1972-07-04

Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), and pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in English and in French a report entitled "The Canadian Northwest Transportation Study", prepared for the Minister of Transport by Hedlin Menzies and Associates Limited.



CORRECTION OF ERROR IN COMMITTEE REPORT ON BROADCASTING OF DEBATES AS FOUND IN &quot;VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS&quot;

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to suggest a correction that needs to be made in Votes and Proceedings for Friday, June 30, at page 475. I apologize to my hon. friend the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), who tabled the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization on Friday, for not having reached him before two o'clock, but I am sure he will agree that this correction should be made. At page 475 in paragraph 28 there appears this sentence:
Here in Canada the Legislature of Saskatchewan has been broadcasting certain of its proceedings by radio since 1964.
Sir, that should be changed to read "1946". I may say that in the French edition of Votes and Proceedings for Friday of last week the year is correct, 1946.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
Would the minister bring us up to date and let us know where matters now stand in the dispute concerning the St. Lawrence river ports?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to do that in as brief a compass as I can. During the weekend four days of mediation were held in Montreal in the Department of Labour's offices, with the deputy minister and assistant deputy minister assisting the two parties in an effort to reconcile their differences. As a result of that, a set of proposals was placed in front of both parties yesterday evening. Those proposals have been considered this morning at simultaneous meetings in the ports of Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres and Montreal. I am awaiting clarification of the results of those meetings. Various reports have come forward, but I am not yet on firm enough ground to know the exact response made to them by the unions at their meetings or by the employers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the report that the Montreal local has put some new conditions on the proposals put forward by the mediators, can the minister indicate to the House what those conditions are?


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I have heard about the conditions only as reported generally through the press. We are trying to confirm them officially. In general, if they are as reported they relate, first, to a start-up date for the job guarantee to cut in or, putting it another way, to the date on which the suspension of job security would be lifted. Second, they relate to the withdrawal of all court actions for damages and other actions now pending. As I say, these conditions have not been confirmed to me officially, but these are the conditions that one hears about in unofficial reports.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the minister propose to discuss these conditions with the Maritime Employers Association? What procedure does the minister propose to follow?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, the procedure I propose to follow is to wait a very firm clarification of the situation in the three ports. I should like to assist the hon. gentleman as much as possible, but I do not think it would be helpful for me to propose any line of action now until the situation is more fully clarified.


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. How many dock workers will be allowed to return to work inasmuch as there is a serious loss of shipping business at the three ports?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, that is a question I cannot answer at the present time. In the normal course one

July 4, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
would expect that suspension of employment at some point would be lifted and the men would return to work as called by the employers in relation to the work that is available. I offer that as an answer.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-TIME LIMIT ON PROPOSALS OF DEPARTMENTAL MEDIATORS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise the House whether there was in fact any time limit fixed for the parties involved to accept the proposals as submitted?


Abram Ernest Epp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As mediators my officials undertook to give today, July 4, for the purpose of considering the proposals developed in the mediation process and making their relative responses, one against the other.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise whether in fact he has back-to-work legislation in the wings in the form of a trusteeship or perhaps in some other form?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, the government is prepared to take its responsibility when the situation has been more fully clarified.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State who is supposed to be here I should like to direct this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. If I may say so, I think the Prime Minister and other members know I have supported the official languages bill and the bilingualism policy without any hesitation. In view of that I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there was any discussion and consideration of what happened here on July 1 in Ottawa, and was it deliberately decided to have the affair here in Ottawa conducted mostly or almost entirely in one official language rather than in both?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this was not discussed outside of the department before the event. Since July 1, however, our own members from Ottawa West and Grenville-Carleton have raised this-


An hon. Member:: I bet they have.


Mr. Bell:: It is a little late for that.


An hon. Member:: Where is Pelletier?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see that hon. members are not interested in a serious answer.


An hon. Member:: Yes, we are.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Please continue.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have discussed this with the minister who is in Montreal today at a meeting scheduled long ago with the film industry where he intends discussing policies of the government in respect of that industry. I am prepared to say on behalf of the government that it is unfortunate when an event of a national character does not reflect the realities of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: It sure is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The report I have of the manner of presentation of the program on Saturday night here on the Hill is that it did fall into this category and did not reflect the national character of this country. I feel this is very regrettable and I do want to offer an apology on behalf of the government. I hope the situation will not repeat itself, and we have taken steps to ensure that it will not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question with the hope that the Prime Minister would give the answer he has given, and all of us are grateful to him for it. May I simply ask this supplementary question. In view of the fact this kind of thoughtless act by the department is harmful to Canada and the official languages idea and to bilingualism, the idea which the Prime Minister and many of us support, would the Prime Minister tell the Secretary of State here publicly that this kind of behaviour must not again be repeated in this country?
Some bon. Members: Hear, hear!



PROGRAM ON PARLIAMENT HILL ON JULY 1-REASON FOR NOT CONSULTING CANADIAN FOLK ARTS COUNCIL

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say why the Canadian Folk Arts Council was not consulted on the July 1 program as it has been for the past four or five years, with the result that there was no participation by that group representing the many ethnic communities? If you will keep that member over there quiet, perhaps the Prime Minister would be able to hear me.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course I cannot say why such and such a group was not consulted. I do know that the Department of the Secretary of State, which is responsible for a series of manifestations in and around the Hill between the end of June and the end of July, has taken in as many groups as possible. They could not all be involved within one night but if the hon. member looks at the over-all presentation I am sure he will find that many groups have been involved and, indeed, that the language balance has been, over-all, respected. In some cases in the past I think there has been a tendency on occasions of national importance to forget that the French language exists. I think this was very regrettable, and if the contrary happened on Saturday night I think it is equally regrettable.
July 4, 1972


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I should like to follow the supplementary of the hon. member for York South who put a very good one to the Prime Minister which was not answered. I think it represents the feeling of the whole House. Would the Prime Minister undertake to speak very seriously to the Secretary of State to make sure, in the interests of the unity of the whole country, that this kind of thing does not happen again?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I can give the hon. gentleman the undertaking that after the next election the Secretary of State will be in another portfolio.


An hon. Member:: That's for sure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of members are seeking supplementaries on this subject. The Chair will recognize first the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster.



COMPLAINTS RESPECTING UNILINGUAL NATURE OF PROGRAM ON PARLIAMENT HILL ON JULY 1- SUGGESTED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister. In view of the ramifications of the July 1 celebration as evidenced by the unfortunate incident last Saturday, would the Prime Minister undertake, since it is apparent we will be back this fall, to refer this matter to a House of Commons committee so that members can put forward their ideas on these very important matters since we ultimately are blamed for them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of the question when the hon. member includes himself in the sentence, "we will be back here next fall."


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley.



COMPLAINTS RESPECTING UNILINGUAL NATURE OF PROGRAM ON PARLIAMENT HILL ON JULY 1-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the reported statement of the Secretary of State, I gather in Montreal-and the Prime Minister alluded to the history of this country-that other Dominion Day or Canada Day or July 1 celebrations seemed to be too much unilingual the other way, will the Prime Minister speak to the Secretary of State and have him make a statement or make a statement himself to ensure that future July 1 celebrations will be truly bilingual in character and not reflect the unilingual character of one race or the other?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I can assure the hon. member that future July 1 celebrations organized by this government will be bilingual and multicultural.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ALLEGED FAILURE BY ONTARIO TO SPEND FEDERAL MONEY ALLOCATED TO ENCOURAGE BILINGUALISM IN SCHOOLS FOR THIS PURPOSE

Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Would he investigate the charges by some school boards in Ontario that the money allocated by this government to the province of Ontario to support and encourage bilingualism in the schools is not being spent for this purpose? Perhaps more people would be able to understand programs, regardless of the language, if the province of Ontario did what it is supposed to do with that money.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What is your point?


Mr. Muir:: Ontario is not all of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this matter has caused us some concern as regards the practice followed in various provinces. The Secretary of State has said that he would review the way in which federal money had been spent by various provincial governments to ensure that the ends and goals mentioned by the hon. member will in fact be pursued with this money.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the question put by the hon. leader of the opposition to the Minister of Labour.
Can the minister tell us whether groups of longshoremen from Quebec or Trois-Rivieres have advised him, by telephone or otherwise, of their wish to return to work?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have had no personal appeals from or consultations with groups of longshoremen in Quebec or Trois-Rivieres.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker. It arises from many complaints I have received and I am sure other members have also received such complaints. It has to do with the request made to senior citizens in particular to submit their income tax on a quarterly basis whereas they have been paying it on a yearly basis. Would the minister give special considera-
3728

July 4, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
tion to these senior citizens and allow them to pay once a year rather than quarterly?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this is essentially a matter of tax policy. It was dealt with in part by a provision in the recent budget which I believe would not require instalment payments from people who would have to pay less than $400 a year in tax, if I am not mistaken.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister has had the opportunity to visit Timiskaming and to use the facilities at Earlton airport, would he give immediate consideration to the rebuilding of those totally inadequate terminal facilities at the Department of Transport airport?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take up this matter with the Minister of Transport. I landed there without any difficulty and was happy to see that there was enough room for the many Liberals who had come to greet me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: You don't need much room for them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I regret that the hon. member did not follow the example of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings of sticking close to me to get into the pictures that were taken.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister was very obviously standing close to me in Prince Edward-Hastings to get some publicity there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the severe outbreak of black flies in some parts of Alberta, notably Athabasca, does the federal government intend partially to assist farmers who have suffered financial losses as a result of this outbreak?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of that question. The matter has not been drawn to my attention.


Paul Yewchuk: Would the minister consider a partial and controlled reintroduction of DDT to control this insect?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If there is a possibility or indeed a spreading of disease by any insect, there is already provision in the act whereby some use of DDT can be made to control insects that may be spreading disease.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, would the minister undertake to investigate this matter and make a statement to the House when his investigation is completed?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I will make a statement to the House, but I will be in touch with the hon. member as soon as I have had an investigation made.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the attention of the Prime Minister. It is further to questions asked the other day of the Minister of Justice with regard to the Supreme Court ruling on the application of the breathalyzer legislation. Having in mind the fact that this ruling clearly undermines the ability of that legislation to protect the public from drunken drivers, is the government giving any consideration to this situation, possibly with a view to introducing further legislation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, for sending me notice of his question, but I received it only five minutes ago and I have not had a chance to communicate with the Minister of Justice. He will be in the House tomorrow and I will ask him to deal with the question.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that the government has spent considerable time, effort and money on developing a profitable egg industry in Canada, can the government assure the House that adequate provisions have been made for import controls so that importation of eggs will not destroy the profitable egg market for farmers in this country?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have some obligations under international agreements that we have to respect. There has been a significant improvement in egg prices. Indeed, there was some room previously to allow an upward movement in prices before this would attract any imports, as set out in the agreement that I have with the provinces. Of course an attempt will be made to supply the Canadian market from domestic
July 4, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry
production, and in this respect we would hope that a national egg marketing plan, agreeable to all the provinces, would take care of this situation as well.


Harold Warren Danforth: May I ask the minister whether there are any departmental provisions that can be enforced if imports are seriously affecting the Canadian market for eggs?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are some pieces of legislative authority to which we can refer in order to take care of such a problem.



PROVISION OF MILK AND EGGS TO POOR PEOPLE

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the report of the Montreal Diet Dispensary on the importance of a proper diet and adequate food for mothers and families in poverty or low-income areas in Canada, will he undertake to study ways and means whereby basic foods such as milk and eggs can be provided to people at or below the poverty level?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, a great deal is being done by the government to provide food to people who are unable to buy it through payments to the provinces.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, when objectives are set for Canadian egg and poultry production under the proposed supply-management programs, will the minister take into account not only the needs of the commercial and export markets but also the needs of those Canadians who are unable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously debate.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, could the minister be permitted to answer my question?


Mr. Speaker:: Of course not. I indicated to the hon. member that his question is out of order.



FINANCE


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. A few days ago I asked him whether any effort was being made by the government or the Bank of Canada to seek a guarantee of the exchange rate on our abnormally large holdings of U.S. dollars, or whether we were diversifying our large holdings of U.S. dollars, and the minister replied that there was nothing being done about a guaranteed rate on our international exchange holdings. Has anything been done by the government or the Bank of Canada to diversify our holdings of U.S. dollars in view of the more favourable exchange rate today?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is being looked into but, as I suggested to the hon. member the last time he brought up the question, it is a matter that would take some explanation and some debate.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate the complexity of the problem and perhaps my question was not too explicit. Is something being done to diversify the exchange holdings and to seek a guarantee for those holdings?


John Napier Turner: Not in the terms that the hon. member has posed the question, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO RENEGOTIATION OF CANADIAN COMMITMENTS RESPECTING INVESTMENT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FUNDS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Finance undertaking any renegotiation of the existing Canadian commitment about the investment of our foreign exchange fund in certain categories of U.S. commitments? Is the minister letting that ride along or is he undertaking any renegotiation of the commitments that Canada made a few years ago?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West brought that question up some time ago. My answer now to the Leader of the Opposition would be that any renegotiation of that type would probably have to await a general renegotiation of the international monetary picture.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Is his departments studying the possibility of free transportation for relatives to visit inmates of federal penitentiaries and, if so, when can a decision be expected?

Hon. ]ean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, with regard to LIP, we made an experiment in one of our penitentiaries; representations have been made asking that the program be applied across the country. Off hand we know it would be very costly, and I asked that studies be made to know more specifically where we would be going. We must stop to consider the obvious problem posed by the fact that some institutions are very far from urban centres, and that this imposes a heavy financial burden on families that want to visit prisoners.
25319-50}
Inquiries of the Ministry

July 4, 1972



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Solicitor General. Is any immediate action planned to compensate the victims of crimes committed by inmates of penitentiaries?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. member ought to know that several provinces have already acted in this field and that the federal government has examined the various policies which are being developed throughout the country in order to see that there is a certain uniformity and also some generosity toward the victims of crime.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Solicitor General of Canada. In view of the fact that several persons have been convicted of killing policemen and the present government has not carried out the law dealing with such offenders, is it the intention of the government to bring in amendments to the present law before the five-year ban on hanging expires on December 27?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to say that this government has always stuck to the law concerning these criminals, and that this question is being considered by the government. It is certainly difficult, in the present situation, to make an accurate assessment of the five years trial period since it has not yet expired. Furthermore, we know very well that we cannot get the required statistics in order to consider this period before one more year has elapsed so as to enjoy a certain retrospective and thus give a better opinion.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-REPORTED AMENDMENTS TO IMPROVE-CONSULTATION WITH CANADA

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, if I can get his ear. In view of the fact that in a recent report from New York it is asserted that the United States government is very happy with the results of the establishment of over 2,000 DISC corporations, and as the U.S. Treasury Department is planning to introduce two amendments or proposals to improve the DISC program

so that the results will be even more beneficial to them, can the minister inform the House whether the government of Canada has been consulted about these new proposals and, if so, can he tell the House whether they are likely to have serious effects on Canada-U.S. trade?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, and neither did the Canadian government consult with the United States government on the employment maintenance program a few months ago.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-INTENTION OF GENERAL MOTORS RESPECTING USE THEREOF

John Edward Broadbent: I wonder whether the minister has been in touch with the General Motors Corporation since the House last met to find out if it intends to export into Canada under the DISC program?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have not personally, Mr. Speaker, and I have not seen my officials who are in charge of that since early this morning, but I shall inquire.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE DAMAGE TO ENABLE CANADIAN INDUSTRIES TO TAKE PROTECTIVE MEASURES

Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the prime importance of the effects that the institution of the DISC program in the United States could have on some of our major industries, may I ask the minister whether his department has yet devised any reasonable method of assessing what this damage may be in order that our industries will have an opportunity to institute measures to combat these effects?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. Our position is that the budget recently announced will go a long way toward compensating for the DISC advantages, and I have already informed the House that we are developing ways and means by which we will be informed about other countries in the world using export subsidies in their trade with Canada.



ANTI-DUMPING TRIBUNAL-SUGGESTED NAMING OF CHAIRMAN

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I put a question to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce which should have been directed to the Minister of Finance. I would refer him to page 3643 of Hansard, where I asked whether, in view of the fact that there are hearings before the Anti-Dumping Tribunal and that some sort of cloud still hangs over certain decisions of that board, the minister would advise the House when it is intended to appoint a new chairman of the board so that the board will be regularly constituted for its investigatory work as well as any particular hearings that may be held over the next few months?
July 4, 1972


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I consider that to be an urgent matter. As the Prime Minister said, I have had discussions with him.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When may we expect the announcement and the regularization of the membership of this board?


John Napier Turner: When I have found an appropriate person to fill the position, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Now that he has had Kosygin and Tito here and will be visiting President Allende of Chile this summer, when can we expect to see Castro, the fourth Marx brother?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. lohn Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is his department investigating the practice of large companies, particularly auto companies, of delaying the recall of vehicles with defective parts until the warranties or a large percentage of them have expired, thus reducing the cost of replacement to the companies?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister oi Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the department is not investigating this allegation but I will give consideration to the representation made by the hon. member.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with regard to his efforts to clear up the immigration backlog. Are deportation orders presently being carried out or has a moratorium been declared pending review?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it depends primarily on what the deportation orders are related to. Basically, they are being carried out.
Inquiries of the Ministry



DEPORTATION ORDERS-ACCESS TO IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether any consideration is being given to eliminating the present practice that an order of deportation is made at the time of the special inquiry and the only way a bona fide immigrant may appear before the Immigration Appeal Board is through the making of a deportation order and an appeal from that order?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, under the present practice the deportation order is issued at that particular stage. As the hon. member knows, we are reviewing all our practices so that the next piece of legislation to be introduced this fall will reflect a different approach.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Does the minister endorse the view of Dr. Solandt that more of the government's science budget should be devoted to solving the problems of the day-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question cannot be asked in this way. The hon. member is referring to a statement made outside the House. The question should be asked directly by the hon. member.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question. Will the minister be suggesting to the appropriate government department that more science money should be spent on solving the problems facing government departments?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the ministry and the minister will be looking at science expenditures from the viewpoint of whether they support national objectives.



AIRPORTS


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Transport but as he is not here perhaps his parliamentary secretary could answer. Can the parliamentary secretary advise the House whether detailed plans regarding the Mount Hope extension have been forwarded to the municipalities involved? If so, will the detailed plans be made public?

July 4, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
lTranslation]


Gérard Duquet: I shall take note of this question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Humber-St. Geor-ge's-St. Barbe.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member. The hon. member for Hamilton West rises on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and with all due deference to the parliamentary secretary, I did not have my earphone on and could not understand the reply.


An hon. Member:: He took the question as notice.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He took it as notice, did he? I hope you will follow it up, contrary to what you did the last time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he ought to address the Chair.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether there have been co-ordinating discussions with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to the New Horizons program for senior citizens? Would he advise the House when he will be able to give us some information regarding the introduction of such program?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare said last week that he would be announcing the specific details of the program as soon as he has completed his discussions with the provinces.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Have the minister and his departmental officials completed all the necessary research and work relative to the submission to the United States government to exempt the products of the Michelin Corporation from countervailing duties?

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the date for the submission is July 12. We still have eight days.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As the House is still in session and as the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has reported back to the House on all the references given to it thus far, will the minister consider presenting to the House this week a motion referring to that committee the question of the basic rates of war disability pensions and war veterans allowances?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to make a study of the current recommendation that has been presented to the House. Concurrence in it has not yet been moved and I want to study it with my officials.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister give that consideration as quickly as possible in the hope that the reference we are requesting might be made before the House again tries to recess?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a representation.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council. As the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs have agreed that the matter of basic rates of pensions should be referred to that committee, would the minister take this necessary action before the recess?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I have said that I would have no objection at all if this matter were referred to the Standing Committees on Veterans Affairs. In addition, the president and certain officers of the Royal Canadian Legion are to meet me within a week to discuss the same matter.



STATISTICS CANADA


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is responsible for Statistics Canada. As vital statistics for Burlington, Ontario, with a population of 90,000, are included with those of Metropolitan Hamilton, thus denying these people the services of Statistics Canada, will the minister give consideration to correcting this injustice?
July 4, 1972


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter as soon as Bill C-201 is passed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The minister must be joking.



PRICE OF NATURAL GAS-SUGGESTED REPRESENTATIONS TO ALBERTA BOARD TO PROTECT PUBLIC INTEREST

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is lor the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in his capacity as ombudsman for the consumer. Is the minister following the hearings of the Alberta Energy and Resources Conservation Board, from which it appears that there will be a substantial increase in the price of gas which will affect every consumer of Canada? Has the minister a representative at those hearings and does he intend to make representations on behalf of the consumers?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no to both questions.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If the minister cannot answer, perhaps the Prime Minister can. Is the government making a study of baby cribs, playpens, walker-jumpers and pacifiers in order to implement regulations under the Hazardous Products Act? If not, why not?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will note the hon. member's representation and find out if these products are being examined. It is quite likely they are, but I cannot be sure.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It is my understanding that the government is determined to purchase the Scorpion as a replacement for the Centurion tank. Would the minister indicate whether these vehicles will be manufactured in Canada, whether the contract has been let, what the amount of it is, and how many units will be constructed?
Hon. E. ]. Benson (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, I never said that we would purchase that parinquiries of the Ministry
ticular vehicle. Negotiations have been going on with respect to that vehicle. We have considered others. It is probable we will purchase that vehicle, but it has not been decided at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might ask one supplementary and then we will call orders of the day.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, is it government policy that whatever replacement is purchased it will be manufactured in Canada?


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Speaker, it is government policy that we seek offsets.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 26, consideration of Bill C-201, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and Motions Nos. 4 and 18.
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the amendment incorporating the principle that there should be consultation with the provinces on matters related to foreign takeovers. I say that because, too often, this principle has been neglected. When we discussed this bill in committee, the question as to whether provinces should be heard arose. I was assured, and had reason to believe, that the provinces had been consulted regarding this bill and that there was some kind of agreement regarding foreign takeovers.
Our experience since then has shown that there has not been any consultations with the provinces and that this bill, whatever its value may be, is a bill that has been introduced by the federal government without consultation with the provinces. Throughout the discussions on foreign ownership and takeovers, the federal government did not appear willing to become involved with the provinces on this matter. I think that was regrettable. In the final analysis, one of two things must happen if there is to be a policy on foreign ownership. Either the provinces must agree to it, or the provinces will be confronted with it. The federal government, in acting, will need to go over the heads of the provincial governments and appeal directly to the people of Canada.

Foreign Takeovers Review Act
I realise that the insistence upon consultation with the provinces may create difficulty for the federal government because many provinces are strongly opposed to any restrictions on foreign ownership, and takeovers in particular. British Columbia does not seem to be happy about the idea, neither does Alberta. The Mantimes are too desperate to look any gift horse in the mouth. The debate over foreign ownership appears to arise mainly in a couple of the prairie provinces and in the great province of Ontario. This being the case, it would be a great error to try to slide into a policy without consulting the provinces. Sooner or later a conflict is bound to arise between the federal government and one or more of the provincial governments should the federal government intend to act at all. Before we can advance further, it may, I suggest, be necessary to bring about a polarization of opinion on the question of foreign ownership.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, in your wisdom, you might try to do something about the acoustics in the chamber.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for bringing this to my attention. I suggest to hon. members that if they wish to carry on conversations they should do so in the lobby or behind the curtains.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The federal government realizes, perhaps, that unless there is a polarization of views, people expressing themselves for or against in a positive way, we shall never be able to dead effectively with the issue of foreign ownership. In the case of Quebec, the policy of the government was to force a polarization of opinion in the province; the people of Quebec will have to choose whether or not Quebec is to stay in Canada. At the moment, the situation looks encouraging. For a long time we carried on pretending there was really no problem in Quebec-that with the help of quiet diplomacy things would work themselves out. But that was not the wisest course to take. Until people are confronted with a choice, no decision can be reached. A similar situation arises in connection with foreign ownership. 1 realize that many difficulties will present themselves if the amendment we are discussing is accepted. On the other hand, I believe it is necessary to confront this issue head on.
When the House was debating tax reform, members of this party called attention over and over again to the necessity of taxing all industries equally. We argued that the resource industries in particular should pay their full share of taxation to the federal government. It is often said that if the resource industries do not pay their full share of taxation to the federal government they are escaping scot-free. In fact, what happens just as often is that when the federal government decides not to tax on behalf of the people of Canada as a whole the provinces move in to take the available revenue. This creates a situation in which some provinces accumulate wealth for themselves. In Ontario, where the principal occupation is manufacturing, the taxes on the manufacturing industry which goes to the federal government are spread across the country and the rich province of Ontario thus helps to support the poorer provinces of Canada. This is the way it should be.
But when resources are not taxed as heavily as they might be, the rich provinces, Alberta, for instance, try to take as much of the revenue as possible for themselves. A good many people who live in Alberta will, doubtless, say: They are our resources and we are entitled to the revenue. But every government in Canada could argue that the wealth it produces is a product of its resources, or its talent, and that it is entitled to all the benefits. This is not the basis upon which we are trying to build up our society, however. We are trying to build it on the basis of sharing and, for the reason I have explained, when the government does not tax equally we are not sharing equally. Oil and gas have now been discovered in the Maritimes and the maritime provinces want to keep the revenue themselves. Why should they not do so? After all, this is what Alberta has been saying for years, as well as other provinces, to the extent that they possess such resources. On this basis the Maritimes are fully justified in insisting that the benefits from offshore mineral rights should accrue to them. The federal government contends that the revenue must be shared with others. But it has failed to follow the principle of taxing resource industries equitably across the country and in these circumstances it is difficult for the federal government to argue convincingly that maritime resources should be shared with the rest of Canada. This is the problem which the federal government has created for itself.
As I said earlier, we are all aware that great difficulties will arise when an attempt is made to negotiate the foreign ownership and takeover issue with the provinces. But I believe these conflicts of opinion should be brought into the open so that they can be discussed and dealt with. This is really the point of the amendment. I do not really believe that the amendment, if accepted, will make things easier either for the federal government or for the provinces. It may be we are in trouble now because in the past we have looked for the easy way out instead of trying to do the proper thing. I am suggesting that we agree to the amendment, face the problem and oblige the federal government to discuss with the provinces the whole question of foreign ownership and takeovers so that we can reach a settlement which will be of benefit to this country and, more especially, lead to the establishment of an intelligent policy of foreign ownership. It will probably mean that some day a way will have to be found to share all of the resources of this country among the people. Whether they are resources in Alberta arising from mineral deposits or whether they are resources in Ontario in the form of manufacturing, they will have to be distributed across the country if we are to solve the long standing difficulties existing between the provinces themselves and between the provinces as a whole and the federal government. The sooner there is consultation with the provinces and they are asked to consider foreign ownership and foreign takeovers, the closer will draw the day when an intelligent policy is devised.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) who proposed this motion is absent today. He is a member of the board of governors of the University of New Brunswick, and the board is


meeting today to choose a new president. Obviously he finds his presence is required in Fredericton rather than here today.
This is a debate that was unannounced beforehand and which in any event seems to be serving a rather ulterior purpose for the government. Ostensibly we are being held here to deal with the dock strike in Montreal, but instead-and despite vehement protestations to the contrary-the government is carrying on with its normal legislative program and we do not know when we are going to deal with the dock strike. So much for the credibility of the government in setting down a motion in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the right hon. gentleman's statements on television and to private members, that this House was going to complete its deliberations on Friday. We understand the seriousness of the labour problems in Montreal, but I want the minister to tell the house straightforwardly how long this pretext that we are here to deal with the dock strike is going to continue and whether we are going to deal with this and other legislation purely on an ad hoc basis?
This situation typifies the government's mishandling of the business so far. There was no question of there being ample time to consider this legislation prior to June 30 so that we might accept it. In the first place, it is badly drafted legislation which embraces, in many instances, utterly false concepts. It is then presented to us almost on the eve of the close of the session, the government having full knowledge of the number of supply or allotted days that had to be called in June. Although there was nothing the government could do about that rule, it blithely put forward this legislation which involves a most important principle, namely, whether the government of Canada can unilaterally set itself up as an economic czar, or create the office of an economic czar through the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), with regard to the development of industry and growth of business across the country involving a very limited degree of foreign ownership, as outlined in the bill.
The amendments to clause 2 of the bill, and the amendment that has been put forward by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, crystallize the fundamental question underlying this bill, which is how much unilateral authority the government believes it has in relation to the economic development of this country. This amendment provides that there must be some degree of consultation with the provinces. My colleague questioned the minister about this as will be seen by reading page 24:13 of volume 24 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on June 20. The minister gave a reply that can be contrasted with that of his colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray), who had consulted the provinces. To the surprise of every member of the committee, the latter minister refused to give any indication of the attitude of the provinces, except to say in a general way that some were in agreement and some were not. The minister wasted the time of the committee during one evening's session, and it is no wonder that my colleague for Fundy-Royal quit the meeting. It was a disgusting performance and an effrontery to the committee that the minister spoke in this manner.
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
His colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I will say, was much more forthcoming, though he did not indicate that a particular province made any particular point. I think he should have done so, since I read in a daily newspaper in my home city of Edmonton that the government of Alberta had taken the stand that it wanted full consultation. I agree with that stand. There is no way the government of Canada can declare that, by virtue of section 91 of the British North America Act, it has jurisdiction to move into this area unilaterally. One can only move in unilaterally in the same way that one can try to butt down a brick wall with one's head. The brick wall is not knocked over; the only thing that suffers is the head. This is what the federal government is trying to do in this case.
The minister has indicated that his officials will consult with the provinces, but I should like to know what sort of mechanism there is for this. We have the minister's word that there will be consultation, but if this minister is moved to some other portfolio, some other minister in the future may say that he could not care less about consultation, that there does not have to be any consultation with the provinces. Perhaps some form letter is to be sent out to a provincial authority, to some as yet undefined ministry. The minister has not indicated with whom or with what department of the provincial government there will be consultation. Is it to be a secretary-treasurer, a minister of mines and minerals, or will it be through a minister of intergovernmental affairs? We have no indication with whom the consultations will take place. If the minister will forgive my saying so, I think he is doing some wishful thinking in this regard. He is really grasping at straws. Why is it necessary that there should be this consultation? Unless the minister has indicated something that is not factual, the registrar's bureau of which he speaks, and which the deputy minister indicated would be manned by about 28 people, does not contain one-tenth of the people with the expertise required to deal with the problems that exist in the provinces.
I have taken pains to point out my grave doubts as to whether the government of Canada has the constitutional right to deal with a company or a business interest, and this could be an individual, that is in the hands of a provincially incorporated company or a foreign company registered under the foreign companies provisions of the provincial act under which the business is conducted entirely within the province in question. The same holds true in respect of a business organization which may be a partnership and is taken over by foreign interest. There is no way that can be touched.
If this measure were the result of a substantial degree of agreement with the provinces beforehand, then I think one could say that the worrisome problems of takeovers might be dealt with in an efficacious manner. I share with the minister his concern about takeovers which are the result of a U.S. conglomerate acquiring the assets, or a portion of them, of any corporation which involves Canadian companies. I have been concerned about this for years, and long before this minister came into the House. I have been concerned about estate taxes and the fire sales of Canadian businesses to interests abroad,

July 4, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
because we have forced these businesses to be the sacrificial lambs of some governmental greed for revenue. One might have been able to rationalize this problem in respect of succession duties with the provinces. We know that the province of Alberta has said it will not impose succession duties in order to have an advantage over other provinces. British Columbia has moved in that direction and Quebec has said it is hopeful it can move that way. The same is true of Ontario.
What a mish-mash; what a jungle, and just after a commission has considered the problem of taxation for years and recommended that there be some rationalization of our taxation system this government makes changes in the estate and income tax provisions. It has been like a kid with a big spanner let loose on some delicate machinery. It tinkers here and smashes there, but the net result is bad. Now, we can see the fruits of the government's lack of consultation and its unilateral action. I know the temptation is great to move into this provincial field. Provincial governments are elected by the same people who elect the representatives in this House, and to whom this government is responsible. One would think this government was responsible to itself only and did not have to answer to the Canadian people. This government seems to think it can fly in the face of provincial governments which represent the same citizens.
As I said on a previous occasion, does this government think that provincial representatives are from outer Slo-bovia? This government seems to act that way, but I suggest to the minister he will have to indicate how he can act with expertise, without consultation, in dealing with the disposition of oil lands, leases and interests in the production of oil and gas. Where does the minister expect to find the expertise to deal with the disposition of timber interests in British Columbia or in Ontario? How does he intend to deal with potash in Saskatchewan? These are matters in respect of which there will be very serious questions asked, and I am not satisfied that the proper answers are forthcoming. The Atlantic provinces' interests are entirely different from those in the province of Alberta. We have heard the representations from those provinces loud and clear, yet I suggest these matters will be resolved by some economic Czar here in Ottawa. I make that suggestion because a provision has been included that a transaction will have to be of significant benefit to Canada. Who will make that decision except the minister? He will make a recommendation to his Cabinet colleagues who will pass an order in council in respect of these transactions.
I have not spoken yet about the administrative side of the fantastic bottleneck this legislation may create. We are not dealing with some 150 actual takeovers, we are dealing with hundreds and hundreds of transactions. If that is not so then the minister's advisers have been hiding their heads in the sand, or are lost on a cloud in cuckoo land. This measure will involve hundreds of transactions; as a matter of fact, even thousands. Some may argue that the transactions may be rebuttable, but that means the individual firm must undertake the burden of proof. There is always uncertainty, but I should have thought the government would accept the amendment from the committee in my name which was suggested by a number of public real estate companies in Canada. The burden

should not be upon those conducting the transaction to show there is significant benefit to Canada, the burden should be on the government to show there is a significant negative effect rather than a benefit. Why should the people have to prove this to the government? Why is the onus on the individual?
The philosophy of this administration militates against the individual and benefits the God-Almighty state. We are mere numbers. We are now regimented more and more. The burden of proof shall be on those in business who are carrying out these transactions. It will be up to them to prove that the transaction is of significant benefit to Canada. Even in the case of a neutral transaction, an exchange of portfolio investments, the burden of proof is still there and is mandatory. Who among the advisers shall be qualified to advise the minister? Is this another area in which special representations will have to be made? If Bill C-259, shall we say, created a lifetime pension scheme for tax lawyers and tax accountants, this bill will be manna from Heaven for corporation lawyers as they beat their way to Ottawa on so many transactions which may be the subject of careful scrutiny and study by the Minister.
Then, what about the, shall we say, indefinite pressure which could be brought to bear concerning this or that transaction and whether or not it is of significant benefit to Canada. Such a judgment would depend upon who saw whom or who had what for breakfast. The decision would come down in that way. In my estimation, the burden must be on the Crown if it is to administer the legislation this way. The burden should be on the Crown to prove the disadvantage of the transaction and to negative the transaction.
I see you are becoming anxious about my time, Mr. Speaker. I wish to finish by saying the amendment put forward by my colleague from Fundy-Royal points out one of the fundamental difficulties in respect of this bill which has not been resolved. If this provision is not incorporated in the bill, more and more trouble will be created with the provinces and goodness gracious, I say on behalf of the Canadian people that there has been enough trouble between the provincial and federal governments involving well meaning but bull-headed people.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I should in the first place thank the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for some of his comments on the importance of Bill C-201. So many people have stated that the bill was a pip-squeak or nothing, etc., that it is good to hear an hon. member acknowledge the importance of the concepts involved and admit that the application of that bill will be quite difficult. I am one of those who have said so on many occasions since the beginning of the debate. In fact, the consideration of takeovers from an administrative point of view would be so complex, that if the government had wanted to go any further, it would have been reluctant to do so, due to the tremendous administrative task involved. I therefore thank the hon. member for Edmonton West for having used this argument in my stead,
July 4, 1972

because I tried to do it several times without much success, I confess. However I am not going to go as far as the hon. member for Edmonton West concerning the debate on the constitutionality of Bill C-201 nor concerning the point he raised as to whether the way of taxation would not be better to defend the Canadian interests than that of the examination of takeovers. I do not agree with him either concerning his request to get the opinion of the provinces. As I said in committee, provincial politicians have excellent channels of communication with the people and when they want to say to the federal government where to go or what they think of certain federal initiatives, they usually find a way to do it without our having to show them the proper way. So, if some provinces have not said in public all that they have told the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray), it is because they did not want to reveal their attitude. What they have said in public was what they wanted the people to know regarding their position.
Nor do I follow the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) in his analysis of Canadian federalism as regards foreign investment. I shall only keep to the two amendments now before us, and to remind hon. members about them, I shall read them. The amendment of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) aims at changing clause 2(2) concerning factors to be considered in rulings on the approval of takeovers. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal suggests the following addition and I quote:
after consultation by the Minister with each province that is likely to be significantly affected . . . the effect of the acquisition on the industrial and economic policies of each such province.
In other words, should we accept such an amendment, the federal government would have in each case of takeover to consider the effect of that acquisition on the economic and industrial policies of each province "significantly affected" by the said takeover.
Amendment No. 18 which we are also considering provides that the minister, in conducting a review of a takeover, and I quote:
-shall consult with the appointed representative of the province or provinces concerned with the proposed acquisition.
These two amendments are joined for discussion.
In committee, Mr. Speaker, I tried to indicate the reason why it was impossible for the federal government to commit itself to formal, compulsory consultation because this would be giving in a significant way to the province or provinces concerned an explicit or implicit right of veto over a takeover.
I indicated however that the government was committed to a maximum of consultations, of informal consultations having to do specifically with a particular takeover, and also general consultations having to do with takeovers as a whole with respect to policy.
In committee, we also adopted an amendment that has become sub-clause (2) of clause 13, if I remember well, which does away with the obligation that the minister had previously of securing the consent of the parties concerned in a takeover before consulting the provinces.
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
Because of representations made by some provinces and of opinions expressed by some members of the committee, the matter was put aside.
The bill in its present form empowers the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to consult with the provinces in future cases of takeovers. However, subsection (2) of clause 13 does indicate the following:
on such terms and conditions and under such circumstances as are approved by the Minister.
In other words, the Minister is free to consult with the provinces or not, according to circumstances.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal-again it must be re-read if it has not been done already-is not very accurate on certain points which I wish to emphasize to some extent. Unfortunately, he did not do so himself when he moved it. I am very sorry he did not have the time to do it. That was on June 26. He did not tell us then whether or not the consultation with the province or provinces concerned would be compulsory. He did not say anything about that, at least not according to his remarks. If the hon. member for Edmonton West thinks that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal made himself clearer than I think, than I claim he did, then he should point it out to me.
According to this amendment, we do not know whether the consultation will be compulsory or not. Does the hon. member know?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what my colleague would say, but it seems to me the expression "after consultation" presupposes that there has been consultation. There must have been some consultation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Consultation would be compulsory, then.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It would seem so.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would also think so, but I would not dare pass judgment without knowing exactly what the hon. member for Fundy-Royal had in mind.
The question that follows is this: does the province or do the provinces affected, to use the words of the amendment, have the implicit or explicit right to veto the decision of the federal government?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The answer is no.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The answer is no. Very well. In that case the consultation is simply informal.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The consultation is compulsory.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Then, consultation is mandatory.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I only say that there might be some circumstances where such consultation could well be impossible or even undesirable. Briefly, this is what I mean:
In certain cases, the takeover might very well be unimportant whereas in others, it would be such an obvious bad move that it would therefore not be necessary to

July 4, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
consult with the provinces concerned before refusing it. In other cases-which also could very well arise-time might be lacking. Urgent cases might very well come up which would not allow us to enter into formal consultations with all the provinces concerned.
That is all; I am speaking in all sincerity and frankness.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And the provinces?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It means those that are involved in that takeover, of course.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The provinces?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Of course. But they are not necessarily parties to that takeover. They can very well be interested in those takeovers. But I am trying to sum up the debate now, so that I will not have to repeat it.
I would also like to know how, according to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, it will be possible to determine the provinces-

"-likely to be significantly affected"


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Which states quite clearly what is going to be determined-

"significant benefit to Canada"


Jean-Luc Pepin: But I mean that in many cases, a province may quite well claim to be-

"significantly affected"

-even if its interest is rather marginal. Then a conflict may exist.
What is even more important is that situations may arise where the interest of a province or of a group of provinces will obviously be poles apart from that of another province or group of provinces. Then the mendatory formal consultation process might very well amount to a federal-provincial conference without a very clear decision being reached at the end of the debate.
Anyway, I wanted these arguments to be on record. I also wished to point out the dangers of this formal consultation as implied, a few moments ago, by the hon. member, that is to determine when a consultation is valid and when it is not. To force the central government to consult with the provinces or vice versa amounts to virtually including as a prerquisite for a marriage contract that love should exist. All this is somewhat redundant.
At all events, I wanted to prove that if this consultation were mandatory, it might create real problems.
As for the second part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, it reads as follows:
-the effect of the acquisition on the industrial and economic policies of each such province.

This wording-if I may be a bit harsh-is defective since the problem is not to know, what might be the effect of this acquisition on the industrial and economic policy of the province, but whether this acquisition is compatible with the industrial and economic policy of the province or provinces involved.
I simply point this out to show that the wording of this amendment is somewhat defective, at least in my opinion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I hesitate because I thought the hon. member for Edmonton-West, who is very keen on such shades of meaning, would be pleased and would appreciate and admire others when they seek to follow his good example.
Mr. Speaker, in any event, even there, there are some hazards. Why? Because the wording of the amendment of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal would require the federal government to implement those provincial industrial and economic policies with regard to certain takeovers. Therefore, one could very well say: You have a very poor knowledge of our policies! Why don't you mind your own business?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What are you going to do now?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, all this shows that the problem is much more complex than would appear at first sight. My remarks were intended to show that considerable difficulties do exist.
However, I do not see, quite frankly, how we could ignore economic and industrial policies in the provinces affected by a takeover, especially in the very province where it happens. And this simply because the purchaser, the one who takes control, first of all will have clearly to understand and afterwards take into account the provincial policies in the industrial and economic fields.
The problem in such acquisitions of control is not one of impact on the economic policy, but rather of consistency between the takeover and the economic and industrial policies in the province or the provinces involved.
Mr. Speaker, all I want to say concerning compatibility is that those responsible for administering Bill C-201 will necessarily have to take it into consideration, "compatibility" and "taking into consideration" being the two key words.
Mr. Speaker, I think that one could very well assume that. One can also say so. I have handed to my two hon. friends copy of a possible amendment. If they are interested and wish to support it, I am ready to introduce it, by unanimous consent of the House. As a sixth factor or, still better, as a complement to the fifth factor, that is compatibility of the acquisition with the industrial and economic policy of the federal government, one could add the following:
(e) the compatibility of the acquisition with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policies of any province likely to be significantly affected by the acquisition.
July 4, 1972

There it is. If my hon. friends are in favour of this amendment, I am ready to move it since it represents the situation which will in fact exist when the bill C-201 becomes law.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West asked who will administer the Act? He is also concerned as to whether we will have enough expertise to overcome the complexity of situations that will have to be faced. I think the answer is yes. There are in the department people who are competent enough, I would even say quite competent, and of course, we will call upon all the other departments. The consultation process will also give us access to the provincial expertise and if we should need more than that, we will call upon the hon. member for Edmonton West to enlighten us on some particularly difficult aspects of this legislation. Of course, I am saying this with a smile, Mr. Speaker. The department and the minister are aware that the legislation will be difficult to administer and they will use "all the government's lights" and even those of private enterprise in order to clarify the many mysteries to which the hon. member for Edmonton West referred.
The hon. member for Edmonton West was also wondering with whom we would consult at the provincial level, when the need for consultation arises.
In my opinion, the answer is very simple. It will be up to a province to decide which one of its ministers will deal with the federal minister and his officials. I think it is customary for provincial premiers to write to the Prime Minister, as it happens frequently enough, as follows: My Minister of Federal and Provincial Affairs will consult with the responsible federal minister, or conversely, the Prime Minister of Canada indicates which of his ministers will participate in some federal-provincial negotiations. I do not expect difficulties to arise but, as a matter of principle, such talks should be held between the Ministers of Industry, Trade and Commerce on both the federal and provincial levels, except when a province objects to it and prefers to deal through its Minister of Federal and Provincial Affairs which is a department already existing in some provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to show why the federal government could not commit itself to compulsory consultation through an understood or expressed right of veto. However, I have tried to indicate that informal consultations on takeovers, as well as generally on the whole of economic problems, are a foremost concern for the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I have proposed an amendment which could make matters a little more formal if hon. members so desire.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made a suggestion on how some of the objectives contained in the two amendments before us could be achieved. In a moment I will give what I believe will be the answer to the Official Opposition to his suggestion, but first I wish to emphasize that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) was on the right track when he suggested, in his amendment, the setting up of a process of consultation.
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
These days all provinces have a pretty heavy stake in industrial development. I know that the provinces in Atlantic Canada certainly do. We are all hungry for capital, for business, for the creation of jobs, and we set no national or parochial limits on where we may go to obtain the necessary funds. So, it is a matter of serious consequence to us whether any of the help that is given to industries which may come to our provinces will clash with some national policy administered by a government that may or may not be friendly to the interests of our regions.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal and the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) have made valid points in the suggestions they put forward. The question really boils down to whether there should or should not be consultation when the minister and his department administer this legislation. While he has rejected the process of consultation, the minister at least has shown some spirit of co-operation in his proposed amendment. Perhaps I should read the English version because when it was read in French by the minister the interpretation did not come through quite as we envisaged it. The English version would be to strike out lines 25 to 27 on page 2 and substitute the following:
(e) the compatability of the acquisition with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policies of any province likely to be significantly affected by the acquisition.
At least there would be a direction to the minister and his officials. If they exercised this function in a mean way rather than a generous way, or in a way that was not within the spirit of the proper operation of the legislation, they could be held to some kind of account, either in Parliament or in a parliamentary committee, and eventually the country would judge them for being cavalier or contemptuous with respect to the position of any province. This amendment provides a bridge toward the position staked out by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and the hon. member for Waterloo. It does not go all the way. But around here, no matter how hard we grumble, we are conditioned to accepting the proferred half-loaf, and so on behalf of myself and my colleagues I say that we would be prepared to see the withdrawal of the two other amendments and acceptance of the one suggested by the minister.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I think it is useful that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) and the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) presented their motions for our consideration. The government's record in dealing with the provinces on the question of foreign ownership has been most inadequate. I want to make it clear that I disagree very strongly with the stance taken by some provincial governments on this matter. As the minister knows, some provinces have protested that the legislation now before us is inadequate, while other provinces do not want to do anything that would scare off foreign capital. Indeed, I am sure that some provinces would prefer to take a more reasonable stance within the framework of developing a better Canada. The fact that they feel forced into taking such a stance reflects the bankruptcy of the federal government's policy when dealing with such things as establish-

July 4, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
ing an adequate Canada Development Corporation, an adequate regional development policy and in terms of developing alternate sources of capital for investment purposes in Canada.
Dealing with the amendments now before us, I agree with the contention which has already been made that we cannot simply ignore the role of the provinces in developing a national policy for a sound and strong Canadian economy controlled by Canadians. If we are to achieve this, we must take the interests of the provinces into account and this means regional interests. We must also take into account the powers that the provinces hold in a number of fields, the concerns that they have and the stresses and strains that are imposed upon them.
When the government announced its policy last May, after a long gestation period, there was no mention of the role of the provinces or how they would be involved with the federal government in carrying forward this policy. The position was the same when the legislation was introduced, and even when it came forward for second reading, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that after all the provinces could introduce their own legislation. Mr. Speaker, how can a province introduce adequate legislation to cover the problems that we must be concerned with in the field of foreign ownership and foreign control, including takeovers, unless it has some sort of framework within which to establish that legislation? The Prime Minister's statement, which he made on several occasions, is meaningless unless we have federal initiatives in this field. We have heard nothing about a joint federal provincial conference to study takeovers or the broader framework that we have here, and nothing about an effort to orchestrate a policy across Canada. I acknowledge the difficulties of producing a consistent and coherent policy across Canada.
Finally, it would appear that the government felt it had to respond to some of the pressures placed upon it or upon the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray). He was sent on a mission across Canada to consult with the provinces about a month and a half after the legislation was introduced. He was to explain it to the provinces to try to clear up some of their concerns. When the Finance Committee was considering this bill, it was suggested that the Minister of National Revenue might be called so that the committee could learn what he found out in his consultations with the provinces. The government members of that committee did everything they could to prevent this but nevertheless, on June 19, the minister appeared and presented an interesting rationalization of the limited action being taken by the government. This must have been difficult when one considers the total study for which he was responsible. However, he made a brief opening statement to the committee urging support for the bill, but made not a single reference to the fact he had been holding consultations with provincial governments about it. Of course, it did not take committee members long to put questions to the minister about these consultations. His reply was that his discussions with his provincial counterparts and provincial premiers were on a government to government basis and therefore considered to be confidential. This is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.

The minister later stated that at no time had it been indicated to him that he was expected to say anything about his trip across Canada to consult with the provinces. He said that he had received an oral communication from the chairman of the committee asking him to appear, but there was no formal request to talk about any particular aspect of the bill. This is pretty far fetched when it was obvious that it had been made clear in committee why we wanted the minister to attend. I suggest that the minister's attitude is hurting federal-provincial relations which are difficult enough. The minister indicated that he would be consulting with the provinces whenever possible, but he did not want to be tied to an obligation to consult with them.
I was very interested in the proposed amendment which was placed before the House by the minister a few minutes ago. I believe I can say on behalf of my colleagues that this is an improvement in the particular clause to which it refers. When assessing a proposed acquisition, in addition to taking into account the compatibility with national and industrial economic policy, this amendment requires the minister to take into consideration the industrial and economic policies of provinces likely to be significantly affected by the acquisition. I think we recognize, in this way, some of the regional characteristics of Canada and some of the regional considerations which the minister, quite legitimately, must take into account. I must say in all honesty that this amendment will not make a fundamental difference to the legislation before us and will not result in any basic change in our stand on the legislation. This, still, will be a most inadequate piece of legislation. It will still be totally inadequate although, in terms of defining the types of factors the minister has in mind, and I am referring to one of five points, the minister has made an improvement in that particular wording.
I prefer the wording the minister proposed to the wording proposed by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) in Motion No. 4, as originally placed on the order paper. Although we might be sympathetic towards the amendment that was proposed by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, that particular wording tended to place some degree of paramountcy on the views of the province of provinces concerned instead of taking national factors into account and giving them paramountcy. Really, I prefer the minister's wording to that originally proposed by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.
May I raise another point? By proposing this amendment, the minister has committed himself to consultation with the provinces. I do not see how he can say, in future, that he has taken into consideration the industrial and economic policies of any province affected by a proposed acquisition unless he has carried on a process of consultation with that province. Actually, I suggest that he has committed himself to that course of action. If that is so, I put it to the minister that, although there may be some technical considerations involving the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Salts-man) which have not yet been taken into account, why could he not remove any doubts about the matter by accepting our motion No. 18. Perhaps, if the minister has
July 4, 1972

some improved wording in mind and wants to make some changes, why could he not do that? Why can he not accept the principle embodied in motion no. 18 and include it in the legislation?
The principle of the amendment is that the minister will consult the provinces when he is carrying out any sort of meaningful review of a proposed acquisition. Why could the minister not accept this principle instead of rejecting it out of hand? I suggest it would be an improvement. I want to co-operate with the minister. I always want to help him, as he knows. I suggest it would be helpful to the legislation the minister is interested in if he were to accept motion no. 18, or the principle of it, because that acceptance would remove one of the emotional roadblocks that may be encountered from time to time in connection with the administration of this legislation.
Then, there is something to be said for the amendment the minister has proposed. In dealing with this entire question, it is vitally important for us to give adequate consideration to the role that is to be played by the provinces. We must consider the concerns, interests and powers of the provinces in dealing with the economy of our country. Neither the federal government alone nor the provincial governments by themselves can find adequate solutions for our national economic difficulties. More and more we shall need joint federal and provincial planning for our economy. The efforts of the provinces and of the federal government will need to be orchestrated, so to speak, with the federal government playing, quite rightly, the central role. Often the federal authority must play the role of initiator. If the federal government is to take account of the concerns and aspirations of the entire country it must, in any action, take into account the legitimate regional concerns of the various parts of Canada. With that in mind I hope the minister will, in addition to responding as he has to the motion that is now being considered, respond favourably to the other amendment proposed by my colleague for Waterloo.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some observations in connection with the motions presently before the House. I think every member of this House must pay a great deal of attention to the provisions embodied in Bill C-201, since it affects the interaction between the federal authority and the various provincial governments in a most important area. So, in making some observations relative to these proposed amendments I am conscious that there are many avenues of consideration in connection with this subject matter which affects the unity of Canada. We must keep in mind that we live in a large country. The distance from sea to sea is in the neighbourhood of 4,000 miles. I do not know how far it is from the forty-ninth parallel to the Arctic Circle; certainly, it is a great distance. In a country with an area of nearly 3.5 million square miles, with various regions which produce such varieties of goods, products of the soil, products of the sea and products of the forest, it is most difficult to produce legislation that can be uniformly applied.
The present minister, or any other minister, must administer such legislation in the general public interest and bear in mind, at the same time, that there is great variation between the different parts of Canada. Since
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
Canada is such a vast country, we must show a great deal of sympathy for the minister. The minister in turn, I am sure, listens sympathetically when we bring before him the various views held by the various regions of the country from which we come and for which we are responsible. It is difficult to enact a statute which will have uniform application across the country. I acknowledge that. It is difficult for the interests of all to be considered. In the final analysis, any decision of this sort must combine, in fairness, the interests of the regions with the national interest. When you try to combine the interests of all the regions of this country, you are apt to run into difficulties. That is what we are discussing in this House at present.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) suggested, and I agree with him to a great extent, that the government is trying to make slaves of people for the benefit of a collective body known as the government. It is saying to the people concerned, "You must prove, to the satisfaction of a group we will select, that what you contemplate doing is definitely in the public interest." The hon. member for Edmonton West suggests that the people concerned ought to say to the government, "This is what we propose to do," and it is up to the government to show that the takeover is not desirable. I think I have interpreted correctly the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West. That, substantially, is his proposal, and that was his criticism. He argued that the individual should not be required to prove his case, but that the government should show beyond a reasonable doubt that the proposed takeover is detrimental to the general public interest.
The minister is arguing with a certain amount of conviction that the federal government cannot possibly commit itself to a policy of this sort, a policy which allows anything approaching veto power to anyone. I am not arguing strongly that this is a wrong opinion. I have always been impressed by the general idea that you make a great country if you create within that country an atmosphere of opportunity so that an individual may be able to use the talents he possesses for the benefit of the whole body, the whole system, the whole country. If you set up an atmosphere in which an individual can do things for himself and make a contribution to the country-and I see many such people within the range of my voice-then I consider that the whole collective body will benefit, because those same individuals, working for themselves and doing things for themselves, will, of necessity, contribute to the good of the country as a whole.
The minister said this afternoon informally, that he agrees with the very thing which the amendment put forward by my hon. friend from Fundy-Royal proposes, though he had certain reservations reflecting his own opinion and taking into account administrative considerations. He agrees there was an informal understanding in the committee along the very lines of this amendment. He might well consider a move which would put into appropriate language the informal understanding which was concluded. Since the minister has already agreed to do so, I suppose those words taken from notes I had prepared, will do no particular good at this point. On the other hand, they will do no particular harm either. This is exactly

July 4, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
what he has done, and he has done it without any consultation with me, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. This only serves to prove that great minds run in the same channel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh John Flemming: My opinion of the effect of this legislation on my native province is well known. I am afraid it will establish a barrier against the in-flow of capital into my province. I have expressed this view in committee and I have expressed it privately to the minister. In our part of the world we need such an in-flow of capital. New Brunswick is neighbour to the State of Maine and the New England States of the United States. They buy our goods, our livestock, our forest products, our products of the sea, things which are surplus to our own requirements. The New England states are closer to us than the markets of central Canada. I am not going to argue about what took place 105 years ago. No one knows what would have happened had those two provinces in the centre not united with the two important ones in the east to make up Canada. But we started a course of sending our goods east and west rather than north and south. In a way, perhaps, we were working against geography and the trade pattern which existed at that time, because my native province was trading very freely with the United States during that period. The province was very prosperous as, indeed, were all the Atlantic provinces.
The point to which I should like to draw the minister's attention is this. I understand the difficulties which are bound to arise in the course of the administration of this bill. I believe I am conscious of the minister's determination, and I have no reason to say I am not conscious of the government's determination, and I have no reason to say I am not conscious of the government's determination, to do some screening for the benefit of the country at large. In the event that certain propositions are likely to be definitely detrimental to Canada's interest, I would be the last person to say that action should not be taken. At the same time, I trust the minister is concerned to assure that takeovers whose effect would be desirable are not prevented simply because someone may say that such and such a company or corporation would then be owned by an outside interest. I do not intend to go into that subject, either, this afternoon. I would merely point out that the bill emphasizes the word "control" rather than "ownership". I have always believed that the really important aspect is management, the manner in which management performs relative to the community in which the business is located and to the country of which it is a part.
It is only a few weeks ago that I stood in this House and told the story of the success of an enterprise in my province which grew from a very modest beginning with the help of the government of which I was a member. Its bonds were guaranteed by that government. Today it has plants in England and in Australia; it has grown to be a tremendous international food processing company. I refer to McCain's Foods. The assistance which the government gave to that company to enable it to expand has been well justified because it has contributed to the development of the part of New Brunswick in which its major operations are centred. No unemployment problem arises there; men and women know they can always get a job at McCains. There are 1,600 people working in the province

and another 3,000 on the payrolls in connection with various activities which are not confined to Canada. Some of these activities are in Australia, others in Britain, but there has been a continual story of progress and success.
I pointed out to the House that this company produced to the government figures showing the amount of French fried potatoes being imported into Canada. It then told the government they could be manufactured in Canada and there was a market for them. As a result, we guaranteed their bonds and it never cost them a cent. My point is that had it not been for the great market to the south of this country, this company would never have existed.
I am not one who is fearful about who owns a business; what I am concerned about is who manages the business, that the business obeys the laws of the country, that it pays the prevailing wage rates, and that it contributes to the community. As for the matter of ownership, it seems to me that only in the most drastic situation should you interfere with the flow of capital coming into this country. I am not arguing that it should not be interfered with, but from the point of view of the national interest it would be well carefully to examine the situation. This is what the minister says his staff is going to do. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), speaking on behalf of our party, has accepted the minister's suggestion concerning an acceptable amendment and I do not propose to differ. Naturally, I also accept the suggestion. The fact that the minister understands the views of opposition parties and is prepared to recognize those views should gratify All members of the House since it indicates that at least one occupant of the front benches is prepared'to listen to us, that our words are not falling on deaf ears. Some members of this House do not speak very often because they feel that no one pays any attention to them. Today, there has been a change in the situation; the minister is paying attention and is going to accept an amendment, and to me this is very stimulating.
At the disposal of the minister are the collective views, knowledge and experience of all 264 members of this House. As I say, he has recognized those qualities and is going to accept an amendment. I have had enough experience to know how difficult it is for ministers of the Crown to accept amendments put forward by the opposition, since the government seems to think that the opposition are going to crow about it until they are blue in the face. In this particular case, I am glad the minister has been big enough to take note of the representations that have been made. I am convinced they will be of benefit to the country, and I hope they will make his duties of administration a little less difficult.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I may say I sincerely believe in consultation. I started out by saying that it was difficult to pass statutes of uniform application that are still fair. According to the minister there are going to be informal consultations, and the provinces will be consulted. Their views will be considered and so will certain other matters that affect them as well as the central government. In view of that, it seems to me we might hope that Bill C-201 will be of benefit to this great country of Canada. I see you are about to stop me, Mr. Speaker, so I
July 4, 1972

will conclude by saying that I appreciate the interest the House has shown in what I have had to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the House ready for the question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, my colleague from Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) is necessarily away this afternoon but we received word that he will be back here during the supper hour. Rather than moving that the House agree to a withdrawal of his motion, since we are agreed on the minister's proposal, I wonder whether we might defer the motion so that the hon. member can withdraw it. I think he will agree to do this, but I would not want to do it on his behalf. We do not want to dispose of his motion at the present time if he is going to withdraw it. I am merely asking that we defer the matter until his return at eight o'clock, when I think it will be very satisfactorily resolved and we can then take action on the minister's amendment.


Max Saltsman: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I agree that the hon. member who moved the amendment on behalf of the Conservative party should have the opportunity of withdrawing it if he so chooses. Since my amendment is grouped with his, I should like to indicate that I am quite prepared to withdraw my amendment in favour of the one proposed by the minister. I think his proposition is a reasonable one as far as the bill goes and I would be quite prepared to have mine deferred as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Do I correctly understand that the House is agreeable to letting motions Nos. 4 and 18 stand until eight o'clock tonight?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I suggest we adjourn debate on this particular motion till the hon. member is here and can withdraw his own amendment. It is only for that purpose that we defer it, not for the purpose of further debating it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Perhaps I did not use the proper wording but may I say that we shall suspend the consideration of motions Nos. 4 and 18 until eight o'clock. I think that is roughly what I said previously. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Then we can move on to the next group of amendments, motions Nos. 5 to 9 inclusive.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully suggest to Your Honour, in view of the fact that motion No. 5 moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has a thrust in one direction whereas motions nos 6 to 9 have a thrust in another direction, though they do have some superficial resemblance to each other to group them together for debate, that we debate motion No. 5 separate and apart from motions Nos. 6 to 9 inclusive, and that they be voted on accordingly. I did not raise this point when Mr. Speaker made his suggestions the other day with regard to
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
grouping, but I do make that respectful submission to Your Honour at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect to the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to support what has been requested by the hon. member for Edmonton West. It seems to me it is a bit unfair, particularly to our friends in the official opposition, that their motions Nos. 6 to 9, should be more or less attached to our motion. Although we think they are wrong, surely they have the right to press their point of view on a level equal to the level given to us. I therefore think it a good idea that No. 5 should stand by itself for the purpose of both debating and voting and that Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 should stand together for both debating and voting.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should only like to add a few words to what has been said. It is not in respect of my friends literally and liberally to my right that a distinction should be made, but also in respect of my colleagues in this party who would not want any confusion to occur as a result of the suggestion that in substance our motions are essentially related.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, knowing full well that my bill can pass only if the opposition agrees with it I will let them debate the matter. If we take them separately, that is motion No. 5 and then motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9, the only thing I am losing is an argument.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I will have to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to debate motion No. 5 separately.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: That Bill C-201, An Act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by deleting therefrom in paragraph (1) of subsection (2) of Clause 3 the figure "25 per cent" and substituting therefor the figure "5 per cent" and that paragraph (ii) of subsection (2) of Clause 3 be amended by deleting therefrom the figure "40 per cent" and substituting the figure "20 per cent".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be relatively brief in my remarks on this motion because the change was dealt with at some length in the committee. I am looking forward to the minister's explanation as to why he felt it necessary to change the bill from the form in which it was originally before being sent to the committee.
The thrust of my amendment would be in agreement with the essential recommendations of the government on this point. In other words, the percentages I proposed in this amendment are exactly those percentages which the government believed to be essential prior to all the advice it got from the business community in Canada. My point is that I believe, as do the members of my party, that a prima facie case for low level foreign ownership should be seen as the basis for concluding there is foreign control. We, therefore, do not subscribe to the view that we should support the change the government brought back to the House which would raise the level of foreign ownership substantially in percentage terms before the operative clauses of this bill are brought into effect. I will leave

July 4, 1972
Foreign Takeover Review Act
the matter in that way until I hear what the minister says in justification of the changes he has made in the bill.
Hon. )ean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce): I will try to answer that point.

Mr. Speaker, all the hon. members know we are talking about control and presumptions. I am unaware that anyone until now objected to this procedure.
The question asked by my good friend the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) is this: Why this increase from 5 to 25 per cent in the presumption which exists in the case of the purchaser's eligibility in connection with public corporations, the shares of which are publicly traded, whereas the 5 per cent proportion is not increased for those same corporations when their shares belong to only one individual, government or corporation? It is only in the first instance that the presumption was increased from 5 to 25 per cent.
The reason for this is quite simple: it was done at the request of several witnesses. I remember Mr. Gordon, in particular, who said that presumption was so low that "it was a plain nonsense". Therefore, it is at the request of several witnesses and also certain committee members that we have taken this decision. There are two main reasons for it: the first one is of psychological nature. The corporations themselves which are Canadian-controlled and which involve a significant foreign capital participation, took exception to the fact that the presumption was 5 per cent only, while 10,15, 20 per cent of their capital were in the hands of non eligible persons. These corporations' officials suggested that this was a reflection on their "Canadianity," if there is such a word. To accommodate this psychological reaction, we have decided, I repeat, to raise the presumption from 5 to 25 per cent.
I shall answer to these people, to these shareholders: If you are so proud of your Canadian identity, why do you not show it more often by refuting presumption? This argument does not seem to have convinced representatives from concerned enterprises.
The second reason for the change or the second impediment for Canadian controlled enterprises was the difficulty of proving their Canadian identity, wherever their shares were broadly distributed. Then, in order to please them, we have raised the presumption from 5 to 25 per cent. The only practical difference involved is that from now on, instead of having the burden of proof lying with the enterprise itself, whenever the presumption is between 5 and 25 per cent, the government will bear the burden of the proof.
That is why we have raised the presumption from 5 to 25 per cent in the case I referred to.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, one of the more slaphappy aspects of the original bill submitted to the committee was precisely this point which has been corrected now. The mover of the motion wishes, however, to turn back the clock and adopt what was originally presented to us. There was strong objection to the government formula at that time, and those who took the objection managed to persuade the minister to see the

light. It would be a shame if we went back to something which really would cause a great deal of commercial confusion and would not assist the measure. Very shortly, we are rejecting the suggestion now being presented to us.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I find the remarks of the minister this afternoon in respect of the motion moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) very interesting. The minister can really engage in some pretty piteous reasoning in trying to justify his case. He defies all attempts at understanding. He does an excellent job of losing himself in the woods. He gets so concerned with the trees he completely loses sight of the forest. I must confess it is somewhat difficult at times to follow him when he is dealing with some of these technical points. He seems to take delight in spinning a very complex web in attempting to develop what I am sure, on many occasions, he does not himself understand.
This motion, of course, involves some technical considerations but also some very fundamental considerations. I should like to ask the minister, first of all, why he chose 5 per cent as the threshold level of shares in relation to the assumption of control, as provided in the original bill. This, of course, applies to shares of companies which are publicly traded on the stock exchange. Does the minister suggest the department did not have a rationale for that 5 per cent figure and just pulled it out of a hat. Does he suggest that there was no basis for this figure and that it was just an arbitrary figure? Does the same thing apply in respect of the 20 per cent figure relating to public and private corporations where the shares are publicly traded? Was this simply an arbitrary figure which the minister or his officials found some place and one which was not arrived at after a decision? I say I really cannot accept such a view.
During another debate, the minister commented that he has very competent officials in his department. I do not doubt that for a second, but what is lacking is some sort of current policy to provide an adequate framework in which the officials can do the job I am sure they would like to be doing. Surely, the minister must have had some rationale for the figures of 5 per cent and 20 per cent when he inserted them in the original bill. He seems to have thrown these figures totally out the window at the present time. In doing so, he has come up with a much higher level of figures, 25 per cent and 40 per cent. This would seem to be a rather high level when dealing with this area of presumption as it is involved in this rather complex concept in this particular clause. When this level was torn down as a result of some of the representations made-and I want to say quite frankly that there were some legitimate concerns and problems raised in respect of these figures when this particular clause was under study by the committee-the minister simply shifted totally from the 5 per cent and 20 per cent figures up to the 25 per cent and 40 per cent figures.
The minister was attempting to assuage the feelings of the business community. After all, the minister has been in plenty of difficulty with this community in Canada. I am sure the fact that the business community apparently has been quite unhappy with this government, whether
July 4, 1972

justifiably or not, is a matter of great concern to the minister and the government. The minister indicated that one reason for making the change was that he simply wanted to satisfy the minds of those in the business community that they should not be worried about this legislation or any possible effect it might have on their dealings and transactions. I suggest that the minister has not come forward with a rationale for the change made in the bill at the committee stage. What he really has indicated is that he has submitted to political pressure from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the manufacturers association and the business interests in this country. That is the sole reason for making this particular change, because I suggest if the minister were to respond to some of the problems raised when the bill was under study in the committee he would have come forward with a much different type of amendment to the bill than that which has been brought forward.
Rather than simply making the total shift from 5 per cent and 20 per cent to 25 per cent and 40 per cent, the minister would have come up with a meaningful change to take into account some of the real problems which may exist, such as the problems in respect of affidavits and burden of proof. He would have come up with some other solution than the one he has in respect of this bill. It seems to me the minister is destroying any chance this legislation might have or might have had of having any impact on the Canadian economy. I believe the change that has been made in the bill should be rejected. If the minister cannot come up with any better solution than he has up to the present time, we should return to the old figures of 5 per cent and 20 per cent. If he can come up with some change which takes into account some of the problems which may exist or if he can demonstrate some thought has been given to the problems which might be involved, this might be acceptable. However, I suggest the explanation provided by the minister for the change which has been made as a concession to big industry, and which was adopted by the majority of the committee, is unacceptable. It demonstrates that the government is not prepared to come to grips with the problem of foreign ownership or foreign take-overs. It simply indicates a bankruptcy of government policy and the failure of the government to come forward with any sort of meaningful policy.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as you know and as the minister well knows, I do not think this bill is worth the paper it is written on so far as protecting Canada's interest in the economy and so far as regaining Canadian control of the economy is concerned. I am certain, if this bill becomes law, the minister will have some interesting discussions with some takeover enterprises and may arrive at some arrangements which he will think are advantageous, but which in the end will be a sell-out of some other part of Canada's economy. It is, therefore, with some reluctance that one rises to speak on any proposal for changing so innocuous and useless a piece of legislation as the minister is attempting to push through this House. However, I think it ought to be said that the explanation the minister gave for the changes in the proportions in this clause of the bill really raises the question of whether he is serious, because the problems he is trying to solve are not soluble at the level of 25 per cent and 40
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
per cent any more than they are at the level of 5 per cent and 20 per cent respectively. The problems will still arise at no matter what level. We find the proof of the situation in the fact that we still have the words, "the corporation is, unless the contrary is established a non-eligible person" which were used in respect of the 5 per cent and 20 per cent.
Under the original clause it would have been possible for certain trustees, or whatever, of some shares of a company to be able to come to the minister and say that such and such is the case and therefore the contrary is established, that they are not foreign controlled. That was as available in respect of the 5 per cent and 20 per cent originally set out as it is in respect of the 25 per cent and 40 per cent level because it was there in the original bill. In view of the fact that a solution is not visible at any level-and at whatever level there will always be some gray area-in view of the original objections made by the people concerned and in view of the possibility of establishing that the contrary is the case at whatever level one is talking about, it really is impossible to escape the conclusion that the only concession the minister was willing to make was the concession demanded by the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Bankers Association of Canada.
He was not prepared to make any concession in the bill that would strengthen the ability to do something about foreign ownership in this country. Oh, no, he would not go for that, no matter how reasonable the proposition might be, and add some factors that would give him some power. He did not want that because, as I have said on more than one occasion at various stages of the bill, this minister and the government do not intend to stop takeovers. That is not the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is not to limit takeovers, it is to give the government the fagade of having done something about foreign ownership when in fact it has done nothing. It is not an honest purpose because the minister is far too intelligent-and I say this because I have great regard for him as a person-and far too knowledgeable about the Canadian economy. He is far too aware of the facts of the situation to have even needed the Gray report to have made him aware of it, but with the assistance of the Gray report he cannot but know that the area with which this bill deals is a minor one in the problem of the Canadian ownership of the economy.
I want to put on the record that it seems to me significant that the minister did not need any amendment for the purpose of solving the problems with which he dealt in his reply a few minutes ago. The original bill had the loophole, but because the enterprises wanted a higher place so that more of them would get under that line, the minister gives in to them. I respectfully submit that that is merely another item in the proof, if another item is needed, that neither the minister nor the government are serious about protecting Canada's place in its economy. The sham which this bill is, is again underlined by the way in which the minister bowed graciously and smilingly to the demands of those forces in this country that have sold out Canada before and will, with his assistance, sell out Canada again.

July 4, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in this particular field I have always wondered where the blind spot exists. I know that in the economic field the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made some very dubious statements, and the litany of those is long. But I must say, after listening to the short intervention of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), that I can accord him the palm of economic confusion.


David Lewis: That proves that I am right. I need no further proof.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I can assure the hon. gentleman that what he has been advocating in the last two or three minutes clearly indicates that the badge of honour should go to the New Democratic Party because their philosophy merely entails more bureaucracy and more red tape not only with regard to the problem of takeovers but in the whole field of foreign ownership. I agree that this only touches a corner of foreign ownership, but that is not the problem at the present time under this bill. In so far as takeovers are concerned, let me point out to him, as if he did not know, that every time business, whether it is sole ownership, partnership or a corporation, has to make a move it costs money. Going to government, making returns to government, waiting for government to make a decision and sending representatives to Ottawa, costs money, and where does that cost go? It is on to the backs of the hon. member and the rest of the people who support him since they are Canadians.
I have never heard of another party in the last two years that in its programs has piled more cost upon cost upon any economic activity in this country, and yet it expects us to be competitive with the world where we sell 75 per cent of our production in the export market. Not only would we tie one another's hands behind our backs but we would put hobbles on our feet, if we listened to them. At every turn there is additional cost, and it has to be met, not only by those abroad but by the Canadian public. What is this for? It is to keep those people employed who would be put out of work if we became non-competitive. That is why I accord to the Leader of the NDP the badge of honour for economic misunderstanding in so far as Canada's position is concerned. Every suggestion that he makes is counter productive to the advancement of the Canadian economy and also a guarantee of employment to those people who he thinks support him.
I ask him and his supporters, would they get support from those people who could not work, who could not produce because the products could not be sold and because of the high cost with which those commodities would be saddled? I was pleased to see the minister make this change because, in so many instances, it is impossible for a corporation to know whether or not it is 5 per cent foreign owned. Shares are held by nominees, and a 5 per cent ownership in a company is a relatively small amount which can fluctuate back and forth. There is no way of knowing, but the act as originally designed imposed a mandatory duty upon a company by creating a presumption of foreign control with a 5 per cent ownership, when all the evidence before the committee and all the evidence the minister has ever received by letter or otherwise was that 5 per cent could not control a company, even if the shareholdings were concentrated in one hand. I do not

want to anticipate the debate on my own motion which would increase the other percentage from 5 per cent to 10 per cent, but I fully agree with the minister that in using the figure of 25 per cent he has gone as far as the Bank Act, as far as the Life Insurance Companies Act-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Before I call it five o'clock, I must remind the House that motion No. 5 will be deferred because, as I understand it, at eight o'clock we will come back to motions No. 4 and 18 as previously agreed to.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED [Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-Pollution-Date of publication of regulations under Northern Inland Waters Act; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Pensions-Canada pension plan-Contributions by self-employed-Possibility of relieving provision; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Gleave)-Grains-Possibility of increase in initial prices.

It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.



PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale) moved: that Bill C-23, to amend the Immigration Appeal Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the warm welcome which hon. members give to this debate on Bill C-23, which I reintroduced last February 25. I hope that they will give favourable consideration to the amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act which it contains. As one who took part in the debate on the Immigration Appeal Board Act when it was passed by the House in March, 1967,1 am convinced that the accumulated experi-
July 4, 1972

ence we have had of it over the past five years demonstrates the necessity for a re-appraisal of the legislation, and of amendments to make it more effective. I believe there is urgency to amend the act and to improve the existing regulations.
This need was recognized by the responsible minister in 1970 when he ordered a one man inquiry into the problems arising out of the act, particularly as a result of the large number of appeals against deportation. Today the Immigration Appeal Board is faced with a backlog of approximately 10,000 cases. Furthermore, the board is operating with only seven or eight members, instead of nine as provided by the act. One of the members resigned in April last and no appointment has been made to fill the vacancy. The board has a shortage of members and of staff. It sits in Ottawa and Montreal, and only recently began sitting in Toionto. As a result, it is able to hear just about 100 cases a month. Its 1971 budget of approximately $1 million and its staff of 68 people are not enough to clear the backlog of 10,000 cases. Some of the appellants have been waiting for three years to present their cases. Many hardships are experienced by these people during these long delays and due to the restrictive regulations and the lack of proper counselling.
We welcome the statement which the minister made last month that his department would re-examine its position, and take special measures to deal with the backlog of cases. My proposed amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act number only three, and are easy to understand.
My first proposed amendment is to section 3 and would increase the number of members on the board from nine to at least 14, but not more than 18, to be appointed by Governor in Council. This increase in membership would help the board to hear more cases. As I have already mentioned, there is already a backlog of 10,000 cases. Hearings at the present rate would take ten years to clear that backlog, and the backlog itself is increasing every year.
I also wish to amend section 6 to allow the board to sit in all of the provincial capital cities, and in other cities as required. People have to incur a lot of expense when travelling from Vancouver to Toronto or Ottawa in order to present their cases and make oral submissions to the board. They must also meet the expense of a lawyer, and travelling expenses for any witnesses that they wish to accompany them.
My third amendment concerns section 17. It would add another ground on which the board could quash deportation orders. Members of the board, when hearing an appeal, would also be allowed to take into consideration reasons of merit, not only legal facts, and reasons of a humanitarian and compassionate kind. This could affect exceptional scholars, athletes, and other people who would make good Canadian citizens. At present if they do not qualify under existing regulations, and there are no humanitarian grounds involved, such people are asked to go back to their countries of origin.
However, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government should also improve its procedures and services in immigration matters. I believe it should broaden the categories of persons who can launch an appeal, or the category of
Immigration Appeal Board Act
sponsors who can launch an appeal. It should also provide better counselling services. At present we hear many complaints from people who are at the mercy of so-called immigration experts who charge exorbitant prices for their counsel. These people are in no position to pay such high fees, particularly for poor advice. I also believe that the government should inform appellants to a greater degree about their privileges. It should make this information available to appellants in their own languages, so that they may understand it. If the government does not inform people of their rights, then an injustice is done.
Only a few weeks ago we were all shocked by the tragic suicide death of Alicia Wiercioch of Toronto who tried to appeal her deportation but failed and lost all hope. I believe that if some of the measures which the government has already announced are adopted, and some of the amendments which I propose are accepted, many hardships will be eliminated. This afternoon I appeal to all members of the House to put forth their views, and with dispatch send this bill to the appropriate committee of the House for further study and the examination of witnesses if necessary, so that it can be passed, given third reading and sent to the Senate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in some sympathy withh the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) in regard to the motives for presenting this bill but there are some points that I should like to clear up.
The bill which was enacted in 1967 to set up the Immigration Appeal Board contained some very good provisions. Unfortunately, there is one lacunae, and it is one that the Supreme Court of Canada has had to move into under the Grillas case and one or two others in order to give more flexibility to the interpretation of the act. If there is an order for deportation which has been confirmed by the Immigration Appeal Board, no one but the Immigration Appeal Board itself can change the order. If deportation proceedings have gone forward to the point of exit from the country, they cannot be undone. Apparently someone thought that it was absolutely essential to remove all discretion from the minister. Personally, I think that was wrong because it also removed a good deal of humanity from the process of immigration.
I do not think that the difficulty lies with the Immigration Appeal Board and I would have liked the hon. member for Parkdale to give us his views on changes in the Immigration Act, particularly the regulations therein and their interpretation. Every year I have appeared before the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration to question, to protest and to call for some action but nothing has been done. There is no flexibility in the consideration of the regulations and the interpretation of them.
To illustrate, at one time if someone representing an immigrant were to inquire as to that person's rating under the point system the file could be seen by counsel or a Member of Parliament. However, because some Members of Parliament dared to raise questions, and in many cases to point out errors and omissions which resulted in a change of verdict, the files have been closed. An applicant

July 4, 1972
Immigration Appeal Board Act
cannot see his assessment, nor can counsel, until the special inquiry and so does not know what type of evidence or questioning is to be faced there. At these special inquiries I have seen questioning which would not be allowed in a court of law where the rules of evidence protect the accused. An immigrant applying for landing is questioned far more irrelevantly than an accused in a criminal court. Is that right? Of course, it is not but it is the practice.
I have asked why an applicant for landing in this country should have to go through the ignominy of a deportation order because he questions the point system. He may merely want to question the assessment, but would have to go through a deportation order and then appeal it. For three years the department has been telling me that this procedure would be changed but we have not seen any progress. It is no wonder people feel despair when they tackle the immigration process. It is a traumatic experience for a stranger to this country, a stranger to our language or culture and our customs, to be faced with this procedure. I would have thought that Canadians would extend a hand of welcome to those people we would like to have join us, but we make it very difficult. The present system is totally wrong for Canada. I would suggest that all those people who came to Canada before the passage of these regulations might be invited to leave because today, according to our regulations, they were admitted under the wrong criteria. But I do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker.
With regard to the hon. member's bill, I might say that if there were not so many appeals, if the immigration regulations met present day requirements, there would be no need for this great increase in the Immigration Appeal Board. Does it not sound rather ridiculous and paradoxical that the appeals procedure should require a greater number of personnel than the admissions procedure? The Immigration Appeal Board has a large administrative and service payroll and the salary of the commissioners, I might point out, is not as low as that of Members of Parliament. Is it not a sad reflection on the system that we must increase the size of the Appeal Board?
Why should there be almost 10,000 appeals, Mr. Speaker? I know that the system has been abused. The government was warned from the beginning that they were building up difficulties. People are not stupid and they soon find the loopholes. Why do we need 14 to 18 members on the Board? I do not think this will cure the situation at all, nor will the changes made by the government at the present time. I was surprised the hon. member for Park-dale said that he welcomed the changes being made. Of course, they torpedoed the whole system. He either accepted the system as it stood or, if the changes were to be welcome, it meant that the system did not mean anything. The minister, even when the prospective immigrant scores only five points may, under certain circumstances, agree to the landing of an applicant who is here in Canada. These considerations do not affect one iota the individual who is offshore and who is being sponsored.
In most instances, the difficulty lies with those people who have applied to be landed from within Canada. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that subdivisions of the appeal board should be enabled to travel to

provincial capital cities. I recently appeared before the board in a case. There was some question as to whether I should recommend to the appellant and her husband that that young woman, along with a witness and an interpreter, should come all the way from a rural area outside Edmonton to Ottawa to appear before the Board for about 20 minutes. Eventually, I decided to do this by way of affidavit and the case was resolved satisfactorily. The idea of presenting evidence by affidavit represents a terrible dilemma which the average immigrant does face. I have acted in other cases, and the immigrants did not know how to proceed. I am thinking of one case in particular; I suspect I may have to appear on behalf of the parties because they have no money. In that particular case, the sponsor is over 80 and bedridden. Affidavit evidence will be required. Good gracious, there is no way one can get the best possible hearing on the basis of affidavit evidence. Therefore, I fully agree with the second part of the amendment proposed by the hon. member.
As to the third part, speaking as a lawyer, I suggest that is superfluous because, in the appeal part of the act there is provision for reasons of merit. The proposed section reads in part:
A person ... may appeal . .. from a refusal to approve the application, and if the Board decides that the person whose admission is being sponsored and the sponsor of that person meet all the requirements of the Immigration Act-
The requirements of the Immigration Act include reasons of merit. I continue:
-and the regulations made thereunder relevant to the approval of the application or that there exist compassionate or humanitarian considerations-
That is the wording of the act, as well. The hon. member would add, "or reasons of merit". There is already, within the Immigration Appeal Board Act, provision for granting landed status on compassionate grounds.
Let me cite a case I was on last month. After the deportation order had been made, the young person involved had married and had a child. If that person were deported, it would mean that the mother and child would be separated. The board was not greatly concerned about the husband; he was innocent in this case, not having known of the deportation order. There was no way that the board could separate the mother and child; there was no way, also, for the mother to be sent back to her country, with any guarantee of coming back to rejoin her husband and their child. Therefore on compassionate grounds, for the sake of the child, the board was able to review its previous decision, discharge the order for deportation and immediately direct the landing as an immigrant of the young woman who was now married to a Canadian and the mother of a child born in Canada. It is for reasons like that that section 17 is included in the act. I would say, therefore, that the third clause proposed by the hon. member is a tautology, since the matter is already covered in the existing section.
I have made my observations on the other clauses. I think, myself, that the bill ought to be sent to committee so that these various matters may be examined and, if necessary, amendments put forward.
July 4, 1972


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, briefly, to support the general proposals put forward by the sponsor of this bill. In sponsoring this bill, it seems to me the hon. member is dealing only with a small part of existing difficulties in this area. These difficulties are well known to every member of this House and particularly well known to those hon. members who represent urban centres in which there are large ethnic populations.
We last amended the Immigration Act and set up the Immigration Appeal Board some five years ago. We thought that we had adequately dealt with the difficulties then apparent. Obviously, we dealt with them in a somewhat imperfect and half-hearted way.
The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), when introducing this bill, told us that about 10,000 appeals are pending and that the board, as presently constituted, can deal only with about 1,200 cases per year. Obviously, unless drastic changes are made, the situation will become worse. It already is intolerable. Let me commend the present minister for doing as he proposed several weeks ago and attempting to clean up the backlog of immigration cases. Although I commend his intentions, his methods entail ignoring the immigration law and ignoring the regulations drafted and approved by the government he supports.
The present immigration law and the regulations drafted thereunder have led to the tremendous numbers of people appealing their cases. In recent years, fewer immigrants have come to Canada than in earlier years, owing, I suppose to the downturn in Canada's economy. People in western Europe, where there is virtually no unemployment, are not likely to rush to Canada, where unemployment, seasonally adjusted, has been running at 6 per cent for two years and more. Although fewer people have tried to enter Canada, more people than ever have appealed to the board. This has resulted partly from our previous revision of the law. When we last revised the act we inserted a clause which permitted people who had come to Canada as visitors to apply for landed immigrant status and so stay in Canada permanently. Previously, we had not permitted that. Under present procedures, large numbers of people are coming to Canada as visitors and then applying for permission to stay in Canada permanently. If their application is turned down by the department, they appeal the deportation order to the Immigration Appeal Board, as is their right. As a result, the number of appeal cases has increased, and it has been difficult for the board to deal with the increased number of appeals.
Although I agree in general with the proposals of the hon. member for Parkdale and think that these should form the basis for discussion in committee, either during the present session or in future, I submit that we need to look at the entire act and all the regulations. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has already referred to some of the anomalies that arise under the act. When a person applies and does not score the 50 points required if he is to stay here, he is not told how many points he scored or why he was turned down. We need more public information about the criteria used.
Immigration Appeal Board Act
Let me join with the hon. member for Edmonton West in saying I deplore the decision we made in 1967, I think it was, to remove from the minister the discretionary power which he possessed. I know it has been said that ministers are subject to political pressure. I can only speak for myself. I have dealt with a fairly large number of cases in the ten years in which I have been in Ottawa as a Member of Parliament: not as many, I am sure, as members from cities such as Toronto but, nevertheless, a considerable number of cases.
Speaking for myself, when having taken up a case with the minister or the department I have been shown that the application about which I have been making inquiries did not meet the law or the regulations, I have immediately dropped the case. I assume that other Members of Parliament follow the same practice. But when the minister possessed discretionary power, a Member of Parliament and, I presume, anybody else who took up a case with the department, was in a better position. I have found successive ministers responsible for the Immigration Department-and there have been a number of them in my time-to be reasonable, decent people.
When I had the opportunity to take up a case on the basis of common sense, on the basis of compassion, I cannot think of a case in my ten years when I felt the minister was being insensitive. I believe the hon. member for Parkdale would agree with me that had the Toronto case to which he referred happened while the minister possessed discretionary power, it could have been taken up with the minister and permission to stay would have been granted.
So I think this situation has to be looked at. The regulations need to be examined. The whole act needs to be examined. I commend the minister for what he did a couple of weeks ago. At the same time, his action demonstrated the bankruptcy of the present law, of the present regulations and of the procedures we now follow. We can excuse a crash program of clearing up a backlog which has now become intolerable. It certainly should not be allowed to happen again. It is the responsibility of the government to amend the Immigration Act, to amend the act dealing with the Immigration Appeal Board and to change the regulations so that the situation which has arisen in recent years does not recur. I certainly support the proposals made in this bill and I support reference to a committee, but I believe we must get down to making more fundamental changes than are proposed here.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) for bringing this subject before us. He has already given me instructions: I do not know whether you heard him, Mr. Speaker, but he said, "Don't talk it out." I do not intend to do that, but I believe there are statements I should put on record agreeing with what he said and others which perhaps reflect a somewhat different view.
What is the Immigration Appeal Board, and what are its functions? I have heard many people speak in this House about immigration. I have heard people talking on radio about immigration. I have heard great newsmen giving their views on immigration one morning, on transporta-

July 4, 1972
Immigration Appeal Board Act
tion the next, and maybe on agriculture the next. I wonder how the same persons can be such experts, telling the nation what should be done about these difficult problems during a five-minute period early in the morning. I have heard them at it at night, too-different people.
I have appeared before the Immigration Appeal Board both as a witness and acting on behalf of immigrants who could not afford high-priced lawyers to appear for them. Since I am not a lawyer, I cannot charge them anything: I do this out of what I feel to be my duty as a Member of Parliament to look after these people when no one else seems to be looking after them. I may say I have yet to see a member of the press gallery attend an Immigration Appeal Board hearing. Maybe it has happened lately. These hearings are open to the public, but I have never seen a press reporter there and it beats me how they can be so knowledgeable in these circumstances. This goes for some members of the House, too, who speak about immigration but have never attended one of these hearings. They do not know what they are talking about. The Immigration Appeal Board is one of the fairest boards I have ever appeared before-and I have been in public life for 27 years and appeared before a great many boards at various levels. I disagree with the hon. member for Park-dale that the board does not take humanitarian grounds into consideration.


Stanley Haidasz: I did not say that.


Eugene Whelan: Well, I got the feeling that you did. Perhaps I misinterpreted the hon. member. I wish to say the board does act on humanitarian grounds and has done so in many of the cases in connection with which I have appeared before it.
The Immigration Appeal Board is made up of nine members. Who are they? I recently read an editorial in the Sun: I do not know whether the sun has risen yet or not, but if it is as inaccurate in all its articles as it was in that editorial, it has not. It called the members of the board political hacks and asked what they knew about immigration.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to check the background of these people, their experience and the contribution they have made to our society. There is a group of highly qualified people who understand human nature, who understand human feelings. Their qualifications are high, in fact higher than those possessed by members of most boards of which I have had experience. One did not always win the case in which one was interested, but on leaving a hearing-which was always conducted by at least three members-one always felt it had been a good hearing, an honest hearing and that the members were really concerned about the people involved.
As a Member of Parliament I never presented a case before the board or appeared as a witness until I had personally investigated the applicant. I make the charge that many lawyers take money from these people without doing a proper job of investigating their backgrounds. They then blame the board, saying they did not get a fair hearing. I recall a case in which a large sum of money was taken from a would-be landed immigrant against whom a deportation order had been issued, and because my letter did not reach the board in time for the hearing they said

the case had been lost. Can you imagine-a letter which cost me only a few cents, which was sent under my franking privileges and which got there one day late, was said to be insufficient to win the case! And they had charged this immigrant over $1,000! I say, shame on these people who take this money from people they know to be desperate. I know they have slackened the reins on this one.
There is a provision in the Immigration Appeal Board Act that provides for the cost of transportation and legal costs for such people. Yet I have yet to see this done. The hon. member's motion is a good one, though he seems to think I doubt that. The board can be enlarged and do a tremendous job. It can be composed of highly qualified people who can make independent decisions. We all know of many good prospects who are looking for such jobs. Who are they? In my area there are people who are retired-bankers who have retired before the age of 60 and are members of the teaching profession. They are still highly qualified citizens who have been dealing with the public all their lives and would accept a five-year appointment on such a board. As far as I am concerned, they would do a wonderful job. They would also be independent of the civil service.


George Harris Hees: Are they Liberals?


Eugene Whelan: I do not care what their politics are, as long as they are qualified. There are some Conservatives who would qualify for such a position, as well as members of the NDP. We even appointed one to be chairman of the citizenship court. A lot of people could qualify for this job and they would be independent, which is something that both we and the country want.
It has been suggested that these appeals should be handled by the bureaucrats. Have you ever seen, Mr. Speaker, one bureaucrat overrule the decision of another bureaucrat? I have yet to see that. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) pointed out that section 29 was tested in the Supreme Court because it was wrongly interpreted. I say it is still being wrongly interpreted. Section 29 gives the reviewing officers power to review an appellant's case before it goes to the Immigration Appeal Board. If a person is able to prove that he has adjusted to the Canadian way of life and has established himself, then he is given extra points to enable him to qualify as a landed immigrant. This is all the minister of immigration is proposing at the present time, and I say the proposal is long overdue.
I should like to make one thing clear at this point. Many articles in the papers have stated that the death of the unfortunate woman in Toronto who took her life was a factor in the suggested changes made by the minister of immigration. This is not the case. Several weeks before this occurrence I attended several meetings with the minister, and although we did not know what the minister was going to propose we knew he was going to make some proposals within a short time. During the interim, this unfortunate occurrence took place; but it had nothing whatsoever to do with the minister's decision.
We are all concerned about the backlog of appeals by people who want to remain in Canada, but I would like to
July 4, 1972

know why some members say it is a bad thing that so many want to stay. I saw an article recently which stated that 30 million tourists a year visit Canada. Are they suggesting that we prevent these tourists from coming here? Over the course of three years there have been 10,000 appeals from people wishing to remain, which gives us a percentage of one-ninth of one per cent who decide to stay in Canada. Ten thousand out of ninety million is a very small fraction.
Many of these would-be immigrants have no way of receiving a proper hearing in their own country when they apply to come to Canada. Is it so wrong that when these people come here, they like what they see and want to remain? Have hon. members ever bought a car, a tractor or taken a wife without first seeing the product? Why should these people not have the right to see what could be theirs for the rest of their lives? I say that the principle of letting visitors to this country apply for landed immigrant status is a correct one.
Hon. members declare that these people are bypassing the procedure. I have a case in my files of a person who wanted to bring his sister to Canada. The department sent him a form letter which was almost the same as one sent the previous year, and the decision was that the sister should stay with this person's brother. It turned out that the brother had died and the mother migrated to Canada. This is the sort of review that applicants get. The department was in error. This proved to me that the department did not even review the application. So how can I feel that these overseas officers do their job properly? How do I know that the same thing is not happening in many other cases?
Some people go so far as to say that we do not need any more immigrants. I wonder how these people reach such a decision. Is their idea that we should aid people in foreign countries, but that we must not let them come to Canada and share what we have? Some environmentalists are declaring that we already have sufficient people in Canada, with 22 million, and that we do not need any more. I say shame on them and on anyone else who adopts that philosophy. This is a great, big country with room for many more people.
There are those who say, "Let us have immigration, but selective immigration. Let us just admit the educated, those whom we steal from other countries, because it is easier and cheaper to do it in that way." I recently attended a high school graduation. Two of the students who received very high awards and scholarships would not have done so had their parents not established themselves in Canada. One of these kids would be running around the hills of Italy, picking up branches to cook low-nutrient soup; the other would be running around the hills of Serbia trying to find something to eat. However, under a Liberal immigration policy they came to this country; one of them is now training to be a doctor and the other is entering the field of higher education, both having achieved outstanding scholastic qualifications.
I could go on and talk about this subject, but may I merely say I am sick and tired of people like that great Conservative by the name of Sedgwick who brought in the most damnable report the government has received. I myself could have written a more human and realistic
Immigration Appeal Board Act
report. According to his report, he contacted many members of the House of Commons-but I should like to know who the hell they were, because he certainly did not contact me. I know more about immigration than he ever will.
Let me say something about the refugees that we quickly screen and admit to Canada. I say there is nothing wrong with that. Most people think this is a good thing. Canada was the first country in the world to admit tuberculosis patients and send them to hospital. There is a plaque in the library acknowledging the fact that we were the first nation in the world to do this. We also let political refugees into this country. Yet now we are asked to be restrictive! I don't care who it is, Members of Parliament, members of the press gallery, members of the judiciary or any others-they don't know what they are talking about when they speak about immigration. But they ask us to be restrictive!


An hon. Member:: Let it come to a vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Keep talking.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor.


Eugene Whelan: I could not hear all that was being said over there, Mr. Speaker, but I gather some hon. members think what I am saying is not sincere. I suggest that perhaps this is a good motion and we should pass it this afternoon so these people can be appointed tomorrow. As I have suggested on several occasions, I agree with the hon. member for Parkdale. This is something we should have had a long time ago, when perhaps we would not have this backlog.


An hon. Member:: Let it go to a vote.


Eugene Whelan: Hon. members can have a vote or whatever they want. Our Immigration Appeal Board may not be the best possible procedure, and perhaps not as good as it should be; but I suggest it is not all bad.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I very much appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan). I should like to stress once again, for clarification and in order that there is no misconception, that I did not complain that the Immigration Appeal Board was not taking into consideration humanitarian and compassionate reasons. As I stated, there are no federal funds available for legal counsel to assist appellants in defence against deportation orders. The only free legal advice they receive is that provided under legal aid in those provinces which have such a system. We do not have legal aid for needy persons in all provinces in Canada. I checked this an hour ago with the registrar of the Immigration Appeal Board, and he said the board only pays reasonable travelling and
3752

July 4, 1972
Immigration Appeal Board Act
living expenses in connection with the attendance of the person before the board.


Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on this motion.


An hon. Member:: Now we are going to hear it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Cyril Deakon: Perhaps if we could cut down the jeering on this side I could make a few comments in the few minutes remaining before six o'clock. Let me sincerely commend the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) who is always a staunch supporter-


George Harris Hees: We just want a vote.


Walter Cyril Deakon: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings (Mr. Hees) always shows a capacity for interjecting when a person is speaking.


George Harris Hees: We want a vote.


Walter Cyril Deakon: I should like a little courtesy on his part in order that I may make a few comments. I should like, again, to commend the hon. member for Parkdale for his staunch and consistent support for a review and revision of our immigration policies. Some of our problems are a result of lack of immigration offices in various parts of the world. People who desire to come to this country very often circumvent the law and arrive in Canada as visitors. At that time they apply for landed immigrant status. We all realize that when these people apply for landed immigrant status after entering Canada as visitors, they sacrifice ten points in the inquiry officer's review. Contrary to what the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan) complained about, I believe the majority of legal professional men sincerely endeavour to give good advice to those they represent. The hon. member suggests they charge exorbitant fees. There may be a few rotten apples in the barrel, but I believe the majority try to do the best possible for their clients.
Some difficulties arise because there are many people who hold themselves out as experts in immigration law. I refer especially to people in the province of Ontario who are notaries public. Many of them hold themselves out as experts in the immigration field. They advise prospective immigrants of their rights. This is also true of travel agency employees who hold themselves out as experts. It is remarkable that Immigration Appeal Board people can enforce the regulations the way they do when one realizes that many of them are not legal people and can only-


George Harris Hees: One More minute and you have talked it out.


Walter Cyril Deakon: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings is very successful in his attempts-
Hr. Hees: You're not very successful.


Walter Cyril Deakon: I might tell the hon. member that during a recent visit to the Soviet Union we were successful in re-uniting many families and we did not encounter any

difficulty so far as Canadian immigration laws are concerned.


An hon. Member:: Let's take the vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: We'll get Paproski after you.


George Harris Hees: You will get another trip in September.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps hon. members would give the Chair indulgence for just one moment. In order that there is no misunderstanding in the future, the Chair would like to point out some doubt about the procedural acceptability of this bill. The matter is academic now in that it is six o'clock, but were it to proceed further I wanted to point out that it does seem to the Chair that clauses 1 and 2 involve an expenditure of money while there is no royal recommendation attached to the bill. I think the Chair's opinion is confirmed by the words of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). The hon. member was not arguing about acceptability in a procedural way, but suggested that commissioners cost money. I think that if clauses 1 and 2 were implemented we would then find a difficult procedural situation. I raise the question at this point in order that we do not create a precedent and difficulty in the future.
The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' bills having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-201, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motion No. 4 (Mr. Fairweather) and motion No. 18 (Mr. Saltsman).
Jean-Luc Pepin: amendment presented by the member. I also expressed some fear concerning the provision which appeared to be included in the amendment, in respect of having consultation with all the provinces, "significantly affected by a takeover". Who would make the decision, I asked? After that I introduced a special amendment which I should like my hon. friend to support, if he finds it acceptable. The amendment would read as follows:
That Bill C-201, as amended and reported by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be amended by striking out lines 25 to 27 on page 2 and substituting the following:
(e) the compatibility of the acquisition with national industrial
and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and
economic policies of any province likely to be significantly
affected by the acquisition.
I think that is the best I can do, Mr. Speaker.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of getting on with this innocuous bill I shall withdraw my amendment. The reality, of course, is that the minister does not want to swallow any amendments proposed by people in the opposition, so he has done a semantics dance-a summer dance, I suppose. The rest of us would like to do a summer dance somewhere else, but the minister seems to like to do it here. He has done it, however, and I believe basically he has caught the intent of my amendment.
The secondary reality is that without the provinces being carefully apprised of the factors the minister will use in deciding whether the takeover is of significant benefit, the provinces will have a major input or the bill will not work I wanted to institutionalize this by an amendment. The minister has gone some way to meet my proposal; the provinces will have to go the rest of the way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, would you like me to read it again?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the House agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: There is a slight delay. I am waiting for my spectacles. I apologize to hon. members; I was in a bad position so far as either the English or the French texts are concerned.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not think Mr. Speaker should see through the minister's glasses.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Foreign Takeovers Review Act
That Bill C-201, as amended and reported by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be amended by striking out lines 25 to 27 on page 2 and substituting the following:
(e) The compatibility of the acquisition with national industrial
and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and
economic policies of any province likely to be significantly
affected by the acquisition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Pepin) agreed to.


@Acting Speaker: The House will resume consideration of motion No. 5 moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock when the House adjourned for private members' hour I was commenting briefly on the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). I must say that under no circumstances could I recommend to my colleagues that we should return to the original proposal in the bill. The evidence before the committee was almost unanimous in advocating a change at this point. There were also changes suggested from the other side of the House of 5 per cent to 10 per cent at least. However, in this case I do not think any more is required.
I think that within the ambit of this bill, for what it is worth as a bill, this is a move in the right direction. The minister may smile, but he knows that I do not think much of the bill. I do not think the government has moved in the right way on the matter of foreign takeovers. The negative measures of setting up screening agencies and that sort of thing are not of any great value in this country. There are other, much more positive actions that could be taken on the matter of Canadian ownership in addition to enlisting the active participation of provincial governments in this field which have a great deal at stake and which can also scare away investment and deter Canadians and others from investing in the economic activity of this country since, after all, it provides the jobs on which people rely.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate I have been having some difficulty trying to understand the position of the hon. gentlemen to my right on foreign ownership. It seems to me that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has gone some distance in telling us what it is, and I appreciate his explanation. What he is saying is that the only costs are those attached to government intervention in the economy. He went on to say that if there is scrutiny or examination of foreign ownership, Canadian taxpayers will be burdened with the cost; but there are apparently no costs connected with foreign ownership and therefore we can safely ignore it so long as we do not have any government bureaucracy. By implication, if you take this far enough, I presume what the hon. member for Edmonton West is saying is that we should disband the government completely and thus significantly reduce costs in Canada and everybody will be better off. I do not see him objecting
3754

July 4, 1972
Foreign Tadeovers Review Act
very violently, and perhaps that is what he has in the back of his mind.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: While I have been aware of some of the positions of the Conservative party, I was never aware of the fact that they were the anarchists of Canada. I think I had a right to hear from the hon. member while he was decrying government intervention, how governement intervention and the necessity of business to deal with government intervention would raise costs-but what about the amount of money that business contributes to both the Liberal and Conservative parties?
I presume that those contributions are costless if they give money to the Liberal and Conservative parties. I suppose this does not raise the price of goods in Canada, that somehow that is magic money which does not come from companies and therefore does not have to be added to the cost of goods. I presume, also, that the effects of foreign ownership, be they detrimental to Canada, are not levied on the price of goods in Canada. The only thing that seems to significantly affect costs is the government itself and the fact that the government will conduct some kind of scrutiny.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Do you want me to examine union contributions?


Max Saltsman: Union contributions do raise costs, but democratic action on behalf of union people is worth a little extra cost. If the hon. member for Edmonton West does not agree, then he and I do not see things eye to eye. I am sure it is much cheaper not to have democracy. If we did away with democratic institutions generally, did away with government and did away with agencies which assist the poor in this country, we could significantly reduce the price of goods.
I am suggesting that there are other values to be taken into consideration than a reduction in the price of goods. Of course, if union dues are a cost, then any kind of participation in our society is a cost. It costs money to hold hearings. The House of Commons is a cost. We could have significant amounts of money by disbanding Parliament, but no one in the House who would wish to see Parliament disbanded permanently, or even perhaps only for the month of July. This is a ridiculous kind of argument. I may be a little unfair to the hon. member for Edmonton West who, I am sure, does not really believe in an extension of his argument to the point that I have taken it. However, the trust of his argument is really in that direction and I think he should be careful before advancing that kind of argument. I support the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). There is considerable value in it to the extent that by focusing on the level of ownership we are getting to the heart of the matter of foreign ownership in Canada. The level of ownership is not that important, but the government has been playing at a game, pretending that if you have it at one level instead of another, you will be doing something about the effects of foreign ownership. It is called the percentage game.

The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) said that the minister must have had some rationale in the first place when he suggested 5 per cent before raising the figure to 25 per cent. He has a great deal more confidence in the rationale of the minister than I do, because I do not know why he picked 5 per cent and he has not explained it to us. I think he simply picked that figure out of the air. It is an incredible figure in light of other legislation that is on the statute books. Such legislation as that would be in conflict with the Corporations Act and with some of the objectives of the CDC. If the minister has some rationale behind selecting the 5 per cent level, he should explain it. I know why he increased it to 25 per cent but I do not know why he started off at 5 per cent. All the words he used today have not clarified his position.
What really emerges from an examination of foreign ownership is that playing the percentage game has really nothing to do with the main issue. In some cases even 5 per cent foreign ownership of a corporation might be enough to place it under the influence of a foreign corporation or a foreign country in a way that would be detrimental to Canadian interests. In other cases, 55 per cent, 60 per cent or even 70 per cent foreign ownership might not create that kind of problem.
The difficulty with this percentage game is that you have no way of assessing the effects of foreign ownership unless you have some kind of national strategy or national policy in terms of what you want to do with the economy. That is what we have been arguing consistently since beginning this debate. This legislation is worthless unless the government can tell us its strategy and objectives in terms of trying to direct the Canadian economy. Failing that, Mr. Speaker, we have a semantic argument, an arithmetical gyration between 25 per cent, 15 per cent, 10 per cent and 5 per cent, that leads us nowhere at all.
Even companies which are wholly-Canadian, Canadian pure, do not reassure me and many other people that our national interest is being pursued. If these companies operate under licensing agreements with foreign-held corporations, then very often they behave worse than branch plants of foreign corporations. Very often they have restrictions with regard to the markets they serve and the prices they charge.
Unless a move is made in the direction of planning the further industrial development of Canada, we cannot be persuaded that our percentage of ownership will have any significant effect in reclaiming the economy and ensuring the proper direction of the society in which we live.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are interested in Canadian control of our industry. Industry is the lifeblood of the nation. If you control industry, you control almost every facet of Canadian life. However, I want to go on record right away in saying that I do not want to join any witch-hunt against foreign investment. If we did not have foreign investment in Canada we would be a big cow pasture filled with pine trees. Foreign investment has made Canada the progressive and affluent nation which she is. I have represented the great district of Athabasca for ten years and I say that we need millions of dollars just to develop that district to its full capability.
July 4, 1972

I do not know where the money could be obtained in Canada alone to develop it.
Some have suggested the issuance of debt-free money. I do not think you can raise money by going into the basement and turning a crank. I know there are a lot of cranks in the government, and they are the cranks I would like to turn out of office. We must maintain Canada as a safe place for investors. I am not at all worried about how much money is invested in Canada. I think the present argument is over a worry that does not exist. So long as foreign capital is invested in Canada to create wealth for Canada and employment for Canadians, without risking our own economic future, then I am all for it. Without foreign investment we would now be a backward nation.
Before passing this bill we should take a good look at what it purports to do. If we are sure it is going in the right direction, we had better make sure there are teeth in it and that it will accomplish what we want it to accomplish. I do not want to waste a lot of time criticizing either the bill or the attitudes of other hon. members. I want to do something for which I am noted, that is to present a few positive ideas of my own, gleaned from listening to other people who know something about industry, in order to awaken the House to the dangers of hasty and ineffective legislation. Up to this time we have attracted foreign capital in large amounts and it has developed our country to the state in which we find ourselves now- progressive and affluent.
We need a bill which will encourage Canadians to invest in their own country rather than one which discourages American capital. I presume most of the criticism we have heard is levelled at Americap capital because that accounts for about 75 per cent of the capital invested in this country. Why are we not paying more attention to encouraging Canadians to work a little harder and to save a little money to invest in the future of Canada? No country in the world has any greater future. I think it is up to us, as Members of Parliament and as salesmen for our country, to sell the idea to the people of Canada. They are sitting on one of the biggest gold mines of the world and are doing very little about it.
What can we do to streamline this bill in a positive direction in order to get the interest of the Canadian worker, the Canadian saver, the Canadian financier, so that they will put money into Canadian investment? I suggest that one way is through deferred taxation. If every family in Canada saved $1,000 a year and invested it in Canada, the government would be banking money. We allow our neighbours in the United States, France and England to invest in Canada but we are missing the boat with our own people.
As backbenchers we are supposed to be powerless-but if we pulled up our socks we could help the Department of National Revenue draft legislation which would help the average Canadians receive some of the advantages. Up to the present we have failed to do this; that is why there is unrest. Certain elements can arouse labour into a state of frenzy because they have so little left when they pay their taxes and mortgages. We sit here in a country of stagger -
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
ing potential. No one knows the future of the Athabasca tar sands, to take just one area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I do not want to be difficult, but it seems to me that the hon. member who has the floor is not speaking to motion No. 5. We have been generous, but I hope in view of the time the hon. member will speak on motion No. 5.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been in committee for a long time and now we are splitting hairs about amendments. There are a dozen or more amendments on the order paper, none of which get down to the nitty-gritty of what we are trying to do. We are now at report stage of this bill and there is nothing here which would encourage me to save a thousand dollars a year to be invested in the future of Canada. I would like to see some of these amendments offer a little hope for Canadians.
We are living in the most exciting 25 years of Canada's history. At least, it should be the most exciting. However, it may not be to the people who find at the end of the month that everything they earn has gone into current expenses and taxes. If there is any virtue in passing legislation to keep out American capital, I should like to know what is proposed to fill the void and to encourage our own people to save money and invest in this bonanza. I apologize to hon. members if I am boring them.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: In the Athabasca district, which I know something about, we do not know what the potential is. I am sure the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) will agree with this. A conservative estimate-I can use a big "C" or a small one-is 600 billion barrels of oil, enough to last us well into the twenty-first century even with the wasting of our petrochemical resources.
We are talking petty politics here and criticizing each other for not taking the right attitude. I accuse the whole bunch of us of being asleep at the switch because we are not putting into the Canadian taxpayers' pocket the opportunity to make money. Never mind the high-falutin talk about democratic ideals and socialist philosophy; when it gets down to it, our job in this House is to see that Canadians can make a living. If we do not make it possible for them to make a darned good living, we are delinquent in our duty and there should be 264 vacancies in this House. A lot of people in Canada are sick and tired of this nit-picking; they want to know what we are doing to make Canada's wealth available now, rather than waiting 150 years for us to do the job.
None of these amendments-Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, etc.-gives the little taxpayer or the worker the opportunity that I think he should have to join the affluent society. That is why this is an empty bill, nothing but windowdressing. In its present form it will not do what it purports to do; it will not exclude foreign capital nor will it encourage Canadians to invest in their own future. I think that a bill which does not accomplish these things is useless and I should like to see a little common sense applied to it. We have become bogged down in many words.
I suggest that we put a clause in the bill-anywhere you like-or amend one of the clauses to say that any family in

July 4, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
Canada that wants to invest $1,000 in risk capital will be allowed an income tax exemption on that money. If there is no profit in investing in Canada's future, why is this such a happy place for foreign money? We are merely putting our finger on the sore, without putting the band-aid on it. The band-aid is for us to pull up our socks and let our people invest in Canada's future. I believe they will do it.
Mr. Speaker, even a government as extravagant as this one would find ten years from now that they would have a tax base where they could cut income tax to 5 per cent. Five per cent of the potential of Canada would be enough to run any country and give even a greedy government more money than it has at the present time. There would be no need to play politics about it-just give every Canadian an opportunity to invest in his own country!


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on one or two of the points raised tonight. The hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg) has called for a government incentive which would permit a Canadian to contribute $1,000 a year tax free. He says if that were done a tremendous amount of investment would result. I should like to remind the hon. member and the House that there is such a tax exemption. It is not $1,000 a year, but $3,000 a year which any Canadian can invest and deduct from his income tax: he pays no income tax on the amount it earns every year until he retires. It is the registered retirement savings plan. The exemption was increased from $2,500 to $3,000 a year by the tax reform bill which was passed in 1971. As hon. members rightly know, this was a popular piece of legislation and it is good legislation already on the statute books.
Some might feel that the legislation under discussion is not exciting, that it does not interest many Canadians. Again, I disagree. I think this is an exciting piece of legislation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: One would not expect to hear the hon. member say anything else.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Foreign takeovers in Canada have
increased steadily for the past one hundred years and, for the first time ever, a government has proposed a comprehensive policy to control foreign takeovers. This legislation excites me, as it does many Canadians.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member does not believe that, does he?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: What the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said shows that even the NDP thinks this legislation is of value.


An hon. Member:: What?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Many of that party's amendments could be ignored and considered as not bearing on this point. The particular amendment we are considering in this debate shows that the NDP believes this bill will do some good.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That must be so, otherwise they would not be arguing that the bill has been weakened by any one amendment. The hon. member for York South began by saying that this bill is absolutely worthless, that it is of no benefit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: How can you say that and in the next breath allege that it has been weakened by a particular change? You cannot weaken something that is absolutely worthless and useless in the first place. Therefore, I think they indicated by what they said that this bill is of value.
When members talk about lowering the 25 per cent ceiling, or about a 5 per cent ceiling, they are talking about numbers, about a presumption. They are referring to the level of foreign ownership. These figures have nothing to do with the basic principle underlying this bill, or the basic test. That test is still to apply. In other words, any company which is foreign-controlled and seeks to take over another company, will be screened. That takeover transaction will be screened, however large or small the percentage of foreign ownership in that company is.
I do not concede the point made today by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that you cannot control a company with a 5 per cent ownership. Neither does this legislation concede that. The 5 per cent or 25 per cent figures are only presumptions. The underlying policy of the law remains and is-as strong as when the bill was first put forward. In other words, if a company is foreign-controlled and it proposes to take over a Canadian company, that transaction must be screened whether the percentage of foreign ownership in the company taking over is 5 per cent or even less. In other words, the principle of the bill still applies as strongly as ever. Therefore, I think the amendment is unnecessary.
The NDP seem to forget that a great many companies which are not foreign-controlled would encounter difficulties if the bill as originally drafted were passed. They would need to bring merger or takeover transactions to the notice of the government and demonstrate that they, the companies taking over, are not foreign-controlled. The only point in the minister's amendment is that it relieves a great many companies that are Canadian-controlled of the burden of proving they are Canadian-controlled. In other words, they will not need to go through the screening process in order to demonstrate that they are Canadian-owned. On the other hand, if they are foreign-controlled they will not be relieved in any way by the raising of the presumption referred to. They will still need to be screened.
I should like, finally, to deal with a point raised by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. Flemming). I had an extremely sympathetic ear to the point he made. For his part, he did not want to see this House pass legislation which might retard the development of his region. I think it is good that he should come here and take that position. However, I do not think there is anything in this bill of which he need be afraid. We know, for example, that it does not apply to foreign direct investment, although in the illustrations he gave that was the kind of situation about which he was concerned.
July 4, 1972

If I may speak about the area of foreign takeovers, to the extent that there will be foreign takeovers or proposals for foreign takeovers in future, this legislation will protect the people of the hon. member's region. The grounds on which the screening will take place, the issues at which the government will look and the kinds of negotiations that will be entered into will, contrary to possible expectations, ensure that his area develops and that the people of New Brunswick and the Maritimes generally will obtain the greatest possible benefit from any foreign takeover which may take place.
When takeovers occurred in the past, the only consideration by and large which governed was, how much money will the owner get. That must be looked at. I think it is important for that matter and for other issues raised in the bill to be looked at carefully. I think the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte can take pleasure from this legislation. He can tell the people of his region that here is a new definition of public policy and that it concerns the healthy development of his area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The question is on motion No. 5 in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The House will now consider motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West), seconded by Mr. MacLean, moves:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by striking out the figure "5" where the same appears in line 14 on page 5, line 10 on page 6, and line 34 on page 7, and substituting therefore in each and every instance the figure "10".
The next motion is No. 7: Mr. Hees, for Mr. Horner, seconded by Mr. Alexander moves:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by deleting the figure of 5 per cent in line 10 on page 6 and substituting the figure 10 per cent.
Motion No. 8: Mr. Hees, for Mr. Horner, seconded by Mr. Alexander, moves:
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by deleting the figure 20 per cent in line 16 on page 6 and substituting the figure of 40 per cent.
Finally, motion No. 9: Mr. Hees, for Mr. Horner, seconded by Mr. Alexander, moves:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended as follows: in subparagraph 3(3)(c) by substituting the figure 10 per cent for the figure 5 per cent in line 34; and
in line 39 by substituting the figure 40 per cent for the figure 20 per cent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if I speak to motion No. 6, this question was debated at great length at second reading. I think I crossed swords with the minister at least half a dozen times or more on this point in committee. The witnesses who appeared before the committee and considered this point were unanimous in condemning this provision as it stands in the bill. When I raised this matter the minister said, "Wait until the members from the Canadian Bar Association come, and we will see what points they raise." They raised two points. First, they were not satisfied as to the constitutional power of the government of Canada to deal with the problem as proposed in this bill. Second-and this is their other point-they were in agreement with what I contended, namely, that there are at least half a dozen major acts on the statute books dealing with the ownership of particular types of Canadian business institutions, mostly in the financial field.
There are stringent requirements governing foreign ownership and many of these statutes have been amended in recent years in this field. There is the Canada Corporations Act which says that 10 per cent ownership shall be the limit in connection with insider-trading.
I point to the testimony given before the finance committee, as it then was, now the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The then minister of finance, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) said that with a holding of less than 10 per cent no one company could gain control of a Canadian bank. Life insurance companies, trust companies, have also been dealt with. Sales finance companies, newspapers, broadcasting, have all been dealt with. The figures are 10 and 25. Now, for some unknown reason, the figures have become 5 per cent cumulative. There is no such thing as 10 per cent or 5 per cent in the hands of any particular individual.
Therefore, all I can say is this: let us introduce a degree of uniformity. If all the expert witnesses say it is impossible to acquire control of a Canadian company with a holding of less than 10 per cent, why on earth have people in the minister's department, people with little or no experience of business, come up with the figure of 5 per cent? If a non-eligible person, within the meaning of the act, acquires a 5 per cent holding in a publicly-traded Canadian company, or 20 per cent of a privately-held company, or if there is an acquisition of 5 per cent in a non-eligible company or an acquisition of the assets of a company, the transaction is subject to screening, subject

July 4, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
to the determination that it is of significant benefit to Canada.
There has been a good deal of discussion as to the correct interpretation of the phrase "significant benefit to Canada". As it is, apart from some pious and hopeful words on the part of the minister, there is nothing which defines what may be of significant benefit to Canada. It is true there are certain criteria mentioned in clause 2(2), but these are meaningless as applied to many of the transactions which will arise. This is an area the minister has failed to clarify. There has never been an indication as to the way in which it would be handled.
As an example, I mention a transaction involving the acquisition or exchange of portfolio investments. This brings again to mind the amendment I mentioned this afternoon, the one which was discussed in committee, to the effect that the government should be able to show that a transaction is detrimental to the interests of Canada rather than that the parties to the transaction should show that it is of significant benefit. There is a vast difference, particularly when one is dealing with portfolio transactions. I suggest to the minister and his advisers that they have no conception whatsoever of the volume of these holdings or of the totality of these transactions in the course of a year.
If the minister or his advisers have read the evidence given by the witnesses who came before us, they will have realized that this country has no monopoly of attraction for foreign capital. The picture is very competitive-and if there is any degree of uncertainty, investors will get out. If the proposed degree of uncertainty is allowed to remain, I will make a bet with the minister that in the majority of cases investment plans will be abandoned. Is this what the minister wants? This is the sort of monster he is creating.
After all, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has had no experience in the investment field. Those who do have such experience warned the minister time and again of what may lie ahead. Yet the government plunged headstrong into this area. If the result, a year or two from now, is found to be underdevelopment of resources, undercapitalization, will it be a solace to any Canadian to hear hon. gentlemen opposite say, "we have made a mistake: the patient is being given a fatal injection; he is not being cured"?
I am reminded of the actions of the former minister of finance (Mr. Benson) when he told us he intended to deal with inflation. All that resulted was increased unemployment. Warnings were given then. Fortunately, some of the silly things which were proposed never came to fruition. This is another area in which the government is likely to run into serious difficulties. We have already heard that potential investors are becoming extremely skittish because of this proposal. I can tell the minister that I was asked about the prospects of this bill passing by a firm of corporation lawyers in western Canada the other day. They had a major transaction in hand and there was a clause in the agreement to the fact that if the deal was even challenged, the whole thing was off. The minister does not understand that these people are entering into a deal, one which, incidentally, is of benefit to Canada-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Good, then they have nothing to fear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But the possibility of intervention by the minister or his officials will kill it. The clause is in the agreement.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What are they hiding?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They are not hiding anything but they do not want to expose the deal to any cockeyed ideas which may be held by the minister's officials. I am not going to repeat the arguments I have made in this regard. I simply draw attention to the fact that they have been made time and time again. The minister has not yet given one good argument for insisting upon the 5 per cent. Why not be consistent and use the figure of 10 per cent? Certainly he would lighten the administrative load in his department, which at the moment is an unknown factor but I am sure has been underestimated by his deputy minister in what he said to the committee.
I know that the minister was reasonably well disposed toward this type of amendment the other day. How can the minister say that the Bank Act is wrong? How can the minister say that the Canada Corporations Act is wrong? How can the minister say that the Life Insurance Companies Act and all the other acts referred to are wrong, but that this one, which incidentally is the only one falling under the responsibility of his department, is right?
I urge hon. members to accept the spirit of the amendments that are before the House at this time. My colleague for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has amendments that are similar to mine but which make further adjustments with respect to private companies. I have spoken about public companies. I am quite prepared to accept the minister's proposal in order to be consistent, but I think his argument that this bill should provide for 5 per cent is absolutely ludicrous since all the other legislation of this kind passed by the Parliament of Canada during recent years have provided 10 per cent. Has the logic and the raison d'etre of that legislation now gone by the board?


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). His remarks were easily discarded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg), who said that amendments 6 through 9 were somewhat irrelevant to the whole question. It is of interest to note that a fellow member of his party finds amendments moved by the official financial critic of the party to be irrelevant. The logic presented by the hon. member for Edmonton West, who aspires to be minister of finance, I suggest is quite unacceptable.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg) on a point of order.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I cannot let the hon. member's remarks go unchallenged. What I said was that these amendments gave no real effect to a bill that is without basis at the present time. I did not say what the hon. member just said I said.
July 4, 1972


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I will not change my opinion of what I thought I heard the hon. member say. I suppose I could debate that issue for the rest of the evening, thus making the platitudes used by the hon. member in his speech even more irrelevant in terms of debating this bill.
The hon. member for Edmonton West talked about the Bank Act and the percentage used in relation to the amount of foreign ownership in Canada. I sometimes listen to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) with a great deal of mixed feeling, but I assume he is relating this percentage to foreign control, not ownership. Both control and ownership are fundamentally different questions from those posed by the Bank Act.
I find the amendments moved by the Conservative opposition quite reprehensible in the sense that if this is the sort of action that they would take on this measly, inadequate piece of legislation if they were to form the government, then we can well see how they would deal with the question of Canadian independence and Canadian nationalism. The fact of the matter is that they will not, and cannot bring themselves to find an answer to foreign ownership in Canada and to the questions posed by Canadian nationalism. These amendments moved by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition demonstrate the weak-kneed, lack-lustre approach of that party to independence in this country and can be coupled to the lack of imagination shown by the government in the meagre answer it has put forward today to the question of foreign ownership.
The original bill made reference to levels of 5 and 10 per cent in regard to foreign control, and although the members of this party wish to maintain those levels in the present bill, we find the provisions relating to the value judgments and performance standards required quite reprehensible. As a result, the bill is going to be ineffectual. Indeed, it is mere window-dressing for the forthcoming federal election.
Let us look for a moment at the clauses of the bill to which the Conservative amendments relate. For example, amendment No. 8 moves from 20 per cent to 40 per cent the percentage of voting rights of shareholders, and thus increases the number of loopholes in the act so as to enable large corporations to avoid having to deal with a screening process even as weak and unimaginative as that presented by the bill.
The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) described this legislation as exciting, but I have to disagree with him. It is a piece of legislation that fails to deal directly with foreign investment in this country. It deals with a mere 6 per cent, and does so in such a way as to cast doubt on whether this government or any future government will ever take real action to control foreign ownership. The amendments presented by the Conservative opposition merely serve to underline the other defects in the bill.
I am sure hon. members are well aware that government members are bemoaning the fact that opposition members are continually putting forward negative proposals without offering alternatives. I think the government should recognize that there is one political party in the House that has offered clear and consistent alternatives to the policies of the government, namely, the New
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
Democratic Party. The amendments put forward by my friends in the Conservative party do nothing to strengthen the one small tooth that there is in the jaws of the bill. The government party is always unhappy about any kind of criticism in respect of its legislation, yet we sit here and witness this kind of legislation in respect of foreign control and ownership.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether you might say something to those Liberal backbenchers who obviously require a lot of information. A very able speech is being made, and if they listen they might learn something.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair would like to say, with respect, to the suggestion of the hon. member that while I do not make any assessment as to the source of the undertone, I should like to hear the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight). I know hon. members will co-operate.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the only thing we object to is the fact that the hon. member has not named the party about which he is speaking-and we should like him to tell us about the Waffles.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, the former minister of industry, trade and commerce is speaking from the past, as usual. He is out of date and irrelevant in respect of the Canadian scene. We in our party have been critical in this debate in respect of these policies and we make no apology. At least this party, which bases its democratic principles on the right of debate, can take credit for the fact that we know what is going on in Canada in the twentieth century.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William George Knight: Hon. members across the way get very nervous when we point out the lack of imagination they show in terms of this foreign ownership legislation. Let me assure the minister that when and if this bill passes we will look at it with a great deal of interest to discover what action will be taken in terms of carrying out the very minor things involved in the bill. We will watch with interest. The amendments moved by the Conservative party in motions 6, 7, 8 and 9 weaken further what is almost an irrelevant bill. I hope members of this House of Commons will vote categorically against each of these amendments.


George Harris Hees: Tell us about Laxer.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I hear a request from the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings (Mr. Hees) that I enter this debate, and I must say I
3760

July 4, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
am surprised to note how he and his colleagues are helping the Liberal party.


George Harris Hees: We just want information. We want to hear more about Laxer.


Max Saltsman: What the hon. member does not realize is that the Conservative contribution to this debate makes the minister more comfortable. The Liberals like to sit in the middle. They say the Tories are way out on the right and do not want control of foreign ownership. They say the NDP is way out on the left and really wants control of foreign ownership. Therefore, the Liberals must be correct.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: You are reinforcing the good opinion the Liberals have of themselves, an opinion that is not justified on the basis of any reason. I am surprised the Conservative members would be so co-operative in assisting the Liberals in this way. I hope they will desist from this so we can continue the debate on foreign ownership.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) went to some pains to indicate the number of witnesses who appeared before the House of Commons committee and were unanimous in supporting the increased level from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. I might have been more impressed had he related the fact that there were few witnesses who appeared before that committee. There were not enough to really question whether in fact this bill had received the kind of examination it deserves. I think the lines are pretty clear in this debate. We in the NDP want foreign ownership in Canada brought under control and we want to make sure that whatever foreign ownership there is works to the advantage of Canada. The Conservative party is doing everything it can, by presenting amendments and intervening in the debate, to limit any attempt to control foreign ownership. I think it is important that the people of Canada know that this is the Conservative position. The Liberal position is always obvious; they do not want to do anything at all.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that a bill which does so little, qualified by some as "double zero," could be as potentially dangerous to the Canadian future as forecast by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
What the hon. member has told us today is exactly what he told us repeatedly in the committee. I have sympathy for some of what the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) has said. Let us pass this bill and judge it on the basis of what will happen in the future. This is what I have been asking for. But we cannot do that if we do not pass the bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That may be fine, but the patient will die.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the omens are good; it is indeed almost providential that we are here today discussing this bill. Obviously, the hand of God has intervened.


An hon. Member:: Yes, but he is not in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) rises on a point of order.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I think you should bring the minister to order for trying to equate the voice and the hand of the House leader with providence and the hand of God.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the minister should be allowed to make his own speech and seek whatever help he can get.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think there is something providential in all events that take place in the world, and the fact that we are here today is obviously one of those events. I agree with NDP members that the amendments contained in motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 would tend to reduce the strength of the bill. They would raise the presumption of non-eligibility from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. That change is in motion No. 6. They would also increase the presumption of acquisition from 5 per.cent to 10 per cent and from 20 per cent to 40 per cent in respect of a private company. They would also raise the floor of automatic exemptions from screening from 5 per cent to 10 per cent, and from 20 per cent to 40 per cent in the case of private companies. So the position, of course, would obviously be to make it easier to avoid or circumvent in some way the operation of this bill, and consequently weaken it.
A question was raised concerning why these presumptions and the "floor" for acquisition were placed at the levels at which they were placed. We are asked how we justify these figures. I admit there is some arbitrariness in this, but generally speaking the purpose is to prevent acquisition of control of good Canadian companies, many of them important, with a very low level of non-eligible investment without even the possibility of screening these acquisitions of control. There are differences in the opinion of the experts. My hon. friend from Edmonton West has his experts who appear to be saying, if he quotes them correctly, that these levels are much too low. Others say they are already too high. There is a strong body of learned opinion which suggests that 5 per cent ownership of the voting rights of a public company, in some circumstances and in some instances, could constitute control. In cases where this is not so it would be easy enough to discharge the presumption, either by showing the minister that control does not lie with the person presumed to be involved or that the acquisition of 5 per cent by a person does not constitute acquisition or control. This is the very purpose of presumptions. I have said it so often that I am a little bored repeating it.
July 4, 1972


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But the patient will die in the interval.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the catacombs tonight through the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). He tells us that this bill will bring about the end of foreign portfolio investment in Canada. I suggest that investors are not as nervous as my hon. friend seems to think they are: they are shrewd, hardheaded guys. If investment is good, I do not think they will be stopped by having to send a letter to the minister pointing out that they are not acquiring a control situation. The answer will be given quickly, in less than ten days. I do not think this will mark the end of foreign portfolio investment in Canada.
I might also remind my hon. friend that the acquisition of less than 5 per cent in a public company and of less than 20 per cent in a private company will not be subject to screening. So investors, in these cases at least, will not actually have to submit to the imperialistic dispositions of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I suggest, also, that most of these gentlemen are accustomed to dealing with circumstances and countries in which the exercise of these regulations is much more strict, much more cumbersome and much more sub rose than it will ever be, I am sure, in Canada. We are not dealing here with kids but with very sophisticated people. I am convinced they are, and will still be, interested in investing in long-term investment in Canada for a long, long time. I suggest that the hon. member for Edmonton West, is overdramatizing here tonight.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, even the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) seemed to excuse his efforts today by saying that it is rather providential that we are here today. I find it difficult to see what kind of rationalization he finds in this. I do not know whether he is a mystic of some sort, has some kind of communication with Mackenzie King in the past, or whether he really needs the help of providence in helping the Canadian economy.
I suggest that if the minister is to make these controls work it is very good that he should draw on whatever aid he thinks he can obtain from providence. I shall certainly not belittle that particular form of assistance. However, I think help should come from a little more substantive source than he has had up to the present time. But I agree with what has been said by him and, more particularly, by my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) in criticism of the amendments put forward by the Conservative party, because I think in amendments such as these we see which side the Conservative party is on when it comes to the crunch. The Conservative party is on the side of big business: its concern is with big business and industry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Come on, now!


John Stratford Burton: The Conservative party is friendly with the manufacturers' association. They get along very well. That is where its friends are. That is where it will obtain whatever help it can. It seems to me it is attempting to
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
outdo the Liberal party and the government in wooing big business and industry in this country. It is quite clear the government felt it was in trouble with business and industry over the past several months and has been doing its best to calm things down and placate the business community. With these changes and the changes the government introduced at the committee stage, it made a further attempt to placate the business community. Now we see the Progressive Conservative party trying to outdo the government: it would make even more concessions. I think it has been very useful to have these amendments because we know exactly where the Conservative party stands when it comes to the crunch in dealing with the interests and welfare of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The understanding of the Chair is that motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 will be put and that the disposition of motion No. 6 will govern the other motions. The question is on motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
It is the understanding of the Chair that when Mr. Speaker reviewed the matter when the report stage was first called, he did not make suggestions beyond the stage that we have just completed. I know that if hon. members are not in accord they will so indicate to the Chair, but we might now take motions Nos. 10 and 11. The vote on motion No. 10 would also dispose of motion No. 11. Motion No. 12 might then be considered and disposed of separately.
It is also suggested that motions Nos. 13 to 16 should be combined for the purposes of debate. If necessary, motions Nos. 13 and 14 might be voted upon separately. A vote on motion No. 15 would also dispose of motion No. 16. Motion No. 17 might be considered and disposed of separately. Motion No. 18 has been withdrawn. I will not go beyond that point at this time, and if hon. members have any suggestion on the proposed groupings they might indicate it to the Chair; otherwise we could proceed with motions Nos. 10 and 11.
3762

July 4, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am holding up the debate briefly for my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) who is on his way. He has gone for some documentation. I hope the House can await his return for a moment.


Jean-Luc Pepin: To accommodate the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) we might take amendment No. 12 so as to use up the time while he is on his way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I might put motions Nos. 10 and 11. Mr. McCleave moves motion No. 10 as follows:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by deleting paragraph 3(5)(d) and substituting therefor the following:
"(d) The acquisition of any rights described in paragraph (c) shall be deemed to constitute the acquisition of the shares or property to which the right relates except where it is established that the right was acquired for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the person by whom it was acquired in respect of a loan made by him, or for the purpose of use by the person by whom it was acquired in the normal course of carrying on a leasing business, and not for any purpose related to the provisions of this act.
Mr. McCleave also moves motion No. 11 as follows:
That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by deleting paragraph 3(5)(e) and substituting therefor the following:
"(e) the acquisition of a leasehold interest in any property used in carrying on a business shall be deemed to constitute the acquisition of that property except where it is established that the interest was acquired from a dealer in such property or from a person owning such property in the normal course of carrying on a leasing business, or except where it is established that the person by whom the interest was acquired had previously owned such property.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the House is in such an agreeable mood tonight that I hoped that by staying away these very worth-while amendments would pass with little or no discussion, thus adding greatly to the commercial law of the country. However, speaking more seriously, they are here to clear up what may be defects in the present bill. I am not saying that there are defects in this line in the present legislation, but after consultation with lawyers who are much more learned in this matter and have much more experience than I ever could have, I have decided that these amendments should be presented for consideration of the House and, more particularly, in the hope that the minister and his advisers would agree to them.
Perhaps the main purpose of the amendments is to make sure that this legislation not only encourages Canadian ownership of Canadian enterprises but encourages also the use of Canadian-made goods. The anomaly that I think I spotted in this legislation is that there is uncertainty about the leasing business and it might very well pay in large transactions to use American-made chattels rather than Canadian-made chattels. If this were so, and I think it could be so, then we would be defeating the purpose of this legislation.
I think we should not only look at the legislation from the standpoint of encouraging ownership of Canadian operations by Canadians, but also we should encourage if 
possible the greater manufacture of goods within Canada rather than their importation from abroad. Yet, unless one of these amendments passes, I suggest that companies may find that it is much more advantageous to go abroad to buy such products as large sawmills, jets or the like- the cost of which falls within the figures set forth in this legislation-than to buy them in Canada.
Another purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when businesses are to be financed it is possible to make the loan in the first place without falling in the ambit of this legislation. There have been some exceptions made already, thanks to representations made in the committee, but I think I carried it a logical step further.
The two purposes of the amendments are, first, to solve the problem which would prevent non-eligible companies from providing financial services for Canadian business- and this would involve hundreds of millions of dollars worth of transactions, so we are not exactly dealing with peanuts-and, second, to make it unnecessary for non-eligible Canadian companies to do their major leasing abroad. So it is in the spirit of helpfulness, of trying to make the law as crystal clear as possible, that both these amendments are offered. I hope they will, therefore, find favour with the House.
I understand, also, that discussions have been going on between certain people who are familiar with this type of law and the minister's officials. This makes me perhaps a little more confident that the point I am making is a rather valid one. If the minister wanted more time to study these amendments, and if he cannot accept them now, I hope he will agree that they be stood until just before the votes on these matters.
As I say, it is in the spirit of trying to make the law crystal clear, and seeing that Canadian made goods to the value of a third of a million dollars are encouraged, rather than importation of goods of that amount from abroad, that I have proposed these amendments this evening.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, while I would like to accommodate the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) on his amendments, I have some reservations. I am sorry that he did not take a little more time to be specific on how his amendments would work. I am concerned that in trying to correct some difficulties that occur in a leasing operation, his amendments would provide a large opening to nullify certain provisions of the bill. They might lead to a situation in which businesses, instead of being purchased, would be leased out in order to evade provisions of the bill.
There is a growing tendency for ownership to be somewhat meaningless and for the operation and command of resources to be more important. Many companies are switching to long-term leasing arrangements rather than direct ownership. I am concerned that these amendments would enable such a loophole to appear and in effect would nullify what the rest of the bill is trying to do. Unless the hon. member can persuade me to the contrary, I do not see how we can support his amendments.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, to use the words of the hon.
July 4, 1972

member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), with the help of people much more learned than I am I have tried to analyse the meaning of motions Nos. 10 and 11. In general I think I can summarize it by saying that in the case of motion No. 10 it requests exemptions to allow a non-eligible leasing company to acquire property for leasing, and in the case of motion No. 11 to allow a non-eligible company to lease from a leasing company.
I contend that to cover these two situations his amendments are not needed. That which he is attempting to exempt is already actually exempt, but it is only exempt inasmuch as it does not involve the actual acquisition of a business, which is the point that I think the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) was making, situations which involve the acquisition of a full business, or for that matter the leasing of a whole business, which would have to be screened.
May I put this in more specific terms, reading from the notes that I have here, Mr. Speaker. There appear to be some observers who believe that the bill will adversely affect people who are in the leasing business. I want to try to clear up this matter. According to the bill, a person who acquires a leasehold interest in a property used in carrying on a business is deemed to have acquired that property. Does this mean that a non-eligible person who leases or rents a computer, a fleet of trucks, an aircraft or a ship will have to go through the screening process? The answer is no in almost all cases, because that person has not acquired "all or substantially all of the property used in carrying on a business" as stipulated in clause 3(3)(a)(i)(B), or indeed has not acquired "a part of a business that is capable of being carried on as a separate business" as stipulated in clause 3(5)(g).
This person has simply acquired "hardware." A business is more than hardware. A business involves at least some of the following: inventory, good will, a name, customers, suppliers, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and so on.
The government cannot, however, exempt leasehold interests for two reasons. First, a company could go into the business of acquiring businesses and leasing them to non-eligible persons. This would be a clear circumvention of the act. Secondly, circumvention would be possible in another way. Company A buys good will, inventory, etc. from Company B. Company B sells its buildings and machinery to a leasing company. Company A then leases this plant and equipment back from the dealer. He could avoid the act by saying that he has not acquired all or substantially all of the property used in a business. The act must cover the potential splitting of a business.
The conclusion is that taking a leasehold interest in a certain property, a piece of equipment, for example, would in itself rarely constitute taking a leasehold interest in a business. It would be an interest in part of the property used in carrying on a business, and consequently it would not be screened. But if leasing means de facto acquisition of a business, then it would be screened. I put that on the record hopefully for the benefit of those people who have been writing to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.
Foreign Takeovers Review Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has indicated that there is an ambiguity in the bill. I am sure he realizes that the people who put forward suggestions for these amendments are cognizant of certain features of the equipment leasing business that may have escaped himself and his advisers. It must be remembered that the forms of transactions possible are legion, and one cannot say that a leased business must be of a stereotyped nature, making it easy for the minister to determine from the beginning that the transaction should not be one to come under the legislation.
On the other hand, as one can readily understand, there is the need for non-eligible financial institutions, of which we have a great number in Canada, to acquire goods from Canadian companies for the purpose of leasing them to Canadian businesses. Because of the wording of the legislation, the minister knows that a subsidiary, or a participant in a syndicate with a non-eligible person, causes the whole group to become non-eligible. For instance, let us look at the equipment leasing organizations that provide equipment leasing facilities for a number of the chartered banks. They are in competition with Citibank of New York, through Mercantile, but the Mercantile Bank is able through its affiliates-not its subsidiaries-owned by Citibank of New York and operating in Montreal, to engage in very extensive equipment leasing operations. And remember that the transactions between Citibank and its affiliates in Montreal are not subject to screening by the minister, but on the other hand transactions engaged in for the Canadian banks, in the Canadian context, could be subject to screening.
The acquisition of the equipment from Canadian companies-and in a road-building firm, say, this is the whole of their business-would be a transaction that would be subject to the screen. The minister says no, but I am willing to put a nickel on it that this will be the type of practice that would go through the screen. This is what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, that the actual practice will not be what the minister says it is going to be, but a lot tougher. What is done is to make Canadian business operations competitive with foreign business operations so that Canadians will not have to go and lease in the United States.
What about our Canadian multinationals, our oil drilling companies? They are going to go abroad. They have to buy equipment and finance it. I would not be surprised if it became to the advantage of our Canadian multinational corporations operating abroad to acquire their equipment abroad because of these requirements. I have always tried to point out that Canadian companies operating offshore will find it to their advantage to enter into transactions in other countries instead of acquiring Canadian machinery. This will now not be subject to any screen or control. I am concerned that by creating difficulties in Canada we are making it much more difficult for Canadian business to operate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister can shake his head, but I want him to get out and talk to business-

July 4, 1972
Foreign Takeovers Review Act
men who engage in these practices. The minister should be the first one to encourage Canadian business to operate abroad. He should be the first one to hit his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), over the head so that Canadian companies operating abroad are not at a tax disadvantage with American companies. This is all part of the package. It is not only for taxation that you can discourage Canadian operations-


Jean-Luc Pepin: The answer I gave is very clear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The point is that in his explanation the minister cannot guarantee this. If there is a dispute, the court will have to decide what the law is. A court cannot consider anything that the minister says in this House. I think the legislation should be amended in order to make sure that the court could make the appropriate interpretation.
I am sure the amendment put forward by my friend, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), is not one that conceals any traps. It is a sensible amendment as suggested by counsel, put forward for the sales finance companies on behalf of the efficacy of Canadian business. It is not trying to circumvent Canadian legislation for some ulterior purpose.
I hope that these amendments will receive real consideration from the minister and his officials and that perhaps tomorrow, if we are going to be back on this legislation, they can tell us that they have looked at it again and are prepared to reconsider it. The minister showed an example this afternoon by looking at the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather), and coming back with a modified version which in some ways met part of our desires. That is what I suggest he should do now. On that basis perhaps we could call it ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before we call it ten o'clock I wonder if I might raise a point of order with respect to the grouping of some of the motions that are ahead of us which Your Honour announced a short while ago. You will recall that it was suggested that motions Nos. 13, 14 15 and 16 should be grouped for debate. You did indicate that there could be separate votes on 13 and 14 and that then a vote on 15 that would cover 16.
The point I wish to make is that the substance of motion No. 14 goes in the opposite direction from some of the others in that group. For the same reason, this afternoon the Chair was willing to separate No. 5 on the one hand from Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 on the other. I should like to ask that motion No. 14 stand by itself both for debate and for the vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Of course, the suggestions which I made earlier were only suggestions and were for the comment of hon. members. If hon. members agree, the Chair will be prepared to make a group as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has suggested or, alternatively, put the matter over to give hon. members an opportunity to consider his remarks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree that No. 14 should not be in the group of Nos. 13 to 16 inclusive. As a matter of fact, the spirit of No. 13 is quite different from that contained in Nos. 15 and 16. The context shows that No. 13 would exclude from the operations of this act a provincial government as specifically exempted by order in council of the provincial cabinet. I quite agree, and would propose to Your Honour, that Nos. 13 and 14 could be handled separately both for debate and votes. Nos. 15 and 16, which are twins, could be considered as one for debate and for votes or decisions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this meets our point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As the Chair understands, motion No. 13 would be considered and disposed of separately; motion No. 14 would be considered and disposed of separately; motions Nos. 15 and 16 would be considered together, and a vote on No. 15 would dispose of No. 16. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McCutcheon:: A further point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could ask the government House leader, or whoever is in charge, what the order of business would be tomorrow supposing that this legislation would be concluded. Do we assume that we go back to this tomorrow?


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I think we can assume that we will continue tomorrow with the bill we are discussing.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what else is on the agenda? It would be nice to know.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe the agenda is subject to a number of uncertainties. The available items have been listed before and they will be selected as seems fit. The FISP bill is obviously near the top of the list. Some think that wiretapping and election expenses might be considered in the forenoon, if the House agreed to sit then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, has the minister found a sophisticated way of saying he does not know?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief this evening and need not take my full seven minutes. I have referred to this subject continually in the hope that in the end action will be taken. I raised this matter on May 1, again on May 24, and I am raising it once more tonight. On May 24 I directed the following question

July 4, 1972

to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), as reported in Hansard, page 2519:
Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On May 1 I asked him a question on a matter of some urgency in light of recent oil finds in the Arctic, namely, when the regulations under the Northern Inland Waters Act would be completed and published. The hon. gentleman took the question as notice and undertook to look into the matter. I wonder whether he is now in a position to reply?
The minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the act has been proclaimed and I understand that the regulations are being considered by the two councils which have been established in order to implement them. I think that a meeting has been held last week and as soon as the report is submitted, we shall be able to proclaim these regulations. Meanwhile, officials of my department have advised the companies that they should abide by the regulations as if they were actually in force.
I think it is indicative of the government's commitment to the preservation of the Arctic ecology that the minister said, when I first asked my question on May 1, that he was not sure of the status of the regulations-regulations which he had promised would be in force by the end of 1971. He thought that they were in force. His answer on May 24 confirmed information which I had received, to the effect that the regulations had not been promulgated. Moreover, his answer gave no definite indication of just when they would be promulgated and when the regulations would come into force. I hope that information will be forthcoming this evening. I further hope that the actual date of the proclamation of these regulations will soon be here.
The present situation, in which companies are advised to act as if the draft regulations are already in effect, is obviously untenable on two grounds. First, it is dangerous for a government to require any of its citizens, corporate or individual, to follow a course of action which has not been prescribed by law. Second, and this is perhaps more important in the short run, the government would have no legal recourse in the event that a company operating in the north chose to ignore the draft regulations and, in ignoring them, caused ecological damage. The government would not have any legal recourse at all, as the required regulations have not been promulgated as the law requires.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the heightened rate of activity in the north demands that the government should act immediately and bring into effect the regulations which will make the Northern Inland Waters Act an effective piece of legislation. The balance within the ecology of the north is far too delicate to permit the possibility of error; indeed, so delicate is it that one wonders what can possibly be in the mind of a government which permits major efforts to exploit the wealth of the north to take place before laws and regulations to govern such activities have been devised.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to present to the House tonight concrete information with respect to the expected date of the publication of the regulations which will flesh out the bones of the Northern Inland Waters Act, regulations which are urgently required to protect the northern environment.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) I can give the House the assurance that the regulations should be promulgated this summer. The draft regulations are well advanced. They have been considered by both the new territorial water boards, and their recommendations are being incorporated. Shortly, a draft will be ready for review and comment by the interdepartmental committee on water. Legal drafting by the Department of Justice is expected to get under way by early summer.
The timing of these events still conforms to our original schedule which called for promulgation of the regulations this summer. It should be noted that the primary function of the Northern Inland Waters Act is to license water use in the north. In doing so, of course, precautions against the threat of pollution from the water use can be stipulated by the licensing authority, which is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) acting on a recommendation from the appropriate territorial water board.
The water boards were created with proclamation of the act on February 28, 1972, and are functioning within the authority of the act at the present time. A public hearing before the Yukon water board in connection with the proposed Aisihihik power development has recently been held. We are confident that this mechanism is adequate to deal with water management problems on a short-term basis pending promulgation of the regulations this summer.



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

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, on June 26 I addressed a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). I asked whether he was aware that selfemployed Canadians were obliged to pay the entire amount of their Canada Pension Plan contributions as opposed to Canadians who were not self-employed and who are only required to pay half. I asked whether the minister had given any thought to giving tax relief to this particular group. I received no answer to this question, and since I thought it was a matter of some interest I am taking the liberty of making some further remarks on the subject tonight.
It seems to me, generally speaking, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) opened the lid of a veritable Pandora's box of complaints when he made his now famous statement that the extra revenue to help pay increased welfare costs in this country would have to come from the middle-income class. Middle-income Canadians, though their needs are admittedly less than those of many minority groups and disadvantaged, poverty-stricken Canadians, are being neglected by this administration. One segment of this group, the selfemployed, is being discriminated against in a fundamental way. Those who belong to it are in effect being penalized to the extent that they are obliged to contribute to their own retirement benefit through the Canada Pension Plan.

July 4, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
While there may be some advantages left in being selfemployed, they are becoming increasingly few. In many instances they are illusory. Constantly badgered by bureaucrats for statistics, caught in arbitrary decisions as to taxation policy, victims of conflicts between federal and provincial administrations, the self-employed Canadian, as things now stand, cannot claim in respect of contributions toward the Canada Pension Plan and in this respect he would be far better off working for someone else. For example, according to the information supplied to me, the average self-employed Canadian makes $6,000 a year, less in many instances, than his key employees. Yet if he pays half of that employee's pension plan contributions of, say, $160, if that is the bracket in which the employee happens to be, he is able to deduct approximately $80 as a business expense. On the other hand, his own personal contribution, if it should also be $160, must be entirely paid by himself and he cannot deduct any part of it.
In my view, this is a type of discrimination which is totally unjustifiable. The government is exploiting a particular group of Canadians. "Exploiting" may be an unfair term, on reflection, but I suggest the government is not treating fairly the average, hardworking middle-income Canadian who is in many instances doing more than his share of keeping this country's economy going.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, in a moment of candour said, as I mentioned earlier, that it is this group of Canadians who must shoulder an increasing amount of the load to pay for social benefits-in effect, that big business must be given no more responsibility in this regard because any such action would dull the incentive to expand under present budgetary policy.
Somewhere or other the minister and the government have got their priorities confused. As far as cost is concerned, I am not suggesting that it would be proper for the government to contribute directly, as does an employer, to self-employed Canadians' Canada Pension Plan contributions, except I suppose in cases where the government is the actual employer.
While on this subject, it is interesting to look at the revenue that is involved. Assuming that there are approximately 400,000 self-employed Canadians, and that for the sake of statistics their average contribution is $160 a year, if you take half of that sum as the revenue figure, theoretically the contributions would amount to about $32 million. This is about three times the budget of Information Canada, a singularly useless administrative monster, or whatever you want to call it, indeed perhaps the most useless creation of any government.
I am suggesting that the government give equity to self-employed Canadians by allowing them tax credits or deductions for part or all of their Canada Pension Plan contribution. I feel very strongly that every Canadian should have an equal opportunity to contribute toward his or her retirement. I think this is a bad area in which to discriminate.
I am aware that it is possible to take advantage of the retirement contribution plan and that people are sufficiently well informed about it. I am also well aware that,
[Mr. MacKay.)
despite my rather partisan remarks, the government is also not unaware of the problems facing middle-income Canadians. But this is an area in which the government should show some concern. When a self-employed person is trying to keep his business going and is facing the many demands that are made for statistics, and so on, by government, surely the very least that this administration can do is to explore ways and means of letting that person have the same opportunity to contribute to a national pension plan for his retirement as people who happen to be working for someone else.


Allen B. Sulatycky: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware of the many reforms made by the government during the last few years which have benefited all classes of Canadians. However, I should like to thank the hon. member for the comments that he has expressed tonight, and I assure him that I shall draw them to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the department. I know the hon. member realizes that this is a matter of government policy and that these matters are customarily dealt with by the Minister of Finance during his budget address.



GRAINS-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN INITIAL PRICES

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I asked the responsible minister on June 14 whether he would consider adjustments to the initial price of wheat and barley, and whether he would give some consideration to adjusting the prevailing price for rapeseed sown by western farmers, the minister replied, at least as I understood it, in the negative.
In the very brief time at my disposal may I outline how the price of these grains has declined. The minister can check these figures either from the Wheat Board report or from the current edition of the Western Producer. No. 2 northern wheat is selling at Thunder Bay this year for $1.65-1' whereas a year ago it was $1.81. If the minister checks the Wheat Board report he will see the general trend from 1949 and 1950 to the present day and the very small interim or final payment that has been made in recent years. In view of the cost of production today, I think it is quite unreasonable to expect farmers to conduct their operations on the basis of the initial prices that are now set.
I would seriously suggest to the minister that this initial price should be increased and so put a floor under the earning power of the farmer. In reference to barley, I would say that the situation is much more grave since the decline in price of barley has been greater. About a year ago the minister added 10 cents and since then took half back. Let me point out that the prairie provinces are trying to do something to maintain feed prices within the provinces. They are very much concerned about the purchasing power left to the farmer through the sale of feed grains. The minister could do nothing more effective to assist these provinces and bolster the internal level of prices than to increase the initial prices under the Canada Wheat Board.
Finally, in respect of rapeseed I should point out to the minister that currently in the Western Producer, Thunder
July 4, 1972

Bay prices are quoted one day slightly under $2 and now $2.02, whereas a year ago it was $2,501. When replying the other day, the minister said this was temporary. That is not really so. I would call the minister's attention to the fact that this decline has been constant since the beginning of the crop year. Some peaks have been hit but this price has gone down.
I do not see how the government can divest itself of the responsibility of maintaining the earning power of rape-seed. This is the same government that established a support price for soyabeans and sunflower seeds, yet lefuses to move at all on rapeseed. A week ago when I moved to ask that this grain be given the protection of the Canadian Wheat Board, the minister announced before the vote that he would not support this and, indeed, his party voted against giving the farmers that protection. I fail to see how the government can justify leaving the rapeseed grower without a floor price and without any protection in view of the protection given other producers of oilseed crops. The government has given this support to other crops but the price of rapeseed is chaotic.
I have done some research and obtained Vancouver and Thunder Bay prices. There is one price at the crushing plants and there is a premium at some local elevator points. But the total quota system of the Canada Wheat Board is being used to force the farmer to deliver grain at his own cost to those areas where it is wanted.
I have looked up the closing in-store cash prices at Vancouver. The minister may say he would prefer another point and I do not blame him for that. If he can sort out the maze, God bless him. We find that the prices were $2.26, $2.21 and $2.77 for the crop years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1969-70. As I pointed out to the minister, we are now looking at a price of $2.02 basis Thunder Bay-and it could be higher in Vancouver. Undoubtedly it is higher, and I know that because I use that market when I can. I would point out to the minister that the average farmer cannot get the Vancouver price because usually he has to settle for the prices quoted at Thunder Bay.
In respect of these three grains, regardless of volume, it is unrealistic to expect the western farmer to stay effectively in the grain business with these kinds of prices, and I suggest the minister take some action to correct the situation.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this year, for the second time, we announced initial prices on March 1 giving some advance warning before seeding to farmers about what these prices should be. Now the hon. member opposite comes along with a request to change them, and no doubt to change them again and again instead of simply appreciating the advantage of having these prices fixed at that date.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In fact, when we fixed these initial prices this year we increased the price of barley by five cents despite the fact, as the hon. member pointed out, that there were very definite weaknesses in the barley market. Indeed, at the present time the barley market is not as weak as it has been and this is why I pointed out to him that his point about continual downward prices is quite in error. In the case of rapeseed, the prices go up and down. This is, of course, the nature of the open market. The hon. member knows full well that our position on the rapeseed market is that the farmers can have the kind of market they want, and when they are able to express themselves plainly on the matter we will act accordingly.
Just the other day I had a letter from the rapeseed association saying that after having distributed some 50,000 copies of an analysis of marketing they hoped further time would be available to farmers to discuss the particular marketing techniques for that grain.
Is the hon. member saying the Wheat Board is not getting as much as it can for grain? He is not likely to say that. He does not normally say that. I would challenge him, if he did. The Wheat Board is doing an extremely good job. It is getting the best possible price for the grain. It is getting prices for grain which compete very favourably with what our competitors are getting. It would be more like the Tories would suggest we were making mistakes by selling at prices which are too low, because they would like to destroy the Wheat Board. But my hon. friend would not ordinarily do that. The Wheat Board gets from the market what it can. It does the best possible job, and I give it great credit. If prices are low, it is because of the world situation.
We are making record sales. I should like to tell the hon. member that today, on July 4, I believe I can say with confidence we have now exported more grain this year than we did in the total of last year, with four weeks left in the season. That is because of great action by the Wheat Board and by the trade generally.
In addition, of course, we are not leaving the farmer for his return on his grain alone to the proceeds of sales abroad. We instituted the two-price system. We have marketing development. We are supporting his sales by credit, and indeed our whole foreign policy supports the making of sales and helps the Wheat Board make sales on the farmer's behalf. We have put $42 million into the purchase of hopper-cars to help move this grain. Last winter we put $1.3 million into moving grain from Thunder Bay to eastern ports for export for the first time in history. And so it goes. We go on putting money from the treasury into the hands of the farmer to help him, and that is recognition that the amount he gets, notwithstanding the best possible job by the Wheat Board, is not enough.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday. July 5. 1972