreal to Milan Round Trip Economy Normal Fare for travel in July 1972, $670(Can.); Toronto to Milan Round Trip Economy Normal Fare for travel in July 1972 $706(Can.)
Questions SEED POTATOES


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	During the years 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971, what promotion was carried out by the government with respect to the domestic and foreign sale of Canadian seed potatoes?
2.	During the current year, what plans or programs are being instituted for the promotion of the Canadian seed potatoes?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: 1. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce continued an active program of export promotion of Canadian seed potatoes in the years 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971. The principal methods used are technical and promotional trade missions and visits, and testing of Canadian seed potato varieties in foreign countries, (a) In the years mentioned the Department organized incoming potato missions from Rou-mania, Israel and Chile, and an out-going mission to Greece, Cyprus, Spain and Portugal. In the case of Chile, there was an immediate sale of 26,000 tons of potatoes for consumption in that country, with certified seed being shipped to meet Chile's phytosanitary requirements. The mission from Israel and the one to Spain gained access for Canadian seed potatoes, subject to the satisfactory outcome of trials. A second trial planting of Canadian varieties now is underway in Spain following a successful trial in 1971, and it is hoped that commercial sales of Canadian seed will follow. In the fall of 1971 a seed potato expert from the Canada Dept, of Agriculture was sent to Spain to consult with Spanish officials concerning the trials of Canadian varieties. Late in 1971 the Department brought to Canada the chief potato specialist in the Costa Rican government in connection with a plant health problem, with the result that access to that country was preserved for Canadian seed potatoes, (b) Quantities of Canadian seed for trials were sent to a number of established and potential market countries in the years mentioned. They included Italy where Canada must pay for official tests of varieties which we wish approved for planting in that country. Test quantities of seed also were sent to Greece, Israel, Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, Peru, Paraguay and Roumania.
2. The Department's program in 1972 includes efforts to introduce Canadian seed into several new market areas such as the African countries bordering on the Mediterranean, initially by providing seed for test plantings. Tests will continue in the Mediterranean countries mentioned in (a), the Caribbean and South America.
Key officials from the EEC will visit Canada in July to inspect Canada's potato research and plant protection systems. The Department has invited a delegation of potato specialists in the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture to visit Canada in August, to further our efforts to establish a commercial market in that country. The Department has arranged for a seed potato mission from Venezuela, Uruguay, Argentina, all traditional markets for Canadian seed, to visit Canada in September in order to maintain our image in the face of increasing competition from European suppliers.
A Canada Department of Agriculture potato expert visited Cuba in early 1971 at the invitation of the Cuban government, to provide advice on a disease condition in the Cuban potato crop. An exchange of technical visits

June 26, 1972
Questions
with the Cubans now is underway through cooperation of the Canada Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Two Canadian technical experts visited Cuba in May 1972. A Cuban official will spend several weeks in the Maritime potato producing region this summer, and in early 1973 a Canada Department of Agriculture specialist will make a further visit to Cuba. It is expected that this program will do much to maintain Canada's traditional market for seed potatoes in Cuba.
An important part of the continuing program to promote exports of Canadian seed potatoes is to stress the Canada Department of Agriculture's programs of research, plant breeding, inspection and plant health, particularly the Elite Seed program. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will publish an up-dated seed potato booklet later in 1972 which will cover these subjects, and this booklet will be distributed to all countries where there is an existing or potential market for Canadian seed potatoes. The booklet will aid the efforts of Trade Commissioners in posts around the world. They promote Canadian seed potatoes by assisting in gaining
access, by arranging representation for Canadian exporters and by following-up on commercial shipments.


POTATO GRANULES PURCHASES
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	In the years 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971, what amount of potato granules were purchased for food aid programs?
2.	(a) From whom were such granules purchased (b) at what price and in what amounts (c) to whom were they sent and in what amounts?
3.	What plans does the government have for the sale of such granules this year as food aid?
4.	Has the government responded to the request by the Canadian Horticultural Council to undertake an expanded educational program to acquaint countries with the value of potato granules?
Mr. ]. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): I am informed by the Departments of External Affairs and Agriculture as-follows: 1. 2. and 3. See Annex "A" following.
4. No such request received from the Canadian Horticultural Council.


ANNEX &quot;A&quot; POTATO GRANULES
[Stage Direction]
Year	Supplier (Successful Tender)	Value	Tonnage Procured (Metric)	Recipient Country	Tonnage Shipped (Metric)	Remarks1968	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	1969	McCain Ltd., Florenceville, N.B	$435,600.00	1000	Nigeria	1000	Relief Shipment1970	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	1971	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	NU	1972	Carnation Co. Ltd., Carberry, Man	$337,307.20	1814	Lebanon	100	World Food ProgramEgypt	500	Sun-Alta Food Ltd., Taber, Alta	$337,307.20	Pakistan	100	t(Senegal	100	itVauxhaul-Foods Ltd., Vauxhaul, Alta.	$225,202.16	Algeria	400	aChile	32	itMexico	75	itPeru	40	aPhilippines	100	uPhilippines	50	Guyana	24	Philippines	25	Trinidad	19	Barbados	56	Indonesia	.50	Syria	143	Note: Allocation for 1971-72 expended	Prepared by Contracts and Commodities Division
Canadian International Development Agency

Mr. Robinson: Will the government advise if it is considering the purchase of the DHC-7 Quiet STOL Airliner being offered by De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited and the Boeing Company?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The DHC-7 is an aircraft in the initial stages of development. Only when it
is successfully developed and in production can the government consider purchase of such aircraft.


IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD
Mr. Hales: 1. How long is it presently taking in the Toronto area from the time a person applies for a hearing before the Immigration Appeal Board until he is called before the Board?
[Mr. Howard (Okanagan Boundary).)



June 26, 1972

2.	How long would it take referral cases before their appeal is heard?
3.	What does the Department of Manpower and Immigration propose to do in order to rectify this situation?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The Minister of Manpower and Immigration advises that: 1. Other than detainees, it is estimated that the period of time may be from three and a half to four years.
2.	It is understood that this part of the question relates to the inquiry stage of the immigration process. On this basis, there is at the moment a two-year waiting period in Toronto between the time an applicant is found to be unable to qualify for immigrant status on initial assessment and the date a formal immigration inquiry can be convened to examine his case should the applicant choose to pursue this course of action.
3.	The Government is studying various alternatives for amending the Immigration Appeal Board Act with a view to speeding up the appeal process. When a suitable solution is found, appropriate amendments will be placed before the House. In the interim, the Department of Manpower and Immigration is implementing a number of administrative measures aimed at reducing the backlogs, by means of increased resources and streamlining of procedures.


APPLICATION TO CHARTERED BANKS IN NEWFOUNDLAND FOR GUARANTEED LOANS
Mr. Marshall: How many applications were made to the Chartered Banks in the Province of Newfoundland during the period January 1 to March 31, 1972 under (a) Small Businesses Loans Act (b) Fisheries Improvement Loans Act (c) Farm Improvement Loans Act and, in each case of refusal, for what reasons?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister oi Finance):: Under the legislation for these programs the chartered banks and other designated lenders, who have the responsibility for processing applications for loans, are not required to report the number and disposition of applications received but only the number and value of loans made.


CIDA ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR RESEARCH PROJECT ON TRITICALE BREEDING
Mr. Hales: 1.	How much money has been allocated by CIDA to the University of Manitoba and the CIMMYT program?
2.	On what date was it allocated and for what period?
3.	What are the potentials of this program and what will it mean to Canada?
4.	Where is the money for this research being spent and under whose direction is the program being administered?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1 and 2. CIDA has allocated to the Centro Inter-nacional de Majoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT), in Mexico, a grant in the amount of $2,500,000 to support CIMMYT's research project on triticale breeding, together with a further grant in the amount of $750,000 for Canadian research institutions to carry out research projects in the same field. Out of these, $500,000 will go to the Univer-
Questions
sity of Manitoba. The funds have been made available over a period of five years starting in July 1971. As of March 31, 1972, a total of $210,000 has been paid out to CIMMYT and $98,833 to the University of Manitoba.
3. The development of Triticale, a man-made plant from the crossing of wheat and rye has been the subject of pioneering work by plant breeders and scientists at the University of Manitoba over some 15 years. The program should be one of the key factors in the fight against world poverty and hunger.
Triticale has revealed itself to be a source of exceptionally high quality protein. An examination of comparisons below will indicate the potential.
Protein Efficiencies of Selected Sources
Source	Protein
Whole Powdered Eggs	3.50
Powdered Milk	2.70
Wheat (White Flour)	0.59
Triticale (Best to date)	3.46
Triticale (objective)	2.70
The protein efficiency measure gauges the growth induced by a diet based on the plant. It will be noted that lines are now available which come close to the efficiency of whole powdered eggs, the most efficient known source.
As well as the benefits accruing to tropical countries from this research, there are excellent prospects for gains in Canada since triticale may possess some of the rye characteristics of reasonable yields under dry conditions, or in soils and climates, hot or cold, where traditional grains do not now excel. If triticale is proven to have this potential, it will have extra value as human food protein, either directly or through the feeding of animals, in many arid, hot and cold regions of the world. Its use, therefore, as grain or forage in northern regions of Canada would be a most valuable by-product of research.
4.	The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) acts as the principal executing agent on behalf of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) for these programs. Canada has observer status at board meetings of CIMMYT, and Dr. H. Steppler of McDonald College represents CIDA as a member of the IDRC Advisory Panel. Furthermore, Canadians are in charge of the triticale program both in Mexico (Dr. Frank Zielinski) and in Manitoba (Dr. G. Anderson).


CANADIAN EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LOAN TO ISRAEL
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Has the Canadian Export Development Corporation in Ottawa approved a loan or credit to the State of Israel and, if so (a) what is the amount of this loan or credit (b) for what purpose is this loan or credit?
2.	Has the Canadian Export Development Corporation extended a loan or credit to any other Middle East countries?

June 26, 1972
Questions


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Export Development Corporation states: 1. Two loans have been made to the State of Israel; details are as follows:
Both loans are at zero interest, 40 years to pay with a ten year moratorium.


NUMBER OF CANADIANS TRAINED IN GUERILLA WARFARE
[Stage Direction]
Amount	Purpose
$ 2,205,000 To finance the sale of telecommunications equipment by a Canadian exporter.
To finance the sale of steam generators, $15,000,000 equipment and related services by various Canadian exporters.
2. Yes.

Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many producers have applied for reinstatement of their dairy quotas which were lost previously because of their failure to deliver 420 pounds of butterfat, as of May 31,1972?
2.	What is the distribution of applications for reinstatement, by province?
3.	How many applications have been approved, by province?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Reinstatement of dairy quotas was not based on applications from producers. It was based on the records of deliveries by each shipper during the 1971-72 year.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Numbers of reinstated quotas by province are: Prince Edward Island, 73; Nova Scotia, 47; New Brunswick, 76; Quebec, 309; Ontario, 240; Manitoba, 406; Saskatchewan, 1,158; Alberta, 610; British Columbia, 23; Total 2,942.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO NIGERIA
Mr. Godin: Has the government granted a loan recently to Nigeria and, if so (a) in what amount (b) for what term (c) at what rate of interest?


Mitchell William Sharp: Canada has granted two loans to Nigeria and both intergovernmental agreements were signed on April 4 of this year (1972). The first is a program loan in the amount of $5 million Canadian. The purpose is to assist Nigeria with its foreign exchange problems by making available funds which may be used to purchase Canadian goods and services. The only constraint placed on Nigeria is that the goods and services must be of a development nature. The second loan is in the amount of $1 million Canadian to cover the cost of Canadian consulting engineers who are doing the engineering for the extension of the Kainji Hydro-Electric Power Project on the river Niger. Montreal Engineering were awarded the contract.


Mr. Hellyer: Have any Canadians or residents of Canada been trained in guerilla warfare in Jordan or Lebanon in cooperation with the Palestinian Liberation Front and, if so, how many and in what province or provinces do they currently reside?


Mitchell William Sharp: It would not be in the public interest to reveal any information that might be available on this subject.


STE. SCHOLASTIQUE AIRPORT
Mr. Hellyer: Were plans concerning the construction of a terminal building at the Ste. Scholastique airport changed because of unsatisfactory soil conditions and, if so, what was the nature of the problem and the extent of the changes required?


Gérard Duquet: No; plans concerning the construction of a terminal building at the Ste. Scholastique airport were not required to be changed because of soil conditions.


THREE PER CENT PERPETUAL BONDS
Mr. Rynard: 1.	What amount of 3 per cent Perpetual Bonds was outstanding as of December, 1971 and what was the quotation?
2.	What consideration has been, or is being, given to a due date for the 3 per cent Perpetual Bonds?
Hon. )ohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance): 1. As at
December 31, 1971, $55 million perpetual bonds were outstanding; market price $42 per $100 bond.
2. Careful consideration was given to establishing a maturity date on the perpetual bonds prior to September 15, 1966, when the last coupon on the coupon registered bond certificates became payable. The Federal Government has from time to time reviewed its policy with respect to these bonds and does not feel that it is in the country's best interest to redeem or fix a maturity date on these obligations at this time.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Forrestall: By department, has the government any plans to expand office and other floor space either through ownership or leasing in the constituency of Dartmouth-Halifax East in any of the next three years and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) at what annual cost?
Return tabled.
Borrower State of Israel
The Industrial Development Bank of Israel Ltd.
June 26, 1972


PEI-REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CARAGEEN EXTRACTION PLANT
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What requests have been received from the Government of Prince Edward Island for the construction of a carageen extraction plant in that Province?
2.	What has been the response to such requests, if any, from the Government of P.E.I.?
3.	For the past ten years, what is the contribution of the Government of Canada to the Irish moss industry in P.E.I.?
4.	For the past ten years, what has been the annual value of Irish moss harvested in P.E.I.?
5.	To what countries and in what amounts to each country was this harvest sent for final processing?
Return tabled.


NUMBER OF PAPER MILLS IN CANADA
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	How many paper plants are there in Canada and where are they located?
2.	Since 1968, has the government paid any subsidies for (a) the expansion (b) the operation of paper mills in Canada?
3.	How many plants have closed down (a) completely (b) partially?
4.	How many workers have been laid off by paper mills in Canada since 1968 because (a) the plant was closed (b) production had diminished?
r-
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-CONTAGIOUS DISEASES DIVISION
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Does the Contagious Diseases Division of the Health of Animals Branch of the Department of Agriculture have several offices in Quebec and, if so (a) where are they located (b) which area is under the jursidiction of each office (c) who is the officer in charge of each office (d) what are the qualifications required of a primary products inspector in charge of applying regulations in force under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act?
Return tabled.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary question No. 525, asked on April 25, concerning the names of 14 agricultural and livestock firms whose offers to have displays at the Canadian trade fair in Peking in August have been accepted. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would look into this and try to make an answer available this week.


Mr. Bechard:: We shall look into that matter
immediately.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether a meeting is planned in connection with the International Monetary Fund or the Group of Ten following the free floating of the pound and speculation about other possible developments.


John Napier Turner: No Sir, not at the moment.



INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND ARRANGEMENT FOR FIXED RATE OF EXCHANGE-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance what is the attitude of the Government of Canada toward the International Monetary Fund arrangements. What is the attitude of the Government of Canada toward the fixed rate structure, fixed parities, as a basis of international monetary arrangements, subject to whatever reforms he may wish to suggest with regard to the width of bands? Does the government favour the retention of fixed parity rates as a basis for international exchange, reserving its own right, of course, to float the dollar for the time being?


John Napier Turner: That would be our position. We are satisfied with the arrangement made in Washington in December providing for fixed rates of exchange with a 21 per cent margin on either side. We made our position clear at that time, that in view of the particular situation in which Canada found itself we would continue to maintain a floating rate until there was more stability in the international monetary picture.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the further movement away from fixed rates of exchange, with, for example, the British currency floating and rumours about the possibility of others, does the Minister of Finance propose to take any initiative with regard to international monetary arrangements, or does he intend to let nature take its course?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we will take any initiative we can if we think it can be fruitful. At the moment, as I understand it, the foreign ministers and Ministers of Finance of the member countries of the EEC are meeting in Luxembourg and I imagine this will be one of the topics of conversation.
Inauiries of the Ministry PENSIONS

June 26, 1972



CANADA PENSION PLAN-POSSIBLE ACTION TO KEEP IN LINE WITH QUEBEC PLAN

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the serious consequences that will follow if the Canada pension plan and Quebec pension plan get out of line, and in view of the fact that a bill has been tabled in the Quebec National Assembly to amend the Quebec Pension Plan effective in 1973, can the minister say whether he discussed this matter with Mr. Castonguay when he saw him at Quebec City last week end; and would the minister also say what steps the federal government is taking to try to make sure that these two important pieces of legislation remain synchronized?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member may I say that I discussed this whole area with Mr. Castonguay. It is my hope that following our discussion we can get together again, for further discussions about how his proposals with respect to the Quebec pension plan and our proposals with respect to the Canada pension plan can be brought together in order to preserve the uniformity between both acts.



CANADA PENSION PLAN-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES CONCERNING AMENDMENTS-POSSIBLE MEETING ON QUEBEC PLAN

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the minister what serious efforts the government has made to reach agreement with the other nine provinces concerning the amendments to the Canada Pension Plan of which the federal government gave notice in December 1970?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place with the other provinces. In terms of arriving at an early consensus between the provinces I believe this is some time off yet since the matter has not been that high on the priority list of legislation with which the provinces and the federal government have been preoccupied. I see real efforts being made in this direction over the course of the next couple of months stemming from what took place last week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the seriousness of the situation, and particularly in view of the bill that has been tabled at Quebec City, is the minister proposing to call a meeting of the responsible ministers of the other provinces at an early date so this issue may be resolved before there is a divergence?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether a formal meeting is necessary. May I reiterate that we have had intermittent discussions with the provinces on a continuing basis, and we hope to get intensive discussions with all the provinces underway shortly.
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).l



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether in the course of the discussions he was able to reach full agreement with Mr. Castonguay on the question of family allowances?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the discussions with Mr. Castonguay relative to this point indicated that he was considering the whole question of the provincial option, and whether it would be acceptable. He indicated that he will let the federal government have a response when he has had ample opportunity to study the matter further.



PENSIONS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare this simple question. In his discussions with Monsieur Castonguay, was there an understanding between them that the bill tabled in the Quebec House will not be brought to completion until such time as discussions among the federal government and other provinces as well as Quebec have been completed and some arrangement for uniformity across Canada arrived at?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there is no precise understanding along those lines. All I can say is, it is my hope that the bill will not proceed with such haste in the Quebec House that it would preclude discussions of the nature I indicated earlier, allowing sufficient time for both governments to get together in an attempt to preserve uniformity.


David Lewis: You have no assurance?


John Carr Munro: No specific assurance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will return to supplementary questions in a moment, but we should try to complete the first round of questions.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the statements he made over the radio last weekend, to the effect that the improvement in their living standards or the changes Canadians wanted, were not,
June 26, 1972

according to him related to the desired amendments to the constitution, I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman if his comments meant that he did not wish the Canadian constitution to be amended in regard to the provinces?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, not at all. I have indicated very clearly that much effort was made, last year to effectively introduce very important amendments to the constitution, which would have given, for example, a guaranteed official status to French throughout the country together with many other changes we had advocated. However, the hon. member knows that we have not succeeded and that the matter is still in abeyance.


Léonel Beaudoin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the right hon. Prime Minister tell us if he will put forward in the near future a proposal to activate discussions with the provinces in order that all or them accept the official status of both languages in the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have often expressed my view on the subject and the hon. gentleman is perfectly aware of the federal government's position which is that it will be very happy if discussions could resume on the basis of the Victoria charter or on another basis acceptable to Canadians generally. We are waiting particularly for the government of Quebec to suggest ways out of the Victoria deadlock.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In light of the report that the port strike arbitration has apparently hit a snag and the International Longshoremen's Union does not intend to submit its case to arbitration, will the minister now bring us up to date in respect of this latest report?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, there have been no snags in the arbitration proceedings. They begin tomorrow morning. There have been some speculative reports, but I think we should treat them as speculative until the proceedings get underway.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-POSSIBILITY UNION WILL NOT ACCEPT DECISION OF ARBITRATOR-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF SETTLEMENT SOON

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in view of the report that the International Longshoremen's Union will not abide by any decision which comes from the judge, will the minister assure the House now that both parties will go into arbitration with the idea that both parties will accept any decision that is made by the judge?


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, the Maritime Employers' Association has initiated the arbitration proceedings and I
Inquiries of the Ministry
expect the other party to live up to its obligations in the agreement and in the law, to participate in the proceedings; to co-operate and to conform with the result.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the minister has certainly evaded my question for purposes unknown to me. I asked whether, in fact, he could assure the House that both parties to the dispute will abide by the decision handed down by the judge. That is all I am asking.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to the Chair that the hon. member is asking a question in exactly the same terms he used in the first instance.


An hon. Member:: Which the minister ducked.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister does not want to answer that question,-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -and in the light of the fact that it has been reported that this matter will be cleared up in the next two or three days and that the ports will be in a position to move cargo, can the minister assure the House that this is a fact?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North has a supplementary and will be recognized for that purpose.



PENSIONS


David Orlikow: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wish to ask him whether in the intermittent discussions with the provinces, to which he referred earlier, in connection with possible changes in the Canada Pension Plan, he outlined in any detail at all to the nine provinces the kind of amendments to the present Canada Pension Plan about which the federal government has been thinking.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, although I must say that it was not necessary to go into that in any considerable detail. The provincial governments have been aware, since the publication of the white paper some time ago, of the general types of amendments that we would like to see in the Canada Pension Plan and they have been giving them consideration.

June 26, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry TORNADOES
cerning these charges before the present session of this parliament adjourns, hopefully later this week?



MANIWAKI-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS

Mr. T. Lebefvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell the House whether the federal government is prepared to assist the people in Maniwaki who suffered severely, on Saturday, June 24, as a result of a tornado which caused at least two deaths as well as extensive damage?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Pontiac for providing me with a report on what he saw on the site and for giving me notice of his question. I will answer, as in other similar instances, that the federal government is always prepared to discuss the ways in which it might assist the people who suffered from a disaster. Under the law, initiatives must come from the provincial government, then we discuss the way we are going to provide this assistance. I should like to add, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Fortier, from the Canadian Emergency Measures Organization, who will give me further information to complement those given by the hon. member, is already on the site.


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


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might allow the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East to ask his supplementary question.



UNITED STATES-POSSIBLE ASSISTANCE FROM CANADA

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him if he could indicate to the House the extent of the Canadian aid to the victims of floods and other natural disasters in the United States during recent weeks.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a supplementary question. The hon. member will be recognized in a while for the purpose of asking that question if he can wait two or three minutes.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Solicitor General, but in his absence I will direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the allegations by former Corporal J. Ramsay of the RCMP, will the government make a statement on motions con-
[Mr. Munro.l


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not seen these so-called charges, but I will gladly ask the Solicitor General to look into the matter.



INQUIRY AS TO OVERTIME WORK WITHOUT PAY

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Could the Prime Minister tell us whether some members of the RCMP are required to work 300 hours a month or more without any overtime pay or any other recompense such as time off?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly look into the matter of whether the RCMP work harder than Members of Parliament.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in view of the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and his parliamentary secretary who are supposed to be here today. Would the Prime Minister request that the minister responsible make a statement in the House when he returns explaining the purpose of a meeting which is under way now at the Chateau Montebello, also known as the Seigniory Club, which some 40 members of his department are attending and which began with a very lavish cocktail party last night. I wonder if the purpose of this meeting could be explained to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly direct the matter to the attention of the minister, but I am sure this is the kind of question which could be more properly put on the order paper.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in view of the quite adequate facilities provided for this department within Ottawa, would the Prime Minister find out why it was necessary to send these officials, most of whom are working in Ottawa, to such a place, which costs the taxpayers more than $30 a day per person?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair would like to suggest to the hon. member that his supplementary is in the form of an argument. We will now return to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East who has a question related to one asked earlier.
June 26, 1972



UNITED STATES-POSSIBLE ASSISTANCE FROM CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East): Mr. Speaker, since storms Eire all first cousins, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs give an indication of the extent of Canadian aid to United States flood victims?
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I join with sill hon. members in expressing our great sympathy to the people who lost relatives, and who suffered the serious damage that has been done in parts of the United States, but I do not expect the United States government will ask us for help.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. It has to do with the intended closing of the Anglo-Rouyn mine near Lac La Ronge in northern Saskatchewan. The result will be the unemployment of some 250 workers over a period of five or six years. I have to tell him that there are three or four small companies who want to use the facilities of Anglo-Rouyn so that they might continue at least a substantial portion of the employment, but the company is talking down the supports and pit props which will make the mine totally useless unless action is taken. Will he have this matter looked into because I think, if he does, he will preserve the jobs of many who might otherwise be unemployed?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to look into that question and in so doing to draw it to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.



TRANSPORT


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government House leader. Last week the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications brought in a report containing some very important recommendations for future rail passenger service in western Ontario, and in fact for all of Canada. In view of the immediate importance of this report and its recommendations, particularly to western Ontario, and in view of the fact that the House may close on June 30 and not re-open until September 28, what steps is he taking to make it possible to have a debate on this matter in the House before the recess?
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, there is no step that I can take on my own to bring that report forward for discussion.



INDUSTRY


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, to a question which I asked a few days ago to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerning problems with which the employees of the textile industry who want to retire at 55 are confronted the minister told me that that part of the policy concerning textile products is administered by the Minister of Labour, to whom I now direct my question:
Given the very high standards governing pensions for the employees of the textile industry who must retire at age 55, can the hon. minister tell us if he intends to table amendments to the legislation allowing these pensioners to draw their pension without too much trouble?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased indeed to learn of those problems in any specific sense. I have nothing further to say except that I have no specific amendments at present with respect to that bill.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.
Can the minister tell us whether he has met the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to that effect and whether the latter pointed out certain problems?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is out of order.



ELECTIONS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Was a very distinguished and senior member of the Privy Council expressing government policy when he said in Toronto during the weekend that the latest cabinet leak indicates that the government is planning to hold a general election on October 16?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: It is very important-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the question is very important to the hon. member as well as other hon. members, but I am sure that hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings appreciates that the rules do not allow that question in these circumstances.

June 26, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry PENSIONS



CANADA PENSION PLAN-CONTRIBUTIONS BY SELF-EMPLOYED-POSSIBILITY OF RELIEVING PROVISION

Mr. Elmer M. MacKcty (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since self-employed Canadians must pay the entire amount of the Canada Pension Plan contribution as opposed to the situation of those who are not selfemployed who only pay half, I wonder if the minister has given any thought to giving relief to those Canadians in the form of tax credit or deductions?
*	4:	*



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Solicitor General has arrived in the Chamber, I should like to put a question to him, in order to establish the accuracy or otherwise of statements made about the RCMP in the July issue of Maclean's magazine, will the government establish an independent commission of inquiry with the broadest terms of reference that could function in such a way as to fully protect the anonymity and confidences of members and former members of the force?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time my attention is drawn to articles which alternately praise the work of the RCMP to the skies and damn it to Hades. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is an extremely valuable organization, which Canadians recognize as being very honest and very efficient. But it remains a human institution, and my role is to see to it that it really meet the aspirations of Canadians.



POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN FOR MEMBERS OF FORCE-INQUIRY AS TO IMPARTIALITY OF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question. Will the minister and his officials give consideration to establishing some independent body or appointing an individual to act as an ombudsman for members and ex-members of the RCMP and would the minister also examine what, if any, grievance procedures exist in the force and determine how fair and impartial they are?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly look into that suggestion carefully.



ALLEGATIONS BY FORMER CORPORAL RAMSAY CONCERNING ARREST OF INDIANS-POSSIBLE INVESTIGATION

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: A supplementary question to the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious statement made by the ex-corporal that some officers arrested Indian people in order to boost their record-that is the way I think it was phrased-and in view of the fact that this reflects upon many of the Indian people in this country, will the minister investigate this charge to determine whether or not it is valid?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, general critics are the easiest to make. If anyone is aware of any concrete fact, all he has to do is get in touch with me, my door is always open, and we will certainly make an inquiry if on first view there is enough evidence to support the charge.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Solicitor General look at the figures showing the number of people in jail in western Canada and confirm the fact that substantially more than 50 per cent are of Indian descent? Possibly the charges should be looked into very closely.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious problem, which does not only concern police work but should also attract the attention of all scholars on the whole question of sentencing in Canada.



WESTERN PROVINCES STUDY OF MEDICARE COSTS- POSSIBLE FEDERAL PARTICIPATION

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the four western provinces have set up a committee to study and advise on health care costs at the provincial health ministers' level, will the federal department have any direct liaison with this committee?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hope that would be the case. It is normal for the provincial health ministers to request an observer from the federal department and we usually respond by having an observer there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Selkirk has a supplementary to the previous question.
June 26, 1972



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question refers to the same article. In view of the statements made about internal operations of the RCMP, will the minister have a thorough review made of the Commissioner's Standing Orders and other regulations with a view to updating them, particularly those applying to procedures governing the operation of service courts?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Commissioner is doing his work. It is certain that the question of individual rights is obviously important and I shall certainly direct my attention not only to this problem as far as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is concerned, but also to the prisoners' rights in all federal penitentiaries.


Douglas Charles Rowland: I should like to ask the minister if he can at least assure the House that he will be looking into the charges made in this article and making some sort of inquiry to test their validity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member is now asking the question which was asked by one of his colleagues in the first instance.



ALLEGATIONS BY FORMER CORPORAL RAMSAY-POSSIBLE INQUIRY

David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and may I put it to the minister this way? Taking for granted the minister's statement that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a very efficient and desirable force in Canada and in view of the fact that the article referred to contains considerable opprobrium against that force, may I ask the minister first, whether he has read the article and second, whether he intends to take any steps to clear the RCMP of the charges found in that article?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have not read that article, but I intend to do so if time permits. On the other hand, I was clearly told that the allegations were couched in general terms.
Therefore, as I said a while ago, until my attention is drawn to specific cases, I do not intend to initiate procedures after articles published in the newspapers. Anyhow, I am aware that problems exist within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as within any other human organization but I did not wait to read the article in the publication referred to by the hon. member before dealing with the matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ALLEGATIONS BY FORMER CORPORAL RAMSAY- CONSULTATION WITH MINISTER BEFORE STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONER

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ]. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert): A supplementary question. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether the Commissioner of the RCMP consulted with him before making the statement that he did regarding that article, since I recall that when the Commissioner made a statement about Communists being in Ottawa when the Chinese Embassy was opened, the Prime Minister admonished him and said that Commissioners should not make statements!
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if that question was too long, I should like to ask a shorter edition. Was the minister consulted by the Commissioner with respect to this article which he has not had time to read, busy as he is, before the Commissioner made the statement?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Commissioner has given no press conference, but he told me that he made some remarks to a reporter before reading the article in question. This means that he himself does not always have time to read the papers. Thereafter, for a second time, he made comments to a reporter. That is all.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister tried to destroy the Mounted Police, now he is trying to discredit them.



FINANCE


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who, with his department, is to confer with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association about the application of the corporate tax cut in the manufacturing and processing industries. I wonder if the minister could inform the House if other associations and groups will be conferred with, likewise.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am not conferring with the Canadian Manufacturers Association about the tax cuts.
3496
Inquiries of the Ministry PENSIONS

June 26, 19*72



CANADA PENSION PLAN-PROPOSED HIGHER RATE OF ESCALATION UNDER QUEBEC PLAN-CONSULTATION WITH OTHER PROVINCES

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might put another question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning the proposed amendments to the Quebec Pension Plan which were indicated the other day by Mr. Castonguay. Since one of the proposed amendments calls for a higher rate of escalation of benefits under the plan, will the federal government add that question to the list of those being discussed with the provinces concerning amendments to the Canada Pension Plan?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, yes, that will be an appropriate item to add to the list.



INQUIRY AS TO RESUMPTION OF DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It is with regard to the trade discussions between Canada and the United States. Can the Prime Minister inform the House if there has been any resumption of the discussion of the differences between the two countries relating to the Auto Pact and other matters. Now that the Government of Canada has completed its review, are any renewed discussions under way?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, they are not under way at my level, but I would need to refer the question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in order to see if any of his officials have been meeting.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the damage which will result to the excellent research work of the Dominion Radio Astro-physical Observatory near Penticton if a certain land development project in the area proceeds, may I ask the minister what steps, if any, his department has taken to protect this important aspect of Canadian research?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that that type of question ought normally to be placed on the order paper. I appreciate that there is a possibility of adjourning later this week. There is also the possibility that this question might be considered at the time of adjournment.


Randolph Harding: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think this matter is rather important and urgent. If steps are not taken at once, the outstanding research work of this station will be lost and I submit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. That is why the rules are framed in their present form. If the hon. member thinks the matter is urgent, he is given the chance to discuss it later on the same day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, when Your Honour calls orders of the day, I wonder if, as the first item of business, we might deal with the ways and means motions on the order paper before going on with the takeover bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair might recognize the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley before calling orders of the day.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In view of the minister's own statement with regard to the wealth on Canada's offshore ocean floor, is he prepared to recommend that a new government department be organized in order to develop this very important resource?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act.
John Napier Turner: That a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, laid upon the Table, Monday, May 8, 1972, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a Ways and Means motion to amend the income tax application rules, 1971.
June 26, 1972
John Napier Turner: That a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971, laid upon the Table, Monday, May 8,1972, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act.
John Napier Turner: That a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, laid upon the Table, Monday, May 8, 1972, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a Ways and Means motion to amend Part IV of Chapter 63 of the Statutes of 1970-71-72.
John Napier Turner: That a Ways and Means motion to amend Part IV of Chapter 63 of the Statutes of 1970-71-72, laid upon the Table, Monday, May 8, 1972, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Napier Turner: that Bill C-222, to amend the Statute Law Relating to Income Tax, be read the first time and ordered to be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
John Napier Turner: that Bill C-223, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the first time and ordered to be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
John Napier Turner: that Bill C-224, to amend the Customs Tariff be read the first time and ordered to be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Foreign Takeovers Review Act FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-201, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 21 and 28.
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the amendments now before the House, we must bear in mind that many Canadians view this bill as mocking Canadian nationhood. This is the type of measure which is bound to create confusion, misunderstanding and resentment among Canadians. Many also hold the view that the bill places Canadian nationhood in jeopardy, and that Canadians have the right to expect more forthright leadership from the government than has been demonstrated in this legislation. The view is widely held that the government is obligated to show more effective leadership and that, in this legislation, the government ought to demonstrate greater determination and greater will to do something concrete to solve some of the problems this country faces. For that reason I think it is important for us to consider these amendments seriously. If the government were to accept them, it would show that it is willing to be helpful, despite the inadequacies of the legislation it has presented to the House.
Some of the amendments now being debated were considered when the bill was before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I was somewhat concerned, because a railroading job was done in putting that bill through committee. Hearings on this important legislation were limited, as was the number of witnesses called. The public was not invited to submit briefs or submissions. It is true that some uninvited briefs were submitted. These, however, came from people who had a particular area of interest to protect and who represented a particular point of view.
The amendments the government presented to the committee further watered down this legislation For that reason I feel our amendments are important, since they would give some thrust to the bill which is not now present in it. We listened to the minister's technical explanations as he tried to fight his way out of the woods. In dealing with the intricacies of the legislation, the minister seemed to be unable to see the forest for the trees. He was so concerned about giving technical explanations that, I think, he lost sight of the true purpose of the bill and of those issues with which our amendments deal.
I listened carefully to the comments of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) when he spoke on the amendments now before us. He dealt particularly with the structure of clause 2 of the bill. He outlined carefully his concepts concerning clause 2 of the bill; three of the amendments now before us deal with clause 2 of the bill, Mr. Speaker. The minister presented the point of view that the structure of this particular clause represented a logical buildup. He went on to outline it in some detail. What he forgot to tell us about was the big letdown at the end. He presented the logical build-
25319- 35S

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act up as he saw it, that the first part of the clause deals with concerns, the second with objectives and the third with factors to be taken into account. It so happens that the first three amendments under consideration this afternoon deal with each of those areas.
The minister suggested that among the concerns expressed in clause 2, economic considerations were central, and certain other consequential considerations, although not spelled out in the bill, flowed from there. We should note carefully this particular part of the clause. What this clause says, and I am paraphrasing, is that this bill recognizes that the extent to which control of Canadian industry, trade and commerce has been acquired by persons other than Canadians, thereby affecting the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment, has become a matter of national concern. The minister is stating the reason this legislation is being enacted is that there is national concern about this question.
The bill does not express any view as to whether Parliament or the government considers there is a cause for concern. It simply states that this measure is being enacted in response to a national concern about a problem and, therefore, the government has to do something about it. It goes on to say that the concern involves the ability of Canadians to maintain control over their economic environment. Here, we have one of the basic fallacies of the bill. One of the basic fallacies of the minister's presentation this morning was that he dealt solely, as does the bill, with economic considerations.
I am not one to under-rate the importance of economic considerations. After all, I am something of an economist by profession. I certainly stand by my profession, and I stand by the approach we have to use in doing our work. However, the minister has some other viewpoint about the paramountcy of economic considerations because he suggests that economic considerations can be described in more precise terms than political and social factors. On occasion in this House the hon. member for Essex-Wind-sor (Mr. Whelan) has expressed the view that if you get two economists together, they will each express a different point of view. I have taken issue with the hon. member's comment. At the same time, however, I think it is a fact that in dealing with economic considerations you have to make judgments, just as you do when you are dealing with political and social considerations. That is the first fallacy.
The second fallacy that has to be dealt with is that the manner in which this bill has been presented places economic considerations before all other considerations. I suggest that economic considerations do not come first. They do not come first within the milieu of Canadian society. The fact is, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), if economic considerations held sway, we would never have had a Canadian nation or any of the benefits we have at the present time. If we allowed economic considerations to hold sway over social factors, many items of legislation passed by this Parliament and provincial legislatures throughout the years would never have seen the light of day.

On the language question, the minister tried to make a case of some kind. I must confess that at first I did not correctly understand his reasoning and, therefore, I asked him a question. The minister stated that we can always make some comments to firms which are going to acquire Canadian firms, such as pointing out to them our language laws. The minister said that we could point out to firms intending to locate in Quebec or some other place that they must take these things into account. He said we do not want such a provision in any legislation, but he would make a firm aware of the situation. Is this not an example of pressure being exerted by the minister? As he admitted, there is no basis in the legislation for doing this, but nevertheless he is going to do it. In a number of instances recently, the government has done exactly what is intended to be done under this legislation.
It is very important that we give consideration to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) in which he attempts to change the description of the concern of the Canadian people so that it will read "the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic, political and social environment" rather than "the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment". I suggest the amendment more accurately describes the concern of the Canadian people at the present time. People are concerned about what is happening to our nation and to our society.
If the minister insists on retaining this description, it will be totally inadequate. It will be just one more factor that will lead to the disillusionment of the public with this legislation. The minister went on to state what he considered to be the objective of this legislation as expressed in clause 2. He pointed out that the present wording of clause 2 gives the authority to ensure that business enterprises acquired by persons other than Canadians will be assessed in such terms that the acquisition of such control is likely to be of significant benefit to Canada. The minister pointed out that the addition of the amendment I moved would place a double objective in the clause. He suggested that somehow or other these objectives would be inconsistent in that they would make it mandatory to consider the whole question of whether or not the acquisition of a particular firm would be likely to enhance the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment. The minister is exactly right. However, I suggest that the minister's logic breaks down at this point.
When the minister suggests that the spelling out of the objective of this legislation is contained in the last part of clause 2(1) dealing with the assessment of the benefit to Canadians, he does not carry through the outline contained in the first part of subclause (1) in which it is maintained that a concern of Canadians is the ability to maintain effective control over their economic environment. The minister's logic breaks down at that point.
The second part of subclause (1) is not consistent with the first part of the subclause which spells out the concern of the Canadian people. Of course, that is contingent upon subclause (2) which sets out the factors that are to be taken into account when dealing with this assessment. The minister made a couple of points here. First, he
June 26, 1972

suggested that this was inconsistent with the subamendment I moved because it was simply made one of the factors to be considered. If this is of concern to the minister, I would be quite happy to agree to a subamendment which would insert that particular wording in the preamble to subclause (2) rather than making it a separate paragraph.
The second point made by the minister was that this is really redundant because it simply deals with the point that is made in the subclause (2)(b). He quoted paragraph (b) which reads:
the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise and in any industry or industries in Canada of which it forms a part;
These are factors which are to be taken into account by the minister. But the wording does not spell out in what way the minister is to take these things into account. Proof of this contention can be found by reading the committee proceedings, I asked the minister questions about paragraph (d) which states that a further factor to be taken into account was the effect of an acquisition on competition within any industry or industries in Canada. The minister confirmed my impression that the paragraph did not state, in one way or another, how the minister was to carry out his assessment. In some cases he might be inclined to disapprove an acquisition because it increased competition; in other cases he might be inclined to disapprove it because it would have an opposite effect. I believe the same considerations apply to paragraph (b). This is why it is important that the new paragraph proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) be inserted in subsection (2) setting out the factors to be taken into account by the minister when assessing a possible acquisition.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to accept this amendment because I feel it would materially increase the power of the minister to intervene in cases of take-overs. It goes far beyond anything outlined in the bill.
It is said that the bill before us would affect only 10 to 15 per cent of foreign investment in Canada involved in take-over operations. I suggest, though, that it is the beginning of a complete survey of all foreign investment here. Otherwise, why are the limits set so low, $250,000 worth of assets and gross revenue not exceeding $3 million. That amount of assets would be owned by any goodsized gravel company, along with the mortgage. It is set very low. All these companies of relatively small size will be involved in bringing their cases before the tribunal. Moreover, the proposals before us could easily be extended to encompass all the companies which might be concerned with take-over arrangements. If this further responsibility of considering the social and political implications of a take-over were added to the already onerous task of the tribunal, its members would require the wisdom of a Solomon. An almost impossible situation would be created.
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
Consider the case of a company which is connected with a particular aspect of Canadian life. Suppose it had been started by Canadians and foreign interests had bought in at some time to the extent of 5 per cent, which would represent an insignificant degree of economic penetration. At some time in its history it is likely that this company would be scrutinized by the minister and by his tribunal. I suggest it would be almost impossible for the tribunal, after an examination which is bound to be superficial in character, to decide whether a take-over would be beneficial to Canada. The technological aspect is obviously an important one, and the tribunal would have to ask itself what was likely to be the outcome of technological innovation. It might turn out that the change would produce insignificant results, or an unremarkable product. On the other hand, the product might be destined to take an important place on the industrial scene. So the picture before the tribunal is already complex and obscure. In these circumstances it would be most unwise to ask that body to take into account political and social desirability as well as the other factors.
I contend that the bill would make the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) a minor Caesar in the field of takeovers. We are already faced in this country by problems arising from regional differences. I call attention to a number of actions which have been taken in the last two or three years, entirely political in their nature and motivation. For example, there was the movement of Air Canada from Winnipeg to Montreal. Air Canada can obviously operate in almost any large city in Canada, but the operation was moved to Montreal on the ground that this was the most suitable centre for its activities. Yet we are all aware that if a move from Winnipeg was contemplated the logical place to go was Toronto. Then, there is Ste. Scholastique airport, a large and expensive airport which is already showing signs of being a white elephant. Presumably, it has not been located in such a way as to serve as many people as it should be serving. Consider western freight rates in the light of the extended hearings on rapeseed traffic. There can be no doubt that manufacturers in the east are being protected by the freight rate structure.
The proposal that the tribunal should become involved in what are essentially political and social decisions appears to ignore the unhappy experiences which have so often been the consequence of such decisions in the past. In a country as diverse and widespread as Canada there will always be decisions to be taken on a political basis. There is no reason, however, to compound what is already an unpleasant if necessary aspect of Canadian life by inserting a requirement, such as the one specified by the hon. member, into the piece of legislation before us.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak on this motion. It is of real importance to the Canadian economy. I am always impressed by the minister's charm in the committee and in the House, but I am never impressed by his logic. The amendments I am proposing are designed at least to insert a tooth in the jaws of this toothless legislation so that the bill can chew some of the meat of the issues. The minister in charge does not seem to see it that way. He has indicated that amendments Nos. 3 and 21 in my name are already cov-

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
ered by clause 2, and he quoted the clause dealing with participation.
I understand that lawyers in Toronto have been having parties at which they laugh about who is going to be appointed to the boards of directors of Canadian corporations and who are to act as token representatives. My amendments are, as I have said, an attempt to insert a tooth in the jaws of this legislation, and I am sure that the minister was not shocked at their wording since it is taken from the principles contained in the bill. Having outlined the principles of the bill, they should at least be embraced in the criteria set forth in clause 2. However, in view of the statements made by the minister, both in committee and outside the House, I am sure he is not too concerned with trying to strengthen the legislation.
On looking through the amendments proposed by others in addition to my colleagues and myself, it is of interest to see those that will be accepted. The government's amendments reflect the concern of private industry, the Investment Dealers Association, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Bankers Association. But not one amendment on the order paper deals with the lack of direction I have outlined or with the kinds of proposals put forward by the Committee for an Independent Canada. Not one motion moved by the members of the New Democratic Party was accepted in committee. The only motions accepted by the minister and the government were those that eroded what little effect the legislation is going to have.
My amendments would be at variance with the opinions expressed by the Canadian Manufacturers Association; at least I would hope they would. Let me inform the House what that association said about the amendments and about the bill. They polled their membership before drawing up their brief and concluded as follows:
We believe the policy expressed by Bill C-201, namely that foreign takeovers should be reviewed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, subject to approval by cabinet, is moderate.
Hence, I have introduced my amendments. Whom does the Canadian Manufacturers Association represent in the Dominion of Canada? At least 60 per cent of the investment in that sector of industry is foreign. In the neighbourhood of 60 per cent of the firms are foreign controlled, and those firms find this bill moderate, not worth worrying about. In 1968 one-third of the increase in direct foreign investment, namely $1,835 million, was in the manufacturing sector, which has found this bill of no concern in terms of its over-all effect. They say it is a moderate piece of legislation, legislation about which they do not have to be concerned. This underlines the fundamental problem of this bill.
It has been said that this bill is but a first step along the road to doing something about foreign investment and foreign ownership in Canada. Government members who are rationalizing about their vote for the legislation are suggesting that it is only a first step. But when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce addressed the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, he stated there was no second shoe to be dropped after the next election, that this bill was it.
This legislation is the government's answer to the problem of foreign ownership and foreign investment in the Dominion of Canada. It is not an answer that is acceptable to the people who for the last four years have been listening to report after report after report, some of them from the government, stating we have to come to grips with this issue. And this is the solution the government offers. The fundamental questions of investment and ownership are not dealt with in this bill. As the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) pointed out, this legislation deals with perhaps a mere 5 or 6 per cent of the foreign investment that takes place in Canada today.
This bill, in a sense, is a sham. Certainly it is no answer. We are proposing amendments in an attempt at least to make some kind of changes, to give the legislation at least one tooth. The debate on this bill has centred around certain complaints from industrial sectors about administrative difficulties, and a number of amendments deal with this. Our amendments relate to the substance of the bill, on the assumption that the title of the bill means what it says.
I have already cited the reaction to the bill of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, which says it is moderate, that it is nothing to be concerned about. We now know why the government and Her Majesty's loyal opposition are going to vote for the legislation. This is a non-answer to a basic and fundamental question. I suspect, though I hope I am wrong, that the government will reject all amendments that try to improve and strengthen the legislation. Perhaps I am wrong and the minister will give due consideration to some of these proposals, mild as they are. I leave it to the minister's good grace to give these amendments due consideration, and I hope he will accept them.


Hon. Hugh lohn Flemming (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations on the motion moved by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). I shall confine myself to the motion. May I first point out what in my opinion is the effect of the motion and indicate how the clause entitled "Purpose of act" would read were the amendment to be adopted.
I agree in general terms with the phrasing of the bill and with the idea of enunciating the purpose of the bill in its provisions. I submit it is of great advantage in all legislation to have the purpose of a bill set forth, so that those who implement it understand what the government is trying to accomplish. The framers of the legislation, for whom the minister is, of course, responsible, provided in clause 2 as follows:
This Act is enacted by the Parliament of Canada in recognition by Parliament that the extent to which control of Canadian industry, trade and commerce has become acquired by persons other than Canadians and the effect thereof on the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment is a matter of national concern-
I agree with those words. I do not, however, agree with the hon. member for Waterloo that he is going to add anything to them by putting in the words "political and social" so that this would read in part "to maintain effective control over their economic, political and social envi-

June 26, 1972

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
So I find myself unable to agree with the motion of the hon. member for Waterloo for the reasons I have just given. The government has a mandate to set up the machinery, and I am sure we will co-operate in trying to see that the machinery which has been set up, as amended by the representatives of the people, will do the best kind of job, the job that it is designed to do. However, I find myself unable to support the motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the last speaker, the former premier of New Brunswick, could not have confirmed more adequately the belief held by a number of people in this party that the heart and core of the thinking of the Conservative party is essentially the same as the heart and core of the economic thinking of the present government. I say this, of course, without suggesting any disrespect for the seriousness and earnestness with which opinions are held by the hon. member, but simply to make a philosophical point that for many people Adam Smith died in the eighteenth century, but for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and for the spokesman for the Conservative party who has just sat down, it is evidently clear that Adam Smith is reigning supreme.
If you just look at the bill that is before us, Bill C-201, and consider the objections that have been brought against the motion introduced by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), it is clear that for example, the minister's thinking in economic matters was warped and perverted by his early liberalism, at the University of Ottawa presumably, where it was drummed into his head that there was a radical and profound distinction to be made between economic matters on the one hand and political matters on the other, and never the twain shall meet. He is like Thomas Hobbes, seventeenth century theorist; me, more like John Locke who was somewhat of a Democrat. At the same time he has the eighteenth century view of economics held by Adam Smith, which is also found in the thinking of Hobbes and Locke in any case. They made the same distinction 200 years ago that we heard in the hon. member's speech and that is the guts of this bill, between economic, social and political matters, the view of social reality that the more progressive and imaginative intellectual spheres began to disregard in the latter eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. One would have hoped that that kind of distinction would have been irrevocably shattered, but alas it still resides very profoundly in the hearts of our cabinet members and, as I said, in the hearts of members of the Official Opposition.
Let us just look at the categories of the bill ostensibly designed to deal with the serious question of foreign ownership. If you look at the criteria that are to be considered in clause 2(2), paragraphs (a) to (e), you see references to economic activity in paragraph (a), to Canadians in the business enterprise in paragraph (b), to productivity, industrial efficiency and technological development in paragraph (c), to competition in paragraph (d) and to economic policies in paragraph (e). There is absolutely no reference to the impact on the lives of Canadians of economic decisions in terms of social and political reality. Surely, that is what society is all about. Surely, this is or should be a fundamental criterion in assessing the worth of the newly defined economic policy. It is not just a

matter of economic efficiency, of technological innovation and of competition but, much more significantly, of the effects on the political and social aspects of Canada, the degree to which it encourages or discourages independence in the broader sense of that word, not just economic independence but the extent to which a move may involve important questions of the political durability of Canada as a union linking one part with the other.
Let us consider, for example, the decision to establish Air Canada, originally Trans Canada Airlines. Was that just an economic decision? Surely not, or the economic thinking of the government of the day, which still exists, would not lead it to come up with the decision to have a publicly owned airline. There are, in short, profoundly important political considerations that must play a role in any decision making in this area, and they are just the kinds of considerations that the government is not interested in including in the heart of its bill.
It is very interesting that in the most recent issue of the Financial Times-and I cannot forbear the pleasure of mentioning this-the issue of June 26, at pages 15 and 16 there are two separate news items. The first one refers to the government's policy on the takeover bill. The heading reads "Softening the Takeover Act" and the opening paragraph reads:
The government has moved to meet business criticism of its takeover legislation. Industry Minister Pepin last week proposed four amendments to the Foreign Takeovers Review Act.
Then, it goes on to describe the amendments. It points out that each amendment is designed to please the corporate sector in Canada, that corporate sector which is overwhelmingly foreign owned. Readers of the Financial Times, most of whom would be supporters of the present corporate sector, would read that item with a great deal of pleasure.
Then, when they turn to page 16 they see another news item headed, "Ontario's Canadian Director Policy: Symbol, Not Threat." The opening paragraph in reference to the Ontario government's profoundly militant, profoundly imaginative, profoundly innovative action when it announced it was going to Canadianize Ontario industry by putting a few Canadians on boards of directors, reads-and the Financial Times, even though it is a conservative publication is interested in reality and not sham:
Ontario's plan to force all provincial companies to have a majority of Canadian citizens on their boards by October 1, 1973 only sounds tough.
The article goes on to conclude that that bit of action proposed by the Ontario government is all form, and is totally lacking in substance. It points out:
Business generally has reacted to the legislation nonchalantly.
In other words, the business community recognizes that kind of legislation for what it is. It serves to defuse the problem of getting real autonomy in Canadian economic matters by suggesting that a few more Canadians on boards will shift the direction of policy decisions. If there were real heart to that legislation, it would require effective guideline regulations and the imposition of sanctions, making it mandatory that Canadians on corporation boards must make decisions that have a positive influence

on research and development, on unemployment, on effective development of Canadian resources. That kind of substance is totally lacking in the Ontario legislation.
I just mention this to show that on two pages back to back in the Financial Times we have criticism of the Liberal government in Ottawa and of the Conservative government in Toronto. Here, in this chamber, we have had back to back speakers who, in philosophical outlook on economic matters, are absolutely in accord with the government, absolutely in agreement that the political state should not involve itself directly in influencing decisions by corporations that have an effect on the political and social affairs of Canada. It is a very revealing exercise.
Through our amendments we would make it mandatory on the government to ask such political questions as: what about the extraterritoriality question concerning foreign owned corporations? Will they obey United States law in terms of those to whom they may or may not sell goods? Will they be able to sell automobiles to China or the Soviet Union? Will they be able to hire foreign owned ships to transport wheat to China if this is contrary to the wishes of the United States government? This extraterritoriality question is profoundly important in terms of political significance, in terms of our being able to assess whether or not we are an independent nation.
The government would be able to intervene directly in terms of research and development matters which do not have just an economic impact. It could happen that a firm coming into Canada, which normally does a lot of research and development elsewhere, would provide a certain number of jobs and thus meet the narrowly defined economic criteria in the bill, but would do nothing to develop Canadian research and development potential, would do nothing to employ young Canadian scientists. Letting such a firm come into Canada without a research and development commitment, or allowing a takeover without insisting on a research and development department, would meet the narrow economic criteria but would not meet the political and social criteria. Our young people want to work in industry, and for the sake of the long-term economic interests of the country we must have a strong research and development industry.
The minister knows very well that the OECD report issued last fall, outlining a study of the ten leading industrial nations, put Canada far at the bottom of the list in terms of doing its own research and development. It was not just one step below the ninth on the list, but quite a way below it. To have a modern economy that will thrive and grow, we must have this kind of potential.
Some consideration must be given to the allocation of investment funds. Some consideration must be given to restriction of the Canadian banking industry. Is it going to be allowed to finance further takeovers? Is it going to be restricted to the financing of Canadian owned enterprises? There is nothing in this bill which says anything about that. There is nothing in this bill which deals with the existing levels of foreign ownership. Its provisions are all concerned with the future. It does nothing about the fact that 50 per cent of our manufacturing industry is foreign owned, 65 per cent of our mining and smelting industry is foreign owned, and 74 per cent of our
Foreign Takeovers Review Act petroleum and natural gas industry is foreign owned. All the government is concerned about is future takeovers, and this in a narrowly defined economic sense.
I could go on at length to list about 15 other things that the bill does not include that were mentioned in the committee and that were dismissed without serious argument by the minister. But I will not do so. I end up urging acceptance of our amendments, urging rejection of that narrow 18th century economic philosophy which separates economic from political and social considerations, and hoping that the House will support us.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on the amendment to Bill C-201 before the House. This bill is the government's answer to the foreign ownership crisis facing the Canadian nation. If ever a piece of legislation needed amendment, it is the one we are debating this afternoon. I feel this is an anaemic approach to the problem of foreign ownership in Canada. As we look over the record of this government, however, we must realize that it is a typical Liberal approach: Do nothing by halves if you can do it by quarters. This is exactly the position this government has taken, not only on the matter of foreign ownership but on other very important issues. I find it particularly disappointing.
Having been in this House for the past four years and having seen the amount of research and effort that has gone into the problem of foreign ownership from all sides of the House, I feel there is genuine desire on the part of Canadians to make sure that we have control of our destiny, that we have control of our resources. I feel that we do not have that control largely because governments in the past have not dealt with the problem effectively. It has been a bitter disappointment to Canadians to realize that the announced policy has nothing to do with the expansion of existing foreign-owned firms into new areas and new industries, which is one of the key problems facing us. It has nothing to do with direct foreign investment coming into Canada, and it does nothing to increase Canadian ownership in the areas with which we are directly concerned. It will not reduce the percentage of foreign control which presently exists in Canada: in fact, there is every indication that the opposite will be the result.
If I may go back to the amendment presently before the House, I should like to read the first portion of the clause because I think it should appear in Hansard to show what the government is offering and what our amendment will do. Clause 2(1) reads as follows:
This act is enacted by the Parliament of Canada in recognition by Parliament that the extent to which control of Canadian industry, trade and commerce has become acquired by persons other than Canadians and the effect thereof on the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment is a matter of national concern, and that it is therefore expedient to establish a means by which measures may be taken under the authority of Parliament to ensure that, in so far as is practicable after the enactment of this act, control of Canadian business enterprises may be acquired by persons other than Canadians only if it has been assessed that the acquisition of such control by those persons is or is likely to be of significant benefit to Canada,
3504

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act having regard to all of the factors to be taken into account under this act for that purpose.
The clause now reads in part, "to maintain effective control over their economic environment" and our amendment would have it read "to maintain effective control over their economic, political and social environment". This amendment represents an extremely important addition to that clause. I heard the minister give his reasons for rejecting the amendment, but he is not fooling anybody in this House, and few of the Canadian people by indicating that we do not require the addition of those three words.
We have a number of examples, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think a little repetition will hurt. I am going to point out to the minister why the amendment should be accepted. The facts are crystal clear to anyone who wants to examine the background of the effect which foreign ownership has had on Canadian business. Foreign corporations with subsidiaries in Canada do interfere, and have interfered in a political and social way, with Canadian decisions and no member of this House can say otherwise. I shall give an example of what happened a few years ago when the Ford Motor Company of Canada had a large contract to sell 1,000 trucks to mainland China.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not again!


Randolph Harding: Yes, Mr. Speaker, again-because it does not seem to have come home to the minister yet, nor to the government and the cabinet who insist on this weak, watery approach to foreign ownership in Canada. One thousand vehicles would have been produced in a Canadian factory, by Canadian workers using Canadian raw materials. But what happened? The Ford Motor Company of Canada is a subsidiary of the Ford Company in the United States. It was against United States policy to trade with mainland China, so the Canadian subsidiary was forced to drop the contract to make those vehicles.
If that is not interference in the political life of this country, when what is? This is the very thing we are trying to prevent. No other country in the world should be able to tell us with whom we may trade. If we have an opportunity to sell goods to China, Cuba or any country in the world with whom we have friendly relations, the decision must rest with the Canadian people and not with some company in another part of the world.
The minister says we do not need this amendment. Mr. Speaker, other examples of interference were given to the House this morning when there was mention of a wheat sale. Apparently, because certain flour mills were under the control of United States companies, they were forbidden to ship flour to Cuba although the sale had initially been made to Russia. This is sheer and utter nonsense. We must be masters in our own house, but the bill before us does not give us that opportunity.
We hear about the effect and influence of foreign-owned companies on what is happening in Canada. Not long ago a conference on the environment was held in Stockholm. A strong delegation was sent from Canada; it offered to contribute $1 million toward global research into energy sources which would not create pollution, then suddenly the offer was dropped. The international press suggested that tremendous pressure had been put on the Canadian

delegation by the big oil companies. The fund was to be established to search for another source of energy which would not pollute to the degree that oil does. This is sound and sensible, yet Canada withdrew the offer of $1 million toward the $4 million fund.
All we have to do is look around the northern parts of Canada. Look at what is happening in Arctic exploration. Foreign corporations, by applying pressure to various departments of government, have forced them to water down the strictness of land use regulations affecting the Arctic and now the fragile economy of the area will not be protected to the extent that it should.
The minister knows this, yet he sits there and tries to appease the Canadian people by telling them that such activities have little effect on the social and political life of this nation. That is utter nonsense. If the minister thinks for one moment that he has sold this watered-down policy to the Canadian people, he had better think again. Young people especially, who want to enter the Canadian labour force but cannot find jobs, are concerned. Young people with university degrees cannot find work, partly as a result of foreign ownership policies the Liberal government has fostered over the years.
We are shipping out raw materials at an alarming rate. Insufficient quantities of raw materials are fabricated into products within the borders of Canada. The result is lack of jobs for Canadians in Canada. That is why we demand action to be taken. We are in favour of a screening process, which is all this bill deals with; we are in favour of screening takeovers. At the same time we ask the government to move into other fields of foreign ownership so that we may become masters in our own house.
That is why we urge the minister to accept our amendments. They will be of benefit. They will enable the government to screen on a basis other than that of straight economic policy. The minister cannot deny that. There is need for our amendments, I submit. For that reason we ask the minister to reconsider his position, to accept the amendment before us and to take a small step forward in adopting a tougher policy toward foreign ownership in Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Obviously, all afternoon we shall be listening to NDP members. Would he and others care to tell us precisely what his party would do about foreign investment? Would they allow it? If so, in what circumstances would they allow any or some? And what would be the criteria for allowing foreign investment to enter this country?


An hon. Member:: The minister should ask the Waffle group.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, we are not at all opposed to the screening process.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I should hope not.


Randolph Harding: Spokesman after spokesman has outlined in the House the program the government ought to put into effect. The minister has sat there and listened. It is
June 26, 1972

useless running over the gamut of our suggestions. I mentioned some of them at the beginning of my remarks. One of the most dangerous aspects of this matter is the expansion of activities in Canada of foreign-controlled corporations. Right now there is no bar to their extending operations to other industries and taking over control from within. This is a key area. Why has the legislation not dealt with it, or has the cabinet not backbone enough to do so?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to take part in this debate. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) asked the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) what an NDP government would do with regard to foreign investment, and would it allow any. The answer is that we would allow some foreign investment in this country, although there are some areas in which we would allow none. There are some areas in which we would allow a modest amount, and there are others in which we would allow larger amounts. Essentially, however, an NDP government would make sure that foreign capital entering this country would enter as loan capital and not equity capital.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is trying to prevent loan capital entering Canada. He is discouraging it. His policy, obviously, adds impetus to the momentum with which foreign companies are taking over Canadian companies and adds to the dangers besetting our nationhood. Mr. Speaker, the NDP would allow some foreign investment but that foreign investment would need to obey Canadian ground rules which any reasonable, reputable and honest foreign investor would be glad to abide by. Many well developed countries of the world have utilized such rules for many years.


An hon. Member:: Including the United States.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party reminds me of an old hound-dog on a farm in Saskatchewan. It is so unimaginative and lazy that when it sits on a cactus it preferred to howl instead of getting up.
These five amendments are good; they go right to the issue of foreign ownership and investment in Canada, a question which also has to do with takeovers. They go to the heart of the matter. I submit that these amendments have brought the government into the debate, although I do not see many Liberals taking part. The minister has been running around Parliament Hill during the last two weeks like a hysterical chicken: he has been seeking support for his bill.


An hon. Member:: He is like a toothless hound-dog.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He has been trying to get an answer with a degree of haste which would seem indecent even in a lady of ill repute.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: After all the years this issue has been debated in Canada, after investigations lasting two years, after bringing down the Gray report and ruminating over it for several weeks, what has the government done? It has brought in this bill which falls far short of what is
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
necessary. One can only conclude that the government still does not think it needs to do very much with regard to foreign ownership and foreign control of the Canadian economy.
It is evident from the speech of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) that the government still adheres to eighteenth and nineteenth century concepts of foreign control which most advanced countries discarded long ago. After all the years of debate, the government has brought in this dismal bill. Then it has the gall to demand that the bill be put through with great haste so that we may prevent some possible takeovers. These, I submit, if they take place, will be a small percentage of the total number of takeovers which have been involved in the foreign ownership and control of our economy.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) felt that the NDP amendments were an attempt to put life into a bill that was so inadequate as to be hardly worth the effort of passing. I think I am paraphrasing him correctly. He may be right. But we must try and put something into the bill which will benefit Canadians and Canadian development. We have had to force the issue. We must make the government face it, debate it and accept some meaningful improvements and additions to the bill which would enlarge its scope and the ability of the government to act in the area of takeovers.
Here is an issue which is probably one of the most important, if not the most important, issues that has come before the Canadian people in the last 15 years. It is an issue we must debate urgently if Canadian nationhood is to survive. But we find only 11 Liberals out of 151 are present and interested in it. Where is the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn)? Where are the hon. members for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) and Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)? Where are the 13 who signed the submission saying this bill does not go far enough? Why are they not taking part in the debate? It seems to me here again is a chance for the hon. member for Duvernay to make his views heard, to make the minister and the rest of the government sit up and take notice. The minister wants to pass this bill in great haste.


An hon. Member:: Where were you in committee?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Where was the hon. member in
committee?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think the hon. member is getting too excited.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The minister suggests that the control of our economic environment is sufficient, and that this matter comes first. I submit that the effects on our social and political environment flow directly from what happens in our economy. No doubt this has been the case throughout our history; that is the whole problem.
The amendment is an attempt to persuade the minister to at least help solve the problem by getting rid of that outmoded concept. The effects on the social and political environment should be given at least equal, if not greater,
3506

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act consideration as the effects on the economic environment. These amendments Eire an attempt to get the minister to face up to that fact and recognize that the social and political environment is at least as important as the economic environment in the whole area of takeovers.
A company trying to accomplish a takeover should have to gUEirantee that certain social and political conditions will be met. If they cannot do that in addition to meeting the economic environment conditions, the takeover should not be allowed. Let me illustrate what I mean. If this amendment is accepted, and if a company in any industry contemplating a takeover cannot guarantee that its operations will not be affected by United States law or the law of any other country, the takeover should not be Eillowed. That has to do with the Canadian political environment. Surely the minister would like to have that part of the amendment in the bill. Surely these types of consideration should be equal to considerations of the economic environment.
Let me give another illustration. If a takeover by a foreign-owned food chain or other merchandising operation means the driving out of hundreds of Canadian small businessmen, corner groceries, small hardware merchants or clothiers, including some that are not so small, the takeover should not be allowed. That has to do with the social environment. By including the word "social" in the bill we would be saying that Canada in its own distinct way places great value on having a social environment that is distinct in nature. Small businesses then would not continually have the shirts ripped off their backs; they would not be swallowed up by the dozens, with those remaining gradually going belly-up. This situation has contributed to the vast destruction of rural Canada. For decades it has driven hundreds of small entrepreneurs out of this country. When is the minister going to wake up? Those are two reasons for inserting the words "politicsd and sociEd" in clause 2 of the bill.
Let me give a hypothetical example of what may happen if the amendment is not accepted. To a large extent the fertilizer industry is foreign-owned and controlled. There are a number of manufacturing plants in western Canada. The majority of them are foreign-owned and are controlled and directed from boardrooms in other countries. This industry is selling Canadian-made fertilizer packed in bags made in Canada, shipped on Canadian railway lines from Canadian fertilizer plants in Medicine Hat, Edmonton Eind Brandon to United States points where it is sold anywhere from $10 to $25 a ton less than it is sold to the farmer in Canada who lives beside the fertilizer plant.
Canadian farmers, individually and in groups, are trying to do something about their social and economic environment by banding together and ordering fertilizer at a point in either Montana or North Dakota. For example, a company in North Dakota assured a group of Canadian farmers delivery of 300 tons, six carloads, at $15 to $20 a ton less than they would pay in their own town. They received delivery of one car but the other five could not be delivered. That is very strange. I wish to cite another example. A farmer in Birch Hills, Saskatchewan, went to Montana, 450 miles away, and bought fertilizer for $20 a ton less than at home. This fertilizer had been

manufactured in Edmonton, only 200 miles from his home.
There will be further takeovers in the fertilizer industry. The minister needs our amendment so that he can call a halt to takeovers by international fertilizer companies. The minister should say to these firms that if they cannot guarantee they will sell these products at no higher price to Canadian consumers than they will sell to people across the line, a takeover will not be Eillowed. That has to do with the sociEil and politicsd environment as well as the economic environment; you cannot separate the three. The minister is diluting the situation by submitting that the economic environment is first in importance. I submit the three go hand in hand.
I hate to say this, Mr. Speaker, but some opposition members smd most members on the government side continue to contribute to the betrayal of our nationhood. Those are strong words. They contribute to this betrayal of our nation, albeit unwittingly and maybe even unwillingly, in ways which make one feel embarrassed and ashamed. This is probably the first time in history that Parliament has had a chance to do something about an issue of such magnitude and concern to Canadisms in all walks of life-but what do we get? We get this tiny, faltering, half-hearted step.


Jean-Luc Pepin: At least it is something. Two weeks ago there was not anything.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not want to sound like a flag-waver. In closing my remarks, I want to speak as sincerely as I can about our country and how we feel about it. No matter what our walk of life, political faith, ethnic origin or whatever else, we all have a deep love for this country. We may not run Eiround waving flags, bragging and shooting off our mouths about it as much as people in other countries, but there is no question that this love is there. Surely it is not too much to ask the government of our country to do more than they are now prepared to do about our sovereignty and the control of our economic, social and political environment. We are a distinct country and a distinct people, geographically and socially. We have ways of doing things. We have a future that makes all Canadians, justifiably so, feel something special and that our country is special. I urge the minister to accept the amendment in order that we can give more weight to the last line in our anthem, "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hesir!


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have every sympathy with the minister when he says he has to sit here all the afternoon and listen to what I suppose-


Jean-Luc Pepin: I cannot stand on gUEird, but I am sitting on guard.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The minister says he is sitting on guard instead of standing on guard. That is fine, as long as he sits on guard. My complaint is that he is just not on guard, standing, sitting or lying down.
June 26, 1972

Political and social consequences are important. The minister asked, "What did you do?" Well, when we formed the government in Saskatchewan we did several things. We went into the areas of a large number of northern lakes and said, "Whoever you are, you cannot build your cottages on the shoreline any more, because that shoreline belongs to the ordinary people and they should have access to it." We listen to news reports from Ontario and eastern Canada: people are complaining that they cannot get to the beaches on the lakes. We did something. As far as I know, we are the only province in Canada which owns its own gas distribution system and has the reserves to back it up. I believe this is still the case, even though a Liberal government, when they had the opportunity, peddled some of it off. If the minister wants to know what can be done, I will mention two or three things. Of course, a province is limited in the extent to which it can protect the economic rights of its people.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What province is losing people?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The hon. member over there asks what province is losing people. Big deal! I am not apologizing for that part of it. It is due to the fact that we are largely an agricultural province, and the policies of the government with regard to grain sales in late 1968 and in 1969 just about bankrupted us. So we have encountered some difficulty.
The hon. member who threw that question at me knows it was true in Alberta and it was also true in Manitoba. We were having difficulty. But we found in Saskatchewan, as in other provinces, that foreign ownership is beginning to encroach on our farmland, not because foreigners particularly want to farm our land because they think it is a good speculative proposition, but because it is a hedge. The provincial government became concerned. It brought in a bill to deal with the situation and that bill has been referred to a committee which will discuss it and decide what sort of legislation will finally be placed before the legislature to protect the land. What do we get from the other side of the House? Here is a headline in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, "Ottawa opposes, Lang says". You have only one MP from the province of Saskatchewan.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: One too many.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Even before the bill becomes an act he intends, he says, to have it investigated. It is easy enough to say the matter will be hauled before the courts. Whether he will ever get round to it is something else. I doubt it. Hon. D. Steuart, leader of the opposition out there, is crying big crocodile tears; If you held out a dish you would be able to hear them splash. But as I say, some action is being taken.
In the city in which I live there was a refinery which was created by the people who work there. The refinery was started as a little highway refinery. Then it became BA, then it became Gulf. The decision was made to take it away. It is gone. It generated enough money to enable it to be placed there profitably. But at some point they decided it was to their advantage to place everything in the Edmonton area.
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
The Quaker Oats company decided it was to their advantage to locate their plant in Peterborough. They closed the other one down. They had no concern for the social implications of doing so. They had no consideration for anything except the prospect of making a buck. Maybe that is a good enough motivation for a company, but what kind of country would such a philosophy leave us? This question involves much more than ourselves; it involves generations who will come after us. Will they be able to play on the beaches of Prince Edward Island? Will they have access to the beaches of Ontario and Nova Scotia? What kind of country are we expecting? This is a valid question, I believe. It is more important in the long run than the question of how to make a buck most easily.
I read an article recently about the proposal to build a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley. Answers to questions in the House indicate that a move of this kind is under way. But what about the effect on the ecology? This is a question which has not been answered. Apparently it is intended to go ahead anyway. But what about the people who live in the area? Don't they have rights? Do we have the right to set their wishes aside? Possibly we have the right legally-but morally? That is inevitable. Whether it concerns the Mackenzie Valley or the James Bay area, the decision will be made without very much consideration being given those who have managed to make a living satisfactory to them over a long period of time.
To get to the main substance of the bill and to the proposed amendments, surely the government must be aware of the very bad press this particular proposal has received. I have read hardly a newspaper article or editorial comment which says the bill is a good one, that the proposal is solid and will meet the needs of Canadians now and in the future.


Mr. Cullen:: Do you want government by newspaper?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I am just recounting the opinion that has been expressed. You may not like it, but I do not think that is government by newspaper. The newspapers are not going to make the decisions; the decisions will be made in this House and by the government on the other side of the House. Some members in committee from that side of the House expressed their unhappiness with this measure, and in view of the totality of the circumstances I do not see how the government can justify going ahead with it in its present form. It is too narrow in its approach and I do not think it will work or make much difference.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You cannot measure whether it will work by its size.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: It is not a matter of size; it is a matter of selectivity, of objectives, of what we want. These objectives are not declared in the bill; it is left to a certain committee to make ad hoc decisions here and there. Unless the objectives are set out, these decisions will be weak because the measure is weak. It lacks any clear statement of objectives. I do not hear what the minister is saying from his seat, but I certainly appreciate his listening to me. I suppose he is trying to help me. We all know

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act how good natured he is and considerate of the members on this side, for which I thank him very much.
Let me repeat, in all sincerity, that the essential weakness of this approach is that the objectives are not clearly stated. In view of this, the measure will be ineffective. If it passes the House and becomes law, it will mean that at some future date we will have to review the bill and then try to undo what has resulted from lack of action in the meantime.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin)-Public Service; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter)-Regional Economic Expansion; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-Science and Technology.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-201, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 21 and 28.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on May 30 or 31 when I spoke in this debate I referred to the bill introduced by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) as an economic eunuch. I said that it amounted to a big zero and would not do anything at all to further the repatriation of Canada economically, culturally or socially. I realize the minister thinks that this is rather humorous. He is one of the more conservative and status-minded ministers of the government, which is very unfortunate since this is an issue about which Canadians are very concerned, as demonstrated by recent public opinion polls.
In many ways this issue has crossed party lines. The 13 mavericks in the Liberal party as well as some in the Conservative party, and the Committee for an Independent Canada, composed of all political stripes, are all concerned about foreign ownership in the Canadian economy. By no means does this bill go far enough to solve the economic independence of this country, which I suggest is what most rank and file members of the Canadian citizenry want at the present time. The bill deals only with

takeovers in the economy. As pointed out by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and others, it relates to 5 per cent, 6 per cent or maybe 10 per cent of the total foreign ownership of this country.
For years there have been studies, task forces, commissions and public debates on the question of foreign ownership. We have had the Watkins report and the Gray report. In essence, both these major pieces of work, commissioned by Liberal governments, came to the same conclusion, namely, that the Canadian economy is far too much foreign-owned and controlled and that something must be done to repatriate it. Yet this is not being done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. In pursuing his remarks along present lines, the hon. member seems to be debating the bill again on second reading. He is really debating the principles and objectives of the bill. I would invite the hon. member to bring his remarks to bear as closely as he can on the amendments before the House, which relate to the social and political effects of the bill.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, and I have given the reason for our party moving several amendments. We have decided it is not a good bill. Because we are concerned about foreign ownership, we want to strengthen the bill. We are now debating the first amendment, moved by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Salts-man), which deals with the social and political aspects of foreign ownership as well as the economic aspects. I think these aspects are very important.
The amendments which the minister is going to consider are not those that groups like the Committee for an Independent Canada and the members of our party would like to see moved. I suggest that instead of listening to his friends in the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the stock exchange, and so on, he should bear in mind the interests of the ordinary workers and farmers of Canada.
As already mentioned by others, the Ontario government announced during the last few weeks it will take action to ensure that more Canadians sit on the boards of companies in the province. The Saskatchewan government is preparing a bill dealing with the foreign ownership of farmland. These steps are very important to the political and social way of life of this country. They deal with problems that must be solved quickly if we are to have a united Canada that will forge ahead in future years.
Questions have been asked by members on the other side of the House, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and others ask about our approach to foreign ownership. They ask, "What about your party going into foreign markets and getting money from Japan and the United States for development in Saskatchewan and Manitoba?" We have done that in some cases.
Let me give one example. When the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) was premier of Saskatchewan, our government went to the United States and borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars for the establishment of the Saskatchewan Power
June 26, 1972

Corporation. The one important thing was that this was loan capital, not equity capital. Now the people of the province of Saskatchewan own the Saskatchewan Power Corporation, rather than some United States industrialist living in Chicago, Detroit or elsewhere. This is a very important distinction and an important political choice which I hope the minister will realize and consider seriously.
History will show that nearly every country in the world has had to rely on foreign capital at some stage of its development. The classic example is the United States. During its development it had a great deal of money from the United Kingdom and other European countries. But it made sure that the majority of that money was loan capital and not equity capital. Now the people of the United States own their own economy.
The same thing has happened in countries such as Japan and Sweden. Some 30 or 35 years ago Sweden was primarily foreign owned and controlled. The Social Democratic Party which assumed power there in 1935 accomplished repatriation of the economy. That was a matter of top priority and an important political choice, one which this government should make. We in this country are prostituting our economic destiny to a greater extent than any other industrial country in the western world. I suggest this is an insult to Canadians and a tragic policy for this government.
There is a difference between loan capital and equity capital, and we should realize the difference. When you buy a house and pay off the mortgage in 25 or 35 years, you own the house; but in respect of the Canadian economy this is not the case. It is like inviting outsiders, whether Americans or Japanese, to come into our houses, make themselves at home, use the furniture and even take our wives, and we pay them to do so. We let them make their profits and go back home. This is what is happening in Canada. It is something our government must stop, but it must take a major political decision to stop it.
I suggest we finance many foreign takeovers in our country. A United States economist in the department of commerce stated in 1968 that about 94 per cent of the money invested in Canada by American corporations is Canadian money. Some 94 per cent of the funds invested is really Canadian money obtained on the Canadian financial market. Some is borrowed from Canadian banking and lending institutions and some is profit from existing foreign firms, reinvested in our economy. We are selling out our country with our own money. Again, the minister should realize this and make the positive political decision.
We have funds in this country and we have ability. If we had a government with guts and imagination, surely to God it could create some policies and legislation to put our economy in the hands of Canadians. How, precisely, can we do this? The answer has been outlined time and time again in the Watkins report, the Gray report, by the Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs, the Standing Committee on National Defence and by certain members of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Duvernay, the Canadian Labour Congress, and the NDP. We know how to do this. All we need now is a political
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
decision to repatriate our country. It could be done within a few years.
Another thing that concerns me about this bill is that not enough emphasis is placed on some of the political decisions which must be made, nor on some of the social and cultural aspects of the problem of foreign ownership of our economy. Four months ago I was speaking to a non-political group in Yorkton. Most of the people were not supporters of my party; they were young businessmen and executives. I was speaking about foreign ownership. During the question period one of the young people said there was something that might be even more important than economic control of our country being in the hands of foreign, multinational corporations. He suggested that the cultural and social influence the United States and other countries had on Canada was the most important thing.
In a few minutes this afternoon I want to try to underline that point. We have tended to ignore, eliminate or forget the powerful impact other countries can have on Canadian culture through the media, the theatre, the arts and such other things. Let me emphasize the importance to the minister and the government.
I remember back in the late 1950s when I was a student in elementary school in Saskatchewan. Many of us knew more about United States political figures than we knew about our own. We knew more about Abraham Lincoln, what he did and stood for, than we did about Sir John A. Macdonald; we knew more about Jefferson than we did about Laurier. This was in large part because many of the textbooks used in those schools were published in the United States. They were written by United States authors and contained American historical interpretations.
Perhaps the book publishing industry is an area that should receive high priority from this government. The government should look at it very closely from the point of view of assistance to make it truly Canadian. We should try to create a nation which has a special identity that is Canadian.
We have moved in some of these areas, and I do not condemn the government for absolutely everything it has done.
Three or four years ago the radio-television commission laid down guidelines and rules concerning broadcasting in this country. It said that within three years 80 per cent of radio and television stations must be Canadian-owned. We have pretty well attained that goal. This sort of thing can be done and must be done. It should be done in the book publishing industry, the film industry, the arts and such fields, as well as in economic areas in respect of resources, manufacturing, and so on. We should put more emphasis on these areas, then perhaps we would have a more vibrant country, that is more Canadian.
The French-speaking areas of this country have developed distinct culture that is Canadian. This is primarily so because they speak the French language and are less susceptible to the pressures of United States influence. I am very proud of that fact in Canada. I not only want to see it preserved, but stimulated. I should also like to see

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
this fact stimulated in respect of English-speaking Canadians. I think this is a very healthy thing.
Earlier the minister was questioned about the French language being the working language in Quebec. He was asked whether this should be a consideration when an outside company is considering a takeover in the province of Quebec. I suggest it should be a consideration because the working language of most people in Quebec is French. If a foreign corporation is to take over a Canadian corporation and ignore that fact, it should be a very serious consideration in government legislation. I am surprised that some of these things are not done, especially since the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is from the province of Quebec and I am sure realizes it is a very important question in that part of Canada.
There are many other issues and points I would like to speak about, but my time is running out. However, I do want to emphasize that there are very important social and political considerations that we must take into account. Not all considerations in the country, when it comes to foreign ownership, are solely and distinctly economic. This country, for example, was built for many reasons other than economic. It did not make economic sense to build a nation that went east and west; all the natural economic and trade patterns went north and south but we went against some of these economic considerations.
My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), outlined many of these aspects when he spoke earlier about lack of economic sense when the CPR and the CNR were established. However, we made this decision and it was a conscious political one. We wanted to build a nation that was distinctly different from the United States. I suggest that in the future we will have to make a great many decisions that are political rather than economic. They may be social and cultural rather than economic. These considerations should be embedded within a piece of legislation such as this. If they were, then perhaps this bill, which up to now is really a big nothing, would have at least some significance and would go a little way toward repatriating the Canadian economy, the Canadian society and the Canadian culture which I am sure all of us want to see developed.
Again I urge the minister to stop listening to the Canadian Manufacturers Association, to his friends in Bay Street and those in the stock exchange, and instead to listen to the ordinary Joes of this country, the ordinary people who are interested in building a Canada that will provide them with jobs and a future for their children. We all know that we export a great volume of raw materials and that this industry provides very few jobs. It is capital-intensive. We should make a conscious, political decision to put more emphasis on manufacturing industry that is labour-intensive. I refer the minister to his colleague, the hon. member for Duvernay. I am sure if the minister listened to him he could-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I think the Chair has been very fair to the hon. member who has the floor, but perhaps in the few minutes left to

him he should speak more to the amendment which is before us.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I respect your remarks. It is rather difficult for some of us, because we are speaking on a subject that moves us very strongly and on a bill which apparently does not move the minister, to contain ourselves to the narrow restrictions of certain amendments. But I shall abide by your wishes and in the few moments remaining to me I shall try to be more specific.
I urge the minister to accept this amendment. I ask him seriously to consider it and when he replies to outline some of the possibilities it may have, not to reject it totally out of hand because this is a very important question which affects all Canadians. Canadians want changes in this area and I think it is the responsibility of the government to lead the way. Governments are here to govern, to express the collective will of the people of Canada, and I am sure the people of Canada want us to go much further than we are going in the area of foreign ownership. That has been proven time and time again by people in all political parties, by various commissions, and by public opinion. I plead with the government to listen to them. The government has promised participatory democracy and a just society. Here is an opportunity to go a little way in that direction.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, in considering this matter I am reminded of the teacher who asked his class what was the capital of Canada and a pupil answered, "Mostly American". That is part of the problem that concerns us. We are considering the political and social impact of some of the economic factors which affect us. This makes me think of David Lloyd George of Great Britain when discussing a social problem of theirs. He said they were born paupers in the land of their birth. We are facing a somewhat similar situation in this country.
I would suggest to the minister and to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard), who seems to be listening to the debate, that Canadians would like a piece of the action. This is really what we are talking about. We do not want all of it to be taken over by somebody else. If there is going to be a takeover here, we want to do it. This is what we are talking about. We would like a bill to help Canadians take over their own country. What concerns us is social, economic and political equality. In effect, we would like to walk around with some money in our jeans, in our own country, and we would like to feel that we have a stake in Canada.
The French have an expression "Maitres chez nous". I am sure the minister, while he might not recognize my accent, is familiar with the term. I am suggesting, Sir, that those who own or control a country have an interest in that country. What, then, are they going to do with it? This is the intent of the amendment.
As I have observed people generally, those who own a house or a business, or those who manage a business have an interest in it and want to promote it. Those who look at a corporation as something that somebody owns, such as an absentee landlord, do not have the same interest in promoting the equity of the corporation. They might if they had a sense of proprietorship in the corporation. Let
June 26, 1972

me give an example which is fairly close to me. I do not own a share in the Bell Telephone Company, but I have listened to the piles being driven for the new building down the street. Even in that sense I have a sense of proprietorship in it. At least I have suffered with them a little. It is a fine building which is serving a purpose here in Ottawa. I am trying to point out, Sir, that there are things in which we have an interest because we are Canadians.
May I call it five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Canada should consider the advisability of taking the initiative in securing the collaboration of the provinces in the convening of a national conference on uniform standards in primary and secondary education.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I consider it an honour to be able to speak on a matter which, if it does not receive national acclaim today, certainly in the next few years will have to be faced by a government of Canada. The motion which appears today on the order paper is not put forward for the first time. It was introduced last year by the former hon. member for South Western Nova. It was reintroduced early this year in my name, went through the usual procedures and now we are able to debate it for the next hour.
The first thing I want to say is that the motion can be refined. It would be no trouble at all for any member of the House to look at this motion as it stands verbatim, to take it apart and destroy it. One or two of its phrases are highly unpopular. Had I taken the time earlier in the year to refine the motion further I might have changed certain phrases. The motion contains the phrase "a national conference on uniform standards in primary and secondary education". As an educator who has spent quite a number of years in classrooms, I take exception to anything that could be defined as a uniform standard for the classroom. No educator, no citizen would ever introduce a motion calling for a uniform standard to be applied to a classroom setting.
If I were to speak about a curriculum, not only do I believe that you cannot have a national curriculum but I believe you cannot even have a provincial curriculum or a
Federal-Provincial Relations
school curriculum in the standard sense. A curriculum is the total experience of an individual in the school or learning setting. It is something that exists at the individual level in the classroom. No educator would ever talk about a uniform standard applying to a curriculum process.
These are some points I want to clarify before hon. gentlemen opposite rise to speak on this motion. I would not consider uniform standards in terms of laying down in black and white what should transpire in an educational system across Canada in terms of text books, expenditures of funds or any of the specific goals of education. Again, these questions are not only of provincial nature but are better handled at the local level.
The purpose of this motion is to draw attention to the need for the federal government to recognize that in 1972 it has a responsibility in the area of human resource development, and to suggest that there should be a meeting of minds between municipalities, provinces, school boards, teachers and the national government to talk about all of the broader aspects of the educational process.
Turning back to 1867 when the nation of Canada was born, it is easy to understand that education was assumed to be a local issue. At that time it was totally a community issue. As a matter of fact, from studying the history of education in Canada we find that it was mainly the churches which became involved in the educational process. In those days very few people travelled from one part of the country to another. There was not the kind of mass migration that we see nowadays. And because of the political implications and realities of 1867, education was deemed to be purely a provincial issue.
For the last 25 or 30 years, broadminded educators have realized that education must be considered as something more than a provincial issue. The one thing that offends me even more as an educator than as a Member of Parliament is the hypocrisy of the various levels of government. Today the federal government is involved, actively and directly, in as many as 20 educational areas. But its hypocrisy is unbelievable. The federal government allocates funds to the provinces with which they can build vocational institutions. These facilities are owned by the provinces because of the constitutional hang-up. The provinces in turn sell seats in these institutions to the federal government, or rent space to the federal government, so that it can manage its federal manpower programs or adult occupation retraining programs. This avoids facing the reality of the situation, that vocational education is an integral part of the educational process and that there should be close liaison between the local educational systems at all levels, primary, secondary and post-secondary.
Again, Mr. Speaker, annually the federal government pays many millions of dollars to the provinces to be devoted to post-secondary education. The universities, which are an integral part of the educational process, receive their share of the federal revenue dollar but in effect never admit it. The provinces jealously guard what they consider to be a constitutional right. Recently a constitutional conference was held without a single aspect of education coming to the fore. I do not want to get involved in that debate, but when the provinces have a hang-up

June 26, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations
over their constitutional and jurisdictional rights, and when the federal government maintains the hypocrisy of not wanting to get involved in education, it is the people of Canada who suffer the resultant hardship.
I do not have to tell my colleagues of the effect which the general mobility of the population has on our young people. All of us know of members of the armed forces who have been transferred around Canada, perhaps a dozen times in a decade, and know the effect this has had on the children involved. Each Member of Parliament who has brought his family to Ottawa can speak of the impact which lack of a common educational area has had on his family.
We are one of only two major countries in the western world which do not have a federal presence in their educational systems. I believe the federal government should face up to the fact that a major portion of the Canadian population is, or has been, in the process of moving from one part of Canada to another. Within the next decade perhaps all the population will move, once in a lifetime, from one part of Canada to another. This points to the need for the common presence of a national body in the area of education.
One of the biggest drawbacks to regional development is the lack of equal educational opportunities in the disadvantaged regions. Many provinces are fooling themselves whenever they stand up at a national conference and say they jealously guard their constitutional right over education. In effect they are denying their citizens equal educational opportunities. Unless we get the federal government involved in the educational process, the people of areas suffering regional disparity will continue to have a second-rate educational structure.
As examples I could mention several provinces but I will talk about my own because I know more about it. There is no way that my province can ever afford the share of the tax dollar that is necessary in order to provide its citizens with equal educational opportunities. We have not the tax revenues to provide the necessary school facilities. Here I am talking about the physical resource capability so that our young people may have the same opportunities as young people in Montreal or Toronto. Consequently, unless the provinces get off their high horses and the federal government is willing to involve itself directly in the educational process with the co-operation of the provinces, regional disparity will continue to exist.
As an example of how critical the situation is between the provinces and the federal government, all the regional development agreements are providing part of the infrastructure to certain areas for the building of schools. The federal government says it is part of the economic infrastructure. In Prince Edward Island some moneys have been allocated for school construction on the basis that the manpower capability will be needed in later years for economic development, so funds are allocated for education. What abominable hypocrisy that is, when we should be facing the reality that the province needs federal involvement-not direction but the type of involvement where physical and monetary resources are made avail-

able. Instead, the federal government, with the permission of the provinces, goes through about 20 back doors.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that in view of the fact that the federal government, with the co-operation of the provinces, is already involved in about 20 areas of educational development, in view of the fact that education today is more than a provincial and local issue, and in view of the mobility of the population, it is one of the imperatives of this Parliament that the federal government start talking to the provinces, the municipalities, the school boards and teachers to convene some sort of national conference on human resource development. It is almost out of order to use the word "education" in the House of Commons today, and indeed I am surprised that the Speaker has not ruled on that.
If there is to be a meeting of minds, we have to talk about an area of common interest and common involvement. We do not have to take authoritarian involvement or direction from Ottawa. We have to talk about the broad objectives of education which must be faced by the Canadian people. This is the intent of the motion. If we want some kind of equality of educational opportunity, if we want to eliminate the serious impact of the fragmentation of the process on the mobile public of the seventies, then we must start facing the facts.
Just before coming into the House today I spoke to some members of the armed forces and asked if they thought this motion had any relevance to their families. I was astounded to learn that the educational opportunities of many children had been ruined because when they moved from one system to another it was necessary to start the whole process over again.
As an educator, I could speak for hours on this subject and eliminate many of the arguments about uniform standards. That is not an adequate phrase and I could be blamed for not defining my motion. However, I hope that members taking part in the debate will not get hung up on that; I hope they will address their remarks to the question of some kind of common federal presence, and that they will be realistic enough to see that despite the fact it may be popular for members to stand at the end of the provincial road, they are also dealing with the lives of many thousands of Canadians.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the subject the hon. member has raised today is timely and is of general interest in this country. There is widespread interest in public education and, as he pointed out, Canada has become a nation of very mobile people. I believe that the average family moves something like once every five years, and undoubtedly many of those moves are across provincial boundaries.
The motion is pertinent, also, because we are all concerned about disparities which exist among certain geographical regions and among certain economic, social and cultural groups. I rather expected the hon. member to speak at some length on the need for uniform standards, but I agree with him that in Canada we should avoid rigid, uniform educational standards from coast to coast and from north to south. We are a country of variety and the
June 26, 1972

needs in one part of the country are not identical with the needs in another.
I, too, tend to believe that the curriculum should not be identical in the hon. member's riding with that in southern Ontario or my own riding in British Columbia. However, I must also say that more uniform standards than Eire presently available to our students would be desirable. All hon. members undoubtedly have examples.
I can recall a young high school student from British Columbia who was brought to Ottawa by her parents. Being the capital of the nation, where bilingualism is a policy, the pairents naturEilly expected that their daughter's knowledge of French would be furthered. It only took a short time for them to discover that the methods of teaching in British Columbia and Ontario were so different that if she were to pursue a French course here she would probably lose credits and possibly fail a year in school. As a result, the young lady took Spanish instead. This illustrates the need for some uniformity in education.
I think I should remind hon. members that there are considerable constitutional barriers to federal involvement in the field of education. The constitution clearly states that the power to legislate in the field of education belongs to the provinces, in and for each province. Most elementary and secondEiry education as well as postsecondary education is provided within the structures of the ten provincial systems. The federal government, naturally, must be concerned that all provinces have the resources necessEiry to provide at least a minimum service for Canadians, but its direct responsibility for elementary and secondary education is primarily limited to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and, to some extent, to the native peoples. For post-secondary education it is confined specifically and constitutionally to the operation of our three military colleges.
Under these circumstances, I would suggest that the first initiative should come from the provinces; but I am not suggesting that the federal government has not been concerned with the way in which educational standards can be improved. A series of federal governments, Mr. Speaker, have shown active concern in various aspects of education-technical education, manpower training, higher education both in the universities and other types of post-secondary institutions, and the training of personnel for health and welfare services. The federal government for many years has been deeply involved in supporting university research programs.
The hon. member spoke at some length on the need for a federal presence in education in Canada. Mr. Speaker, we have a very considerable presence in education and I should like to put some figures on the record which are most significant in this respect. It is estimated that in the year 1960-61 the proportion of federal government support in relation to the total expenditures of all levels of government on education was 8.4 per cent; that is, of the 100 per cent contributed by provincial governments, municipal governments and the federal government, the federal government contributed 8.4 per cent. In the 197172 period the federal share had risen to 22.4 per cent. I might add that at present federal programs of education support sire under active review.
Federal-Provincial Relations
In my view, however, the body to which this motion ought to be addressed is the Council of Ministers of Education, established in 1967. The ministers of education of the ten provinces have somewhat slowly, but persistently developed a permanent structure with a central office in Toronto. Several federal cabinet ministers have on several occasions met with the council, as have federal officials with their council counterparts, on matters relating to our federal programs. Although these meetings will continue, I feel that the broader implications of this motion are such that the council itself should take whatever initiative it feels necessary.
I fully realize the seriousness of the differences and dispEirities which gave rise to the hon. member's request for a national conference. I am sure all members of this House are aware of unfortunate disparities across our land relating to the education of our children. I agree with the hon. member that there should be a greater federal presence in the area of education, but would remind him and the House that there is a considerable degree of federal presence in this area, inasmuch as more than one-fifth of the education money in Canada is being provided by the federal government. The provision of this money I feel is evidence of a most satisfying and significant presence.
I also agree that the federal presence is by no means sufficiently visible. If an initiative were to come from an interprovincial agency such as the Council of Ministers of Education, I am sure the federal government would be prepared to give its full co-operation and to continue its involvement in education for the good of the young people of Canada.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because the motion moved by the hon. member from Newfoundland is of great importance. I agree with most of his statements and, speaking as an educator, share his concern regarding uniform standards of education across this country.
As we look at our process of education we must not forget that there is a certain flexibility as between one province and another in teaching methods. For example, in the field of social studies or history, the aspects students might study in Saskatchewan might be different from those they might study in Newfoundland. In Saskatchewan, a student studying history might be taken to the site of the Riel rebellion. Students in Newfoundland might not be able to do so.
On the other hand, since young people may move from one end of the country to the other, it is important to keep standEirds uniform. This affects, I think pEirticularly people of my generation and of the generation of the hon. member from Newfoundland who may be school teachers. People may train in one part of the country to be teachers, only to find that in time there might not be enough jobs for all those trained.
I submit that it is important for the federal government to introduce some kind of standard governing the employment of teachers in this country. If the federal government is lavishly to hand out, as has been suggested, 22.4 per cent of all money spent on education it ought, as the

June 26, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations
hon. member from Newfoundland suggested, convene a national conference and deal with the problems of education on a national basis. We must remember that although the government pours money into technical and trade education, the people of this country are mobile. The young people of Saskatchewan may move to Toronto or Hamilton, and when they apply for a job in order to exercise their skills in the trade they have learned they may find themselves competing with 100, 200, 300 or 400 applicants from other parts of Canada who have taken the same kind of training on the assumption that jobs are available.
In this House we have taken part in interesting debates centering on the question of regional disparities. Regardless of anything the Council of Ministers of Education may say, I think it is up to the federal government to say whether we should introduce general standards in education which will meet the needs of our young people on a national scale as they become available for employment.
We must also consider the problem of young people who are trained in this country in a particular profession and who, not finding a job here, move to the United States in order to work in that profession. Only if there is a national program for providing employment in those sectors for which young people are being trained today will we be able to alleviate the problem of the exodus of our young, professional people to the United States. At the same time, of course, we must remember the social problems that arise from the mobility of our people. Relatives of mine in the armed forces have told me that young people moving from Noya Scotia to British Columbia, say, may encounter great difficulties in education. Also, apart from adjusting to the educational system, youngsters must make social and other adjustments.
We must also consider the difficulty, referred to by the parliamentary secretary, of financing education. When the British North America Act was passed in 1867 it was agreed that educational costs would be met by property taxes. It has become difficult to provide equal opportunities in education for all since property taxes are not sufficient for providing all the facilities required. The federal government, therefore, must come to grips with the question and determine whether the concept of financing education through property taxes-I am thinking of rural Saskatchewan in particular-is not outmoded and outdated. Is the property tax a large enough source of educational revenue in each of our provinces and municipalities?
The teaching profession at the post-secondary level in the last few years has developed some really interesting proposals for setting up a national council of educators which would look into the question of national standards. The parliamentary secretary told us of the Council of Ministers of Education. It is now incumbent on the federal government, I believe, to take such action as is suggested by the hon. member from Newfoundland and convene a national conference which will attempt to deal with the problems of education. I ought to deal with uniform standards as well as with the financing of education.
I conclude my remarks on this motion by expressing the hope that it will be voted on and will receive the unanimous support of the House. I compliment the hon.

member for bringing forward the motion and I commend its intent.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the private member's notice of motion No. 10, in the name of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan), reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Canada should consider the advisability of taking the initiative in securing the collaboration of the provinces in the convening of a national conference on uniform standards in primary and secondary education.
First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for bringing this question before the House. It is a matter of concern to many Canadians. A year or so ago, when I travelled with the constitutional committee to various parts of this country, it was a common complaint that when people move from one part of the country to another their children have to move back a grade or forward a grade in school. Often the subjects are not aligned so that this can be done in an easy way. Therefore, I am glad the hon. member has put this motion before the House today.
I am also glad that the hon. member is not talking about a uniform curriculum but about uniform standards. I suppose standards are the end result of work in a specific curriculum. That may pose some difficulty, but I am pleased that he does not want a uniform curriculum, which of course would be very difficult to achieve. I do not think anyone in this country would like to see one flat, monolithic curriculum across the country in which students from Bonavista to Vancouver Island would learn exactly the same thing on the same day.
The problem of curriculum is even greater than one might think. It was only four or five years ago that in the province of Ontario we had a greater level of uniformity across the province. There were provincial school inspectors who made sure that we had a standard across the province. Since then the province has been carved into 30 to 40 school divisions. These divisions have considerably more autonomy than the old, local township school area boards. We have a multiplicity of curricula and programs in our school system within the province of Ontario, let alone a diversity throughout the country. If there were uniform standards they would be of great advantage to the hundreds of thousands of people who move every year from one part of the country to another. A recent figure that I read suggested that one in four families moves every year. I do not know whether they move interprovin-cially or not.
The hon. member referred to the problem of regional disparity. He suggested that regional disparity somehow relates to education. I believe there is a link. If you look around the world you will find that a reasonably high level of education and training-I use that term advisedly because surely training for a specific job is almost as important as broad, general academic education-well distributed throughout the population is probably the greatest factor in determining the relative affluence of any country. In many countries with tremendous capital investment, the average individual is poor. Many countries are very rich in natural resources but the people are relatively poor. In several countries, people with a high
June 26, 1972

level of education and training are not generally distributed throughout the population and there is a very low standard of living.
The hon. member made a good point when talking about regional development, but I am not sure that establishing standards across the board is essential. If we suggested that to the minister of education for Newfoundland, he might be inclined to look at us as federal people who are trying to stick our noses into the provincial pot. He might say something like Sir Winston Churchill said to the North American continent in the dark days of World War II: Give us the tools and we'll finish the job.
I think we can attack the problem of regional disparity, without setting uniform standards, by providing extra funds. The federal government has provided a great deal of funds to Newfoundland. I understand that through the special areas program, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has made funds available for school construction. The federal government is putting a great deal of money into education in every province of this country.
I recently noticed a question on the order paper concerning grade 13 education in the province of Ontario, whether grade 13 was considered to be university level for the purpose of federal assistance. We found out that it is. In fact, 50 per cent of the eligible operating expenditures as defined in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1967, for grade 13 education in the province of Ontario are borne by the federal government. This is not generally known in the province. The provincial government probably does not mention this any more than necessary.
In the answer to this question on the order paper I read that in the fiscal year 1967-68, $16 million was provided for grade 13 education, and for the fiscal year 1971-72 it is estimated that almost $33 million will be provided by the federal government to the province of Ontario for the educational costs of grade 13. I think we can see from these figures that the federal government is deeply involved in education both at the university level and, at least in the province of Ontario, at the grade 13 level.
The real problem in the motion before us this afternoon is a constitutional one. Section 93 of the British North America Act makes it quite clear that education is primarily a matter of provincial responsibility. There have been many incidents throughout history where the provinces have made it quite clear that although they will accept money from the federal government for education, they do not want to hand over any of the responsibility for education to the federal government.
I might mention some of the areas in which the federal government is involved in education. Perhaps the newest is the bilingualism program under which funds are made available to provincial departments of education. A group from one of the high schools in my constituency recently asked me whether funds could be made available for a special immersion course. The response from the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) was that funds are already available to provincial governments for such training, so it was impossible to get federal funds directly. Federal
Federal-Provincial Relations
funds are also available in connection with the retraining and upgrading program. This is really a most important form of education because we are training men and women to do the jobs which are available for them.
The federal government is also deeply involved in the education of Indians and Eskimos. I understand that even here there is a great deal of diversity in programming, in the elementary schools at least. I do not know whether there are separate high schools on Indian reserves but the levels adopted in each province are the levels adopted by the schools for which the federal government is responsible as far as the curriculum of each is concerned. Criticism has been expressed in some provinces in connection with the role of the federal government in education through television. We read recently that the minister of transport of Quebec and the responsible provincial minister in Ontario were seeking increased jurisdiction over television and cablevision within their provincial boundaries. This is one area, I suppose, in which there will continue to be constitutional argument.
I was interested in the statement by the parliamentary secretary that between the fiscal year 1960-1961 and the fiscal year 1970-1971 the percentage of the cost of education borne nationally had risen from 8.4 to 24.4. I mentioned earlier that the committee on the constitution during its hearings throughout the country often heard it argued that there was a need for national standards in education. In this connection, it was interesting to read what is contained in the committee's report. The committee studied this subject and deals with it in recommendation No. 88. It reads:
Education as such should remain exclusively a provincial power as it is at present subject to the guarantee for minorities set out elsewhere in this report.
Recommendation 89 reads:
The provinces should create a permanent office for co-operation and co-ordination in education and federal participation should be confined to the area of federal jurisdiction over the education of native peoples, immigrants, defence oersonnel and dependants.
So, the committee seems to have opted for the idea of diversity. The permanent office has since been established, I understand, by the Council of Ministers of Education.
It seems to me that what is being proposed is a national conference. If such a conference were not sponsored by the ministers of education, it is likely that no provincial representatives would attend. So it appears that if we are to have a conference of the type suggested, it should really be sponsored by the Council on Education. Even if it were to do so, I do not know whether a national conference is really the place at which to hammer out guidelines toward a national standard system. Young people and educators tell me, when I talk to them, that many students are already placed in different grades for different subjects. Thus, for example, a child could be in grade eight as far as his class report is concerned, but he could be in grade four for reading and grade seven for mathematics. With an open approach of this kind, implying far greater elasticity in the school timetable, it would surely be even more difficult to create uniform standards for each grade and to do so would require all the ingenuity of our educators.

June 26, 1972
Federal Provincial Relations


John Howard Lundrigan: The hon. member wrote his notes before listening to me. He had them prepared first.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The hon. member appears to be concerned. I do not know why. While he was speaking he appeared to be apologizing for his motion, anticipating there would be criticism of his idea. I realize his motion deals not with the curriculum, but with standards. But surely, in the end, standards are reflected in the curriculum. Yet I understand the hon. member's difficulty. The idea of establishing an education program based on grades which go remorselessly on and on is not what we need today. We want a system which is flexible, one which gives a person a broad education so that he can enjoy life while still providing substantial training as a basis for a future occupation. We hear about students in Ottawa who have already taken a BA degree and who then attend Algonquin College to acquire specific training.
What I am saying, in effect, is that although the hon. member's objectives are perhaps laudable we are a long way from realizing them, partly because the sort of education system he seems to have in mind is already ceasing to exist; more emphasis is placed on individual training and there is more training of the individual for a specific job. The idea of a national conference appears unlikely to come to fruition, however desirable it may be, for the reason that the provinces have already established a Council of Ministers of Education, and ministers of the federal cabinet meet with the Council from time to time to discuss specific subjects of common concern.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all express my pleasure that the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) should have brought this matter before the House. It is certainly one of the important questions which is confronting us today.
As the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has just reminded us, uniformity of educational systems across the country is only one of the goals which we have. Another is to achieve diversity based on cultural differences across the country. It would be advantageous if at least the number of grades could be standardized from province to province, so that there would not be a final grade in Ontario of 13 and in Saskatchewan of 11, with students from each of these provinces finding themselves in rough equality when they enter university. This means that Ontario students require an extra two years' preparation, which may be argued to be a good thing because they would get a sounder grounding in the earlier years. At the same time, it would seem to place Ontario students at a competitive disadvantage, which perhaps is an unusual position for anyone in Ontario to find himself in.
Despite the fact that this subject is very important and that unity is one of the educational system's main objectives, I would have great reluctance in supporting the notice of motion as presently worded. I realize that the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has asked us not to take the motion too literally, but it seems to me that the motion includes the concept of federal initiative and it is precisely that concept to which I object.

If the motion were merely to prescribe that the federal government participate in such a conference, certainly I would have no qualms about that. I believe there should be such a conference and that the government should participate in it. The difficult question is the question of federal initiative. It seems to me there is nothing more destructive of unity in this country than any movement toward a federal intrusion into the field of education. The constitution committee took as one of its basic principles that responsibility for the cultural and social aspects of our national life should not only remain with the provinces but that provincial interests in these areas should be expanded. To suggest a federal initiative here, even if it is not one of substance but merely one of procedure, could well be misunderstood. Its symbolic importance would, I think, be recognized by the provinces, and the provinces in many cases if not in all would find themselves in a situation of difficulty and embarrassment in face of such a federal initiative.
The recommendation of the constitution committee of this House and the other place which is directly in point is recommendation No. 89, which is that the provinces should create a permanent office for co-operation and co-ordination in education. In substance, I fully agree with the type of thing that the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has in mind, but the constitution committee was very careful to specify in the latter part of the recommendation that federal participation be confined to the area of federal jurisdiction over education of our native peoples, immigrants, defence personnel and dependants. Those are the exact terms of recommendation No. 89.
This recommendation was not lightly arrived at by the constitution committee. It was deliberately and carefully phrased. We felt that there should be federal participation because there is a federal role in education, not a general one but one confined to the particular area of education of our native peoples, immigrants, defence personnel and their dependants. Perhaps in the broadest sense of education we could also get into the manpower area which may arguably be a kind of education as well, though education in a sense that is not generally included in formal education. But to go beyond that would cause an intrusion into what is generally accepted as a provincial domain.
The reason we have a division of powers in the constitution, and provincial control over a matter as important as education, is precisely because Canadians are different across the country. Communities across Canada, not only English-speaking or French-speaking but all communities as embodied in the provinces, have different outlooks. They want to preserve certain aspects of their lives. I am sure that the citizens of Newfoundland want to preserve that which is characteristic of Newfoundland in their education system. If provincial education can be criticized at all, at least as it appeared at the time I went to school, it is because it does not cultivate sufficient sense of locality and of what the particular area brought to confederation.
I suggest that federal intrusion in education to the point where unity is given a role more important than any other goal would tilt the balance very much the wrong way and remove that element of local control and expression of culture that it is so important to maintain in this country. Therefore, while I greatly sympathize with the proposal
June 26, 1972

that has been put before the House today by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, I find I cannot accept the wording of his motion since I believe federal initiative is of its essence. In the result, I would ask the House not to endorse the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


John Howard Lundrigan: Call it six o'clock.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, in the very few moments left to me may I simply say that from the debate on this motion this afternoon it would seem that much of what the hon. member wants to accomplish through his motion has already been accomplished, and indeed is continuing to be accomplished, by the interchange of information at the provincial level and through the financial aid that the federal government gives particularly at the university and post-secondary education level.
Speakers preceding me have said that there is a Council of Ministers of Education. However, it does not end there; there are interchanges of information, conferences and conventions of public servants engaged in the field of education as well as school boards and teachers. There is also-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-201, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 21 and 28.
Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was talking about the reason behind this motion, and suggested it was the social and political situation at the present time. We do not find people throwing rocks at their own windows, or at the windows of their friends. This only happens when people are upset to the point where they think in terms of political disturbance and social revolution. It is generally felt that the people
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
who become involved in social revolution are those who have the least stake in the country. This is something with which we should concern ourselves when trying to limit ownership as far as possible to our own people. Social and political development is likely to go hand in hand with the development of a country.
Let me refer to what was said in the Financial Times of June 26 regarding the oil industry. We find this at page 12:
At this point, Mr. Macdonald has not gone any further than to reiterate Ottawa's 1970 guidelines. Canadians are supposed to have a "substantial opportunity" to participate in ownership, engineering and construction of the line.
The article referred to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. It goes on to state:
Canadian engineers have no doubt that they will participate-but as managers or under sub-contract?
Perhaps I might ask whether they will participate as labourers. I continue quoting:
"This is the critical time," says one Canadian engineer. "One job leads to another." He argues that if a U.S. engineer is named to manage the Mackenzie project, chances are the same company will get the nod for three or four more big Arctic pipeline projects being considered.
Later in the article, we find this statement:
The engineering firm which manages the project will have enormous power in hiring, assigning sub-contracts and specifying materials and equipment. The $5 billion pipeline will generate about $250 million in engineering fees-and provide work for thousands of engineers in Canada and the U.S.
Logically, a project as large as the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, particularly in view of its complexity and the fact that American as well as Canadian gas and oil will move through it, can hardly avoid involving the capital and engineering skill of other nations. I am not arguing about that. I am suggesting that the Canadian content should not be too small; and further, in connection with the amendment we are proposing, that if the Canadian percentage of business in that pipeline is too small, some of the political and social adverse consequences which I discussed earlier will increase.
I think we should make an effort now to ensure that Canada's interests are adequately protected. The hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) suggested that no longer does capital come from people who invest their money; a large portion of it comes from the sale of products on the marketplace and it is built up within companies. I suggest to the minister that he should .consider greater Canadian ownership of business in this light. We might invest, through the Canada Development Corporation, in a business such as this and get some return on our investment. I am sure the Canada Development Corporation, with the credit of the Canadian government behind it, could go to the insurance companies and borrow hundreds of millions of dollars as easily as a private corporation could.
I would like to make another suggestion to the minister. If we do not decide to do it through the Canada Development Corporation, we might use the Panarctic approach to ownership by foreign corporations. Why should we give a grant of $12 million to a company that will build a pulp mill? Why should we not invest $12 million in the company

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
and take a percentage of the profits, if any, at the time? I suggest that the effect, so far as raising capital is concerned, would be the same and that, logically, some of the ownership would go to the Canadian people if we used this approach. It seems to me that we should give more thought to this. We have given several hundred millions of dollars away in the regional development program, and especially, so far as big projects such as pulp mills and oil ventures are concerned, the government should actually invest the money rather than give grants.
I want to mention one or two other points which I think the government should well consider in connection with the matter we are discussing. I believe that there is a shortage of management training in Canada and that the government could well afford to give some encouragement in this area. This would have some effect on our political and social development in Canada. If the managers of a business are from somewhere else than Canada, if the ones who make the decisions that really count come from somewhere else, wherever this may be, the effect is detrimental. I do not think that we Canadians are any slower so far as our mentality, our intellectual capacity or our business sense are concerned. It may be that we have not had the opportunity to develop in some areas as we should, and I would like to suggest to the minister that he might consider further assistance along this line. Certainly we have some business schools in the country and perhaps we could give some aid or at least encouragement to them.
This is also important in a social sense. Small Canadian business in the Prairies is also important, and the logical thing to do would be to give them some encouragement to grow and become big business rather than encouraging some foreign owned giant to move in and take a further chunk of the Canadian economy. It seems a logical step that we might take.
I notice in sections of the Gray report some reference to joint ventures, and I have been advocating that we take a good look at this. I will not go into it in detail, but we might look at some other things. For example, we might discriminate in the sense of using government purchases from Canadian controlled firms rather than American controlled firms. We might give grants and loans only to Canadian controlled firms and we might use the tax system in favour of Canadian controlled firms. These are merely measures which might logically establish the political and social goals about which some hon. members have been speaking this afternoon.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have not taken part in this debate up to this point but I do not want to see this legislation pass without saying some of the things about it that are on my mind. We have proposed these amendments because we feel very strongly that this matter cannot be considered purely from an economic point of view. We feel very strongly that the economic, political and social wellbeing of this country is indivisible and that economics cannot be considered apart from the other two. No part of it can be separated or lost without the rest going the same way. That is why we seek to make these amendments in a determined attempt to put some bite into this toothless legislation.

Times without number this government has been warned, three times in its own reports and countless times by other thoughtful and authoritative bodies and individuals, that the extent and nature of American investment imperils Canada's economic independence, its political sovereignty and its cultural identity. But in spite of all these warnings, in spite of the growing misery, hardship and apprehension of Canadians, so many of whom are in difficulties because of the lack of a proper policy from the government, this government will simply not listen to these warnings. Instead, their ears are wide open to the siren song of continentalism, which means accepting American domination of Canada's economic, political and cultural future.
This proposal to screen foreign takeovers of Canadian companies means only some haggling over the terms by which a small fraction of U.S. capital enters Canada. It leaves untouched the whole disastrous set up by which Canada is gradually being inundated by the floodwaters of American big business, American political thinking and American cultural values. The worst of it is that the dike would hold if Canadians in the government were not perpetually weakening it from inside by poking holes through, thus enabling the flood to come all the more easily.
If this country is to be kept in one piece, we have to be masters in our own house, maitres chez nous. This government is permitting a great and powerful neighbour to move in and lay down the pattern of living for us. This government is betraying the promise that Canada could develop as a country unique in its own way, with all kinds of possibilities and all kinds of developments which belong to this country and which we should promote ourselves. We have only to look at what is happening to see how disastrous the situation is, and this legislation will simply worsen it because it will mean nothing whatsoever and the same thing will go on increasingly.
Economically, this country has been allowed to drift into a situation where the two extremities of the country are starved for industry. On the west coast we have all kinds of good resources but for years and years our industry has been underdeveloped and we have allowed this government to go on doing this without setting up a policy to assist. Our jobs are being shipped out and with them go our incomes.
Not long ago the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) and I raised the example of a small company that had managed to produce and develop in Canada a special chainsaw which was being marketed and the market for it was growing. Then, the parent company which was controlled in the United States decided that it was not going to continue marketing that particular chainsaw and moved the operations away down to the United States. With them went the jobs and the incomes of a great many people in the region.
That is just one example of what has happened over and over again. The Maritimes at the other end of the country are not as richly endowed with natural resources as British Columbia but have a tremendous tourist potential, and there are some possibilities for industrial devel-
June 26, 1972

opment. The Maritimes, however, have been in a state of economic starvation, and with the prevention of its proper development comes the starvation of the future of its young people. The history of the Maritimes has been a dismal story. Its young people have had to follow the road to Boston, then west to the prairie harvest fields, finally reaching the Pacific coast where they settled down and made a fine contribution to our west coast life.
What has been the government's answer? Its answer has been to hand out more and more money, much of it to the same corporations which have been draining the resources of both ends of the country. Talk about seeking to cure yourself with a hair of the dog that bit you! This is the government's policy, and the patient gets worse all the time. Why does this lopsided development continue? It is for the simple reason that American developers and parent companies find it much easier to come into Ontario. They do so for transportation reasons as well as for resource reasons. Because the United States finds it easier to establish branch plants in Ontario, our government tamely allows this process to continue and, as a result, the eastern and western extremities of the country are underdeveloped.
From the consumers' point of view a serious situation is threatening. We are beginning to notice that control over food and grocery products is slipping more and more into the hands of the larger chain stores. The little grocery stores that used to be on the corner of every block are dying away. As yet all the great chain stores are not American controlled or American owned, but the greatest one in western Canada is completely American owned and controlled. I refer to the Safeway chain. Canada Safeway is its single Canadian subsidiary. Safeway is the largest retail food chain in the United States west of the Mississippi. Canada Safeway, a wholly owned subsidiary, operates 263 retail outlets from the head of the Great Lakes to the Pacific region, with some in the Toronto area. Its profits increased 40 per cent in the first quarter of this year. To a considerable extent it has been responsible for the rise in food prices. We do not know just how to assign responsibility, but we do know that the chain stores are to a large extent responsible for the rise in prices. More and more the Canadian consumer is at the mercy of control exercised south of the border.
The Batten Royal Commission report in 1968, which went into the whole question of food chains and food prices in the five biggest cities on the Prairies, said this: Safeway is recognized to be the price leader because ... it is regarded to be the principal price cutter in every city. Its reputation as a price cutter is not based on its having the lowest prices, rather it is based on well-advertised, selective price cutting.
In every city, except Saskatoon, Safeway was the largest advertiser by far. The only reason it was not the largest in Saskatoon was that three companies under Weston control advertised jointly.
But the worst part of all is what is happening to the future of Canadian culture. We know that when economic control goes, political control will also go. Culturally the result will be disastrous for Canada. We have built up a fine mosaic tradition encompassing different peoples. At times it has been touch and go, but we have succeeded with patience and understanding. On the other side of the
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
border there is the melting pot tradition. Every person who goes to the United States has to become a 100 per cent American, homogenized. I say that the government's lack of policy as shown in this legislation will result in the ruin of our chances to make this a new and unique country all of its own. We began by attracting people from all over the world. We all came here, whether recently or six generations ago-


Mr. McBride:: Not the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand).


Winona Grace MacInnis: Unless we stop this growth of domination by foreign interests, we will be lost as a country. Last March 24 when speaking to a National Executive meeting of the Canadian Jewish Congress in Toronto the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said this:
There is no doubt that the most important single resource in this country is not its size or its physical splendours but its human resources; the persons who live here reflect in millions of ways the face of Canada and do so more accurately and effectively than any map or statistical chart. We are, in the result, a different country from any other; we have a different outlook, different attitudes, and different values. We are this because the social evolution of Canadians has not been identical to the patterns pursued, consciously or unconsciously, by other societies elsewhere. For a number of reasons there has not developed in Canada a pressure to conform and, in my view, we are the better for it. Conformity, for all its surface attraction in terms of unity and absence of misunderstanding, is a deadly influence. It eliminates individuality, it reduces brilliance to mediocrity, it grinds down personal initiative. Worse than even any of these consequences, however, is its pattern of discrimination and exclusion of those who are non-conformists.
Canada, partly through the foresight and wisdom of our forebears a century ago, partly through chance and natural selective processes, has developed on a quite different pattern. The fabric of our society is diverse and colourful. It is also, as a result, exceedingly resilient. There has been little doubt in the minds of millions of Canadians for many years that this is a multicultural society.
I want to warn that those words of the Prime Minister will not be worth the paper they are printed on if the government does the direct opposite of what he has suggested in that passage. We shall have conformity. We shall have streamlined Canadianism. Already, we are getting to the stage in our eating habits where our national dish may well become a hot dog with potato chips, washed down by a flood of Coca-cola.
The Texas drawl in music is becoming more and more pervasive. We are not hearing as many Canadian accents in our songs. It is the same in every department of our life. I hope that those people who live in French-speaking Canada realize that if they want to preserve the individuality of that part of the country-as we all do-they will not do it by increasing American dominance and influence. That will come in, as it has in the past, through industry and then by radio and television. Soon our young people will want nothing but American radio and television broadcasts because that kind of pap is so easy and it is the sort of colourful thing that attracts young people.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important measure we are dealing with tonight and I feel that in this regard the government is selling Canada short. Our ancestors had no notion that one day there would be a government in

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
power that would betray the bright promise that brought them here. If we want to develop patterns of our own, it is still not too late. But if we keep on the road to continental-ism we might as well shut-up shop and follow the Mississippi or any other of the rivers down which we can be sold. I want to see us develop along our own lines in a free and independent manner.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: I welcome the opportunity to speak tonight on Bill C-201 and particularly on the many amendments which have been brought forward, demonstrating that the bill was far from adequate and that it could not be expected to be well received in the House.
Opposition to the bill has been strong. We are now dealing with several amendments brought forward by the New Democratic Party, some of which I feel are fully justified because we know the bill will not settle the problem of foreign interests taking advantage of Canadians. Quite a lengthy volume has been written on the subject and we have long known that we are being taken advantage of, and the bill will not allow us to regain control over our economy.
It purports considering the situation of foreigners coming here to exploit our resources in order to determine their purpose in coming here and the consequences that might be involved.
To find out what the results of foreign takeovers are going to be is fine, but it would be much better to find a way to get back our economy. Why did we allow foreigners to take over our industries? The governments we chose for ourselves, whether grit or tory, were good governments and they ran our country for years; unfortunately, they let most of what we owned fall into foreign hands.
The number of our family businesses has been reduced to practically nothing. One after another, they feel into foreign hands. Small businesses of all kinds, including the leather shoe industry, have disappeared and were replaced by larger businesses under foreign control. The only capital that we should import, Mr. Speaker, is technological capital. If we lack technology, we can get it from some other country.
All we have to do is get organized and find the experts and staff we need to develop our industries, our general economy, and pay them accordingly. Well, this has not been done.
We have exported technology and finance based on our natural resources. Then, if foreigners have been able to finance our natural resources through techniques we know, I believe it is high time for the government to suggest financial remedies to regain control over our economy.
But this bill does not suggest anything valuable to give to Canadians the hope to become once again the masters of their economy.
We will continue to be exploited by foreigners because we lack capital. Why? Who gets the savings of the nation or the Canadian taxpayers?

First of all, the federal government through bonds, taxes and levies. And Canadian citizens even have to borrow in order to pay their taxes and levies and must besides pay the interest on the money they borrow to pay their taxes.
That is not a way to become owners of our industries, exploited and overexploited due to interest rates. In order to lend to industry, the Industrial Development Bank, which is the bank of citizens, exploit the latter by asking an interst rate of 12 per cent. Industry cannot become owner owing to the exploitation by the government itself through a bank created precisely to help.
Mr. Speaker, this is what we should read in that good-intentioned bill. However, since no solution is provided, we shall remain exploited, by both national and international financial groups.
They say that foreign investment in Canada will be carefully supervised. A few conditions will be set; for instance, a certain percentage of the shares will have to belong to Canadians, while another percentage will belong to foreigners. If Canadians have no capital on hand, how can they become shareholders?
At the present time, we do not have the necessary money to become shareholders in any industry, and the minister knows it. See what the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) had to do for industries, all of them close to bankruptcy. They are given grants with the taxpayers' money, and yet, many of them still go bankrupt, because even with government grants they cannot manufacture, produce or remain in operation. Why is that? Because the Canadian people do not have enough purchasing power to buy the production, because the goods remain unsold in the warehouses, and the warehouses are still being financed under bank formula 88, involving a 12 per cent interest rate.
In fact, a 12 per cent interest rate has to be paid to the Industrial Development Bank and to chartered banks in order to finance inventories in warehouses. And while the warehouses are bursting with goods, if the banks request payment, the industries have to sell at a loss, and then we see mass bankruptcies. Industries are unable to make ends meet because they have to sell their production at a loss.
This bill says nothing about that. It deals with control of foreign takeovers, the appointment of a commission to examine the matter. Once this has been achieved, not much more could be done. Foreigners will be told: Settle in this country just the same, since we do not have the means to finance our businesses. The manufacturer has his back to the wall when he has to reimburse the money borrowed from the Industrial Development Bank, plus interest and tax on these repayments because they are taxable. This is where nothing works anymore.
Many establishments must bo bankrupt. If not, they have to sink into debts, borrow millions and sell shares on the stock exchange. But they cannot all have recourse to the stock exchange. Only the large industries have access to it. The others cannot properly manage their undertaking; they are too heavily taxed and overtaxed; they have too much interest to pay, the cost of production is too high
June 26, 1972

and they cannot sell their products. They cannot compete with foreigners, even if the minister is moving heaven and earth to find outtlets abroad. Despite all his good will and efforts, when products are too expensive it is difficult to export them.
In the booklet I have in hand, there is absolutely nothing to let us hope for any possibility of finding ways to reduce our production cost so as to enable us to export. The cost of our production must be reduced in order to enable Canadians to buy more products because, if production is too expensive, Canadians will not have the money necessary to buy it and it will stay in warehouses, financed at 12 per cent according to form 88 used by banks.
Mr. Speaker, it is impossible, in the present system, for Canadians to become owners, shareholders of industries. Yet the bill does not offer more significant benefits enabling us to develop, to become ourselves and to develop our country from a physical point of view.
Thus we are still abler to develop it from a financial point of view, but it is precisely what we do not want to do: everything which is physically possible-as is often said-should be financially feasible. If not, it is because our economy is not well administered and balanced. Therefore, we have to use the proper techniques in order to balance once more our economy so that Canadians may some day become owners.
Mr. Speaker, do our representatives have at heart the desire to assure the respect of our ethnic characteristics? I think they don't have time to ponder over that question. Several months would be needed to arrive at solutions in order to find the means and method of organizing a logical system, adapted to reality so that we may do something in the field of economy.
The bill we are now examining has weak points and shows that as much as 80 per cent of certain industries do not belong to us, being under foreign control.
It seems to me that, as a whole, close to 75 per cent of our industries are under foreign control. This subject is dealt with in the bill, but having been aware of that for a long time we learn precious little from it. If its contents had been a little different, if it had suggested something else, we certainly could have worked out some practical answers and tell our fellow citizens: We have devised a way to allow you to become the owners of your enterprise, of your business, in order that you could lead your kind of life in your own country. But there is no mention at all of it in this bill. The only thing it proposes is the right to inquire into foreign interests wishing to develop our resources.
Mr. Speaker, since we already have so much, namely universities and very advanced technological knowledge, we should be able to do without the bigger part of foreign investments.
Capital is the only thing lacking but we have everything to bring such capital into play. Indeed, when foreigners come here to develop this country, they know what to do with shares. They know what is a share and they are able to issue shares; that is to create capital. If they can do that, we can do it too.
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
Foreigners create capital with our property, our assets and our natural ressources. That capital is really created through shares based upon something that is not tangible, on nothing, and those companies thus take over our industries.
Yet, the government could enable the Canadian people to do the same thing through a simple piece of legislation that would promote their interests in ventures of that kind. It could also provide them with explanations to show them what is a company, what shares are, how they are created, but it takes great care not to do that.
We could regain that way the control of our trade and of our economy and enable Canadians to become masters of their own destiny.
A good number of industries and firms are operated by foreigners at the present time and are very hard to take back. We will have to resort to exceptional measures if we want to do so. The bill now before us does not include any solution to that problem.
I do not intend to blame in any way the government since we are glad that it has introduced this bill. Indeed, it reminds us that we are no more masters in our house. But this legislation contains nothing about the effective means to break out of this situation. We should find these effective means and it is on this point that we are focusing our efforts in order to devise the appropriate means of insuring that a low interest financial agency and a satisfactory purchasing power are available to Canadians so that our domestic market would absorb the largest possible amount of products and that we will export the leftover instead of what best we have.
Today, we export our best products and are satisfied with leftovers while this situation should be reversed. We should consume whatever best we have and export the remainder. Charity begins at home.
It is with this objective in mind that I say that this bill can settle nothing. It is, at the most, a statement of principles. I think that to extricate ourselves from this dead end, it will be necessary to publish other white papers suggesting effective solutions. We shall have to find the appropriate means to bring about the Canadian financing of our industry in the same manner as it is now being financed by foreigners, based on the same natural resources and the same guarantees.
The reason foreigners invest here and create capital is that we put up the necessary security. In fact, we put up our natural resources, and then we are happy just to work for foreigners. Today, we realize that we are not masters in our own country any more, and we deplore it.
The way to get out of this deadlock is to say to Canadians: Considering that 80 per cent of our economy is controlled by foreigners, we must wonder why, and find ways of regaining control.
If we are unable to buy back the industries which are foreign-owned at present, new developments at least should be owned by Canadians. We should issue new credit to Canadians at minimal rates of interest in order to allow them to develop their industries and trades. Thus, they could own new developments, if not older ones.

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
I would still have several remarks to make, but I think it will be rather difficult for us to support this bill. We also feel certain that-


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


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties with this bill, which is designed to take care of the social and economic wishes of the Canadian people, is that it falls within the responsibility of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I know that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is interested in economics; in fact, he is an expert in that field. He is also an expert in terms of his department and the language being used by modern economists in the fields of trade and finance. Therefore, he should be prepared to accept the suggestions of the previous speaker regarding this bill.
If the government decided to make loans at a very low interest rate to Canadian companies, this would probably solve the problem of American-controlled branch plants in our country. However, I do not understand this matter well enough to know whether it would accomplish what my party and the Canadian public would like to accomplish.
In introducing this bill, which is a substitute for a major screening process to eliminate the serious problem we have, the minister has come up with this minor economic solution. What bothers me is that some of the Conservatives are not speaking on the bill. In their ranks they have one of the two casualties of government attention to foreign takeover. I refer to Mr. Roman who was affected by the government's economic control of foreign takeover in the case of Denison Mines. Mr. Roman has decided to run as a Conservative candidate. I am surprised that none of his would-be colleagues are willing to point out that this bill only makes legal what happened to Mr. Roman retroactively by order in council, with limited compensation to sweeten the pie.
Therefore, I am really surprised that the Conservatives have not been speaking on this bill. Mr. Roman's economic judgment has been very successful over the years. However, either he has been badly informed or his political judgment is wrong. He is not going to find the friends he is looking for in the Conservative party.
There are only two exceptions which I can mention, Mr. Roman and Home Oil. People like Mr. Roman and all the other economic wizards in this country have been able to build up companies from nothing to a very prominent position with money they borrowed from Canadian banks in which Canadians invested their savings. Mr. Roman should be in the Liberal party. I suggest he should consider very carefully his candidacy, because obviously his friends are in the Liberal party.
It has been pointed out by members of my party that our interest in this foreign takeover bill is very widespread. We are affected in many ways other than the economic field. We believe the Canadian public is interested for other reasons. School textbooks are very important to the development of a nation. When I was a young boy I learned the story of how Laura Secord, hanging on to the 
tail of a cow, drove the cow home through enemy lines. That was a much better story than they are telling now about the glorious stars and stripes, how it has stood forever and how God is on the side of the American soldier no matter against whom the battle might be. In any case, these stories are the fabric which makes up a nation and which, in the end, enables people to stand up for something which they and I believe to be worth while, the Canadian fact, the fact of this nation extending from east to west and north to south.
We should have been most concerned when we lost our major publishing company. But no. This government did not take any stand. The government in Toronto did not take a stand. The only time they take a stand is when the economy is being hurt. Some may ask, what about the uranium industry? Mr. Speaker, they were not interested in preserving that industry for Canada.
We have allowed the manufacture of napalm, we have allowed the manufacture of materials used in germ warfare, we have allowed the manufacture of destructive chemicals to be used in Viet Nam. Everyone knows about that. So they were not interested in the possible misuse of uranium. They were interested in retaining control of uranium because a whole Canadian industry, through the CANDU atomic reactor, is based on uranium and if the Americans were to control uranium, then instead of being able to use the heavy water method of producing atomic energy, and hence electrical energy, we would be obliged to use enriched uranium and follow the methods used by other countries.
This government is interested only in economics. I do not go so far as the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan) who says all economists are crazy; I just think most of them are. Two minutes ago we listened to a very learned gentleman talking about pure economics. I believe that anyone who talks about the situation affecting a nation in terms of pure economics, in terms of profit and loss, is missing the point altogether. The fact that an operation is being run economically by a Canadian is no better, really, than its being run economically by a foreigner. In addition to economic advantages there is the national interest as a whole to be considered. I believe that the social benefit, the cultural benefit is almost as important as whether an enterprise is successful. Perhaps it is more important.
In the past, when making decisions connected with our development we have often cited economic benefit as our justification. The entrepreneurs, the capitalists hitched their wagons to the Calvanistic principle which has been adopted by Canadians for so many years that work, any work, is good. Work being good, they said, it should be paid for at the highest possible rate and so should everything else. Through this reasoning they reached the conclusion that whatever was done, if it made money it was successful. It was also godly and it was good. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the old adage in the Li'l Abner strip that what is good for General Bullmoose, or General Motors, is good for the nation is not a good concept.
I had the opportunity this week of meeting a large number of young people who were not at all interested in
June 26, 1972

the work-money-success ethic. They were not convinced it was a proper ethic to live by. They expressed the opinion that they were on earth to be their brothers' keepers and that it was not good enough for them to make a success as General Bullmoose did; it was necessary for everyone else to achieve a measure of success or they themselves were not truly successful. So I say it is not good enough in this legislation to perpetuate the myth which has grown up in this country, that the only thing which matters is money, that money is success and that this kind of success is the criterion of worth.
My party has suggested other criteria. They are not new; in fact, they derive from the first sentence of the bill before us. If we read it, we find the minister is talking there about the national good. We agree with him that this should be one of the criteria. But the minister knows, of course, that he only put that sentence in for windowdressing. It is the preamble. When we get down to the clauses which are capable of putting it into effect, we find nothing. But we shall add it to where it counts, that is, to a number of clauses. If these criteria are accepted, the minister will find considerable support among the young people of Canada and among many of us in this quarter of the House. If not, we shall be confirmed in our notion that we are dealing only with a piece of window-dressing.
We all realize that when we talk about recovering control of the Canadian economy we are bound in practice to take into consideration the state of development of the people we represent. We have to take into consideration, obviously, the present state of the economy, the fact that in the main a dozen companies control most of our wealth. At one time, the old CCF party put out a pamphlet which was widely read. It certainly made a lasting impression on me. It said that 100 people owned Canada. I suppose, the nearest one could get to knowing who, would be to look at the list of directors in this country who have 50 or more directorships in their name.
I think of companies like A.T and T in the United States which indirectly control many companies in Canada but in which, strange as it may seem, they own practically no stock. Over other companies, of course, they exercise direct control. I think of Bell Telephone whose representatives have appeared before us many times. They have drawn attention to the great number of people who own shares in Bell Telephone Company, yet it is very odd that the company should have exactly the same structure as the Bell company in the United States.
In a situation as complex as this, it is very hard to say with certainty that the 200 companies represented at Liberal party meetings are those which control the country. If members of the Liberal party believe they do, they may be fooling themselves. These are the ones who show, the ones that come to the surface. I suppose there are other companies which exercise a far greater measure of control though in a complex and devious way. For example, we have the interlocking directorship where one director tells another, both of whom represent large interests, to move A to B while he moves C to D so they both get an advantage from E.
Foreian Takeovers Review Act
That is the kind of control that is not affected economically but is affected in terms of the political or social desires of the Canadian people. We know when a company does something considered anti-social, something that is not in the interests of the people in the area or in the interests of the country itself. Today we see another company declaring it will not produce a certain commodity and for no particular reason.
If an economic calamity occurs in the United States, which is not unlikely, it seems to me that we will be heading for another financial showdown internationally. If the United States once more decides it has been unfairly treated by other countries, as it did when it imposed the surcharge, it may take further financial action and the iceberg which is mostly submerged will rise and give a great deal more exposure. It may decide that some of the industries of this country which are both economically and socially desirable in the area should be repatriated to the United States, in which case Canada would not have to decide to screen the process. Instead, we will have to decide on the political and social implications of such a situation.
As another example, if General Motors of the United States decided to close down the General Motors plant at Oshawa, which supplies cars more cheaply to the United States than the United States can produce them, and if the same move is duplicated by other companies, as apparently it is being duplicated today, then Canada will have to make a decision that has nothing to do with economics; the decision will be a political and social one.
I am not suggesting that this would be of advantage. I am sure most people in this country are not prepared to face that circumstance, no matter the control retained over Canadian industry by other countries. After all, Canadians have been provided with a high standard of living and have always been aware of the economic situation. I think of the Spruce Falls mill in Kapuskasing owned by the New York Times, a foreign-controlled company that has made an effort to do better than most Canadian-controlled companies. Even the minister who presented the Gray report, probably economically as reactionary as anyone in the House, indicated that there were five or six fields in which even the minimum policy of the Liberal government will have to apply. Yet we find this bill applying to one limited field only, the easiest of all to attack, namely, the field of economics; and it is being applied in a way that legalizes what the government has had to do twice previously.
If the government really wants to take a step forward in the field of foreign ownership, it will accept these amendments which indicate only that political and social implications should be part of the decisions that are taken.


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


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have been following this debate since eleven o'clock this morning and once again the House of Commons finds itself in its classic stance. We have a party on one side saying that

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act the government is going too far, and a party on the other side saying that the government is not going far enough.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The other party quit early.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: In the process of saying too much and saying too little, the democratic process is breaking down and nothing gets done. We have been here since eleven o'clock this morning debating the first of 32 amendments. Hon. members on the other side have had most of the day to make their points.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Where have you been all day?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I have been here listening to the things your party said. They were not worth listening to but I listened nevertheless, and I think now I should have an opportunity to make my remarks.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Then get off this nonsense about democracy.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: As I was saying, we have been debating the first of 32 amendments today and have yet to bring a single one of them to a vote. Speaker after speaker has been talking about some very heartwarming subjects, most of which having nothing to do with the amendments let alone the bill. This is one of those occasions when opposition members talk out their own amendments. There has been the suggestion by opposition members that they have the right to do this since they claim there has not been enough time to discuss foreign ownership in Canada, or takeovers.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is right.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I suggest that that is a complete fallacy. The subject is well known to Canadians. Now a great deal of study was given the bill by the committee, which interviewed 11 groups of witnesses from across Canada representing thousands of members. The committee held 18 separate meetings involving 331 hours of study. Some 65 witnesses attended the meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
I suggest that this amounts to a very full discussion and that members of all parties have had a full opportunity to express their views. The subject matter of the amendments before the House today are almost entirely the same as those debated very fully in the committee. They have been brought back again, I do not know why. It is the right of members to do so, but I suggest that is not the way to facilitate the passage of legislation through this House.
Today we have listened to members giving the House lectures on first year university economics and quotations from Adam Smith, Hobbs and Locke. We have had debates about research and development which have nothing to do with the bill.


Mr. Fairweather:: Read the bill and you will see.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: We have had speeches about the laying of the CPR tracks across Canada, which we all hailed many generations ago as a

great accomplishment. We have discussed banks financing takeovers in Canada, despite the fact that the subject was thoroughly discussed in committee, where it was pointed out that Canadian banks do not finance any significant number of foreign takeovers in this country. I think it is important to correct this sort of misinformation that is circulated through the House.
The president of the Canadian Bankers Association used the word "piffling" when describing the amount of money banks put up to finance foreign takeovers. Subsequently, in a letter in the press he indicated that a tally had shown that banks in Canada and other financial institutions supplied about 9 per cent of takeover money in Canada and only a small part of this was supplied by the banks. He said that much of this is temporary money used for roll-over purposes in the course of takeovers in Canada. When hon. members repeat this over and over again, as it was repeated again this evening by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), making the same erroneous point, I think it is important that it be cleared up once again.
I may say I was impressed by the eloquence of the hon. member for Timiskaming. He talked so much about the social and political aspects which should be in the bill that I thought for a minute he was going to suggest we add religious convictions as a subject to the bill.


An hon. Member:: That might help.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: We have been told that the bill is a eunuch and does nothing, yet we have an NDP amendment which suggests that the bill should be made retroactive. I should like to ask hon. members what the logic of such action would be. They say the bill is no good, yet they want to make it retroactive.


An hon. Member:: Don't confuse them with logic.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: A retroactive eunuch would be very interesting.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: An experienced eunuch or a kind of unique eunuch.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: At least he would have his memories.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: We have had other repetitions of erroneous ideas this afternoon. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) talked about a second shoe. This matter was cleared up by the minister at committee meetings and reported. I refer hon. members to the report of the committee meeting on June 9 at which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) said:
There has been a bit of confusion on that subject and my friend Mr. Burton will remember that when Mr. Brewin was speaking in the House, Friday last he referred to a statement that the Prime Minister had made, to the effect that we had nothing else up our sleeve, or something of that kind. At that point, I interrupted-this is in Hansard-and said "With respect to screening". I am quite sure that when the Prime Minister said that we do not have anything else up our sleeve, he was referring to screening. I checked that with him and that was his interpretation.
June 26, 1972

I do not think it helps the people of Canada when they listen to reports from this House and hear members repeating over and over again the suggestion that this government or governments in the future will never do anything else about foreign takeovers or about foreign ownership in Canada, because those matters are undoubtedly the subject of continuing interest to the people of Canada and will be to governments which serve in this House of Commons.
I want to say something about the suggestion of the hon. member for Assiniboia that the government has not listened to any of the suggestions made by those who appeared before the committee or to any opposition amendments, and the government has been completely adamant on this subject. Let me remind the hon. member that the Committee for an Independent Canada suggested there should be a change in the presumption level. The Hon. Walter Gordon, who spoke as a representative of the Committee for an Independent Canada, came before the committee and made the representation, among others, that the percentage levels at which presumption of foreign ownership should be considered and screened should be raised. We had an amendment before the committee which would allow for that. I refer to the amendment to clause 3(2) which deals specifically with that point.


An hon. Member:: That is another proposal which is half pregnant.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: There were proposals from the provinces in Canada gleaned from a discussion between the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) and the provincial governments across Canada that there should be better machinery for consultation with the provinces. There was an amendment included to allow for that provision. I find it strange indeed that members of the NDP should try to prevent the government taking action in the area of direct foreign investment.


An hon. Member:: Stick to the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I remind the parliamentary secretary that his remarks are perhaps a little away from the amendment before us. He himself commented about other speakers not keeping to the amendment. He should try to keep his remarks relevant.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, in keeping to the subject of the bill, if I am to reply to hon. members who themselves did not refer to the bill or the amendment, I shall find it difficult to make comments of specific relevance. At any rate, I am very close to concluding my remarks.
I was saying that it is very strange the NDP should try to prevent government action in the area of direct foreign investment in order to bring about substantial benefits to Canada. I thought about this today as I listened to the debate, and concluded that there are only two possible reasons that party could have for adopting such a course of action. The first is that they have involved themselves so much in the airy-fairy world of political theories they must devise some kind of policy to fit those esoteric theo-
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
ries. The only other alternative I can think of is that this is sheer political opportunism on their part.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I realize that this thought is furthest from their minds and it is a shame I should even suggest such a thing. However, the NDP has talked about many lofty objectives. These hon. members have talked about many things, but because they have talked so much they have clearly shown they want to continue to talk, but do nothing.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to my colleague from British Columbia, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard), chide the members of this party for having taken some time to consider the subject of clause 2 of the bill. At the outset of his remarks he made some rather high-sounding references to the maintenance of democracy and that sort of thing, and suggested that this subject matter had been fully discussed.
I am not quite sure what he meant when he was referring to the subject matter, but it came to my mind that if he was talking about concern for the survival of Canada as an independent economic, political, social and cultural entity, there has been quite a bit of discussion on this topic over a period of time. In fact, I was reminded that some time ago my first year essay-I think the hon. member made some reference to academic discourse-as a freshman student at the University of British Columbia, was entitled "The Americanization of Canadian life", or words to that effect.
It is true to say that both before and since the time I wrote that essay, this issue has been a matter of concern to many Canadian people. Unfortunately, it does not appear to have been a very great concern to most governments which have been in power in Canada since that day in my youth when I wrote the essay. I am sorry that I do not have it with me and cannot read it into the record.
If one were to put the subject matter of the hon. member's remarks into the context of the current Parliament, and remembered in so doing that he speaks as a member who supports the government of the day, who serves as parliamentary secretary to one of the ministers of the Crown in the cabinet, one would realize that it ill behooves him to talk about lengthy debate and discussion on this subject, particularly with reference to any government proposals on the matter. To put it mildly, the hon. member has a lot of gall to complain that the day has been spent on the consideration of this bill in what, probably, is the final session of this Parliament, in light of the fact that the government he supports has sat on its fanny for the last four years and has done absolutely nothing about the problem.
I do not need to remind the hon. member, surely, because he does spend some time in the House, that the members of this party have persistently during every session of this Parliament questioned the government about when they would be prepared to follow through some of the indications of action that they tried to give the

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
Canadian people during the last general election. We waited in vain until finally we received this poor excuse for a bill which, the hon. member suggests, represents the government taking important action on a question that many people have said in many different ways is at the very heart of Canadian confederation from its start until today.
If I, as a young Canadian student attending his first year at university, was concerned about this matter and if, as someone who has taken some interest in the affairs of his country over a period of time since then, have seen year in and year out with this government and that government in power the continued erosion of the ability of the Canadian people to control their own destiny because governments appeared to be unconcerned, then I suggest that as any member who gives any serious thought to this matter I would recognize that when we have an opportunity to debate this question it is worth spending a little time and a little thought on it before we move to passing the government's proposals.
What is the clause of the bill that we have before us, and what is the amendment that is under consideration? The proposal which has been put forward by one of my colleagues says, in effect, that Canadians should be concerned, if we are to survive as a nation worthy of the name, about something more than simply our economic environment in the narrow sense of that term. Surely no one can quarrel with that idea.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No one does.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In the context of this clause of the bill I would suggest that the amendment is more than appropriate. I have been reading and rereading it rather carefully in the context of the title of the bill. I am reminded of something I said in one of the committees of the House the other day. We were considering the preamble of that bill, and the preamble was a rather high-sounding declaration. As a matter of fact, it was much more verbose in its wording than this one, and perhaps less meaningful.
I think that if one analyses this clause of the bill in relation to the generally accepted practice in legislation, all the bill is, in effect, is a preamble. Apart from anything else, I for one regret that instead of enacting legislation which deals with the meat of the matter we seem to be moving to the point of putting this sort of wordy declaration of purpose in the preamble of a bill like this, rather than putting it into the text of the bill, as if it really lent some substance and weight to the thrust of the legislation.
As I read this clause, one could argue that it is hardly worth trying to amend it, because I do not think it really means very much anyway. But if we are to have this kind of wording in a bill, if we are to continue what in the committee I referred to as a Pickersgillian fad, referring to the fact that it was the so-called new transportation act produced by the former member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate when he was minister of transport that seemed to start the trend of putting a lot of high-sounding words at the beginning of proposed new law, then we might as well make it a reasonably all-embracing statement of purpose.
In that context we must be concerned with much more than the mere matter of the economic environment. We should make it clear that what happens to the economic

environment has a direct and lasting effect on our political and social environment. How can it be otherwise? So if it is expedient to have an act, and if it is expedient to state in rather lengthy terms its purpose, then I suggest, as my colleagues are suggesting, that we should set our horizons beyond the narrow economic context of the impact of this legislation, whatever it may be.
The bill, entitled "Foreign Takeovers Review Act" as well as the clauses set some terms and conditions under which the government will have the authority to make certain reviews. The pros and cons of those proposals can be debated under other report stage amendments when we come to them. But in the context of clause 2 of the bill I suggest that the House cannot do less than indicate that the purpose of the legislation goes beyond a mere economic review of the consequences of foreign ownership and of takeovers in Canada. In certain special pieces of legislation we have recognized that if we are to preserve ourselves as a nation worthy of the name, broader aspects than purely economic ones are involved.
I cannot understand the reluctance of the minister and of his supporters to agree to a rather simple, straightforward proposition that economics alone is not of sufficient concern, is not a sufficiently broad yardstick by which to assess the impact of takeovers. One might almost become biblical about this and remind hon. members of the saying about man not living by bread alone. It seems to me that particular reference is well taken in the context of what is proposed in this clause of the bill.
The whole ambit of subject matter that comes before Parliament from time to time becomes increasingly meaningless and our very existence as a Parliament becomes increasingly meaningless if we are prepared to allow the ever increasing erosion of our economic, social and political fabric by the process that has been going on, certainly at an accelerated rate since I first became a member of this House.
I used to think that the government headed by former prime minister St. Laurent was rather heedless of the consequences of what was happening in our economy. But when I contrast the attitudes that were taken by leading members of that government with those taken by members of the present government, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) down, I feel that in that particular period we were led by a government that was prepared staunchly to defend, protect and enhance the rights of Canadians to control their own affairs.
I recall with some nostalgia the kind of statements I used to listen to, made by Right Hon. C. D. Howe, when he talked about the dangers to Canada if we allowed the export of power, and some of the speeches he made when discussing the necessity of ensuring an all-Canadian itinerary for the transport of gas. Even though those of us in this party quarrelled vigorously with him on the method he sought to employ to bring about that objective, nevertheless on the objective itself we had a great deal of common ground.
When I contrast the attitudes that were expressed then by those who were supposed to be the leading defenders of Canada and Canada's rights, and think of the insipid,
June 26, 1972

waffling, almost hysterical yielding to the process that is going on and is characterized by the present government, then so far as Canadian governments are concerned I feel we have been going downhill at a rather rapid pace. Indeed, in that context I would say that the Liberal party of 1953 to 1957 was much more worthy of the name Liberal than its counterpart today, even though I may have been pretty critical at the time of some of the things that government did.
They say that all things in life are a matter of contrast and comparison. I do not mind admitting that I have been around here long enough to have some perspective on the attitudes and viewpoints expressed by cabinet ministers in the discharge of their governmental responsibilities. More is the pity that in this day and age, when the dangers to the future of Canada are more glaringly apparent, we find ourselves with a government which after all these years of moaning and groaning has brought forth, for the consideration of Parliament, nothing better than this bill.
I would suggest to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary and his colleagues that he accept, with a little better grace than was apparent in his speech tonight, the fact that at least some of us are prepared to stand up and be counted on the issue of really doing something effective to protect the integrity and the future of our Canadian way of life. For a brief period I was domiciled outside Canada. I was a landed immigrant in another country. But as a young man I made the choice that I wanted to come back to the Canada where I was born, because I felt there was something valuable and worth while in being Canadian, that ours was a society which in some respects was different and unique, where I could feel at home, and I wanted to play my part in preserving and enhancing it.
This is a responsibility that any member of the House should take even more seriously than does the Canadian who has no responsibilities beyond those of an ordinary private citizen. This is the place where we should be in the forefront of building a future for Canada. This is the place where some of us hoped-the present Parliament-real steps would be taken to enhance and protect the future of Canada. So far, Mr. Speaker, we have hoped in vain. So far we have been faced with a weak and insipid piece of legislation. If one reads this particular clause as it stands, it does nothing more than hold out false hopes for the Canadian people for something that has no substance and reality. I would suggest the least that could be done in the context of this clause would be to accept the attempt made by my colleagues to strengthen and broaden its intended purpose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, rising so late in the evening, when there may be a vote, presents quite a dilemma because I would like to say one or two things about the progress of this debate. But I also hope there will be a vote tonight and because of that hope I will try to confine my remarks to less than two minutes.
I think it is quite unfair to accuse the opposition of obstructionism in the debate on this bill. For example, in the committee where this bill was discussed there was a tremendous amount of co-operation. In fact, if there had
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
not been co-operation the bill would not be back in the House today. Those of us who want this bill should be grateful for the co-operation we received. Talking about the progress of this debate today, again I do not think there has been obstruction. But we come to the other question of whether there has been the kind of co-operation that is required to get the bill through the House in the time that all of us see is available.
I am rising to urge all members to show the kind of co-operation that was evident when the bill proceeded through committee. There has been a lot of debate to the effect that foreign ownership is a big question; foreign takeovers are a big question. But as I see it, the question is whether we are going to debate it or do something about it.


An hon. Member:: There is nothing in the bill to do anything about.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We have a chance to do something about it and I hope that all members who are in favour of the foreign ownership policy will see this bill as a step in that direction. For a moment I should like to dwell on an argument raised by the Committee for an Independent Canada when it appeared before our committee. I hope that none of the presentation of that committee on this particular aspect has been adopted by any hon. member opposite. They took the position that this bill, which moved in the right direction, moved so little that it was their duty to obstruct it, to prevent the country from deriving some little benefit so that there would be damage to Canada in terms of more takeovers or foreign ownership so that the government would have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has referred to obstruction from members on this side of the House, the opposition and the particular stand they may or may not have taken on the Canada-First Committee. My point of order arises from the action taken in the committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs when the chairman, the hon. member who just sat down, saw fit to take upon himself the authority to rule on his own questions and in this way stop the action of any other committee member. Any chairman who takes over a committee and refuses to accept a point of order, and as chairman rules on his own decisions, does not make it a worth-while committee.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a kind of anarchist point of view to say that we bring about big progress by preventing little progress. I want to conclude by saying that I hope that is not the spirit in which members of the opposition approach this bill, and that they will see this as little progress which is worth making and progress which they should support.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the House ready for the question on motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 21 and 28?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
3528

June 26, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger): All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motions stands deferred.
Motion No. 4, moved by Mr. Fairweather and seconded by Mr. Hales, is as follows:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by deleting lines 24 to 27 on page 2 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"dustries in Canada;
(e)	the compatibility of the acquisition with national industrial and economic policies; and
(f)	after consultation by the minister with each province that is likely to be significantly affected by an assessment made by him pursuant to section 6, the effect of the acquisition on the industrial and economic policies of each such province.
Motion No. 18, moved by Mr. Saltsman and seconded by Mr. Knowles, is as follows:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by renumbering present clause 6 as clause "6(1)" and adding the following immediately thereafter:
"(2) In conducting a review the minister shall consult with the appointed representative of the province or provinces concerned with the proposed acquisition."


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, surely obstruction cannot be charged, with only three minutes to go! The purpose of my amendment is to add another factor to the series of tests that the minister must apply in judging whether a proposed takeover is of significant benefit to Canada. I hope that members will quickly see the point of the suggestion which I make. The provincial realities, and I think it is right to say provincial priorities, will be a significant aspect. It is difficult when the minister uses the word "factor", because now that word will take on a very special meaning of jurisprudence, so I shall have to stop using it and start using the word "aspect" for the purpose of making a general comment.
My amendment recognizes the fact of provincial realities and priorities. I sincerely believe that it improves the bill and I have the temerity to hope that the government will accept it. I do not have any pride of ownership, and if the minister wants to make it his own, or the parliamentary secretary or the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan), I will bow out and make way for them.
With great good sense, an editorial in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of June 26 reads:
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger).]
Provinces have rights too:
The federal government should think twice about its decision that it cannot accommodate requests by provincial governments for more formal consultation when Ottawa is deciding whether to approve foreign takeovers.
The flat rejection of provincial participation in the decisionmaking process, spelled out in the commons by industry minister Jean-Luc Pepin, discriminates against the rights of the provinces and affords them precious little protection against further discrimination in the manner in which federal authority may be influenced.
Where, for instance, does unilateral approval by the federal government leave a province such as Nova Scotia in respect of a foreign takeover of a company in this province which the government of Nova Scotia considers not to be in best interests of its people?
That is why I am delighted that the minister sees the point and will add my amendment to his list of "factors".



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, on June 6, I presented in this House, in accordance with Standing Order 67, a petition by one Dr. Herman Weisz of Ottawa which sets out a grievance in respect of a report entitled "Concentration in the manufacturing industries of Canada". On June 7 the Clerk of the House laid upon the table the report of the Clerk of Petitions which was that this petition met the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form. On the same day the Speaker gave a ruling that the petition was not an appropriate manner in which to bring the matter to the attention of the House. This ruling said, in effect, that petitions to the House have become obsolete.
I regret this ruling in light of the long-standing right of citizens to present petitions to this House, and I hope that the appropriate committee of the House will investigate ways and means of reviewing this ancient and healthy institution so that the petitions of citizens, proper in form, may be referred by the consent of the House to appropriate committees for investigation and remedy. The Speaker did suggest that other remedies existed for those who had grievances against the administration. I now avail myself of one of these remedies.
On June 7, I questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the matter, seeking a statement from him or from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andras) in regard to the serious injustice alleged by Dr. Herman Weisz. No such statement has been forthcoming.
The grievance, Mr. Speaker, can be briefly and simply stated. It is that Dr. Herman Weisz, a Canadian citizen and a public servant, spent nearly two years, from February,
June 26, 1972

1967, to December, 1968, in charge of a study conducted by the research branch of the office of the Director of Investigation and Research; that he contributed original concepts to the work; that when the study was virtually completed in December, 1968, he was taken off the work and the final completion of it was assigned to another; and that when, after various delays, the report entitled "Concentration in the manufacturing industries of Canada" was transmitted to the minister for publication, it was stated in the letter of transmittal which was the foreword to the published report that the report was prepared by Mr. R. S. Khemani under the direction of Mr. J. William Morrow, neither of whom had made more than a minor contribution to the report.
The preface to the report is therefore wrong. It is, clearly, contrary to the facts. It failed to give credit to Dr. Weisz for his part in it and involved, in effect, the appropriation of the original work of Dr. Weisz. It is, therefore, damaging to his reputation and to any public recognition and, under the merit system of the public service, this constitutes a grave injustice to him.
I ask the minister or his representative to give an explanation of this injustice in the public administration and to tell the House what will be done to remedy it. I believe that one of the valuable contributions of this House is calling public attention to injustice in the public service, injustice to which those responsible in the government have turned a blind eye.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the report with which we are dealing is entitled "Concentration in the manufacturing industries of Canada." It was published under the authority of the former minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, now Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford).
In submitting the report to the minister, D. H. W. Henry, the combines director, wrote the following letter of transmittal:
Ottawa, March 31, 1971.
The Honourable Ron Basford, P.C., M.P.,
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs,
Ottawa.
Sir:
I have the honour to transmit to you the text of a report entitled: "Concentration in the manufacturing industries of Canada".
Special tabulations essential to the study were prepared by the manufacturing and primary industries division, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Ottawa, whose assistance is gratefully acknowledged. Professor Gideon Rosenbluth of the University of British Columbia made helpful comments upon a draft outline of the report.
The report was prepared in the research branch by Mr. R. S. Khemani-


Francis Andrew Brewin: That is not true.


Donald Ross Tolmie: -under the direction of Mr. J. William Morrow-


Francis Andrew Brewin: That is not true.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Donald Ross Tolmie: -and with the assistance of other members of the staff.
Yours very truly,
D.H.W. Henry
Director of Investigation and Research,
Combines Investigation Act


Francis Andrew Brewin: It was a false report.


Donald Ross Tolmie: In essence, it was stated that the report was prepared in the research branch by Mr. Khemani under Mr. Morrow's direction and with the assistance of other members of the research branch staff. Mr. Weisz was not singled out for special mention.
A petition under Standing Order 70 from Mr. Weisz was presented to the House on June 6 last and Mr. Speaker ruled that the House should not deal with the matter since there were other and more effective ways in which this could be done.
The situation is that the supervisors of Mr. Weisz and, in particular, the combines director, Mr. Henry, did not consider that the contribution which Mr. Weisz made to the report warranted his being singled out for special mention in the letter of transmittal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Center.)



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-ARGENTIA TASK FORCE-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, on February 13,	1970, the United States government
announced its intention to curtail operations at its naval station in Argentia, Newfoundland. Immediately following the United States government's announcement, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) issued a statement on behalf of the federal government at which time he pledged the efforts of all federal government departments to determine what possible use could be made of any available station buildings, as well as to find solutions to the serious social and economic problems that would result from the base phase-down. Following subsequent meetings between the Minister of Transport and representatives of the Placentia area, a Canada-United States committee was formed. It was later designated as the Argentia task force. This task force was headed by an official of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion here in Ottawa, Mr. Garnet Page.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to members of the local development associations in the area, in particular the members of the Placentia area development association under the chairmanship of Mr. John Whalen. Mr. Whalen and his local committee, together with the mayors and members of the town councils in the area, have worked with a dedication that is without parallel and, I might add, without remuneration. Indeed, credit for what has taken place in the area in the past two years must go to these people.
With respect to the official committee appointed by the federal government, namely, the Argentia task force, it
25319-37J

June 26, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion has been a miserable flop-mere window-dressing for the ineptitude of the federal government and the former Liberal government of Newfoundland. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the last meeting of the so-called Argentia task force was in June, 1971, more than a year ago. The last report submitted by the chairman of the task force was on April 28, 1971, and but for the fact that Mr. Page was summoned to appear as a witness before the Standing Committee on Regional Development on that date, April 28, 1971, I am confident that no report would have been submitted at that time.
I have no doubt that the minister in his reply tonight will paint a very glowing picture of the task force and the vast improvements that have come about as a result of its performance over the past two years. He will tell the House of the number of jobs that have been created in Castle Hill historic park, the vocational training school, the tourist chalet and the upgrading of the road to Long Harbour. But the truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that less than a dozen full-time jobs have been created by the federal government or through the efforts of their task force.
The federal government's reaction to the very serious problems that exist in the area as a result of the naval station phase-down is another blatant example of the government's band-aid policy, a temporary cure for the very serious social and economic problems that are prevalent in the Placentia area. It is a little ironic, Mr. Speaker, that despite the promise that was contained in the Minister of Transport's statement back in 1970 with respect to the abandoned facilities at the United States naval station, with one exception they still remain vacant. No new industries have established in the area and no real effort has been made by the Argentia task force or the federal government to offer any worth-while incentives to companies who have expressed an interest in the area.
The overcrowding of classrooms in the area continues to become more acute despite the commitment made by the task force chairman at its last meeting that he would address himself to that problem and would leave no stone unturned to find a solution. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the federal-provincial resettlement program in Newfoundland, which encouraged more than 200 families to relocate in the Placentia area, an impossible burden has been placed on existing school facilities, a burden which is beyond the capacity of the school board to overcome and, I might add, has been a serious detriment to the other areas within the jurisdiction of the school board where adequate classroom and other facilities are lacking.
The time has come for action. Unless the Argentia task force and its chairman sue willing and able to tackle the many and varied problems in the area, it should be abolished and replaced with a more aggressive body. The unemployed men and women in the Placentia area can ill afford the luxury of a high-sounding federal task force that lacks a full time director and secretariat, which meets less than once a year, which has a chairman who has not visited the area for over a year and who has not submitted a report in 16 months.

We want action. We want it immediately. We want to know what the government's policy is with respect to DREE grants to companies which express an interest in setting up operations in one of the United States government's abandoned buildings. We want a full-fledged development corporation established which would take as its prime objective that of negotiating with the United States government, through the Department of External Affairs, a satisfactory arrangement with respect to the future use of the buildings on the base abandoned by the United States. It is inconceivable that no real effort has been made by the Argentia task force or the federal government to negotiate with the United States government a more satisfactory arrangement with respect to these facilities.
I understand that at the present time occupancy of these buildings, which in most cases are ideally suited for private enterprise, is on a tenure of anywhere from one year to 30 days. We want the federal government to designate the entire Placentia area as a special area under DREE. We want assistance from the federal government to help overcome the very serious overcrowding in our schools. We want the federal government, under DREE, to concern itself with the need for improved municipal infrastructure in the area, thereby creating a healthier climate in which to encourage the private sector to establish.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, we want the federal government to accept its responsibility to the people of the Placentia area who continue to suffer the misery of unemployment and of not knowing what the future holds for them or if, indeed, they have a future.


Donald Ross Tolmie: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the task force has prepared a number of reports and these have been transmitted to the minister. With the concurrence of the provincial government, a last meeting of the Argentia task force has been scheduled for July 6. After this meeting a final report on the results of the work of the task force will be prepared. The minister will be pleased to table this report when it becomes available.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-WHITE LAKE DOMINION RADIO ASTROPHYSICAL OBSERVATORY

Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) what steps the department was taking to protect the valuable scientific work being done by the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory at Penticton. Mr. Speaker suggested that the matter be raised at this time, and I welcome the opportunity to expand on this important scientific project.
On June 14 I moved a motion in the House that the question of the observatory and the severe damage which would result to its outstanding research facilities in the event of encroachment on its land by subdivisions be referred to the appropriate standing committee for study and report. Unfortunately, the motion did not receive the necessary unanimous agreement.
June 26, 1972

A brief background description of the project should come first. This radio astrophysical observatory is about a 20-minute drive south from Penticton. It is situated on a quiet site which was chosen after a great deal of searching, because it was about as far south in Canada as it could be located. It is near a settled area, one of the few in all Canada which is perfectly suitable for this type of scientific work. It is free from almost all types of electrical interference, and this is an absolute necessity having regard to the type of scientific research being undertaken. The site is acknowledged as one of the best in the world for radio astrophysical observations. Canadians have an investment in it of close to $3 million, although it would be worth much more in terms of today's values. The annual staff payroll is close to $200,000.
The research work has been recognized and commended by leading researchers in many countries. In May of 1971 it received the following commendation from the National Committee for Canada of the International Astronomical Union:
Those members of the committee who are not engaged in long baseline work wish to extend their heartiest congratulations to the long baseline team of Messrs. Broters, Chisholm, Galt, Gush, Legg, Locke, McLeish, Richards and you on their award last month of the Rumford medal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Such high recognition of Canadian research in astronomy brings honour to the nation and underlines the success of co-operation among institutions for astronomical projects.
The future of this site and its research potential is in serious danger from possible land development projects in the area. To date the federal government has done nothing to protect the observatory from this danger. I understand that any electrical appliances in the area would ruin the work being done, and appliances in the area would ruin the work being done, and appliances do come to the area when homes are built.
There are several solutions. At present the Okanagan-Simikameen regional district has rejected one proposed development. Other developments are pending. It has, however, warned the federal government by resolution that it will not be put in the position in coming years of defending the observatory. The federal government could buy up sufficient property to protect this project, but this has been rejected by the minister.
I feel that the federal government should approach the provincial government with a view to having the area set aside as a game preserve or for park purposes. Perhaps even some other solution can be worked out. In any event, there is immediate and pressing need for federal govern-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ment action and I urge the minister to look into the matter again without delay. We can have both an outstanding research facility and a recreational area. Both could be a credit to the district, to the province and to the nation. I trust we can agree upon an early and favourable solution to protect this valuable scientific installation.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the site of the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory near Penticton, British Columbia, was chosen about 15 years ago for its freedom from man-made radio interference, a requirement for the detection and study of the extremely weak radio signals from astronomical objects. Considerable land was acquired at that time and the government of British Columbia, by order in council, placed a map reserve on all Crown land within a much larger buffer zone surrounding the site. Because of the nature of the countryside it was believed then that these actions would ensure the usefulness of the site for a very long time. In particular, it was not envisaged that large-scale housing developments would ever be built in the region. The government of Canada was, therefore, concerned when it learned that two such developments were being proposed on privately held land within the buffer zone.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has made known the government's position on this matter. On several occasions he has expressed the view that the purchase, or the expropriation now of an area large enough to protect the observatory is not a proper solution to this problem. I understand the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard) has made numerous representations on this question. In a letter of April 27, 1972, to Mr. Bruce Howard, Member of Parliament for Okanagan Boundary, in response to his representation on behalf of the community in question, the President of the Treasury Board said:
I do not think the federal government should be expected to expend substantial sums to protect the investment in its observatory if its purposes can be achieved more economically elsewhere.
If the community collectively or the provincial government, as the case may be, concludes that it could develop more satisfactorily by continued housing development which would drive out the observatory rather than limiting development and permitting the continued operation of the observatory, this choice, in my view, should be a local one and not one for the federal government to try and make.
I would expect the representatives of the community to take whatever action is considered to be in the best interest of the community at large.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Tuesday. June 27. 1972