1972-05-31

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Portelance.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to announce certain modifications and additions to the Canadian system of Honours.
Of those many ingredients which, together, are nationhood, one of the most important is the voluntary desire on the part of citizens to contribute to national life. A grateful nation should be willing to recognize and honour those persons whose contributions are truly outstanding, and to this end the government has sought advice from many elements of our society.
It is my pleasure to announce that Her Majesty the Queen, on the advice of the government, has approved the issue of Letters Patent revising the Order of Canada, establishing a Canadian Order of Military Merit and creating three Canadian decorations for bravery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the five years since the Order of Canada was created to recognize outstanding achievement and service it has done more than fulfil our expectations of it. It has been accepted and is respected throughout the country.
The new Letters Patent will increase the levels of membership to three, Companions of the Order, Officers of the Order-and this level will take in those who now hold the Medal of Service-and Members of the Order. As might be expected, existing Companions of the Order and holders of the Medal of Service are generally persons who have achieved prominence on the national scene. The new level, Member of the Order, has been designed to offer deserved recognition to those persons who have chosen to contribute their time and their talents to their own communities, professions or other groups. The importance of these contributions is often no less than those whose efforts have been directed on a broader scale and it is only appropriate that it be officially recognized.
The Order of Military Merit is established to honour professional excellence and exceptional devotion to duty on the part of members of the Canadian Armed Forces. To the honour our armed forces have won in war in Canada's defence we must now add the universal esteem in which our soldiers, sailors and airmen are held as the most experienced and best trained forces in the new, exacting and dangerous trade of peacekeeping and truce observation. To the military ideal of gallantry in the face of the foe must now be added patience and steadfastness in keeping the peace between factions in conflict, stamina and effectiveness in exercising Canadian sovereignty in distant parts of our country, courage and skill in support of the civil power whether it be in rescue operations, disaster relief or, for that matter, fighting forest fires.
The Order of Military Merit has three levels, Commander, Officer and Member. Every serviceman, irrespective of rank, may aspire to appointment to the Order at any of its three levels.

Th^ Order of Canada, as originally constituted, provided for a Medal of Courage to be awarded in recognition of acts of conspicuous bravery. Although many Canadians have qualified for such a medal, and indeed been nominated for it, it has never been awarded in part because of the problems faced in trying to make one decoration cover a whole range of acts of courage. The government has concluded that what is required is a series of three decorations: The Cross of Valour, the Star of Courage and the Medal of Bravery. These awards will be granted to both civilian and military personnel. Members will remember the tragic events that took place on the destroyer Kootenay some years ago, when a number of our servicemen distinguished themselves by acts of bravery. They will now be recommended for Canadian bravery decorations, as will many other Canadians who have put their lives at risk for the safety of others. Preliminary work has been under way for some years, and I am confident that announcements of awards will be made in the near future.
In our constitutional system, the grant of honours is a prerogative of the Head of State, the Queen. As Her Majesty has been sovereign of the Order of Canada since its inception, so she is now also sovereign of the Order of Military Merit and it is by her, as sovereign, that bravery decorations are conferred. The Governor General, in his capacity as Chancellor of the Order of Canada, will con-

May 31, 1972
Awards and Decorations
tinue as at present to receive recommendations for awards made by an adivisory council headed by the Chief Justice of Canada. In the case of the Order of Military Merit, of which the Governor General is also Chancellor, the names of the proposed recipients will be submitted by the Canadian Forces Decorations Committee through the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Minister of National Defence. In conferring the new decorations for heroism, the Governor General will be assisted by a bravery awards advisory committee. The high regard in which the Order of Canada is held derives from the high standards it sets and the impartiality of the selection process. The new arrangements will continue to insist upon high standards and impartiality. I should like to emphasize that, as with the Order of Canada up till now, any citizen has the right to nominate anyone he feels to be worthy for an honour in any of the classifications I have announced today.

In this symbolic fashion, the government seeks to create a means of expressing the gratitude of all Canadians to those of their fellows who have contributed to the quality of life in this country through acts of service, excellence and bravery.
Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table copies of the relevant Orders in Council, the text of the Letters Patent, the constitution of the Order of Canada and the Order of Military Merit and regulations governing the award of Canadian Bravery Decorations.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, the statement the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has just made is a very important one and I wish to thank him for giving us advance notice of its contents. This is not to say, however, that the notice was sufficient, in view of the importance of the matter, to enable me to deal with it comprehensively at this time.
The Prime Minister said in his statement:
Of those many ingredients which, together, are nationhood, one of the most important is the voluntary desire on the part of citizens to contribute to national life. A grateful nation should be willing to recognize and honour those persons whose contributions are truly outstanding, and to this end the government has sought advice from many elements of our society.
He went on to say:
In this symbolic fashion, the government seeks to create a means of expressing the gratitude of all Canadians to those of their fellows who have contributed to the quality of life in this country through acts of service, excellence and bravery.
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed in these statements by the Prime Minister. I should like to point out, however, that the lack, for long periods, of recognition and honour due to those Canadians whose contributions have been truly outstanding has not been because of the absence of any mechanism for doing so but rather because of the fact that this and many other Canadian governments have refrained from making recommendations to Her Majesty in this regard, presumably because the decorations or orders that were provided for in the past were common to most or all of the Commonwealth. It is for that reason that the honours and
awards now established have been created as a substitute to fill the void that was thus brought into being.
Turning now to the awards themselves, I believe that the creation of a third group, Members of the Order of Canada, is an improvement. I believe, too, that the establishment of a Canadian Order of Military Merit will fill a great need for our Canadian forces, especially in peacetime operations. The creation of three Canadian decorations for bravery, for which both military and civilian persons are eligible, is welcome.
The statement of the Prime Minister leaves two important questions unanswered. First, will the world-renowned, Commonwealth-wide decorations such as the Victoria Cross, the George Medal and the D.S.O. still be available to Canadian citizens as Canadian decorations in future? Second, what will be the order of precedence of the Commonwealth-wide decorations that have been conferred on Canadians in the past relative to these new decorations? I presume that the documents the Prime Minister has tabled will designate that. I would certainly hope that world-renowned decorations such as the Victoria Cross, the George Medal and many others will retain their pre-eminence and their precedence.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my comment will be brief. I am pleased, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, to greet with pleasure the Prime Minister's announcement. We have, as is well known, always supported the idea that Canada should have its own program and procedures for recognizing outstanding achievement and service by Canadians in all fields. I am particularly pleased because the Prime Minister's announcement will enable a great many more Canadians to be involved in the program of recognition.
I readily agree, Sir, that the Order of Canada is highly respected and that the selection of Canadians for that order has been of a high and objective character. The addition of a level aimed to extend recognition to Canadians for services rendered at the local level deserves full support, since it will make possible a wider recognition of achievement and devoted service by Canadians.
We are also happy to welcome the establishment of an Order of Military Merit in recognition of outstanding bravery. I hope, as I am sure all Members of Parliament do, that our forces will never again have to defend our freedom and our country in war. It is, therefore, most fitting that we recognize their important services to Canada and to the world in peacetime.
The Prime Minister has so well and in so literate a way explained the reasons for the program of decorations he has announced that it would be superfluous for me to add anything more. I merely say that we warmly welcome his announcement.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard with some satisfaction the announcement which the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has just made concerning the creation of the Order of Military Merit.
[Mr. Trudeau.)
May 31, 1972

This announcement which, I think, had been expected for quite some time will doubtless constitute an incentive for all members of our forces in addition to filling them with pride for receiving an award from their country.
Until now, the decoration which had been awarded came from a foreign country, and only a handfull of Canadian servicemen or civilians could hope for their galantry being recognized by their country.
We dare hope that this decoration which the right hon. Prime Minister has just announced will be awarded not only to servicemen who deserve it fairly often through their galantry on the line of service in time of war, but also to many deserving civilians in the accomplishment of their duties. I think particularly of policemen and firemen, as well as a number of persons who, at one time or another, are called by their duties to take actions which deserve to be recognized.
Given the decorations that our country proposes to grant, I hope that a greater number of worthy persons will see their heroic deeds recognized.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to move a motion because of urgent and pressing necessity. That necessity is occasioned by the arrival yesterday in Ottawa of a committee of native Indian people from Thunder Bay who came here at their own expense as a result of an agreement that they would be able to have a meeting yesterday afternoon at five o'clock with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). That meeting did not proceed because of an error on the part of the department. Therefore I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That this House hereby authorizes the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to reimburse the committee of Indian people under the joint leadership of Mrs. Monica Turner, chairman of the Ontario Native Women's Association and Mr. Bill Sault of the Treaty Research Department of the Union of Ontario Indians, who travelled from Thunder Bay to Ottawa to meet with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and who incurred expenses of a personal nature for that meeting which could not take place because of an error within the said department.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might recognize that this is a motion which should perhaps have been preceded by a Royal recommendation. In any event, so as not to get involved in this rather subtle aspect of the matter, I would invite hon. members to indicate whether there is unanimous consent to the motion proposed by the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Atlantic Region Freight Rates


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the hon. member's motion cannot be put at this time.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 in connection with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It concerns the desperate situation confronting firms in the Atlantic region as a result of inordinately high freight rates. In view of the fact that many regional economic development schemes are thwarted ultimately by these transportation costs, and in view of the fact that some maritime firms are being pushed to the brink of survival, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the entire matter of freight rates be referred to the Standing Committee on Transportation for immediate review.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Regional Development but I missed the call for presentation of reports. May I have permission to do so now?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to revert to the presentation of committee reports. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognized at least one "no". I thought it was the hon. member for St. Boniface. If there is not unanimous consent, we cannot revert to the presentation of committee reports.


An hon. Member:: Stay awake!



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that tomorrow and Friday have been designated as opposition days.

May 31, 1972
Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Robinson: Will a Buffalo, New York television station be blacked out to Canadian cable subscribers and, if so, which one?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television commission as follows: The present CRTC policy on cable television establishes that cable companies in the Toronto area should carry the following stations as a priority in the Toronto area: CICA, channel 19; CBLT, channel 6; CFTO, channel 9; and CHCH, channel 11. The commission also encourages cable companies to provide community access programming through an additional "local origination" channel. Other stations carried by CATV systems are optional. It therefore rests with the individual cable system serving Toronto and the area to decide which of these option stations best suit the needs of their subscribers.


CRTC REGULATIONS REGARDING LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS
Mr. Robinson: Do the existing regulations of the CRTC compel cable operators to give precedence to local television stations and, if so, will one Buffalo, New York television station be denied to Canadian viewers?


Gérard Pelletier: The Canadian Radio-Television Commission advises as follows: See answer to question No. 435 answered this day.


STUDIES IN REFERENCE TO ROUTES AND METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS FROM THE NORTH
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	Under what department do the studies being made as to energy and as to the economics and ecology in reference to the two routes and methods of transportation of crude petroleum and natural gas from the North come and, what is the name of the person who heads the study committee?
2.	How many members are on this committee?
3.	What department is paying the total cost?
4.	What is the estimated cost?


Mr. lack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this is a four part question. The answer is as follows: 1. The studies do not come under any one department but rather under the general direction of the Task Force on Northern Oil Development which is chaired by the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.

2.	There are five members on the Task Force on Northern Oil Development.
3.	Costs of the ecology and social studies are shared by the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources, Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Environment, and costs of other studies are borne by the department concerned.
4.	The costs of the ecology and social studies are estimated at up to $5 million annually over a four year period.


VISITS OF INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSIONER OUTSIDE OF CANADA
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Did Mr. Lloyd Barber, the Commissioner for Indian Claims, make any journeys outside of Canada in the past six months and, if so, to what places and for what purpose?
2.	Did anyone accompany Mr. Barber on any such journeys outside of Canada on behalf of the Government of Canada?
3.	If anyone did accompany Mr. Barber, what were their names and positions and for what purpose did they accompany him?
4.	What was the cost, if any, to the government for such journeys?
5.	What was the final result of Mr. Barber's journeys?


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Indian Claims Commissioner as follows: 1. Yes, to New Zealand and Australia; to gain first hand knowledge of the nature of Maori and Aboriginal claims, grievances, and approaches to settlement, for purposes of comparison to Canadian Indian claims and grievances.
2.	and 3. Dr. Barber was not accompanied on this journey by anyone else travelling on behalf of the Government of Canada. However, the Commissioner's Director of Legal Research, Professor Ken Lysyk, travelled independently to Australia and New Zealand during the same period when Dr. Barber was in those countries. They were able to spend some time together in New Zealand.
4.	The cost of these journeys is not available at this time as the accounting for them has not yet been completed.
5.	The final result of Dr. Barber's journeys will, of course, not be known for some time. A report is in process.


AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION BOARD
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	What is the membership of the Agricultural Stabilization Board?
2.	How often does it meet?
3.	What are the responsibilities of its members and how are they selected?
4.	Does the Board have a Secretariat and, if so, who are the staff members?
5.	What is its budget?
6.	What is the primary intent and purpose of the Board?
7.	What are the rules and regulations which govern its activity?
8.	When was it established and on what date was its last annual report published?

May 31, 1972


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: 1. According to section 3(1) of the Agricultural Stabilization Act the Board consists of three members.
2.	In 1971-72, the Board held 32 official meetings plus numerous additional meetings with delegations, representatives of producer organizations and groups from the agricultural industry.
3.	The Board is responsible for carrying out the purposes of the Act by taking such actions as are necessary to stabilize the prices of agricultural products. Members of the Board are appointed by the Governor in Council.
4.	The Board employs a secretary-manager and a staff (Subsidy Processing Section) which has averaged approximately 85 in number over the past five years.
5.	The 1972-73 budget: Operating-$541,000, grants to carry out programs under the Act-$111,400,000.
6.	See item 3.
7.	The Board is governed by the Agricultural Stabilization Act and Orders in Council passed pursuant to the Act.
8.	The Act was assented to on January 31, 1958 and the last annual report tabled was for the 1970-71 fiscal year.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many Royal Commissions or other bodies of inquiry have been instituted by the federal government since June 25, 1968?
2.	In each instance (a) what was the date of the establishment of the commission (b) what were the names of the persons appointed in each instance (c) has the commission completed its work and, if not, on what date is its work to be completed (d) how much has each of the persons appointed received in salary and expenses?
3.	In each instance, were federal government facilities and employees used for any part of the work of the commissions and, if so, how were they used?
4.	Has each commission used the printing facilities of the federal government to carry out its responsibilities in that regard and, if not (a) which commissions did not use such facilities for all of their work (b) in each instance, how was a determination made as to what private printing firms should be used for such work?
Return tabled.


CANADA'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD GENERAL MAINTENANCE OF UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Robinson: In each year since the United Nations was created (a) how much has Canada contributed as its designated share toward the general maintenance of the United Nations (b) how many special funds of the United Nations has Canada contributed to (c) what has been the amount of each such contribution (d) for what purpose was each contribution made?
Return tabled.
Motions for Papers


NUMBER OF POST OFFICES BUILT IN PAST FOUR YEARS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	In each province in the past four years, how many post offices were built by the Department of Public Works?
2.	What was the location and what were the revenues in each case?
3.	In each province, how many post offices were there that had revenues greater than the revenues at offices where construction was undertaken?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. I. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 61 is acceptable to the government.



COPY OF REPORTS RESULTING FROM 1971 INFORMATION CANADA COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 61-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the eight reports resulting from Summer 71 Information Canada Communications Research Project.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 4, 11, 19 and 42?



COPY OF REPORTS CARRIED OUT UNDER AUSPICES OF CANADIAN COUNCIL ON ANIMAL CARE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for Assessment Reports carried out under the auspices of the Canadian Council on Animal care (a) in Canadian universities for the fiscal year 1970-71 (b) in federal government departments for the use of animals for experimental purposes, that is, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the National Research Council and the Defence Research Board, such reports covering the fiscal year 1969-70 (c) in Canadian pharmaceutical houses for the fiscal year 1969-70.
James Alexander Jerome: Assessment reports under the auspices of the Canadian Council on Animal Care are confidential to the council and the particular bodies concerned. For this reason I would ask the hon. member to withdraw her motion.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: I do not believe that such reports should be kept secret and I therefore ask that this motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

May 31, 1972
Motions for Papers



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MR. JOHN CARSON AND HON. JOHN TURNER REGARDING BILINGUALISM IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between Mr. John Carson, Chairman of the Public Service Commission and the Honourable John Turner, Minister of Justice, regarding bilingualism in the Public Service and its application under the terms of the Public Service Employment Act.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



COPY OF CONSULTANT REPORT FOR CMHC REGARDING


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report undertaken for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation regarding the planning for a long-term development study of Cite du Havre in 1968, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st Session of this Parliament.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Mr. David Weatherhead (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this report has not yet been presented to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs nor to the Minister of Transport. Officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Harbours Board have been asked to study the report and make recommendations to the government. The report is, therefore, not available for tabling at this time. Under these circumstances, would the hon. member consider withdrawing his motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to withdraw it, subject to the member's right to put it on the order paper again.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



COPY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN PANARCTIC OILS LTD. AND UNITED STATES COMPANIES WITH REFERENCE TO ARCTIC GAS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Douglas:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the agreement between Panarctic Oils Ltd. and a consortium of United States companies consisting of Tenneco Oils and Minerals Ltd., Columbia Gas Systems Inc., Texas Eastern Transmission Co., and Northern Natural Gas Co. with reference to the right of first refusal on Arctic gas supplies.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, tabling of this agreement without the written consent of both parties involved will constitute a breach of confidence on the part of the government. Since this consent cannot be obtained, this document must be considered as privileged information

which cannot be tabled. Under the circumstances I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Speaker, since the government of Canada is the largest single shareholder in this company, I cannot accept the statement that consent cannot be given. Therefore I ask that the question be now put.


James Alexander Jerome: Transfer for debate.


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


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, there stand in my name five notices of motions for production of papers, namely Nos. 52 to 56 inclusive, all relating to the same general subject, namely, correspondence and reports respecting the proposal that a cannery be built in the Prince Rupert area. I raised this matter some time ago with the parliamentary secretary and asked him to speed up the response to these motions in view of the urgent need on the part of the proponents of the cannery to have this information before the fishing season has progressed too far. Could the hon. gentleman provide a response to these motions by next Wednesday?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I have again made a note of the numbers. I looked into these motions on the hon. member's behalf. While some portions of the answers are under preparation, other portions present more difficulty. We are still working on the matter but we do hope to be able to provide a response to them soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister relating to one of the points that his statement on decorations did not cover. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether it is intended that Commonwealth decorations such as the Victoria Cross and the George Medal will continue to be available to Canadian citizens?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with regard to those two decorations it has been determined that those Canadians who have been awarded them will continue to wear them and that they will be given precedence over the new Canadian awards. As to future awards and the problem raised by the hon. member, we will seek the advice of the advisory committee to the Governor General.
May 31, 1972


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I correct in assuming that the government has taken no decision with regard to the future awarding of Commonwealth decorations such as the Victoria Cross and the George Medal? Is it the intention of the government to take a definitive decision on this matter following the consultation referred to by the right hon. gentleman, or is it the intention of the government to seek advice from time to time on individual cases?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there are some awards that the Sovereign makes in her own right, and of course these will continue to be awarded by her to citizens of the Commonwealth or the United Kingdom as she desires. Those that are made on the advice of Canadian governments will be subject to advice given from time to time by Canadian governments, and each government will be free to give what advice it finds desirable.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to be too persistent but I do want to make sure that I understand the government's position. I want to know what the position is of the existing government of Canada-and we will not speculate today on how long that will continue to be the case. Will the present government of Canada recommend the granting of any of these Commonwealth awards, or is it the policy of the present government of Canada not to make any such recommendation? For example, I am thinking of the George Medal which is associated not with wartime but with peacetime activity.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, when this system was instituted in 1967 it was completely removed, I would say, from the government of the day's wills and whims and turned over to the Governor General and those named to advise him. I will continue to follow this practice, and that is why my first answer was that I would take advice from this advisory committee on awards. An expression of my own view would be that in the case of awards given by the Sovereign in her own right I would hope she would continue to want to give some to Canadians and to other citizens. But as a matter of preference I would hope that Canadian governments in the future would prefer to give some status to our own system of awards by placing emphasis on it and seeking to reward Canadians through a Canadian system of awards as an indication that we have reached full nationhood, rather than recommending a system of awards that is common to other countries. I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition would share this position.



NEW CANADIAN SYSTEM OF HONOURS-SUGGESTED RECOGNITION OF RIGHT HON. MEMBER FOR PRINCE ALBERT

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government sufficiently to broaden the basis of the awards so that a distinguished citizen who has made such an outstanding contribution to the building of this nation, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, is not precluded from being recognized because that great Canadian gentleman happens to be a member of the House of Commons?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe one of the rules-I am not sure whether it is written or unwritten or is a regulation of the order itself- provides that Orders of Canada awards are not given to, shall we say, politicians in active practice. Retired politicians-and this applies to several premiers of provinces whom I could name-have received the Order of Canada, but there has been a systematic avoidance of giving the award to politicians who are in good standing.


Robert Carman Coates: I asked the Prime Minister whether any consideration was being given to broadening these rules, and I should like to know whether it is going to be the intention of the government to continue to preclude the right hon. member for Prince Albert from being recognized for his contribution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I hope very much that after the next general election the committee will be able to consider making such an award to the former right hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



NEW CANADIAN SYSTEM OF HONOURS-RETENTION OF PREROGATIVE TO RECOMMEND DECORATIONS COMMON TO COMMONWEALTH

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to retain the prerogative of Canadian governments to make recommendations? I am thinking now chiefly of peacetime decorations that are common to the Commonwealth, if a future government should see fit so to do?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would certainly want to go on record as stating that I hope that this government and also succeeding governments will not give up prerogatives that belong to the executive. Whether they would want to use it or not is a matter, as I mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition, of political expression. Certainly an example of this is the use of the appellation of "Right Honourable". The fact that I have not recommended to the Queen that any Canadians be given this title should not be taken as a suggestion that I have forgone this right as leader of the government.



NEW CANADIAN SYSTEM OF HONOURS-REQUEST FOR REFERENCE TO VETERANS AND DEFENCE COMMITTEES

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, since this intention of the government will affect Canadians for many years, will the Prime Minister direct that the whole matter of awards for bravery be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so that there may be a proper delineation of the plans of the government to the benefit of all Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the aspect of awarding these decorations I would certainly not like to see them handled by a parliamentary

May 31, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
committee. I would prefer to see them as detached as possible from political parties who happen to have been elected at a particular time, and that it should be done as it is now, as a prerogative exercise through and by the Governor General. If the House leaders want to get together and discuss the general subject, certainly the government will put no obstacles in their way.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister misinterpreted my question. Would he agree to bringing this matter before the standing committees so that veterans organizations could be heard in order that a proper plan could be devised which would be of benefit to all Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not clear to me from the hon. member's question what it is about which he suggests these people be heard. If it is about the awarding of the decorations and honours, I have answered in the negative. I would hope it would not be for the standing committee or anyone in this House to decide who should receive awards. The advice of the veterans can and should be channelled through the Governor General and through the advisory board which has been set up. They have in the past and will continue to receive nominations for the various awards from all citizens.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Ontario on a supplementary question, but perhaps we might then go on to the next subject. If hon. members feel the matter is of such importance that it should be given further consideration, we might return to the subject later during the question period. For the moment the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Ontario, to be followed by the hon. member for York South.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Prime Minister on the subject of bravery awards. I wonder whether he would give consideration to giving such an award to the Leader of the Opposition for daring to sit with his back to the hon. member for Crowfoot?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Bell:: Withdraw!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am unduly sensitive, and I do not want to adopt an attitude of undue propriety toward the hon. member, but with all due respect to him I think he is making light of a pretty important subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had the feeling that the moment had been reached when we should go on to the next subject. Perhaps I regret recognizing the hon. member for Ontario. The hon. member for York South.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?
fMr. Trudeau.]


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to prolong this issue, but I believe the hon. member's remarks cast a reflection upon me and actions I may or may not take. In all fairness to myself and the House, I suggest that his remarks are not parliamentary and the hon. member should be asked to withdraw them.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might say it was my impression that the hon. member for Ontario was smiling when he made those remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: The smile is not on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member suggests that the smile is not on the record, and I agree with him. The question period is limited to 40 minutes and I suggest that hon. members should give serious thought to the questions they ask. I agree with the hon. member for Crowfoot that the hon. member for Ontario has no right to cast reflections on the actions of hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: At the same time it is my impression that the hon. member did not intend to do so, and I would invite him to confirm that understanding.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly delighted to record the smile that was in fact on my face at that time. I certainly did not, nor have I ever since becoming a member of this House, intend to cast any reflection on either the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Crowfoot.


An hon. Member:: You were caught in a cheap tactic.


Thomas Miller Bell: There goes another riding. How many have you got left now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will go to the next subject. The hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I intend to fulfil your wish by going to another subject, but I cannot pass the opportunity without saying that apparently the smile on the face of the hon. member for Ontario does not improve his manners.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South was recognized for the purpose of asking a question. He has passed this up in favour of a question of privilege by the hon. member for Ontario.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to what the leader of the NDP said provided it is understood he means that these manners could not be improved.


An hon. Member:: You are getting in deeper and deeper.


Thomas Miller Bell: I move the adjournment of this debate.

May 31, 1972


Mr. Hees:: There are some people you just can't teach.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if we might now return to the business of the House of Commons. The hon. member for York South.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State or the Minister of Labour-I do not know which one may be able to inform the House. Have negotiations between the CBC and NABET resumed, and is there any mediator or conciliator present during these negotiations?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago the corporation made a statement of its position. Earlier this week NABET put forward a statement of its position. A mediator is there to try to reconcile the differences that still exist.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not quite answer my question. This difficulty has gone on for many months and I should like to know from the minister whether the parties are now meeting with the mediator present, or are the talks still continuing at arms length?


Mr. O'Connell:: The latter is the current situation, Mr. Speaker. The parties are meeting each other only through the mediator, not jointly.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will say this is a representation, but I will try to word it so it is not. May I ask the minister whether he is prepared to take steps now to request or require the parties to meet with the mediator present in continuing sessions, day and night, until they reach a settlement, before the CBC is done irreparable harm?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us share the concern about the length of the negotiations. At the same time, the two parties must show a will to negotiate before any useful measure of progress can be made.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the continued disruption of CBC services as a result of the strike of its employees, and in view of the fact the president of the CBC seems unable to deal with the situation, is it the intention of the government to hasten the departure of the president of that corporation in order that new management may have an opportunity of attempting to negotiate a settlement?
Inquiries of the Ministry



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PROJECTS TO BE APPROVED

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Secretary of State.
In the last press release concerning Opportunities for Youth, it is stated that the number of approved projects has now reached 2,845. May I ask the minister whether the approved projects have now been selected to reach 3,000, as previously announced.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire to see whether there are still some projects to be announced but 3,000 has never been a mystic number and has never given rise to a profession of faith. We said that about 3,000 projects could be subsidized, according to the criteria and the available funds.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Bellechasse wish to ask a supplementary?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I heard the minister's reply and I presume that it is still possible for projects to be accepted and that the responsible persons will be notified without delay.


Gérard Pelletier: I think that the hon. member is indeed presumptuous, Mr. Speaker.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REJECTED APPLICATIONS-RESULTS OF SOLICITATION OF COMPANIES TO PROVIDE JOBS

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the government has had a team calling on businessmen during the month of May to solicit private support for the opportunities for youth project applications turned down by the government, would the minister inform the House when he will publish the list of corporations that have agreed to participate in this plan?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, as soon as we consider it complete. For the time being, I regret to inform the hon. member that it is not a long list.



TRANSPORT


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended my question for the Minister of Transport who, according to the roster, was to be here, but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister or to the parliamen-

May 31, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
tary secretary. My question is based on a public statement by the Minister of Transport that the government is looking into ways of introducing rapid transit between Windsor and Quebec City. May I ask whether it will be government policy to resist any attempt to further curtail the present rail service in this area until at least a feasible alternative can be provided?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour with regard to a question asked yesterday dealing with the situation in the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City and to which his colleague answered but not in a satisfactory way.
Considering the national importance of the situation resulting from the dilemma in which the Maritime Employees and Longshoremen's Association in the above-mentioned ports find themselves and which gives rise to a daily loss of $100,000 for the Canadian economy, can the Minister of Labour tell the House what action he himself and the government intend to take to solve this conflict? Could he also tell the House what the situation is presently between the two parties?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the collective agreement that is in dispute with respect to certain clauses itself provides the means for resolving the dispute, that is, the use of the arbitration procedure. Arbitrators are named in the agreement itself. Either or both parties should make use of the arbitration procedure to settle that dispute. At the same time, the senior officers of the department in Montreal have remained in close touch with both parties, urging them to this course or to any other useful negotiations that would bring an end to the dispute.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-RECOURSE TO ARBITRATION-INTERVENTION BY THE MINISTER

Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour; can he say whether, as far as he knows, either party has actually called for arbitration in the present dispute?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, neither party has used the arbitration procedure.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of this question which affects the whole Canadian economy, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour to say honestly to the House whether, before this situation which seems to become more and more tense between both parties involved, he intends to act and propose a settlement for this dispute?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: We are making every effort available to the Department of Labour to urge the parties to make use of the process which the Labour Code requires and which the collective agreement provides to settle that dispute.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-SUGGESTED ACTION BY GOVERNMENT UNDER LABOUR CODE

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the present Labour Code commands that the government intervene at this time because, as I understand it, the parties are contravening the law, will the minister step in now and advise the parties that they must come to arbitration?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, may I say with all due respect to the hon. member that I think he is misinterpreting sections 124 and 125 of the Labour Code. It is the parties themselves that go to arbitration.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-EFFECT ON GRAIN SHIPMENT

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. It concerns the strike at the St. Lawrence ports and the effect on grain shipment. Since all the hopper cars in the world will not be any good if grain shipments are affected by this kind of strike, I should like to ask the minister how long the government plans to let the situation continue before doing something positive about it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



OATS-INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1970-71 CROP YEAR

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Is he in a position to advise the House whether a final payment will be made on deliveries of oats for the crop year 1970-71, and could he enlighten the House as to when we might expect an announcement?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, progress is being made toward the closing of this pool. I do not have a specific date when the announcement might be made, but I will get it for the hon. member.
May 31, 1972



NATURAL GAS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON LEVELS TO BE HELD FOR DOMESTIC USE BEFORE ADDITIONAL EXPORT PERMITTED

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of his statement to the Canadian Gas Association annual meeting in which he indicated that Canada hoped soon to be able to prove up additional reserves so as to permit export of more gas to the United States. Would he be prepared to make a statement on motions outlining the government's position with respect to its gas policy and indicating in particular what levels of gas will be held for domestic consumption prior to any additional export of gas being permitted?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might remind the hon. member that under an act of this parliament the responsibility for determining reserves and passing on individual export permits has been given to the National Energy Board. Therefore it would not be appropriate for the minister to say at what particular levels an export permit would or would not be granted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that gas sales in Canada have gone up only 10 per cent in the first quarter of this year and gas exports to the United States under existing contracts rose by 16 per cent, may I ask will the minister explain to the House why he rather than the National Energy Board was indicating to the gas association-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not in order.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The other day I asked him a question concerning the reference to the Federal Court of the Canadian Pittsburgh Glass antidumping decision. Would he now advise the House whether his department or the government has decided to refer any of the other 20 or so decisions of the anti-dumping tribunal for review by Federal Court authorities?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the specific grounds for taking action in the Pittsburgh case are apparent in the material which is filed. It is the only one on which action has been taken, and I will certainly not speculate on what action might be taken in all sorts of different hypothetical situations.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is not a question of hypothetical cases but a matter of policy to have other decisions reviewed in light of what has been disclosed in the Canadian Pittsburgh case.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: As I made it clear to the House before, it is not appropriate to speculate about what action might be taken. If action is taken, it will be known.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Since the International Paper Company of Canada is closing its plant at Temiscaming today, did the minister get in touch with the provincial authorities last week or in the last ten days in order to find a solution to this problem or to find ways of helping the people who are being laid off today at Temiscaming?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as I already stated in this House, we are trying to find out what activity could replace the CIP plant. Now, neither the company nor the people from Kipawa got in touch with my department.



NATIONAL PARKS


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in charge of national parks because it is directly related to the Temiscamingue area.
Have there been any further developments in negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa concerning the national park at Temiscamingue proper, and has an agreement been arrived at?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, no agreement has yet been arrived at but I can tell the hon. member that I discussed the matter last Thursday with Premier Bouras-sa while I was in Quebec City.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister advise the House

May 31, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
whether he has received replies from all the provinces to his request that family allowance payments should not be charged against social assistance payments?


Hon. lohn C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Does he intend to expand the number of people on the recently created three-man committee to work out a framework for discussion of the future development of the James Bay region in order that a member of the James Bay Indian community may take part in all decisions that will affect the native population in the area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the way in which the hon. member phrased his question does not do justice to the situation. This is not a negotiating committee, but only a group of officials who will meet in order to establish a procedure for everyone to sit at the same table and find a solution.
I talked with the president of the Association of Indians of Quebec yesterday and their lawyer and they are quite happy with these developments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Oxford on a supplementary, but it is my duty at this point to bring to the attention of hon. members that there are perhaps fewer than ten minutes before the end of the question period and at least 20 members are rising to ask questions. We will have to attempt to limit the number of supplementaries because again today many members, particularly in the back rows, will not be given an opportunity to ask questions, and it seems to me that this happens too often from day to day.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This is only a brief supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister give the House the assurance that the views of the Indian and Eskimo people who live in the area will be given every consideration when this committee is set up, and also in regard to the functions which it will perform?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of course, Mr. Speaker, and this is why I dealt with it myself. It was at the request of the Indians and Eskimoes of northern Quebec that I went to meet Premier Bourassa last week.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the large number of Indians in penal institutions in relation to their percentage of the population, and in view of the convention held in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, last weekend at which it was indicated that a good number of them are not aware of their rights in regard to legal counsel and criminal court procedures, will the minister consider amending the Criminal Code to assure them the right to counsel in criminal cases?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of possible amendments to the Criminal Code is, of course, in the hands of researchers within the Law Reform Commission as well as within the department, and particular improvements are under consideration. More immediately, there are moves afoot to improve legal aid approaches across the country, which is the most effective way of assuring legal assistance to people who need it.



POLLUTION


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. Has the minister noticed the massive pollution that is floating by on top of the Ottawa River only 100 yards from where we are sitting at this moment, and when may the country expect that this once beautiful river will be cleaned up?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member has seen the announcement that the federal government is buying out the mills on the other side of the river and that they will be shut down shortly.


George Harris Hees: I point out that the pollution to which I am referring comes from higher up the river; it is massive, and it is there for everybody to see. Will the minister please do something about it?



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister been in touch with our representatives at the twenty-second annual meeting of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries in Washington and, if so, when will he be in a position to report to the House on

May 31, 1972

the attitude of the delegates to this conference to Canada's proposals concerning conservation, special preference for coastal states, and the restriction of high seas salmon fishing by the Danes?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch daily with our delegation in Washington. These discussions are proceeding satisfactorily. It looks as though our basic proposal for over-all and national quotas will be accepted by the Commission.



ICNAF ANNUAL MEETING-POSSIBILITY OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENT IN LIGHT OF SUPPORT FOR DANISH POSITION ON HIGH SEAS SALMON FISHING

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister what are the chances for Canada achieving some kind of a compromise agreement in light of what appears to be unexpected support for the Danish position from other quarters apart from the United States and West Germany?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are still under way and I cannot anticipate their conclusion.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the matter of security and is addressed to the Prime Minister. In light of the answer to a question put by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, found at page 2629 of Hansard, in which the Solicitor General said, referring to the hon. member for Trinity, that if he "wants to break his oath or hide behind it to arouse suspicion, it is up to him", and the answer by the Prime Minister that "some of his allegations"-meaning the hon. member for Trinity-"are apparently based on some things he got from cabinet" and "these communications are certainly privileged and under oath of secrecy", what facts did the hon. member for Trinity, the former deputy prime minister of Canada in this government, disclose as alleged by the Prime Minister to suggest that the former deputy prime minister broke his oath of office as a Privy Councillor in the Canadian government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I used the word "apparently" in my answer because I had not looked too closely at the matter. I have a transcript of the remarks made in the CBC news interview and apparently the commentator himself, in introducing the hon. member for Trinity, said this: "He also"-meaning the hon. member for Trinity-"admitted he was making the statement at the risk of breaking his cabinet oath of secrecy."


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the Prime Minister about the commentator on the CBC. I am asking
Inquiries of the Ministry
the Prime Minister about his statement and the statement of the Solicitor General that the hon. member for Trinity, the former deputy prime minister of this country, broke his oath of office as alleged by the Prime Minister yesterday. What particular facts did the hon. member for Trinity state, on the basis of which the Prime Minister said he broke his oath of office?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is misquoting me. I did not say he broke his oath of office, nor did the Solicitor General say that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want to get into an argument with the Prime Minister. The words speak for themselves. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to make the same statement outside the House as he made in the House yesterday so that the hon. member for Trinity would have the proper remedy in law with respect to that statement?


Mr. Benson:: Is this a new recruit for Action Canada?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with regard to the matter of aboriginal rights outside areas covered by treaties. Has the minister taken any initiative with regard to the resolution of these claims, as distinct from any rights or controversies over rights arising out of treaties?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as I already told the House, the question has been referred by the Indians of northern British Columbia, the Nishga Tribal Council. The question is now being dealt with by the Supreme Court of Canada and only once that Court has passed judgment shall I be in a position to make comments.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the position of the government that this is a matter to be resolved by the courts and that the government does not intend to adopt any other method to achieve the resolution of these claims?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is customary to avoid making any comments on such questions while they are being examined by the Supreme Court so as not to give the impression that we intend to influence the court.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You can't get away with that.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL PARKS

May 31, 1972



LAKE LOUISE PROJECT-OPPOSITION OF ALBERTA-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the Alberta government's recently announced opposition to the proposed $30 million Esso Village Lake Louise project in which five serious defects were listed, has the minister's department been officially informed by the Alberta government of its opposition to the plan and, if so, what is his reaction to it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I did receive a letter from the Alberta Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in which he informs me of the position of his government. It is both a refusal and an acceptance; it is difficult to interpret. I think they are at the same time for and against it and the government will have to make the decision and to take into account their pros and cons.



LAKE LOUISE PROJECT-REQUEST FOR DELAY TO PERMIT ECOLOGICAL STUDY

Randolph Harding: Will the minister place a moratorium on the project until the issues raised by the Alberta government have been resolved and a thorough ecological impact study has been done by competent ecologists and evaluated at a future public hearing?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this project is being considered. No works were undertaken in the area of Lake Louise. It is out of the question to impose a moratorium because there are in fact no works. It is only a project which is being examined by the government.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Would he indicate whether he intends to make a statement concerning the article published in "Canada Today" which deals with the failure of the government policy on bilingualism?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly not make a statement, but I can definitely say that the hon. member's information is inaccurate, or that his reading of the article is extremely prejudiced.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STATEMENT BY QUEBEC PREMIER ON FEDERAL POWERS-POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Three days ago the Quebec premier, commenting on an interview report of a deputy minister of Governmental Affairs of that province, publicly acknowledged that it was imperative to attack the federal government's famous spending power. According to his statement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member please ask his question? The oral question period will soon be over. The hon. member should ask a question, not make a speech.


Roch La Salle: I was coming to my question, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask, in view of this statement, whether the Prime Minister is prepared to reconsider his position in relation to this very important problem, as far as the province of Quebec is concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not usually make any comment on reports made by provincial public servants to their ministers, and moreover I have not heard about this report at all.


Roch La Salle: I wish to ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the statement of the Quebec premier to the effect that at the last federal-provincial conference that matter had not been discussed in depth, would the right hon. Prime Minister be prepared to invite provincial authorities to have another discussion on this matter?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development pertains to Indian rights. Does the minister intend to expand the number of people on the recently formed three-man committee created to work out a framework for discussion of future development of the James Bay region in order that a member of the Indian community may take part in any and all discussions or decisions which will affect the native population of this area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer that there is confusion in the opposition ranks because this is exactly the same question as that put by the hon. member for Oxford a few minutes ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. I believe the hon. member for Koote-
May 31, 1972

nay West had a supplementary to a previous question. If not, we will call orders of the day.



NATIONAL PARKS


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, this is a supplementary to my previous question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister's department evaluated the material gathered at the recent public hearings into the Village Lake Louise project, and when may we expect a decision or a statement on this matter by the minister?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have received representations from many representative bodies, some of which were in favour of it and others were not. The government of Alberta has finally let us know his position. We are making a review of all these recommendations, and I expect to be able to inform the House, before the summer recess, of the government's decision about this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to hon. members for not having had an opportunity to recognize the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, the hon. member for Simcoe North and others who perhaps should have been recognized today. I will try to give them priority tomorrow. I again apologize for the fact that I did not have an opportunity to call upon them. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 30, consideration of the motion of Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin that Bill C-201, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, and Economic Affairs.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had an opportunity to begin my speech on the foreign takeover bill. During the brief moments that I had, I made some serious charges, I used some tough words, and I did that quite intentionally. I did it because I think that this bill is far from adequate; it is not going to solve any of the problems connected with foreign ownership in this country. I think that the government has sold
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
out, to a large extent, the continentalists' interest in their policy to the multinational corporations and to the status quo. According to public opinion polls, it seems that most Canadians expected a great deal more from this government and they expected it to act in a more conclusive and decisive manner.
The bill before us will deal with only a very small part of foreign ownership and it is a disappointment to me and most people in my constituency. I can say that most of the people in a constituency like Yorkton-Melville are becoming concerned about the general question of foreign ownership in our economy, and about Canada for Canadians. They are concerned when they realize that, because of our branch plant economy, we are starting to lose a great many jobs and that a lot of money is going out of the country, but most of all they want us to develop an economy that will be controlled by Canadians for their own use.
I do not want to leave the impression that the whole question of foreign ownership is a simple one. I realize that it is a complex problem and there is no simple solution; instead, there are many different solutions. All of us know the degree of foreign ownership in Canada. Approximately two-thirds of our economy is foreign controlled, and I have here some figures for 1970 dealing with American corporations alone, not touching on Japanese, British or French corporations. In 1970, 97 per cent of the automobile and parts industry was owned by American corporations; 91 per cent of the Canadian rubber industry was owned by American corporations; 66 per cent of the electrical apparatus industry in this country and 60 per cent of the petroleum and natural gas industry was owned by Americans. If corporations from other countries were added, most of these figures would go higher.
What we need is fairly obvious; we need laws to repatriate this country's economy and put it in the hands of Canadians. I think it can be done. The Watkins report and the Gray report not only analyse our problems but suggest many approaches we can use for solving them. For example, Sweden, in 1935, faced a similar difficulty. That economy was foreign-owned. Then, the Social Democratic party took power and, today, Sweden controls its own economy. They repatriated it. I point out, also, that 100 years ago the United States was being developed with foreign capital, mostly from the British Isles. Today, the United States controls its own economy. Other countries like Mexico are taking steps to repatriate their own economies. I suggest Canada can do that.
Let me make it clear that when I am talking about Canadianism and repatriating our own economy, I am not being anti-American. Being interested in repatriating our economy is not being anti-American, I suggest. I do not blame the Americans for owning so many of our key resources and industries. If I were the head of a huge American oil company, saw the tax laws of Canada and the resources waiting to be exploited in this country, I would do the same; therefore, I do not blame the Americans. As I remember, the leader of my party said in the House the other day, "We have not been raped by the Americans; we have invited seduction." It is not the fault of the American people or of American financial institutions that we are foreign-controlled in large part. It is the fault of successive Canadian governments which, for

May 31, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act dozens of years, have allowed foreign corporations in, hampered them with few rules and limitations, and allowed them to make profits which they have taken across the border.
In my travels to the United States and across this country, I meet many Americans. They ask me, "Why do you not curtail the high incidence of foreign ownership in your country?" They say that they would not tolerate this in the United States and ask why we tolerate it in our country. I am angry at our tolerating it and that is why I and over half the Canadian people, I suggest, want us to do something about this question here and now. Doing that, I suggest, is not anti-American. Anyone who suggests it is drags a red herring across this debate and is not intellectually honest.
In my speech I shall touch on four important areas of concern to the Canadian people: First, the field of social culture; second, the number of jobs we lose because much of our economy is foreign owned; third, the wealth that goes out of our country because we are a branch plant economy; and fourth, our loss of political independence resulting from so much of our economy being foreign owned and controlled.
Returning to the area of social culture, I suggest that the government in the past few years has provided some leadership in this field, especially in the area of broadcasting. Now, laws and regulations govern Canadian content in broadcasting. Regulations governing radio and television broadcasting provide that Canadian radio and television stations must be 80 per cent Canadian-owned. That is a stringent provision. Moves like that are good, and I think they should be followed in many other sectors of the economy, if Canada is to be a country of which we are to be proud. Not enough has been done in other fields of social culture.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) suggested that the book publishing industry should be designated as a sensitive and important industry, important for the cultural development of Canada. I agree. I recall, as I went through the public school and high school system, that some of my fellow students were more aware of Lincoln than of Macdonald, of Jefferson than of Lauri-er, mainly because we used many American textbooks. Those books referred to American politicians and to important and prominent people of that country. The Canadian government must show much greater leadership in this field if it is serious about returning control of Canada to Canadians. Let us look for a moment at professional sports, and at hockey in particular. Look at the National Hockey League; that is controlled from the United States. True, many Canadian players are employed in hockey in the United States; nevertheless, the hockey league is dominated by American financial interests. I suggest that this is another area that has been completely ignored in the present debate. Apparently, foreign domination of our culture is overlooked.
There is one notable exception to this state of affairs in this country. French Canada is not dominated culturally by foreigners. In French Canada there is a specific culture; there, they speak their own language, watch their own television programs and their own movies, listen to their own songs and read their own writers. I am proud of
[Mr. Nystrom.J
this. I am happy that one part of Canada is distinctly Canadian and is not being swamped by American culture. I wish the same could be said of English speaking Canada, because if it could be, our country would be better and stronger. Fortunately or unfortunately, much depends on the laws our government will be prepared to pass.
Touching the second point, I want to refer to something of concern to many in my constituency, the question of jobs lost in the long run because of our dependence on foreign corporations. Several authorities have dealt with this subject. I am speaking of the Watkins report, the Gray report, and the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) who sat in cabinet for a number of months. These authorities talked of our dependence on American corporations. We are exporters of raw materials and importers of manufactured goods. The hon. member for Duvernay and others have told us of millions of dollars we lose every year in wages through our policies. For every $100 worth of raw materials we export to the United States, we provide our workers with about $6.50 in wages. For every $100 worth of manufactured goods we import in return for our raw materials, we provide American workers, depending on the goods we import, with between $30 and $35 in v/ages. In such exchanges, we lose between $20 and $30 in wages. For reasons like these, the people of my constituency and all across the country, are most concerned about the extent of foreign ownership of our country and the government's lackadaisical attitude.
What is the result of our being a branch plant economy. What happened when the Americans introduced their 10 per cent surtax last August and the DISC program. What did American corporations operating in this country do? In some instances in which American companies operated branch plants in this country, when it became necessary to curtail research, they curtailed it in Canada and not in the United States, with the result that Canadian workers were affected. I remember there was a toboggan firm which had one branch in southern Ontario and another in California. The imposition of the surtax resulted in cutting back operations in southern Ontario, with the consequent loss of jobs for Canadians, and the shifting of production to California. That was a natural thing to do, and I do not blame the American firm. I blame our own government. If our government had developed an industrial strategy for Canada which would protect our people in the long run, this would not have happened.
In my constituency is to be found an example of the consequences, for working people, of foreign ownership. In my constituency there is one of the largest potash mines in the world, operated by International Mineral Company, at the town of Esterhazy. International Mineral is American owned, the head offices of the company being in New Mexico. We know that there is an over-supply of potash and that production of potash has been cut back. But let us compare what was done in New Mexico and in Saskatchewan. It is interesting to note that production in New Mexico was cut back from 100 per cent to about 90 per cent, whereas in Esterhazy, in my constituency, production was cut back to less than 50 per cent of capacity, with serious consequences for Saskatchewan workers in my constituency. The impact of such moves has been felt in towns like Esterhazy, Longerburg and
May 31, 1972

Churchbridge, towns with populations of between 1,500 and 3,500, where workers have had to sell their homes at prices considerably below building costs because they were thrown out of work, there being only one major industry in the town and few people to buy their homes. If the mines had been Canadian owned, perhaps it would not have been necessary to cut production from 100 per cent to 50 per cent of capacity. Perhaps Canadian workers would have been given the chance to retain their jobs. I may also add that there are chances of obtaining markets for potash in China and perhaps other Communist countries. Because such action would violate the Trading with the Enemy Act, we possibly cannot sell potash to some of these countries. That is another consequence of foreign ownership in our economy, and one that is real to the working people of this country.
There are many other specific cases where jobs in this country are lost because of the fact that so much of our economy is foreign owned. One is in the area of research and development. Many of our scientists must go to the United States and other countries to find jobs because not much research, study and development is done in Canada. Obviously it is done where the parent company is located. All too often that is not in our own country.
I now wish to move to another area I mentioned a few moments ago. I refer to the dollars that go out of our country as a result of foreign ownership in Canada. A report was issued a short time ago by the United States department of commerce. This report stated that between 1960 and 1967 parent companies took $2 billion more from their subsidiaries in this country than they contributed. In other words, $2 billion more went out of Canada than came into this country in terms of new investment.
I wish to refer to another study that was conducted by the United States department of commerce. I wish to quote from an article that appeared in a January 1971 issue of the Toronto Star. The headline is "U.S. economist admits Canada being bought out with her own money". I wish to quote a couple of paragraphs from that article which is datelined Washington:
A United States government economist who took a survey of U.S. subsidiary companies' operations in Canada, yesterday said New Democratic Party Leader T. C. Douglas was probably right when he said that 94 per cent of U.S. subsidiaries' investment in Canada is effected with Canadian funds.
Douglas told the Commons Tuesday he had seen the figure in the report of a survey undertaken by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The survey was done by department economist R. David Belli.
Yesterday, Belli said in an interview that by a series of statistical deductions from charts he used in his survey, a figure of "something like 94 per cent" could be arrived at-
The report of Belli's survey was published in the November issue of a commerce department magazine called Survey of Current Business-
The survey was based on the annual reports of about 450 U.S. parent companies covering roughly 4,000 foreign affiliates, all over the world.
This report from the American department of commerce states that something like 94 per cent of the money invested in this country by American corporations is actually Canadian money. What does he mean by this? He
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
means that the foreign companies come in, reinvest their profits from plants they already have here or invest money which they borrow from Canadian banks or financial institutions, the savings of individual Canadians, and expand their plants in that way. They are not really investing much new money in Canada. They are investing our money to expand their interests in our country. They are buying us out with our own money. This situation is like a Canadian inviting his neighbour into his house and, when he gets there, saying to him that there are no rules or regulations, take what you want, the television set, the car or the wife and do what you want with them. It is like telling him there are no regulations, to go ahead and do what he wants and we will pay him for it. In many ways, that is what this country is doing in terms of American investment.
The American corporations and government realize this. I suggest that many average Americans wonder why we are such fools, and why we have the wool pulled over our eyes without doing something about it. These are areas we should be acting on now, instead of trying to hide behind a bill like this that will not create a ripple in the ocean of problems that we have.
Another point I want to make in terms of the wealth that comes into this country is to distinguish between loan capital and equity capital. I believe the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and members of the Social Credit party the other day made reference to the fact that some NDP governments go to the United States to borrow money. In many cases this is true, but I suggest there is a difference between loan capital and equity capital. Once you pay off a loan, which is like paying off a mortgage on a house, you own the industry. Canada has not done this. Every country in the world, at some stage in its development, needs foreign capital. However, most countries borrow money and, after a certain period of time, pay off the loan and own the industry.
When the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) was the premier of my province, I believe the province borrowed foreign money for the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. If I am not mistaken, it was probably several hundred million dollars. After a period of time, that loan was paid off and the people of Saskatchewan now own the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. It serves them; they control it and any profits that are made are kept in Saskatchewan for the people of that province. The thing I would like to make very clear is that there is a difference between loan capital and equity capital.
Some members are deliberately trying to mislead the Canadian people when they say there is no difference and refuse to look at the facts. In years to come, it will be obvious that certain parts of this country will need foreign money. However, we should distinguish very clearly and carefully between loan capital and equity capital. After we have made a series of payments, we should own the industry. We do not want it to be owned by some wealthy American sitting in Florida, Los Angeles or wherever he may be.
I want to say that Canada does have the money. I have confidence in this country, even though the minister does not. We can develop our country. As the United States

May 31, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
department of commerce pointed out, most of the money used by American corporations is ours anyway. Why can we not use the money ourselves? With leadership from this government, with its many recommendations, commission and task forces, that money can be put to use in Canada on behalf of the Canadian people. A lot of this country's wealth is invested in foreign Corporations on behalf of Canadians. Much of our money goes overseas to Europe, the Caribbean and the United States. A lot of this money, with proper planning, could be channeled into investment in our own country.
I recall picking up a newspaper when I was in Jamaica about a year and a half ago. I was startled by the headline. It said "Jamaicanize the economy; get rid of Canadian investment". In Jamaica, Trinidad, Tobago and countries like that, they are not as worried about American investment as Canadian investment. We, too, are guilty in terms of going into some countries and exploiting them because we can make a profit. You can stand on a street corner in London and see four Canadian corporations which are now multinational.


Mr. Pepin:: How can they be multinational if they are Canadian?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We do have the funds. A lot of this could be channelled into Canada and it would be of benefit to Canadian people from coast to coast.
I think the policy of the New Democratic Party with regard to the Canada Development Corporation is very well known. This is one of the many instruments that could be used by the government if it were really serious about developing Canada for Canadians. I do not want to go into it at this time, but that is one instrument that could be used very effectively if we were serious about our economy.
The fourth area that I alluded to a few minutes ago was the general area of political independence. I believe that because of the degree of economic dependence we have on the United States in particular, in many cases our political independence is seriously threatened. I believe that if we were not so dependent upon United States corporations we would have a more independent foreign policy which would have a more positive impact on the world in general. I want to quote a short comment by John Foster Dulles when he talked about economic imperialism, if you want to use the word vis-a-vis the conquering of a country by force. Dulles said:
"There are two ways of conquering a foreign nation. One is to gain control of its people by force of arms and the other is to gain control of its economy by financial means."
I suggest that whether we like it or not, or whether we want to admit it or not, the fact that so much of our economy is foreign-owned, particularly by United States corporations, has to have a great deal of impact on Canadian political policy as far as being an independent nation is concerned. It also affects our trade in a real way. We have already pointed out that certain shipments of flour to Cuba were stopped because they violated the trading with the enemy act. The flour was to come from a subsidiary of a United States corporation. I have men-

tioned potash in my constituency where we have United States potash firms. Perhaps we could be selling potash to China and other countries within the Communist bloc, but this might violate the trading with the enemy act. There was the question of shipping trucks to China a few years ago. This had to be stopped because it violated the same American law.
I suggest that the laws of the United States should have no effect on the trade policy of this country. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) can make light of the subject if he likes.


Mr. Osier:: I was not making light of the subject. I was making light of the way the hon. member was dealing with it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Maybe he has some Canadians in his constituency who are better off than those elsewhere. I am concerned with Joe Citizen out there in Saskatchewan, the farmer, the worker, the small businessman who is not benefiting-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Amen.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -who is not benefiting from a policy which gives handouts to large foreign-owned companies. I would refer the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) who could, maybe, give him a little political education. As was mentioned by my leader, and by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), we do have the funds in this country, we do have the technology, we do have the educated people, to enable us over a period of a certain number of years to repatriate the economy. It is not a simple task and there are many difficulties in the way, but we ought to make a start. There are many avenues open to us. Our party believes there should be more public investment in the economy. I do not think we should leave everything to the huge, private multinational corporations. There should be more public investment in this country through the CDC.
Another area which would help us repatriate the economy would be to change our taxation policy. Our taxation policy favours foreign extractive industries at the expense of the average guy or the expense of the small businessman in this country. We give huge incentives to the oil companies, the gas companies and the mining companies and these companies are all capital intensive in nature. They do not employ many Canadians. They are almost totally foreign owned. Then, we tax the manufacturing companies and the small businessmen.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Have you seen the last tax bill?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre wants to make a speech later, he can get up and speak on behalf of the multinational corporations and his friends.


An hon. Member:: Cheap politics.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In the last 10 years the mining companies were taxed on only 13 per cent of their profits. How does that compare with the small businessmen? Gas and oil companies, which are owned almost entirely by foreign



May 31, 1972

concerns, were taxed on only 5.7 per cent of their profits in the past 10 years. With these huge handouts to foreign extractive industries, is it any wonder they come in to invest money in these areas when they have these huge advantages that other countries do not give them? I remember the speech made some time ago by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans). He said the Minister of Finance came back happily from talking to the Americans. I believe he thought the Americans probably asked him one question: What are you doing about taxes on resource industries, and he said, "nothing". Of course, the Americans were very happy because here they had this tax holiday and all the handouts. The sooner Liberal party members and a few Conservatives take a stand on this issue, the sooner will the average Canadian have a better opportunity to get involved in the economy and start developing it for himself and his family.
A lot of politicians in the United States and other countries are taking a hard look at the handouts given to the multinational corporations. Look at all the things McGovern is saying in his campaign in the United States about the tax loopholes for the super-rich. If this country were to revise its taxation system, in particular its treatment of the resource industries, more funds would be available for the expansion of manufacturing industry and the service industries. The result would be more jobs for Canadians and an economy which was owned and controlled by Canadians rather than by foreign interests.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Continue.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: May I have one more minute?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I could listen to the hon. member for one more minute, for five, for ten more even, if there were unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: There were many other things I was going to say, but I shall conclude by saying I think we have to act now if we are to repatriate our economy. I want to conclude by saying many people believe that if we had tougher laws, if we had more control, we would be scaring away some of the investment that is here. I should like to say that that is a lot of nonsense. There are rules and regulations in other countries. Why cannot there by any here?
I have here a clipping from the Leader-Post of March 31. The article refers to United States oil companies investing in Algeria. They are going to invest in Algeria. They are also talking about investing in the Soviet Union. So, I am sure they will invest in Canada. They expect us to have some rules and regulations. I do not think they will avoid us if we do lay down these rules. They should pay their fair share, and if they do things will be better for the average Canadian. This is the type of thing in which I am interested.
Foreign Takeovers Review Act


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to make a few remarks concerning Bill C-201, which provides for the review of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by foreign investors.
If I rise on this matter, it is because I feel that the Quebec people are very much concerned about the economic independence of Canada and the threat which foreign capital represents. Moreover, the people of my constituency of Saint-Jacques have every reason to be especially concerned about this. On the one hand, as many hon. members know, this constituency includes St. James St. and Dorchester Blvd, in Montreal, which are at the center of the economic activities of the whole of eastern Canada, and the officials of these firms are impatiently awaiting the decisions which the House will make in connection with this bill.
Similarly, most residents of Saint-Jacques who are in contact with financial circles earn a very modest salary. Quite a few are unemployed. Making allowance for the employment situation, they are very eager to know the decisions taken by the House concerning foreign investments.
This being said, I would like to comment on the decision of the government to deal with the foreign investment issue. As for me, the government's decision is realistic. Of course, some of my friends are already saying that I am not serious, but it is obvious that some people will accuse the government of being too weak in this respect whereas others will say that the government went too far. It is always easy to say such things when you just have to deliver a speech before the House and when you are not responsible for the administration of the country.
However, this government is responsible for the administration of the country and, when they make decisions, they have to consider the effects these decisions will have on the Canadian economy and on the standard of living in Canada. That is why I say the decision made by the government is realistic. In fact, the question is to proceed gradually rather than to take drastic steps that could harm the present state of the economy in Canada.
Obviously, according to our colleagues of the New Democratic Party, we are not going far enough. To them, there should be short term guarantees of complete economic independance for Canada. As the hon. member said who spoke before me, this is a policy for buying back foreign companies set up in Canada and we all recognize that this type of policy would be a waste of money. To my mind, we would be better off investing our money in new undertakings, instead of using it to buy companies already in operation and which create jobs, even though they belong to foreigners.
To my mind, economic independence, as some members of the Waffle group would have it, is an utopia, for our economy is no longer independent nor will it ever be. Like the economy of every country in the free world, ours is an international and interdependent economy. It is pointless to try to escape that reality.
25316-49!

May 31, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
As barriers fall between countries, the more the economy of each country is influenced by the economy, the economic activity of its neighbours. We all know that in the field of international trade, neither Canada nor the United States can do what they want. We realized it recently when the United States had to impose a 10 per cent surcharge to settle difficult economic conditions.
Even a country as powerful as the United States, a country which enjoys just the same a greater degree of economic independence than Canada, must legislate to try to protect themselves on the economic level against the trading activities of other countries.
This clearly indicates that all countries are subjected to an interdependent mechanism and that trying to give one complete economic independence is an utopia similar to a suggestion that Canada should be changed into an Eldorado.
We know that even the rates of exchange greatly influence the economy of the free world countries and those rates are not easily controllable. For example, as a result of the government's decisions, Canadian currency varies on the international money market.
Today, I am told that the Canadian dollar is worth $1.02 compared to the American dollar. Obviously, this does not favour our exports, but is one more proof that the thesis of economic independence is easily made.
Finally, I should like to say one word on the investment requirements of Canadians. No doubt, Canada needs now massive investments of capital.
That is obvious in Quebec and again recently Premier Robert Bourassa went to New York to try and get some capital investment in Quebec.
My colleagues who represent ridings in the Maritimes also know precisely what I mean.
We have an urgent need of capital; we need a massive injection to boost our economy which has been showing signs of recovery for some time now. We need them above all in order to reduce unemployment, particularly in the eastern provinces and in Manitoba. And we need capital to solve the problems resulting from unemployment.
When the Canadian government must make a decision with regard to foreign investments-it has had to do so recently and it is trying to have it ratified by the House- that is the dilemma in which it finds itself. On the one hand, the government must find solutions to an intolerable level of unemployment. On the other hand, some radicals ask us to prevent foreign capital from coming into Canada.
How can the two positions be reconciled? Obviously, that is impossible. And this permits our friends from the NDP to continue to preach the utopia that is economic independence and, at the same time, to accuse us of doing nothing to fight unemployment.
In my view, the Canadian electors will not be misled by such dramatic productions. They know that we need investments for economic development, to reduce unemployment, to ensure better social measures because, obviously, when our economy is in good shape it is easier to
[Mr. Guilbault.J
put such measures into application than it would be otherwise. Besides, economic independence in Canada is best assured if the economy is healthy.
I would now like to say a word about what I call the threat of foreign takeovers. In my opinion, such a threat to the Canadian economy, within a short, medium or even long period, is a myth.
First of all, capital, either foreign or Canadian, has no nationality. The foreign corporation investing in Canada has in mind one single and clear purpose, always the same: finding a market, a place to produce at reasonable costs and ultimately profits and dividends for the benefit of its shareholders.
Capital coming into Canada is neither Japanese, American nor Belgian. It is international and it seeks a good soil where to grow. Nobody comes to Canada to invest capital with the avowed purpose or even the consciousness that some day he will control the policy decisions that Canadians will have to take to fulfil their destiny.
Moreover-and this is related to what I said a few minutes ago-it is always foreign corporations that invest in Canada, never foreign governments. This is why the myth of control over our economy by foreign countries is a real myth.
It is never the United States of America that come here to invest capital, but independent corporations which, while they are American, do not necessarily have convergent interests. Most of the time, they are companies which do not care for the neighbouring society and which being in the same field, are often in competition and want to make higher profits than their competitive organisations which invest capital in Canada at the same time.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the provisions of this bill. First, generally speaking, this legislation seems to me particularly reasonable, given the set of circumstances Canada is in at present.
First of all, the legislation does have some scope, although opposition members have been trying to have us believe it is very limited. I suggest that at least concerning takeover of Canadian businesses by foreigners the legislation is quite adequate since it allows the government to screen all takeovers of companies with gross annual incomes of over $3 million. Everyone will agree with me that a company with a gross income of less than $3 million a year car hardly have detrimental effects on the Canadian economy in the near future.
Furthermore, the government will be able to assess takeovers of all companies with gross assets of over a quarter of million dollars and will exercise the right to look into their operations. There again, it will be admitted that a company with assets of less than a quarter of a million dollars has little chance of exercising an unfavourable influence on the Canadian economy.
Thus the legislation is adequate and covers all industries and all takeovers liable to affect substantially the course of Canadian economy, or at least the economy of the area where a foreign company plans to locate.
I suggest that the legislation, besides being adequate in the area it covers, seems reasonably flexible. In fact, the
May 31, 1972

government retains the privilege of examining all projects of foreign takeovers. However, after assessment, the government retains the privilege of approving the request for purchase of a Canadian company by foreigners, or to reject it. And this looks like a good thing to me, because the Canadian government which must answer to the people has a responsibility to decide whether in its opinion the takeover of a Canadian company by foreigners might be beneficial or detrimental to the interests of Canadians.
As hon. members know, at the end of each year, the minister will be required to table before the House a comprehensive report of his department's activities in this field, which will provide the opposition with ample opportunity to comment on and even criticize the measures taken and decisions made by the government. I suggest that this provision is highly desirable.
Besides, I refuse to believe, as a certain party has been suggesting, that this measure is weak and will have no strength. The provisions contained in the last clauses of the bill are severe enough to potential offenders. In my opinion, this bill has teeth.
For instance, people who simply fail to give notice of their intention to sell their enterprise to foreign concerns will be liable to a $5,000 fine. We must admit that the government does not joke when it introduces a measure of this type. This is likely to make people who might have avowed intentions to transgress the law think twice.
Moreover, the bill provides that people who refuse to comply with the law will be liable to a $10,000 fine or six months in jail, or both. This shows that here again the penalties are very heavy, so we can hope that the law will be complied with; we can at least conclude that the government has made this legislation strict enough for it to be enforced.
Reading through the bill a moment ago, I even noticed that the mere fact of impeding a study or investigation being made of a foreign takeover makes the person guilty of this offence liable to a $5,000 fine. I would say this legislation has teeth and will be complied with.
I think this bill will be welcomed by the Canadian public. Of course, I already know that it will not be welcomed by the radicals, by those who would have liked the government to do nothing to prevent the foreign takeover of Canadian industries. On the other hand, this bill will not please those radicals who would want the Canadian government to buy back dollar for dollar every foreign-owned Canadian enterprise.
But I think that most Canadians will agree with this measure, in view of the circumstances we are experiencing in Canada-and it must be said that this is only one step taken by the government in this direction.
Over the last few years, the Canadian government has introduced several measures to give Canadians firm control over their economy. I do not want to detail them since the hon. minister has done it already when he tabled the bill. However, I would like to add that this legislation is another stone in the setting up of a reasonable system of controls by Canadians on their economy. I suggest it would have been ridiculous, at this time, to hurry things up and take drastic measures that could have affected or
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
substantially reduced the inflow of foreign investment in Canada. It is enough for us to realize that some 1,300,000 Canadian students are on the eve of entering the labour market. This considerable number of students will add to that, already known, of the unemployed which we are reminded of every day by the opposition during the oral question period.
It is obvious that the principal concern of the government, at this stage, is the now intolerable unemployment situation and the creation, as soon as possible and by all means possible, of the necessary job opportunities. This is certainly not the best time to propose measures that could prejudice the attainment of the major objective that the government, I repeat, has set for himself, that is to try and guarantee to each Canadian the availability of a job.
That was the dilemma facing the government: on the one hand, to fight unemployment and, on the other, to secure a reasonable independence for our economy.
I believe that the government has efficiently solved this dilemma in submitting Bill C-201 and this is why, Mr. Speaker, I will support this bill when it comes to a vote. I urge my hon. friends to do likewise.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in considering foreign investment and Bill C-201, one has to determine what the government wants to do with this measure and in what direction they want Canada to go. In my estimation, the bill is perhaps more meaningful in its intent than in what it will actually accomplish. Most Canadians in every part of Canada want more control over the life around them and more involvement in their environment. In other words, they want more say in what affects their livelihood. This prompts one to say that we in Canada should control absolutely all the investment in industry and in business within Canada. Can we effectively bring this about and would it be beneficial to Canada if we did?
We just listened to the lengthy speech of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) in which he gave potash mining as an example, and pointed out how employment in potash mines in Saskatchewan has been reduced to 50 per cent while in Mexico in the same industry, it had been reduced to 90 per cent. He said that if those were Canadian owned potash mines, that would not have happened. He fails to realize that Canada is a trading nation, that potash is used as a fertilizer in countries other than Canada and that what determines how much will be sold, in most cases, is the cost of the product. If they can mine it cheaper in Mexico, then a good international company, a good Canadian company, would do just that for its shareholders. The example he used was a poor one.
He want on at great length to point out the many problems relating to foreign investment in a country, but he gave the House the benefit of no solutions. He overlooked the fact that when the NDP government attempted to establish a steel mill in Regina they went south to the United States for foreign capital, and they went south for foreign know-how. They established their steel mill which is predominantly controlled by Americans, to use their words. They are searching persistently for a tractor

May 31, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act manufacturing plant in either Moose Jaw or Saskatoon-I do not know which city has paid the most for it. Representatives of both cities have gone to Roumania to attempt to entice foreign capital from over there.
I would be the first to agree that Canada should become economically less dependent upon any other single economy and should therefore encourage a diversity of foreign investment here. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville made a speech which was totally rhetorical, of the kind which used to be made in Saskatchewan back in the 1940's. That party has not changed its approach very much. In fact, if one looks at the New Democratic Party closely, one finds that the Waffle group within that party is bringing to the forefront the very stuff that elected the first NDP government in Saskatchewan. So, I suppose it is correct to assume that many members of the NDP would be bringing back the same sort of rhetoric.
What does this bill attempt to do? To paraphrase the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), this bill presents, in essence, a political solution to the problem. Political solutions are never good solutions to economic problems. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was elected he said two things to the Canadian public: first, that nationalism was not the answer, and second, that he would determine what was good for Canada and not what was good for political parties; that he would not be swayed by partisan considerations and that he would act truthfully and correctly in his best judgment for the good of the country. Here we have a piece of legislation which is brought in mainly for political reasons, and for the good of the political party which finds itself confronted with an election and a public not too favourably disposed toward it. They are trying to enhance their political image, and while doing so they might very well harm Canada's chances for real growth.
We are a trading nation and we need foreign investment. This bill provides that where more than 5 per cent of the voting rights in a public company and over 20 per cent in a private company are held by foreigners any corporation, seeking to take over such a company would have to obtain cabinet approval. True, there is a screening agency, but how good is a screening agency which recommends to the minister, who in turn recommends to the cabinet, if the agency does not make public its basic findings so that we can judge whether the cabinet is acting for political reasons or for the good of the country? Lately much has been said about the government acting for political reasons, and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) has been accused of doing just that. The following statement appeared in an editorial in one of the leading daily newspapers of Canada:
Although the cabinet is accountable to parliament and the electorate, there should be a link between it and the bidder, to prevent even the appearance of decisions based altogether on political rather than economic considerations.
That, too, is my fear, particularly if the agency does not make its findings public.
Another fact that has often been mentioned, and that is particularly true of this government, is that often it appears that its right hand does not know what its left hand is doing. We see legislation coming forward which in
(Mr. Horner.]
essence would limit, screen or control foreign investment-any of these adjectives could be applied-and, on the other hand, we see the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion handing out all kinds of grants to foreign companies to establish in Canada or to switch their location from one region to another where unemployment may be greater. We heard the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) advocating the development of a tourist complex in our national park in Banff and giving the contract or the tender to what might be considered foreign owned companies. I know that 30 per cent of the tender was supposed to come from a Lake Louise consortium, but that consortium is owned mostly by a person in Great Britain. This makes me believe that here is another example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
We have the government divorcing itself from provisions which many of the provinces have brought in under their estate tax acts which have caused much Canadian capital to leave this country. The NDP governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba have brought in an estate tax act which will cause much of the money to leave those provinces for other parts of Canada or other countries. We see this government bringing in the capital gains tax which will discourage Canadians from investing in companies that are doing business in Canada. I think that we should adopt the key sector approach. We should agree, as we have in some cases, that the banking medium should be reserved for Canadians, that newspapers, television, radio and other communications media should be reserved for Canadians. Perhaps book publishing also should be maintained by and for Canadians. Certainly, textbooks in our schools and universities should be Canadian.
Another thought that has entered my mind concerns union money, and I heard no mention of it from the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville when he was speaking about money leaving this country. On May 24, as recorded in Hansard at page 2505 there was an interesting question put forward by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson). The question was:
To the government's knowledge, how- much money did Canadians pay into international unions in each of the years 1965 to 1971 respectively?
The answer shows that in 1965, $28 million was paid into international unions and, without reading out all the figures, this had risen to $41 million in 1969. If payments have continued to grow since then they probably total $43 million or $44 million now.
The second question was:
How much money was paid to Canadian union members belonging to international unions in each of the years 1965 to 1971 respectively?
This answer shows that strike benefits paid to Canadain union members totalled $8,755 in a year in which the unions took $28 million out of this country. All we got back was $8,000 in benefits. The answer outlines strike benefits all the way from 1965 to 1969, a year in which they either had more strikes or paid greater benefits. In that year $16,000 was paid in strike benefits, a year in
May 31, 1972

which Canadian members paid out $41 million to international unions. The answer lists pension and welfare payments to beneficiaries in 1965 as $2,700, and over the years this continued to grow until it reached $33,000 in 1969. It also shows gross salaries, wages and other remuneration to officers and employees of international unions as increasing from $8,800 in 1965 to $11,462 in 1969. So, Mr. Speaker, in the year 1969, returns to Canadians totalled $16,000, $3,000 and $11,000, which looks like something in the neighbourhood of $30,000, yet in that same year moneys paid into international unions totalled $41 million.
At times I question whether international unions are as sensitive to the economic climate, to the conditions in which Canadians are working, as a Canadian union might be. Mr. Speaker, I remember a wildcat strike in which the railroad engineers engaged a number of years ago. The railroaders in my constituency called me up and wanted to meet with me. When I met them, I asked them what their union was doing about it. These men were expressing their opposition on the question of run-throughs and they told me, "Ours is an international union. It does not think the problem is big enough to worry about; that is why we are taking wildcat action." As a result of that situation, a royal commission was set up to study the question and the workers went back to work.
If we are going to look at the question of Canadians controlling the Canadian economy I think it is wrong to look at only one side of the ledger. We must also look at the other side of the ledger. If we are going to look at international companies as being the ultimate of all evil, then we must say that international unions must be categorized as part and parcel of that evil.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Perfect logic.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you. Trouble is developing in our economy which frightens me. Business has been frightened by the actions which the government has taken. One may ask to what action am I referring, and I point out that the white paper on taxation started this reaction. Business withdrew into its shell. It became hesitant about whether the government was creating the right climate in which business could operate. Then, we had the introduction of the labour bill with its technological change clause, which has now been moderated to some degree. We had the introduction of the competition bill, which has now been withdrawn but which may re-appear. A whole series of pieces of legislation has caused business to be rather hesitant about whether the government was creating the proper climate.
The hon. member who preceded me said that this bill was a first step, and that the government had other steps in mind. That is the reason the business community is worried. The business community was not particularly pleased with the Canada Development Corporation, but the bill establishing it was passed and it is now off the ground. One of the main criteria associated with it was that it was not to be used to buy back Canada, and it was to make a profit right from the beginning. Mr. Speaker, if we look at some examples in the province of Quebec, we can say that its Crown investment company has not been too successful.
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
This country is being confronted with another round of inflation, and the government is doing nothing about it. Inflation can be brought about by extensive government spending, and by putting more and more money into circulation. All this is taking place. We are back in the situation which we experienced in 1958 and 1959 when the Conservative party took office. Our dollar then was worth about $1.05 U.S., and we are facing the same situation today. Our dollar is increasing in value, and we have a great deal of unemployment brought about by mismanagement of our economy.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville says there is lots of money in Canada and that we can buy back Canada with Canadian money. Mr. Speaker, in the first four months of this year provincial governments have gone down to the United States and borrowed in the bond market to the tune of $1.5 billion. If there is this kind of money available in Canada, why do the NDP governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan not float provincial bonds to attract Canadian money? It is all well and good to say that there is a difference between investment capital and equity capital, but if we have governments borrowing all this money, and doing all that spending, then we are just one step away from the socialism that the Waffle group wants; in fact, one step away from the socialism that I sometimes think the federal government wishes to create.
What will we have next winter, Mr. Speaker? We may not have this government, but in the economic sphere we will have high unemployment, and we may well be reaching the peak of inflation in January. The government will be faced with difficult decisions. It may then say that this piece of legislation which we are debating now is not effective, and it may move toward direct investment by government in business. We are only one step away from that.
It is often said that Canadians can buy back Canada with Canadian money. But there are difficulties, Mr. Speaker. If one looks at the recent budget, one sees that our biggest single expenditure goes to pay the interest on our national debt. If we were starting out with a completely brand new country, with no debts, but with our natural resources and human resources, we could probably borrow the money to expand our economy and create more jobs, but for the Canadian government and Canadian business to borrow money now, on top of the national debt which we have, is almost impossible.
In fact the federal government itself from time to time has difficulty peddling its debt, as an article in Executive magazine of May, 1972, pointed out. This article deals with Mr. Rasminsky, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, and portrays some of the difficulties that Canada has had with high rates of inflation. On page 28 it points out that in 1968 during the exchange crisis, and again "when Ottawa was unable to peddle its debt," the bank had to reverse its policy. We have had some discussion with regard to managing our economy and managing the size of our debt. How will this bill affect this whole concept? I think it will cast a further shadow on business and I question whether it will accomplish the government's aims. Will it merely be used in once in a lifetime situations, such as the time the government stopped Home Oil from selling out to

May 31, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act Ashland of the United States? I wonder whether even that was a wise move.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It was an ad hoc one.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is true. The government bullied the people concerned to get on that decision. There was no legislation on the order paper to stop the sale. From an Albertan's point of view, it could be argued that Ashland of the United States might well be more willing to invest its profits in Alberta than consumers Gas of Toronto, the eventual buyer, sometimes we in the west are not convinced that eastern Canada is attempting to reinvest its profits in the west. I am not saying that Consumers Gas will act as a true eastern concern; I hope it will not, but we will have to wait and see.
In an article in the Montreal Gazette, John Meyer, the financial writer said:
This, of course, is going well beyond the limited objective of making Canadian assets safe for Canada. It is by far the deepest penetration this government has made in the private sector.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Some of your economists were saying that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I agree. Our party is not in government, therefore we can enjoy the richness of diversity of opinion. When one is in the cabinet, there must appear to be responsibility. During the debate yesterday we heard varying opinions from backbenchers in the Liberal party.
I should like to recommend to the House that when this bill goes to committee, witnesses should be called from all parts of Canada because there is a great diversity of opinion in the country. We are a federal state comprising ten provinces and four or five regions, and we should hear from all those regions on how this bill may affect their development.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On the philosophy of foreign investment or on the administration of the bill?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On the philosophy of the bill and, dealing with the administration, the screening agency should make its findings public. I do not think they should reveal the names of the individual firms, but they should make public the material on which their advice to the minister is based so that the action of the government can be judged. I should like to hear in the committee from business concerns about this aspect. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the committee should travel across the country to hear witnesses. I think this is the deepest penetration by this government so far into the private sector. We pride ourselves on being a free enterprise country and we should take this initial step. Who knows, it might not be the last step.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member to clarify whether we are going to organize a road show to ask people to talk about the philosophy of foreign investment in Canada? Canadians have been talking about foreign investment for nearly a century now, and presumably will be talking about it for another few years. I would like the hon. member to tell me what kind of question he thinks should be discussed in committee. I suggest it should be of the type he indicated a moment ago

such as what would be the criteria of screening, what publicity would be given to decisions and so on.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I could not agree more. Those are the types of questions and concerns that business has. I think government owes it to business to fairly and clearly explain the intent of this legislation so that the business community can feel secure, and then go forth and multiply. That is the only way we will employ the millions of Canadians who are still in their teens and who will be entering the labour force in the next couple of years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The unions should have their say, too.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like an assurance from the minister that the committee will hear witnesses on this question. Is that implied? If the minister agrees that witnesses could appear to deal with the administrative side of the bill, I hope they can also deal with some of their other fears. I think it would be difficult for the business community to confine itself solely to the question of administration.


Jean-Luc Pepin: A committee where one would study the taxation system and the effects of foreign investment- where one would study the quality of management in Canada? I suggest that if we put the whole debate on foreign investment again in committee, we will be still at it two years from now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It would be better than killing off everything.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I appreciate the minister taking an interest in my remarks and the interchange that has taken place.
In an article by Harold Greer which appeared recently in the Ottawa Citizen, he said:
One of the darker mysteries of the Foreign Takeovers Review Act is that the federal government, after agonizing so long over the problem of foreign investment in Canada, has brought in legislation which is probably unconstitutional.
This question has not been dealt with to any extent, but certainly provincial governments seeking foreign investment have made excursions throughout the world. British Columbia has gone to Japan to encourage foreign investment, and I think even the NDP government of Manitoba went to Japan. It is well known that Newfoundland has travelled the world over looking for foreign investment. It may turn out that the provinces will challenge the constitutionality of this legislation at some time. Some of them have said that it does not go far enough. This is another good reason for referring it to committee for broad discussion. The article continues:
A federal law dealing with foreign takeovers could be framed on solid constitutional grounds, but this bill virtually invites challenge in the courts-
The constitutionality of the legislation is hardly of academic interest, since it will be open to any provincial government or any Canadian company affected by it to challenge it on constitutional grounds.
The whole question of whether it is good for all parts of the country must be considered. In a different article in the Ottawa Citizen, Peter Calamai said:
Science Council Chairman Dr. O. M. Solandt today warned that proposed federal laws on competition and foreign ownership could push more Canadians on welfare.
May 31, 1972

Surely, there are enough people on welfare and unemployed today. The article continues:
-Dr. Solandt also rebuked the cabinet for insisting that the Canada Development Corporation must make immediate profits-
But Dr. Solandt, a former vice-president of both Canadian National Railways and De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, cautioned that the manner of government intervention is crucial.
That is all the more reason for a thorough study of this piece of legislation. One could go through a list of articles which express the concern of financial writers in various provinces across the country.
It is interesting to consider a speech made recently by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis). The background paper for discussion at a special meeting of the Capilano Liberal Association in North Vancouver was entitled "What do Western Liberals Want?" One subheading reads: "Less Protectionism in Canada". Under this government, we are slowly going toward an isolationist position and this in a country so dependent upon its ability to trade. Another heading is "Wanted: Less Protectionism in Canada", and another "Wanted: More Foreign Capital for Expansion" and that section goes on to cover the whole field.
I see the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Smerchan-ski) agrees with me. I am pleased to see that although we do not agree politically, we agree in philosophy. I am always pleased to see that members from western Canada agree on certain matters. What do western people want, Mr. Speaker? According to paragraph 4 on page 6, they want more foreign capital for expansion. Canada, today, is in better shape to finance industrial expansion both at home and abroad. This is reflected in our current balance of payment surplus. The minister then outlined more of the things that western Liberals really want. I ask, where were the western Liberal members of cabinet when this subject was discussed.
Paragraph 5 reads, "Wanted: more projects and less red tape". Will this bill bring this about? I doubt it. Paragraph 6 reads, "Wanted: less government and more tax cuts". I doubt if we shall see less government and more tax cuts. Paragraph 7 tells us that western Liberals want "Decentralization of decision making". Will this government bring about decentralization of decision making? No. This matter will come under the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). What do western Liberals want from this government? Well, whatever they want, they are not getting it from this government. That should be clear to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Smer-chanski), who is paying attention to me, and to other western Liberals.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Even to Lang.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What sort of solution should we bring forward to permit greater ownership by Canadians of Canadian industry? I think wealth may be defined as the goods and services that people need or want. During the past 200 years, much of the toil associated with the production of wealth has gradually been shifted from men to machines by technical innovation, with the result that machines now produce most of the wealth in our economy
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
and will continue to produce a progressively growing proportion of it as time goes on. The machines of production can be termed as the capital instruments of production. To buy capital instruments, a man needs money. We must then ask, do we want most of our capital to be owned by the state, which is what the socialists want, by a few individuals, or by many individuals.
Certainly, it is the philosophy of the Conservative party, which I support, that capital should be owned by as many individual Canadians as possible. What is the government doing to encourage Canadians to invest in Canada. I suggest it is discouraging such investing.


An hon. Member:: Read the budget.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: An hon. member says, read the budget.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is too depressing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I thank the constitution for providing for elections every four or five years, because near election time the Minister of Finance usually brings down a favourable budget. He is to allow accelerated write-offs for machinery purchases in certain industries. Yet, what about tax decreases? There is nothing in the budget for the farmer or for the manufacturing industry. Last year, 975 firms associated with the food processing industries went broke. There is nothing in the budget for them. Most of those companies were Canadian companies.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: One egg never made a good omelette.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the state owns most of the capital, then the state must decide how the wealth it produces should be distributed. That is happening in Russia and in China, and that is what the Waffle group and those truly espousing the NDP philosophy want. At their leadership convention their present leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), admitted he believes that but could not tell the people because they would not elect him if he did. So, there one sees his basic philosophy.
The leader of my party has said that we are not providing enough incentives for Canadians, and that we should.


Mr. Benjamin:: All the dinosaurs come from Alberta.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the dinosaurs could leave Saskatchewan, they would; everybody else has left.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That was very good, Jack. That boy married an Alberta girl, too.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We must encourage Canadians to invest in Canada. Instead of applying the capital gains tax across the board evenly, let it apply more severely to gains involving foreign companies in which Canadians invest. Let there be some differences in the application of that law, and let us produce incentive for Canadians to invest in Canadian companies. If we carry on the present system of giving huge grants to huge companies, we shall find that most of our economy is controlled by international corporations or by a huge Canadian corporation. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, all these corporations work for the good of their shareholders and are entirely motivated by the search for profits. Massey Ferguson may be a Canadian
2738

May 31, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act company, inasmuch as it operates in Canada, but it does its best to make money and to swallow up its competitors. It is trying to buy out Versatile. That process, of course, is natural, and governments should see to it that Canadian businesses can carry out business throughout Canada. Galbraith once said that it would not surprise him, when great corporations come to be more closely associated with the state, if the state were to turn such corporations into public bodies. I doubt if the NDP or the present government would reject that idea.
The bulwark of democracy and freedom lies in the middle class, in the middle income groups and in the blue collar worker. This is the group we must expand. What has the government done through its budgets and tax measures? It has repeatedly placed too great a burden on the middle income workers and blue collar workers of Canada. They are repeatedly overtaxed by this government and their numbers are shrinking. The group that is on welfare and unemployed has become enlarged; there are more rich, but the middle income group is shrinking. Canadians must be induced to invest in Canada. How can this be done? I suggest, it can be done through a tax credit system under which Canadians investing in Canadian companies would be allowed tax exemptions of so much per year, up to a maximum of $10,000, say. That is how we can encourage Canadians to invest in Canada, particularly in industries that bring the greatest benefits to particular regions.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say to the minister that, in view of the controversy surrounding this bill, I hope it will be studied exhaustively in committee. I hope witnesses will be called and that those witnesses will be given ample time to prepare briefs on this legislation. This step is an initial step; let us make it a correct step, because governments rarely go back after that first step. If we are to build on this legislation, let us build something which will create the climate for putting more Canadians back in the work force.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a consensus in this House to the effect that the problem of foreign direct investment in Canada is and should be a matter of vital national concern.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Better watch those car factories.


Mark R. MacGuigan: In a situation in which nearly 60 per cent of manufacturing industry in Canada is foreign controlled, a percentage which, according to the group headed by my Windsor colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray), is the highest among industrialized nations of the world, I do not think I need to document the reasons for this concern. Although I regret that my colleague, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) yesterday placed himself outside this consensus, it nevertheless exists in this House.
The present consensus in this House is not necessarily indicative of the general attitude of Canadians. I want to refer briefly to a poll which was conducted by Omnifax in Toronto for the CTV network last fall and released on the program "The Canadian Dilemma" on December 5, 1971. The question asked was the following:

Do you feel that the current level of American investment is too high, too low, or about right?
The percentage of people across Canada who felt that American investment was too high was 62.2 per cent. The percentages ranged from 47.5 per cent in Quebec to 58.3 per cent in the Atlantic provinces to 66.1 per cent in Ontario to 74.8 per cent in the west. These were the percentages of people who thought that the current level of American investment in Canada was too high. These results do not quite square with those which the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) presented to us yesterday as the result of his questionnaire. He found that his people were evenly divided. However, the question which was posed in his questionnaire had to do with foreign investment in general, and not just American investment. It also referred to action rather than a mere expression of feeling.
Following the precedent of the hon. member for Palliser, I want to refer briefly to a questionnaire which I sent out this spring. I am just going to give the percentages on one side because that gives the picture of the result.
Do you feel that the present level of American investment in Canada is too high?
Sixty-eight point nine per cent said yes.
Do you feel that the Federal Government should establish a screening agency to regulate the level and conditions of foreign investment in Canada?
Eight-four point eight per cent said yes.
Do you feel that there is too much American influence in labour unions in Canada?
Seventy-six point six per cent said yes.
Would you favour Federal Government action to control this problem that is, the problem of American influence in labour unions?
Sixty-seven point one per cent said yes.
Do you feel that there should be further financial incentives (loans, tax incentives) to encourage Canadians to invest in their economy?
Eighty-nine point five per cent said yes.
I think these figures show that the problem of foreign investment in Canada is generally recognized. The disagreement, of course, is over the solution to the problem. If this bill were intended to be a complete solution to the problem of foreign investment in Canada, it would be completely inadequate. Fortunately, it is not being presented in this light by the government, but rather is one in a continuing series of steps, and focuses on the particular problem of takeovers.
Others have reviewed the steps which the government has taken in the past few years. I do not propose to review all of them, but I will mention several. First, I refer to the recent budget in which there was a reduction of taxation beginning on January 1 of next year for manufacturing businesses, thereby giving an advantage to manufacturing businesses over extractive industries. The figures presented by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), that $1 billion of exports of manufactured goods contains $230 million in salaries and wages while $1 billion in exports of resources pays only $68 million in salaries and wages are,
May 31, 1972_____________COMMONS DEBATES	2739
I think, a very good substantiation of the wisdom of moves in the direction of favouring the manufacturing over the extractive industries in Canada.
I want to refer briefly to the two part program of financial and advisory assistance for improved management in industry which was announced several months ago by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). The first part deals with development of management courses and is designed to encourage the improvement of managerial competence in industry by helping professional, industry, business or management associations to develop or revise management training courses. The second part of the program is called, Counselling Assistance to Small Enterprises. This will be developed in close co-operation with the Canadian Executive Service Overseas. Moves of this kind by the government, large or small, are to be greatly welcomed. In fact, to my mind no solution to the problem of foreign investment can be found in isolation from a general industrial policy. I believe that our present industrial policy is no longer entirely satisfactory. It is still too close to the traditional policy of keeping our tariffs high and encouraging foreign businesses to locate here without requiring other qualifications and protections.
In addition, there should be tremendous emphasis on science and technology, a move toward rationalization of our industries, a tax policy which favours even more the manufacturing over the extractive industries, and, something which is particularly important, further capital assistance to small businesses in Canada which wish to expand, especially small businesses which are capable of technological development. I believe this industrial policy should be worked out with business and labour leaders and with the provinces, and not represent a policy merely imposed by the government of Canada. In a matter as complicated as this, and in a society which has become as democratic as ours, it is no longer enough to impose industrial policy from above. Not only must it be worked out carefully, but it must be worked out along with those involved in it.
I personally believe that a general industrial policy will require some further negative measures by way of control of foreign investment, such as the measure in Bill C-201, but the over-all emphasis of the policy should rather be a positive one, to encourage the development of Canadian and Canadian-owned industry. The difficulties of formulating a total policy all at once are indicated by the flounderings of the official opposition on this subject. The New Democratic Party may be misguided, and in my opinion it is, but at least its answer is unambiguous. Because the bill is not everything they want, they are against it. The official opposition is ambiguous all the way through. On one hand, they say that the bill does not go far enough. On the other hand, they say it should not go anywhere because it does not have the agreement of the provinces or for one of several other reasons.
The last paragraph of the speech of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and I regret the fact that he is not in the House at the moment, is a masterpiece obfuscation. It does give credit to his ingenuity, but not much credit to his convictions.
25316-50}
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
I will pause for just a moment to find the text of the hon. member for Palliser. In his address to the House yesterday, the hon. member spoke of this bill as another addition to the long list of power grabs-some defeated, some successful-by this government from the provinces. He seems to imply in the context that this bill has something to do with the spending power. If I had the time, I would be happy to indulge in a learned disquisition on the spending power of the federal government, a power which does not seem to be accepted by the hon. member for Palliser. Members of his party can say whether they share his view. I am sure that all members are aware that the government of Canada has proposed limitations on its spending power which could be adopted if there were a general constitutional settlement with the provinces. The fact is that this bill is not linked to the spending power at all. It could easily be defended under section 91(25) of the British North America Act, which gives power over aliens. It is this power over aliens which gives the government the right to legislate on matters such as this, along with other powers which can be used for the same purpose. The constitutional power of the federal government is not at issue. What is ultimately at stake is whether or not the federal government should proceed without the participation of the provinces, and that is quite a different matter.
I am not able to decide whether the proposal made by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) is a red herring or whether it is meant to be taken seriously. I refer to his proposal that a super review body should be set up consisting of nominees of the federal government and of provincial governments. I find it hard to believe he is seriously suggesting that the whole direction of the Canadian economy should be dictated by a group of appointees.
Opposition arguments with respect to the details of the bill were best presented in the speech of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland). One of the arguments put forward was that the screening agency to be set up is not an independent agency. My reply would be similar to that of the hon. member for Egmont. The power to control the Canadian economy in this way would be, in my view, too great a power to be placed in the hands of an independent agency. Such a power, with all the responsibilities it involves, should be placed in the hands of the elected representatives of the people. I might recall at this point that the attack directed by the NDP toward the Canadian Development Corporation was precisely on the grounds that the Corporation was too independent. The same kind of argument would apply a fortiori to what is, implicitly, their proposal here.


Mr. Rowland:: Would the hon. member not agree with my assertion, not so much that it should be an independent screening agency as that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is the wrong organization to perform the screening function, because of a conflict of interests in its necessary duties?


Mark R. MacGuigan: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree. It seems to me the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has available to it the expertise necessary to deal

May 31, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act with the complicated type of administration which will result from the legislation before us.
The other argument advanced by the hon. member for Selkirk, with respect to what he called the bill's errors of commission was that the purpose of the bill was not to prevent takeovers as such but to ensure that any takeover which did occur would be to the benefit of Canada. It seems obvious to me that there would be fewer takeovers under this legislation than now occur. Business decisions are often sufficiently marginal that the imposition of a great many added requirements by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) would make them uneconomic. I can reach no other conclusion than that there will be fewer takeovers in the future. Tangentially, it is not always recognized that the legislation would apply not only to takeovers of businesses which are presently owned by Canadians but also to businesses owned by foreigners if they should change hands.
Granting that there will be fewer takeovers under this legislation, I cannot see how the hon. member and his friends can reject legislation which moves in that direction, especially since the only alternative would seem to be a policy of no takeovers, one of complete prohibition. The first criterion to be borne in mind by the minister in determining whether or not a takeover is to be permitted is the effect on the entire level of economic activity in Canada, including employment. In these circumstances, I find it hard to see how the hon. member can reach the conclusion he does.
There is one area of concern to which I should like to refer. Is there adequate provision to safeguard the civil liberties of subjects? Even people involved in business are entitled to respect for their civil liberties, and some hon. members have expressed concern about this question. The only way in which it can be dealt with satisfactorily is by consideration at the committee level. It will be necessary to examine all the protections and safeguards afforded before deciding whether there is sufficient assurance against arbitrary action.
Then again, the very complexity of the mechanism raises considerable problems having to do with efficiency. This is something which I suppose one has to expect, but here again I am reassured by my belief that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce possesses sufficient expertise to be able to handle the situation satisfactorily. I agree that the bill does not respond except in a small way to the general problem engendered by foreign investment. It does, however, respond to the problem to which it is addressed, that of foreign takeovers, which is the most acute problem concerning foreign investment.
The hon. member for Selkirk asked what would happen with respect to takeovers in the interval before this legislation is passed, and criticized the bill because it made no provision for the waiting period. If the opposition is genuinely concerned about this question they could co-operate in getting the bill through the rest of its stages quickly; that would be the best protection we could afford, the best way of showing the concern we feel about foreign takeovers. I have kept my own remarks short so as to contribute to this end.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to join in this debate on the government's so-called, foreign takeovers review act. I say "so-called" but perhaps the word "alleged" would do as well.
The lead paragraph of this bill reads as follows-and I invite hon. members to follow it with me and share my bewilderment over the assumption contained in this preamble:
An Act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisition of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons.
I think I could be forgiven if I were to assume from this that the government has assessed the problem-if there is a problem-arising out of investment in Canadian enterprise by foreign interests. I think I could be forgiven if I were to make the assumption that the government had pinpointed specific dangers to our economy and to our sovereignty as a result of such investment, and, more particularly, as a result of foreign investors having a majority interest in Canadian enterprises.
However, this is not the case. The government has not isolated any specific areas of danger, nor has it made any assessment of the true effects of the ownership of Canadian businesses and industries by anyone, foreign or Canadian. In effect, therefore, the bill is another example of the age-old adage about placing the cart before the horse. It is a classic example of the penchant of this government for launching upon attempted massive corrective action without first identifying and defining the problem it seeks to correct.
Unfortunately, the New Democratic Party has been working overtime trying to alarm the Canadian people to the dangers of an economic and political takeover by United States interests unless we buy Canada back from the foreigners. We hear the same gobbledygook from the ultranationalists led by the Liberal party's economic mix-master, Walter Gordon. We all know the story of Walter Gordon. We see his ghost floating around the benches across the way now and again, influencing the present government's economic policies in spite of the fact that he has long since been banished from his former place in the Liberal party. His infamous 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, which was bought lock, stock and barrel by the previous Liberal government and preserved religiously by the present Liberal government, put adequate housing effectively beyond the reach of the vast majority of Canadians and put the housing industry in the hands of promoters and speculators. I should like to hear some heckling from my left about that point.
The only attempt by the present government to give an identity to what is called the foreign investment problem was made recently by the very capable Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) in the form of the Gray report. Unfortunately, like his colleagues, the revenue minister is on a short leash and he could not address himself to a definitive study of the problem. Judging from the failure of the Gray report to identify the problem, the minister was obviously directed to prepare an innocuous document that could be used to pave the way for this bill. I agree with my colleague who spoke earlier who said that this
[Mr. MacGuigan.J
May 31, 1972

bill should go to committee as soon as possible so that it may be examined more thoroughly and amended where necessary.
The Gray report does not provide any evidence that ownership of Canadian enterprises by foreign interests works against the interests of Canadians in general or against Canada as a nation. Nor does the report provide any evidence that any benefit would accrue from the mere fact of buying control of any business or industry owned by foreign entrepreneurs who established such enterprises. This is very disappointing to me because, like most Canadians who have been subjected to a barrage of criticism and alarmist viewpoints about the danger of foreign takeovers, I should very much like to know just what is the true situation and whether or not there is in fact a danger that we will lose control of our economy.
There is not one iota of truth in the claim that we, as a nation, do not have effective control over our economy- and I will give the government and previous governments credit for this-if we take the evidence available to us, evidence that can be taken seriously. In the absence of any clear-cut evidence of control, I must accept the preponderance of opinion expressed by most of our bankers and industrialists that Canada is in control of every area of its national economy and that we are in no immediate or long-term danger of losing that control.
There is evidence that foreign-owned or controlled businesses and industries are as good corporate citizens as are Canadian-owned enterprises. There is ample evidence that without the influx of foreign capital and expertise of the past 50 years many areas of our economy would be lagging behind acceptable norms. I say that from my own business experience, because I found this to be true in the 25 years that I was in business before coming to this chamber. Our mining and smelting industry, lumber, pulp and paper and automotive industries, as well as a large percentage of our labour intensive industries were established initially, or have been since established, by capital brought in by foreign entrepreneurs. This has been the case ever since confederation. One notable example of this was the influx of British capital which, in the main, built the Canadian Pacific Railway, the very instrument of confederation.
At this point I would like to use an example that is familiar to all of us to point up the jaundiced view of many of our so-called economic nationalists. I refer to the plant operated by the Canadian International Paper Company in Temiscaming, Quebec. All of us mourn the closing of the plant, and the loss of jobs by hundreds of people in that town. Canadian International Paper Company has always been a good corporate citizen. For the past 52 years the company has spent tens of billions of dollars in capital equipment and improvements, taxes, salaries and in other ways, in fulfiling its obligations to the community, to the country and to its shareholders. It has been the town's major employer and it has been a good employer. We are now informed that the plant is being closed down because the market for the company's product has changed to the extent that the plant is no longer economically viable. Understandably, the company's workers are stunned and afraid. They are concerned
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
about their future prospects of employment, and they are concerned about their families.
Since the news of the closing of the Temiscaming plant, it has been touted around by the economic nationalists that the company's head office is in New York and that therefore the company is owned by a United States parent. This good corporate citizen has suddenly become a culprit. We are told now that this is one of the dangers of having major industries owned or controlled by outsiders, and that the company would continue in operation if it had been Canadian-owned.
We have another example of this, the case of a company well known to all of us, one of the largest in the world, and vital to Canada International Nickel of Sudbury. Although all of the physical work of mining and smelting takes place in Canada, its administrative headquarters is in New York city. I have no objection to that so long as the company remains, as it always has been, a good corporate citizen of Canada. It has a world wide market as well as world wide respect. Falconbridge is another company that also enjoys such respect.
Let us look at two fundamental facts about the operation of this company in Temiscaming. Canadian International Paper Company did not wait until the last minute before trying to take corrective action. For the past few years, the company has been seeking alternative measures to stave off the effects of a failing market for its product. It has tried to find ways of adapting the plant's facilities to production of more viable products, but could not find such a solution. Now that closing of the plant has been forced upon them, the company has arranged to assist any government agency or private interests in utilizing the plant's facilities for the production of any marketable product in an effort to minimize the impact on the local citizens. This does not indicate that industrial giants are unfeeling, or that they are not interested in the welfare and well being of the citizens of the host country.
I regret to say that Ottawa has become such a bureaucratic jungle in the four years of the present government's term of office that I shudder at the implications of this bill. The fact that a group of bureaucrats are to be put in the position of passing judgment on the acceptability of an investor in Canada and assessing such investor's net advantage or disadvantage to the Canadian economy bodes no future good. In my opinion, the part of the bill which gives all power to the minister, and then in turn to the Cabinet, is inadvisable. How in the name of reason could such people be expected to know more about a particular enterprise than those people who have spent their lives learning their industrial crafts, and who know not only the ins and outs of the business but the workings of the world markets?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We have some businessmen, don't worry.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I hope you do, Mr. Minister. The minister says he will have some businessmen to advise on these questions. I hope that is so, and will always be the case without exception after this bill comes into force. If this is the answer to the particular problem the government has

May 31, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act defined, then I am more than ever determined to learn the nature and the extent of that problem.
We have a situation in Napanee I wish to air before the House.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Please don't; please don't.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The minister says "please don't". I am sure he would be interested in listening to this because the jobs of 400 men are at stake.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You write me a letter.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Napanee Industries, the successor to the old Napanee Iron Works, is a good-size firm in Napanee which manufactures the famous and nationally accepted Napanee automatic boiler. It also makes a line of railway equipment including flatcars, hoppers and railway cars. This firm is owned by Mr. Walter Gordon's firm, known as Corporate Management Limited. Due to a recent lack of orders for railway equipment and cars this firm is now for sale, and it is common knowledge that Mr. Gordon's firm is very anxious to sell it. I hope the minister is still interested in listening to this information.
Napanee Industries has for some time been the victim of unfair competition, especially from Montreal and Quebec firms, which I am told are subsidized by the Quebec government as a result of being the successful low bidders on railway equipment orders. Due to this competition, and because of the limited market in Canada for this product, it is plain to me, as I am sure it is plain to the minister, that any potential buyer of this firm must be one enjoying a wide international or continental market. Therefore, Corporate Management Limited is not apt to be able to sell this firm to any but a non-Canadian firm. In other words, the chances are that the bidders will be from the United States. Will the government, in the interests of preserving jobs for 400 men, allow the sale of this firm to an American buyer? Will Mr. Walter Gordon, who is head of the committee for an Independent Canada, still be willing to sell it to a United States firm? That is the present question around Napanee.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was reported the other day as having announced in Winnipeg that there would be a purchase of 2400 hopper cars to move western grain. He is reported to have said they would be purchased from two sources in Quebec or in Hamilton. Let me suggest to the Prime Minister that he investigate the possibility of having some of these hopper cars made in Napanee by Napanee Industries Ltd. where we need the work, thus forestalling the layoff of men at the present time. I trust the minister is more concerned with this problem now than when I first brought it up. I thank him for listening.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure what the hon. member is saying now is of interest to many members of the House, perhaps all members, but as the hon. member suggests, he is taking advantage of having the floor to air a situation which is obviously of local interest. The hon. member must appreciate that there is a specific bill before the House. I assume what he is saying now is relevant to Bill C-201. Perhaps he might indicate to the

Chair how this principle of relevancy is being observed at this time.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With due respect, that is exactly why I brought this matter up, because it pertains to the possible sale of this company to a company other than a Canadian one, and this is directly related to the purpose of Bill C-201. This firm has been the victim of unfair competition, and I have stated the source of this in the past. The firm has other opposition as well, in Hamilton, where they too, apparently, can bid lower prices in tendering on this equipment.
There has long been a fallacy in the thinking of some of our people that anti-Americanism is proof that one is pro-Canadian. Nothing could be further from the truth. To be against something simply means that you are against it. The same fallacy seems to be apparent in this legislation, and the government is proving to us that it is pro-Canadian industry by showing it is against someone else. If the government is determined to promote Canadian business and interests, it can count on my wholehearted support. I am all for such a policy, but I am afraid the present government is just against someone and not for anyone. I point to the recent tax reform package that was railroaded through this House by closure. This is an administrative nightmare for Canadian entrepreneurship, and has already discouraged businesses of long-standing to remain active. The tax legislation has already encouraged Canadian-owned businesses to sell out to anyone who has the cash and the willingness to buy. There is no longer a challenge to Canadians to embark on new business ventures with their own capital because the risk is too great and they have no protection.
Multinational corporations have been singled out by the NDP and nationalists as the great culprits. We are led to believe that these corporations are going to swallow up our country, bleed us dry, throw us aside and abandon us. This sounds very menacing and frightening unless you take a closer look at the situation, and especially if you consider the multinational corporations which are Canadian owned, and we have some of them. Our chartered banks were among the first multinational corporations in the world, and they have a good record in almost every country of the world. In almost every corner of the world you can find a branch of a Canadian bank, and these banks are among the most stable and respected banks you will find. The multinational character of our banks has been good for our country, and good for the Canadians who own stock in them.
Our banks and financial institutions have a virtual monopoly in our country. Efforts of foreign banking and investment houses to establish in Canada have been resisted firmly and decisively by our governments. Many of our top bankers believe we are running a great risk in adhering to such a policy. We want to locate and do locate in other countries, yet deny the same right to other countries here. It is said we want our bread buttered on both sides, and that we could be excluded from countries we exclude from Canada. This example is only to show that foreign investment is a two-sided coin, and that while we tend to over-react whenever someone shouts the alarm that we are being taken over, we do not hear such alarms
May 31, 1972

expressed by countries where we have Canadian-owned and controlled corporations.
There is another thing about this bill which gives me reason for concern, and that is clause 3. We find that by definition, a Canadian branch business is one that is incorporated elsewhere than in Canada and that operates from premises to which persons employed in connection with that business report for work. This is either a further example of the fuzzy headedness that exists in the present government's approach to legislative writing or it is an attempt to convey an impression that is completely false.
Any company or business that operates in Canada must be incorporated under the laws of our country and under the laws of the provinces in which such a company maintains premises. An example is the Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited. This company is a limited company incorporated in Canada under both federal and provincial statutes, and is subject to the same laws and regulations as any other limited company in Canada, whether the investment capital comes from Canadian or foreign sources. The stock in Ford of Canada Limited can be purchased by anyone who wants to buy it, whether he is Canadian, Japanese, German or of any other nationality. All anyone has to do, if he feels that stock in a particular company should be owned by Canadians, is to call his broker. I offer this advice to everyone who feels strongly about ownership of companies operating in our country. Do as people do in every other country, call your stockbroker and place your order. I am not advertising Ford shares because I do not have any of that stock, but those shares can be purchased by anyone who wants to buy them.
If Canadian banks and insurance companies, as well as Canadian individuals, had been willing to invest in the high risk ventures in our resource and manufacturing sectors, there would not have been so many opportunities for such investments by foreigners. It would serve us ill at this point to lump them now in a general grouping, label them culprits and castigate them for investing in our country. At least let us make a proper assessment of the situation and determine whether or not they represent an undesirable situation. Before we launch ourselves along the path of precipitate corrective action, let us first identify the problem. That will be the job of this House through its committee work in the days immediately ahead so that we may come up with something that will be good for Canada and her economy.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the opinion expressed by the previous speaker, it is my view that the erosion of our national independence has reached alarming proportions. Canada has become an economic satellite. It has allowed itself to drift into a position of military, economic and cultural dependence upon the United States. In this situation political absorption becomes irrelevant. I say that the Canadian public have become acutely conscious of the danger and realize that unless effective and decisive measures are taken immediately to reverse the trend of the foreign control of our economic life, the consequent loss of meaningful independence will soon reach the point of no return. To this
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
crisis of Canada's sovereignty and independence and to the growing public demand for action the government has reacted with Bill C-201 providing for a screening process of certain takeovers by foreign interests. This is a feeble and inadequate response. It is less than half a measure. It is the very minimum. It is a gesture which tackles a small fraction of the problem and tackles it inadequately.
However, we ought not to be surprised by this. It is consistent with the whole record and philosophy of the party in government at the present moment. The economic independence of Canada is closely linked with the political independence of our country. The government has clearly indicated this philosophy which inevitably leads to the continentalism which has brought about the present situation.
In "Foreign Police for Canadians", a series of statements issued by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) in 1970, the government spelled out its approach and its priorities in the field of international affairs. It set out six themes of national policy and amongst these it gave priority to economic growth.
On page 32 of the first main pamphlet on foreign policy, the following statement appears:
After considering these and other alternatives, and having in mind its determination to emphasize what Canada can do best in order to promote its objectives abroad, the government is of the view that the foreign policy pattern for the 70's should be based on a ranking of six policy themes which gives highest priorities to economic growth, social justice and quality of life policies. Peace and security, sovereignty and independence will be placed "in a new pattern of emphasis".
We in this party do not accept these priorities. Of course, economic growth is a desirable objective, but in our view the sovereignty and independence of Canada come first and peace and security in a nuclear world should rank ahead of economic growth. As we are guided by this philosophy, we are not prepared to sacrifice the sovereignty and independence of Canada in the hope of promoting economic growth. Indeed, we believe that it is not necessary to surrender to foreign control of our economy to promote the economic expansion of Canada. In our view, Canada has the resources and the means of financing her own expansion.
Our attitude is not based upon any narrow nationalism, chauvinism or anti-Americanism. I, for one, consider myself an internationalist, but I believe that Canada's distinct contribution to peace and security, and the building of a world community, depends upon her maintaining her sovereignty and independence and, above all, independence of mind. I believe this sovereignty and independence cannot be preserved unless vigorous steps are taken to control the Canadian economy.
The facts as to foreign ownership are well known and have been set out in a number of authoritative reports, namely, the Watkins report on foreign ownership, the Gray report, and the report of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on Canadian-American relations. Numerous books have spelled out the problem in all its gravity. One of the best of these is called "Silent Surrender" by Professor Kari Levitt of McGill University.
As has been made clear in this debate, the present legislation deals only with a limited number of takeovers

May 31, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act and deals with them in an ineffective manner. Mr. Wilson of the Montreal Star wrote:
Takeovers are by tar the smallest part of the whole issue presented by foreign control of very large segments of Canadian industry. The takeovers have clearly been chosen by the government for this very limited step towards a policy because it is the part least sensitive to Canadians, least likely to provoke controversy.
Foreign takeovers, according to government estimates, represent just 10 per cent of foreign investment activities in Canada. The other 90 per cent represents new investments by foreign owned corporations already operating here or new investments by foreign corporations investing in Canada for the first time. Neither of these areas is affected by the proposed measure we are discussing, so we are dealing with 10 per cent of the problem which we are facing.
Professor Paul Halpern, Associate Professor in the faculty of management studies at the University of Toronto, commenting on the government's new policy on foreign takeovers, says this:
Since foreign takeovers of large firms have been estimated to constitute approximately 10 per cent of foreign investment activities in Canada, the impact of the screening agency will be minimal.
I thoroughly approve of, and am glad to repeat, that statement.
Dr. Levitt in the book to which I have referred called "Silent Surrender" says this:
The brutal fact is that the acquisition of control by U.S. companies over the commodity-producing sectors of the Canadian economy has largely been financed from corporate savings deriving from the sale of Canadian resources, extracted and processed by Canadian labour . . . Thus, over the period 1957 to 1964 U.S. direct investment in manufacturing, mining and petroleum secured 73 per cent of their funds from retained earnings and depreciation reserves, a further 12 per cent from Canadian banks and other intermediaries and only 15 per cent in the form of new funds from the United States.
Furthermore, throughout the period the pay out of dividends, interest, royalties and management fees exceeded the flow of new capital ... In other words, America is using our own money to take over the Canadian economy-and skimming off a tidy profit at the same time.
In the past, Canadians have had to admit that we are selling our freedom. Now, it is apparent that we are actually buying our servitude. I should add a note to that, Mr. Speaker, to point out that the figures given by Dr. Levitt are now outdated. She says that 85 per cent of the funds used to acquire American control of our economy come from Canadian sources. I believe the Gray Report indicates the figure is now 93 per cent or 94 per cent.
The approach of the government, as Mr. Wilson, whom I quoted before, pointed out, is so loose and flexible that it tells almost nothing of what will actually happen in the future. Very general criteria, rather than precise limitations, have been given to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to guide him in his recommendations to the cabinet. The policy is likely to vary from minister to minister, from government to government. The concept of "significant benefit to Canada" is a vague and uncertain concept. I question whether the task of

determining what takeovers are of significant benefit to Canada should be a purely governmental responsibility.
The Committee on External Affairs in its report on this subject, after extensive investigation, proposed a Canadian Ownership and Control Bureau, which in turn had been recommended in the Watkins Report which spelled out in detail the function of this bureau. It is no wonder that the chairman of this committee, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn), in the eloquent speech he made yesterday acknowledged this bill was a baby step forward and, in his words, ineffective. However, he took refuge in the proposition that it was a first step. I wonder if he pays no attention to the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself, because the Prime Minister has clearly pronounced that he has nothing up his sleeve to add to this particular measure.
In an interview with the Toronto Daily Star, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:
It might be tempting to tell the readers of the Star that this is only a first step and we're going to take another one soon, but that would not be so. If we had another step to take we would have announced it.
At this time it is the step we are taking and we are prepared to be judged by it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He was talking about screening only.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Well, he was being quoted in the context of dealing with this whole aspect of foreign control.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He was talking about screening.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If that is the minister's explanation, it is not an explanation that satisfies me because I think the words in the article are perfectly clear. I will reread them, and I invite the minister to read what was said. The Prime Minister said:
At this time it is the step we are taking and we are prepared to be judged by it.
I say he will be judged by it. It is no use for the hon. member for St. Paul's and the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacQuigan) to say that this is not enough, that we know it is not enough, but we have other steps, and that this is only a start. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he has nothing else up his sleeve. He ' spoke with his usual clarity, and he cannot get away from his words.
Another, and even more serious aspect of this matter, is that the Prime Minister in other interviews has made it clear that he is handing responsibility over to the provinces, to the provincial governments, after this first futile gesture. I quote again from an editorial in the Toronto Daily Star on the 8th of this month as follows:
The worst part of Mr. Trudeau's performance (in dealing with the issue of foreign ownership on a CTV program) was his evasion of responsibility. He said provinces that criticized his government's lack of policy should go ahead and control foreign investment on their own. It is true that there are things the provinces can do independently to screen foreign investment and get better value from foreign-owned enterprises. But, Mr. Trudeau knows perfectly well that it is not practical for a province acting alone to make comprehensive policy in this field. The leadership in this field should come from Ottawa.
Mr. Trudeau has now abdicated from that leadership role and he cuts a poor figure-
May 31, 1972

I am glad to quote the Toronto Daily Star because it has so often supported the Prime Minister. Possibly hon. members opposite did not catch what I said. I will be glad to repeat it.
Mr. Trudeau has now abdicated from that leadership role and he cuts a poor figure, as a man whose government was elected to defend Canadian federalism, when he invites provinces to take the lead on what is clearly a matter of national scope and importance.
There is another report of a parliamentary committee which has been completely ignored by the government. It is the report of the Joint Senate and House of Commons Committee on the Constitution. As hon. members well know, this all party committee travelled all the way across Canada and received submissions from many experts and witnesses in every section of the country. I want to quote one of its recommendations, No. 103, which reads:
The power of the federal parliament with respect to aliens should be clarified to ensure that parliament has paramount power to deal with problems of foreign ownership.
I want to read part of the body of that report because it is very relevant to this whole debate.
Throughout the hearings of the committee there was a recurring concern for Canadian independence, sovereignty, unity and identity. Certain witnesses expressed their alarm over the large percentage of Canadian land, resources and industry owned by non-Canadians and especially by Americans. They referred to our recreation land, our mining, oil and gas industries, our publishing and text-book industries, etc. It was established that American investment is 80 per cent of the total foreign investment in Canada and that 76 per cent of all companies in Canada with assets over $25 million are foreign owned. Fears were expressed that Canadian citizens might lose political as well as economic control of their own country; that they would be barred from the best jobs and the best land; that they would be run by absentee landlords; and that Canadian people and resources would be working for the enrichment of other peoples and other lands.
This concern over the economic domination of our country can be closely related to other concerns expressed before the committee, such as the lack of national unity and a vigorous national purpose, the tendency to regionalism, the proliferation of hyphenated Canadians who cling to the nationality or symbols of their mother countries, misunderstanding and differences between French speaking and English speaking Canadians, old and new Canadians, older and younger Canadians, native born Canadians and immigrants. As a multicultural country it is all the more important for Canada to insist on a substratum of national unity. Unless Canadians do develop a definite solidarity among themselves and a conscious attachment to their country, territory and resources, they will not be able to deal with the threat of foreign economic domination and may not survive as a nation. There must be not only a regional solidarity and attachment, but a national one. All Canadians must consider themselves undivided owners of all Canadian territory and partners or trustees in its management. There should be no second-class citizens and all must feel at home in every part of the land. To develop a positive nationalism we must know more about our country and each other. We must take more interest in our history, our music, our arts, our national institutions and associations. On our success in these things our independence, our sovereignty and our unity will depend. We shall become "masters of our own house" in Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, these are the words of an all-party committee which agreed upon them, so they have relevance to this debate. How can we have that unity if we throw away the control of our resources and give them into alien hands? The committee points out that the
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
constitutional right to deal with the subject of foreign ownership may perhaps be uncertain. However, section 91 of the British North America Act gives exclusive control over aliens. It is my own conviction that this paramount power of the federal government gives basic responsibility for dealing with the problem of foreign ownership to the federal Parliament. I am not suggesting that the federal Parliament should interfere in questions of property and civil rights without consultation with the provinces, but I am suggesting that the obligation of leadership in this field to prevent alien domination clearly lies, under our present constitution, with the federal government. The abdication of the Prime Minister and his government in this field not only indicates a lack of leadership, it presents a threat to the unity of Canada. What hope is there of maintaining the unity of Canada if we are not going to be masters of our own house and if our independence and sovereignty are eroded by alien control?
There are many reasons for my belief that in the forthcoming election this government will suffer a resounding defeat. There can be no better reason than this feeble response to the grave threat to Canada's existence as a nation represented by this proposal to deal with foreign ownership of the Canadian economy. If Canadians desire to encourage continentalism and be absorbed by our neighbours in all but form, they will support this measure and this government. I believe, however, that Canada's independence can only be assured if this government is defeated, and a government capable of protecting Canada elected in its place.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the very fact that we have to discuss foreign investment in Canada, in particular American ones, indicates that we have problems to which we have not found yet real solutions, because we do not try to make a profitable and efficient analysis of the causes of such problems.
We shall never settle this foreign investment problem by passing ordinary or timid legislation, nor without dealing with the genuine causes of the problem.
I find it curious to see the hon. minister, as well as many of his colleagues, come and tell us the same old story namely that we need foreign investments and that we are helpless without them.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this is giving us very little importance and annihilating our own potential. In effect, as long as we judge financial problems on the basis of prejudices such as, for instance, believing that it is impossible today for a country such as ours to grow and live adequately without being alienated by American high finance, we will be going the wrong way.
We should simply destroy this prejudice. We should stop entertaining it because-as I have said repeatedly in the House-what matters for any individual, wherever he lives, it is to be able to buy the consumer goods he needs to live adequately.
In such a rich country as Canada which has the potential required to provide food, clothing and shelter to the whole population without outside help, it is stupid to talk about the absolute need for foreign capital. We only have

May 31, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act to rely on our own potential and we will not need foreign authorization to keep on developing.
Once such principles are applied, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. minister would have many more solutions to propose than those to be found in this bill.
May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that it is six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being six o'clock, the House will adjourn until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 1, 1972