1973-11-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Canada, through a diplomatic note to the United States, urgently requests the United States to establish a moratorium on all further construction on the North Dakota project known as the Garrison Diversion Unit until Ottawa is assured "that Canadian rights and interests have been fully protected" under the Boundary Waters Treaty, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly):
That the House of Commons approves and supports in principle the diplomatic note defending Canadian rights and interests under the Boundary Waters Treaty in order to avoid the needless polluting of two major Canadian river systems.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity having regard to a comprehensive brief presented to members of parliament by the Canadian Airline Employees Association containing such references as "airline procedures sometimes seem to disregard reality entirely" and "working conditions have been so bad at times that the staff have threatened to leave the premises". I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That this brief be presented to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for review.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to point out that the parliamentary secretary is not saying no from his own seat.


Mr. Reid:: I am just leading the chorus.


MANPOWER
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43. In order to ensure that future local initiatives grant distribution is closely related to economic need, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland):
That for 1974 a new system of constituency allocations be established based on the classification of federal constituencies as (a) affluent, (b) average or (c) needy, with each of the three categories assigned a different per capita amount.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the decision rendered in Dr. Morgentaler's case runs counter to the Criminal Code and that it somewhat puts the stamp of approval on the abortion on request principle, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Caouette):
26635-75)-

November 21, 1973
Small Loans Act
That this House instruct the Department of Justice to second by the approriate means the appeal made by the Crown in this case as in the case of the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Indians respecting James Bay, in order to avoid the inevitable abuses that will be derived from the sanction of the principle of abortion on demand.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to put a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Considering that the survey of retail food stores published today by the Food Prices Review Board reveals widespread evidence of questionable and illegal food retailing practices which lead to higher consumer food costs, and in view of the government's repeated assurances that it would act upon recommendations of this board, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That this House instruct the government to take immediate steps to implement the board's recommendations to correct this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Mr. Speaker. There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put.

[ Transla t/on]


SMALL LOANS ACT
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue) moved: for leave to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Small Loans Act."


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this legislation is to protect small borrowers against sharks.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-231, respecting the guarantee of supply of parts for motor vehicles and farm implements imported into Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make certain that anyone who buys a motor vehicle or farm implement which is manufactured in Canada and conveyed from one province to another, or anyone who buys a motor vehicle, farm tractor or other farm implement which is imported into Canada, shall be guaranteed a supply of parts for a period of ten years. In this way farm tractors and farm implements in particular may not have to remain idle while the farmer loses money and waits an indeterminable length of time for a part to arrive from abroad or from some distant part of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member has indicated the purpose of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. Bawden: How much did the Department of Supply and Services spend, by province, in each of the past five years (excluding salary expenditures) and for each of the first six months in 1973?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: The figures in Appendix "A" attached refer to contracts placed for government departments and agencies, not expenditures made. They only relate to the year in which contracts were placed and not to the year or years in which the work was performed or expenditures made. They often account for the location of the administrative
November 21, 1973

office of a contracting company when the work or service was actually performed or rendered at another location. The figures cover only DSS contracts and do not include contracting by other government departments or agencies under delegation by DSS. The Department of Supply and Services was established on April 1, 1969.
Appendix "A'1
Geographic Distribution of The Department of Supply and Services Contracting
Fiscal Years
1969/70	1970/71	1971/72<a>
1972/73(b)	April- June 1973ProviDces	Value	Value	Value	Value	Value$000	$000	$000	$000	$000Atlantic Region	33,978	48,324	73,863	76,125	17,533Newfoundland	2,327	4,262	6,091	6,980	1,522Prince Edward	Island	168	136	316	2,028	87Nova Scotia	22,136	31,736	49,244	53,013	10,770New Brunswick	9,347	12,190	18,212	14,104	5,154Quebec	380,807	274,672	307,295	336,698	90,124Ontario	305,365	327,132	471,369	519,422	180,714Prairie Region	54,528	84,607	93,481	107,993	28,693Manitoba	23,879	52,488	38,315	55,978	15,184Saskatchewan	5,412	8,169	10,261	10,197	3,047Alberta	25,237	23,950	44,905	41,818	10,462British Columbia	23,706	29,795	35,394	44,752	13,434Yukon and North	West Territories	690	1,053	1,204	1,405	886Total Canada	799,074	765,583	982,606	1,086,395	331,384
Revised. On March 7, 1973, Hansard page 1980, a reply was tabled to question No. 142. The above figures are final amounts which were not available at the time the answer to question 142 was tabled.
(b>Preliminary. These are the present available figures. Complete information has not been received and therefore these amounts will be revised at a later date.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-BUDGET FOR GOODS AND SERVICES
Mr. Forrestall: For each fiscal year since 1963, what has been the dollar amount and the percentage of the total budget of the Department of External Affairs spent for goods and services in all forms and manners (a) inside Canada (b) outside Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The department's accounting system is such that expenditures are not recorded'-in terms of the locations where expenditures are made. The department therefore cannot answer the question.
Order Paper Questions


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD-EXPENDITURES OUTSIDE CANADA
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Does the National Harbours Board spend funds for the purpose of promoting use of Canadian ports outside of Canada and, if so, how much has been spent in each of the past ten years and in what way specifically was the money spent?
2.	Are joint promotional programs entered into with individual port commissions or authorities and, if so, at what cost and with which ones during the past five years?
Horv. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport): The
National Harbours Board has spent the following amounts in promoting use of Canadian ports outside Canada through advertising and travelling expenses of senior personnel in visits to marine terminal and shipping establishments, and meetings with major industries and traffic supervisors whose decisions affect the stability of Canadian port operations. The effort is not designed to sell one port as opposed to another but to provide the total picture
of available	shipping alternatives	to the	shipper or
customer.			Total
Year	Advertising	Travel	Expenditure$	$	$1963	
197	1,108	1,3051964	
197	413	6101965	
198	1,502	1,7001966	
208	1,715	1,9231967	
209	178	3871968	
216	1,768	1,9841969	
295	1,491	1,7861970	
282	2,158	2,4401971	
300	6,814	7,1141972	
517	2,413	2,9302.	Joint promotional programs have been entered into with the Saint John Port and Industrial Commission over the past five years whose total annual budget from the city of Saint John is in excess of $100,000. The National Harbours Board share of such costs were as follows: 1967, $1,500; 1968, $1,500; 1969, $3,000; 1970, $3,000; 1971, $3,000; 1972, $3,459; total $15,459.


OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION THROUGH SEISMIC TESTING
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many requests were received by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the past 12 months for the right to begin the development of oil and natural gas exploration through seismic testing or actual drilling?
2.	(a) How many of these requests received approval from the department (b) where are those approved located?
3.	(a) Were the local communities advised of these requests (b) were they asked for their views as to the projects (c) if they were opposed to any of these projects, what were the reasons for approving the go ahead despite this opposition?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: In the 12-month period preceding July 31, 1973: 1. Seismic Programs, 107; Drilling Authorities Issued 96.
2. (a) 201.

November 21, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Wells and
(b)	Seismic Programs	Structure Test HolesSouthern Yukon	2	0Northern Yukon	4	2Southern Northwest Territories	6	8Norman Wells	4	10Peel Plateau	15	11Delta and Tuk	24	24Offshore-Delta	10	1Arctic Islands	35	39Davis Strait	6	03.	(a) Communities that could be affected by land use operations (seismic and drilling) were advised of the particulars of the applications received for land use permits, (b) Yes. (c) In two cases a land use permit for seismic work was withheld because of local concern about possible environmental damage that could have an adverse effect on the hunting and trapping economy of residents. The one area was Cape Bathurst near Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories and the other Old Crow Flats, near the community of Old Crow in the Yukon Territory. The objections raised in two other cases were evaluated but were not found to justify withholding development and the permits were therefore issued. The areas involved were near the communities of Fort Norman and Grise Fiord. In the case of Fort Norman the objections raised were based on land settlement claims; at Grise Fiord the objection was the risk of deleterious effects on its local hunting economy. After a formal study of the animal population it was concluded that the risk of damage was very slight and a permit was issued however with stipulations made to further reduce the risk of any adverse effect on the hunting economy of Grise Fiord. About 10 per cent of all land use permits issued have constraining stipulations designed to lessen the potential adverse effects on people lining off the land. These stipulations are drawn up as a result of discussions with communities.


DND SERVICE PAY ALLOTMENT CHEQUES
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What steps have been taken by the Department of National Defence and the Department of Supply and Services to avoid a repetition of the high incidence of cheques to wives of CAF personnel in the sea element for Service Pay Allotment being received on the last day of the month as was the case in August 1973?
2.	What date is set as a target date for such cheques being actually received by such wives of CAF personnel on a predictable and regular basis?
3.	Has this date been altered in the past ten years and, if so, on what date and for what reason?
Hon. Jean -Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services): 1. The Department of National Defence Queen's Regulations and Orders and Canadian Forces Procedures Manual provide for monthly allotment payments and that pay be issued at the middle of the month and at the end of the month. For many years the established practice has been that the monthly allotment cheques to servicemen's dependents be mailed by the Department of Supply and Services so that they are received at the end of the month. By arrangement, cheques to servicemen's dependents are delivered to the Post Office Department in Ottawa six banking days prior to the end of the month for delivery in

all parts of the country by the last day of the month. This procedure was followed in August, 1973.
2.	The target date set to deliver cheques to the Post Office Department is six banking days prior to the end of the month.
3.	Target date has not been altered in the past ten years.


REFUSAL OF CLAIM FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES BY MR. ALVIN CHULY
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did the Treasury Board refuse a claim for medical expenses by Mr. Alvin Chuly and, if so (a) for what reasons (b) how long had Mr. Chuly contributed to the Employees Insurance Fund (c) was the illness contacted prior to taking out insurance?
2.	Does the reason for denying his medical claim also apply as a condition for benefits under the Death Benefit Plan?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.
Mr. Chuly made a claim for a monthly income-replacement benefit under the Disability Insurance Plan. This claim was rejected, not by the Treasury Board, but by the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, the Underwriters of the Plan. The case was referred to a public service advisory committee which has been set up to review and advise on disputed cases. The appeal was not supported by the Committee, (a) This Plan does not pay benefits for any disability related to a condition which existed at the time the member became insured unless he afterwards completes a 13-week period of active employment without absences or medical consultation related to his condition, or unless he has been insured for one year when he becomes disabled, (b) Mr. Chuly had been a contributing member for one month and 13 days when he ceased work because of his condition, (c) Yes, according to the weight of medical evidence provided by his attending physicians and the hospitals where he received treatment.
2. No; benefits are payable under the Supplementary Death Benefit Plan in the event of a contributor's death, without regard to the cause.


ALLOCATION OF LIP FUNDS TO PROVINCES FOR 1973-74
Mr. Dick: How much of the $83 million allocated to the 1973-74 Local Initiatives Program will be made available to (a) British Columbia (b) Alberta (c) Saskatchewan (d) Manitoba (e) Ontario (f) Quebec (g) New Brunswich (h) Prince Edward Island (i) Nova Scotia (j) Newfoundland (k) Northwest Territories (1) Yukon?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: (a) British Columbia, $9,096,000; (b) Alberta, $3,635,000; (c) Saskatchewan, $2,326,000; (d) Manitoba, $2,981,000; (e) Ontario, $11,527,000; (f) Quebec, $27,408,000; (g) New Brunswick, $5,016,000; (h) Prince Edward Island, $945,000; (i) Nova Scotia, $4,580,000; (j) Newfoundland, $4,507,000; (k) Northwest Territories, $509,000; (1) Yukon, $291,000.
November 21, 1973


LIP-GRANTS TO P-P JANITORIAL SERVICES, VERDUN, QUEBEC
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has a total of $444,532 been given in the form of LIP grants to P-P Janitorial Services of Verdun, Quebec since 1971?
2.	Was $111,126.00 given in the form of an extension to October 12, 1973?
3.	Has the project been closed down recently and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Has this project been under investigation recently by the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
5.	Has the RCMP made any investigations whatsoever in regard to this project, the grants in question and P-P Janitorial Services and, if so (a) who requested this investigation (b) on what date was it requested (c) what were the reasons for the investigation (d) what were the results of the investigation (e) are any charges contemplated or pending?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The following sums were paid out: for the 1971-72 program: $157,930; for the 1972-73 initial contract: $152,110; and for the 1972-73 extension, as of October 31, 1973: $110,566.
2.	An extension of $111,126 was approved. Of this amount, $110,566 had been paid out as at October 31, 1973.
3.	Yes. The contract had expired.
4.	No.
5.	No. (a),(b),(c),(d),(e), not applicable.


RECIPIENTS OF GRANTS UNDER DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT COURSES PROGRAM
Mr. Rodriguez: What were the names of the recipients of grants under the Development of Management Courses Program (DMC), in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 (January 5, 1973 to end) and 1973-74 to date and what were the amounts in each case?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Since inception of the program in 1972, the following contributions have been approved to associations, under the Development of Management Courses program: The Society of Industrial Accountants of Canada, $50,000; Mechanical Contractors Association Ontario, $29,250; Mechanical Contractors Association- Toronto, $21,000; Ontario General Contractors Association, $17,250; Montreal Dress and Sportswear Manufacturers' Guild, $5,000; Canadian Institute of Management, $19,650; Canadian Securities Institute, $18,750; Retail Council of Canada, $24,000; Atlantic Building Supply Dealers Association, $13,000; Canadian Industrial Communications Assembly, $18,956; Ontario Road Builders' Association, $7,538; Canadian Flexible Packaging Institute, $17,500; Automotive Industries Association, $11,250; The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, $13,838; The Manitoba Hotel Association, $20,050; Purchasing Management Association of Canada, $18,188; Canadian Restaurant Association, Ontario Region, $9,000; Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, $12,047; Total, $326,267. In the 1972-73 fiscal year the following actual payments were made, both of them after January 5, 1973. Montreal Dress and Sportswear Manufacturers' Guild, $4,500; Canadian Securities Institute $7,125; Total, $11,625. In the 1973-74 fiscal year, up to and including
Order Paper Questions
October 23, 1973, the following payments have been made: Montreal Dress and Sportswear Manufacturers' Guild, $500.00; The Society of Industrial Accountants of Canada, $6,122.00; Ontario Road Builders' Association, $5,062.50; Canadian Institute of Management, $2,897.74; Canadian Industrial Communications Assembly, $9,202.52; Ontario General Contractors Association, $1,125.00; Total, $24,909.76.


HARBOUR MAINTENANCE COSTS-ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF GREY-SIMCOE
Mr. Mitges: How much money was spent for maintenance and repairs of harbours in the electoral district of Grey-Simcoe for 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 and to October 1, 1973?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Department of Public Works expenditures for maintenance and repairs of harbours in the electoral district of Grey-Simcoe, by fiscal year, from 1969 to 1973 have been as follows: 1969-70, $3,711.80; 1970-71, $9,787; 1971-72, $22,214; 1972-73, $80; 1973-74 (to October 1) $27,486.57. The higher total for 1971-72 was occasioned by a major project; $12,950 for breakwater repairs and access road at Colling-wood. Similarly, the higher expenditure for the period to October 1 in 1973-74 results from disbursements of $26,050 in connection with north breakwater repairs at Meaford. The figures mentioned herein do not include amounts expended by the Department of Public Works on behalf of other departments (OGD Projects).


GRANTS UNDER PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Knight: 1.	What were the names of corporations receiving loans and grants under the Pharmaceutical Industry Development Assistance Program (PIDA) in each fiscal year 1968-69 to 1973-74 to date?
2.	In each case, what amounts of loan and grant money were involved and what terms and interest rates were applicable?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?


Herb Breau: 1. The names of specific firms and the amount of assistance applied for cannot be released to preserve the commercial confidentiality assured each applicant.
2. As of October 25, 1973, 26 applications for assistance under the Pharmaceutical Industry Development Assistance Program have been received since April 3, 1968 and the following loans approved:
Year	No. of Loans	Value $1938/69	1	196,5001969/70	1	100,0001970/71	2	505,8501971/72	2	670,0001972/73	3	560,0001973/74	1	350,000 2,382,350
In all cases, the term was 10 years, and interest rates ranged from 7i per cent to 9 per cent.

November 21, 1973
Order Paper Questions
3. The program is under continuous evaluation and review.


AIR TRANSPORT, NEWFOUNDLAND-UNITED STATES
Mr. Marshall: 1.	In the past year, how many Newfoundland passengers were destined to the United States via Air Canada and Eastern Provincial Airways?
2.	In the negotiations between Canada and the United States on an agreement on new air routes, was any consideration given to establishing direct routing between the Province of Newfoundland and the United States?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
Canadian Transport Commission and Aviation Statistics Centre report as follows: 1. Total air passenger journeys: 16,305 Newfoundland-U.S.A., 15,115 U.S.A.-Newfoundland.
2. Yes. Origin and destination traffic was examined to determine which point pairs in Canada and the U.S.A. would generate sufficient traffic to support a direct service. However, traffic volume was insufficient to justify a direct service from points in Newfoundland to points in the U.S.A. and it was considered that it would be better for service from Newfoundland to operate via other points in Canada to points in the U.S.A. In the present Air Agreement the United States has route 15 United States-Gan-der-Europe and beyond, and they have designated carriers to serve the route. No carrier operates the service, however, because of insufficient traffic.


BUILDING EQUIPMENT ACCESSORIES AND MATERIALS PROGRAM
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received cash awards for design improvements, research, development and innovation under the Building Equipment, Accessories and Material Program (BEAM) in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date and, in each case, what were the amounts of money committed and paid?
2.	Have there been any changes in the specific objectives of the program since its inception and, if so, what were these changes?
3.	What was the date of the latest evaluative study of the program conducted by the department?


Herb Breau: 1. No corporation has received a cash award for design improvement, research, development or innovation under the Building Equipment Accessories and Materials Program.
2. There have been no changes in the objectives of the program which is to increase productivity and efficiency in the Canadian construction industry.

3. The program is under continuous review.


WOOD ISLANDS-CARIBOU FERRY SERVICE
Mr. MacLean: Is it the intention of the government to provide a fourth ferry at an early date to help accommodate the tremendous increase in traffic in the Wood Islands-Caribou Ferry Service and thus provide an emergency economic lifeline to the province of Prince Edward Island, if for any reason the Borden-Cape Tormentine Ferry Service is not functioning?


Jean Marchand: A study is under way into the ferry transportation needs of Prince Edward Island and this will enable the government to determine whether a fourth vessel is required on the Wood Islands-Caribou service. In the meantime, the three vessels now operating on the Caribou-Wood Islands service are capable of providing an economic lifeline with the mainland during periods when service between Cape Tormentine and Borden is disrupted.


BORDEN-CAPE TORMENTINE FERRY SERVICE
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Is a new vessel for the ferry service operating between Borden, Prince Edward Island and Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick in the planning stage or in some more advanced stage and, if so, will it be a rail-carrying, icebreaking ferry with full capacity for carrying automobiles, trucks and handling railway cars all year around?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to extend the length of the Vacationland and the Holiday Island operating on the Borden-Cape Tormentine Ferry Service in order to increase their automobile-carrying capacity?


Jean Marchand: 1. A
study of transportation needs between Prince Edward Island and the mainland is in progress and among the terms of reference is the consideration of additional vessel requirements. At this time, it is not possible to state whether additional or replacement vessels will have railcarrying facilities, but this fact will be determined in the course of the transportation study.
2. The question of lengthening the Vacationland and the Holiday Island will be considered in the course of the Prince Edward Island transportation study. In the meantime, the technical aspects of such lengthening are being examined and consultants are investigating certain problem areas.


WOOD ISLANDS-CARIBOU FERRY SERVICE-IMPROVEMENT TO DOCK FACILITIES
Mr. MacLean: What action is the government taking to improve the dock facilities at Caribou, Nova Scotia which are vital to the efficient handling of the rapidly increasing traffic volume on the Wood Islands-Caribou Ferry Service?


Jean Marchand: At the
request of the Minister of Transport, the Department of Public Works is preparing detailed designs which would provide for construction of a second ferry slip at Caribou and reconstruction of the existing slip. These improve-
November 21, 1973

merits would provide for efficient handling of any foreseeable increases in traffic on the Wood Islands-Caribou Ferry Service.


* CBC-ABSENCES FROM CANADA OF PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT
Mr. Reilly: 1.	In the 12-month period ended September 30, 1973, how many days have (a) the President (b) the Vice-President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation spent outside Canada?
2.	What purposes have been served by the various absences of each of these officers from Canada?
3.	What is the total of the expenses incurred by (a) the President (b) the Vice-President of the Corporation for trips outside Canada taken during the 12-month period ended September 30, 1973?


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (a) 22 days; (b) 23 days.
2.	As a member of the board of directors of Telesat Canada, the CBC President attended Telesat board meetings held in the U.S. in conjunction with the launching of the Anik I and II satellites. He also met with officials of U.S. networks and European broadcasting organizations and attended the general assembly of European Broadcasting Union. The Executive Vice-President attended meetings at experimental broadcasting centres in several European cities, represented the CBC on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the BBC, and visited the Eastman Kodak film processing facilities in Rochester, N.Y.
3.	It has not been customary to require the CBC to disclose such details of its internal management and administration.


PROVINCE HOUSE-CHARLOTTETOWN, PEI
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	As a result of agreements signed in Charlottetown on October 26 last, what is the nature and extent of the commitments made by the government towards the maintenance and restoration of Province House, Charlottetown?
2.	What is the estimated amount of expenditure involved?
3.	Does the agreement provide that those persons employed in Province House are employees of the government?
4.	Would such employees have the right to strike and peacefully to picket the premises if legally strike bound?
5.	Will the government pay the expenses for maintaining the Chamber of the Legislature of Prince Edward Island, including its employees?
6.	Does the government own, in any other provinces, the building in which the provincial legislature holds its sessions?
7.	Has any department or official of the government knowledge of any legislative body anywhere in the world which holds its sessions in a building which is the property of a government in or of another jurisdiction?
8.	For what reason or reasons did the government assume ownership and control of the meeting place of the Legislature of the province of Prince Edward Island?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The document signed on October 26 last was not an agreement but rather a Memoran-
Order Paper Questions
dum of Intent undertaking to enter into an agreement effective April 1, 1974.
2, 3, 4 and 5. Because the final agreement has yet to be negotiated, it is not possible to provide responses at this time.
6.	No.
7.	Information not available.
8.	The government has not assumed ownership and control of the meeting place of the Legislature of the province of Prince Edward Island.


GRANT TO UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO RELATING TO LANGUAGE STUDY
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Secretary of State announce on October 30, 1973 a grant of $125,000 to the Department of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario for the purpose of financing a nation-wide study on attitudes and motivation associated with learning French as a second language?
2.	Does the Secretary of State plan to announce a grant of $125,000 to the Department of Psychology of any Canadian university to finance a nation-wide study on attitudes and motivation associated with learning English as a second language and (a) if so, on what date will this grant be announced (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1.
Yes; press release of October 30, 1973.
2. The Secretary of State has not received any requests to date for financial assistance to conduct research on attitudes and motivation in the study of English as a second language. The Secretary of State, under the program to promote bilingualism in education does not commission research projects, but rather, is authorized to award grants to groups or individuals submitting research projects on the teaching or learning of the official languages.


VALUE OF IMPORTS FROM CUBA
Mr. Cossitt: What was the total value in dollars of imports to Canada from Cuba for the last year for which figures are available?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: Total Canadian imports from Cuba amounted to $11,076,000 in the calendar year 1972.


COMMERCIAL AIR SERVICE BETWEEN CANADA AND CUBA
Mr. Cossitt: Has the government made any assessment of the need for commercial air service between Canada and Cuba and (a) if so, with what result (b) if not, is the government prepared to make such an assessment and to consider opening negotiations with Cuba for such a service if deemed advisable?


Mitchell William Sharp: The need for a regular commercial air service between Canada and Cuba has been assessed on different occasions in the past. It was found that in view of the limited traffic charter services could fulfil most of the
8002

November 21, 1973
Orders for Returns
existing needs. The matter, however, is being kept under review.


VALUE OF CANADIAN EXPORTS TO CUBA
Mr. Cossitt: What was the total value in dollars of exports from Canada to Cuba during the last year for which figures are available?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: Total Canadian exports to Cuba amounted to $58,943,000 in the calendar year 1972.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Rowland: 1. By federal constituency, for the yar 1973, what is (a) the number of LIP applications received (b) the number of LIP applications approved (c) the number of jobs created by approved projects (d) the total amount of money involved in approved projects?
2.	Which constituencies lie within, or have within their boundaries, designated or special areas?
Return tabled.


CARS PROVIDED FOR USE OF CANADIAN EMBASSIES
Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How many cars were provided for the use of Canadian embassies and other foreign missions during (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972?
2.	How many of these cars were purchased for prices ranging (a) from $5,000 to $6,999 (b) from $7,000 to $10,000 (c) in excess of $10,000?
3.	What was the total cost of maintaining and operating these cars during (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972?
4.	How many drivers for them were hired during (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972?
5.	How much was paid for rental of cars used by embassies and other foreign missions during (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972?
Return tabled.


LIP-GRANTS TO CONSTITUENCIES OF HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Dick: Has the Minister of Manpower and Immigration announced that proportionately more money will be made available from the Local Initiatives Program to constituencies of high unemployment and, if so (a) what is the formula to be used (b) in what constituencies is high unemployment so designated to exist (c) what amount is earmarked for each constituency?

Return tabled.


TORONTO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-TERMINAL 2
Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Who was the architect who designed and supervised the construction of Terminal 2 at Toronto International Airport?
2.	Who was the Deputy Minister of Transport at the time the design for Terminal 2 was accepted by the Department of Transport?
3.	Who were the senior officers in the Department of Transport, at the time the design for Terminal 2 was accepted?
4.	Who was the contractor and what was the original tender price for the execution of the the original tendered contract for the construction of Terminal 2?
5.	What was the final cost price paid for work done to date at Toronto International Airport by the Department of Transport, or by the Department of Public Works?
6.	Who prepared designs for the proposed extension of Terminal 2 and what is the anticipated cost of the proposed extension to the facility in Terminal 2?
7.	What rent is Air Canada paying for Terminal 2 and what is the term of the Air Canada lease?
8.	What are the total rents collected from all other airlines at Terminal 1 at Toronto International Airport?
9.	(a) What alterations and repairs were required to Terminal 2 that had to be made before Air Canada was able to occupy the space (b) who paid lor these alterations, repairs and changes (c) what was the total cost of the alterations, repairs and changes?
Return tabled.


PARKS CANADA-SUMMER STUDENT EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): What was (a) the name (b) the place of normal residence (c) the educational institution attended by each summer student employed by Parks Canada for the summer of 1973?
Return tabled.


CONTRACTS AWARDED TO ACTON RUBBER LTD. AND ACTON SHOE CO. LTD., 1970-73
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	In each fiscal year 1970 to 1973 inclusive, how many contracts were awarded to (a) Acton Rubber Ltd., Acton-Vale, Quebec (b) Acton Shoe Co. Ltd., Acton-Vale, Quebec?
2.	On what dates were they awarded and what was the amount involved in each case?
Return tabled.


FASHION DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM-MONEYS SPENT 1970 TO DATE
Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What are the total amounts which have been spent under the Fashion Design Assistance Program in each of the fiscal years 1970-71 to 1973-74 to date?
2.	Of these amounts, how much has been spent each year on (a) Designer Development (b) Fashion/Canada (c) administration (d) other?
3.	What are the names of recipients benefitting under the scholarship, grant or other provisions of this program?
4.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
November 21, 1973

Return tabled.


PROSPECTORS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM RECIPIENTS
Mr. Firth: 1.	What were the names of recipients benefitting from the Prospectors Assistance Program (PAP), in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date and what were the amounts of money involved in each case?
2.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
[ English]
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 261 is acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that motion No. 261 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTIES OF E. B. EDDY COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 261-Mr. Isabelle:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all telegrams, correspondence or other documents exchanged between the E. B. Eddy Company or the Weston Company and the National Capital Commission, as well as the Minister responsible for the NCC concerning the disposal of the remaining properties of the E. B. Eddy Company in Hull and the intentions of said Company to relocate its plant in the immediate vicinity of Hull.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Given the report just made public by an economist that the rate of inflation in Canada, which was the fifteenth in the world for the period 1970-72, in the last three months has increased so much that Canada has a faster rate of inflation now than only two other countries in the world, Greece and Japan, may we expect the government and the Minister of Finance to bring forward measures to deal with inflation before Christmas so that this terrible problem in the Canadian economy may be dealt with?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is being selective in his statistics. If he will look at the longer term he will see that our record compares favourably with the other industrial countries of the world.


James McPhail Gillies: Every economist in Canada is predicting that the inflation rate will continue next year. The energy policy guarantees it will continue next year. We now have a faster rate of inflation than any country except Greece and Japan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East.


James McPhail Gillies: May I finish my question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member did not give me the impression he was going to ask a question. I thought he was making remarks. That is why I intervened and recognized the hon. member for St. John's East. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, he will be recognized for that purpose.


James McPhail Gillies: What is the government going to do about the runaway rate of inflation we have in Canada at the present time?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when the main force of inflation happens to be an imbalance of supply and demand, as the hon. member has admitted on some occasions, then the ways to handle inflation in this country are to increase supply and moderate the impact of that inflation on incomes of Canadians, particularly those on low and fixed incomes.


FOOD PRICES-STEPS TO IMPLEMENT REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING RETAIL STORES TO PROTECT CONSUMERS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the recommendations contained in the Food Prices Review Board report on retail food stores which was released today, what immediate steps are being taken to protect
26635-76J

November 21, 1973
Oral Questions
Canadian Consumers from the abuses that are taking place in the market place as listed in the report?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government has acted in some of the areas touched on by the report through the amendments proposed in the bill I tabled in the House a week or two ago. In addition, I can inform the House that some charges were laid in Montreal late last week arising out of the government's study of field reports from the board and it is expected that further charges will be laid over the next couple of weeks. I have also asked that the recommendations of the board in other areas be studied very actively so we can consider what further appropriate action we can take on the recommendations at an early date.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact the board outlines the shortage of adequate inspection services to enforce existing laws such as the Weights and Measures Act, the Agricultural Products Standards Act and so on, what immediate steps is the minister taking to increase inspection capability in the field to ensure that the existing laws of his department are properly enforced?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the hon. member to support the passage of my supplementary estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for doing so, but the minister's answer cannot go unchallenged. The supplementary estimates of the minister now before the committee have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he has been negligent in his duties as Minister of Consumer Affairs.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the unanimous decision reached by the House on November 9 asking the minister to give urgent consideration to possible changes with respect to the Veterans Land Act so that veterans applying for loans, even if mainly for the purpose of solving their housing needs, might get assistance, may I ask the hon. gentleman whether he has completed this consideration and whether he is yet in a position to report thereon to the House?
Hon, Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs): No, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet completed my consideration of this matter.
[Mr. McGrath.}


REQUEST THAT DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS UNDER LAND ACT BE EXTENDED
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the same minister. In view of the fact the deadline for applications by veterans for holdings is March 1, 1974, about three months hence, can the minister advise the House what he intends to do for the 125,000 veterans who are still waiting and who will be denied their rights because of the absence of amendments to the regulations?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I am not sure the hon. member is correct in saying these applicants will be denied the privilege of building. I think applications by most of these people will be entertained.


Jack Marshall: Suppose the 125,000 veterans were to apply today. Could the department cope with the applications?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's supplementary is obviously hypothetical.

[ Translation]


BILINGUALISM
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last Tuesday I used the Canadian National services to go to Montreal and I noted that on the 12:55 train, the conductor and the rest of the train personnel spoke only English. Will the government take some action so that both official languages may be spoken on the Canadian National trains, at least on itineraries such as between Ottawa and Montreal?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire into the facts mentioned by the hon. member and discuss the matter with the Minister of Transport. For the moment, I wish simply to add that after the decision by Parliament several months ago to support the language policy of the government, I have personally written not only to all deputy ministers but also to the heads of Crown corporations such as the Canadian National in order to request that they apply the bilingualism policy. I shall therefore inquire to see what is the truth of the matter.
If I may say so, our policy would obviously be stronger if we had obtained the support of the Social Credit Party of Canada on this point.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Temiscamingue is rising on a question of privilege.
November 21, 1973

Oral Questions ENERGY


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, earlier, after my question, the right hon. Prime Minister suggested that my party had not supported the government when the bilingualism resolution was introduced. I think the Prime Minister is a man of intellectual honesty and I would draw his attention to the fact that if we did not support the government then, it was not because we were against the two official languages, but because we felt the resolution was not going far enough. So much so, Mr. Speaker, that last Tuesday I myself realized how inefficient it is within the Canadian National.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Will he move with the same speed and alacrity with respect to the fact that Canadian National Railways is not supplying sufficient boxcars to move British Columbia lumber?


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Finance supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Don Valley. The minister quite rightly replied to that question by saying that inflation will only be brought under control if national production is greatly increased. I ask the minister whether he has plans to introduce production incentives in the near future to bring about this necessary increase in national production?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it just so happens that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce published today the intentions for business expenditures which will run in 1974 21 per cent over the level for this year, which was 15 per cent over that of 1972. The incentives that the government has introduced already are having this effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, since that is the kind of answer that has been leading the country into the mess it is in today, again I ask the minister, does he intend to introduce production incentives to bring about this necessary increase in production? A statement like he has made will do nothing to bring about that end.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. On what evidence does the minister base his opinion that the rapid decline in the stock markets in Canada and the United States is an over-reaction to the energy crisis?


John Napier Turner: That was a matter of opinion, Mr. Speaker.


SUGGESTED BRINGING OF PIPELINES UP TO STANDARD TO TRANSPORT OIL TO QUEBEC
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question dealing with the energy crisis. In light of the fact that tankers are leaving Vancouver with Alberta crude and sailing through the Panama Canal, would the Prime Minister take the lead and see to it that transportation facilities, particularly pipelines to Montreal, are brought up to standard so that oil that is transported to Ontario can be transported to Quebec in the same manner?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is pointing out areas where we have taken the lead and where we will continue to take the lead.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would enlighten the House. The Prime Minister says that he has taken the lead, but our pipelines are totally inadequate to transport crude petroleum to Montreal. At the moment it has to be transported around almost all of North America. Would the Prime Minister give an undertaking to the country that our pipelines will be brought up to standard so a sufficient supply will be delivered to the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is indulging in a bit of hindsight. It is true that certain pipeline facilities do not exist, but this is a result of the Ottawa Valley line policy which was introduced by a Conservative government many years ago.


PENITENTIARIES
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, that last gratuitous remark is not what I rose to speak about but it indicates that the Prime Minister still forgets-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman has been recognized for the purpose of asking a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Solicitor General about the situation in Prince Albert penitentiary, where inmates in the segregated areas are locked up in their cells for all but half an hour a day, are given mattresses for their beds only at night, and where in two of the three ranges of cells there are no electric lights. As Mr. Harridence, a great supporter of the government, has said, they are caged like animals. I ask the Solicitor General whether he will have an independent investigation made into these allegations, which are clearly established, to the end that these conditions shall not be permitted to continue, for there is the basic reason for the recent outbreak in that penitentiary.

November 21, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am surprised at the allegations. I have a report dated November 20, yesterday, which states that conditions are normal at the Prince Albert penitentiary, but I will certainly investigate these allegations and report to the hon. member as soon as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister. The very intelligent prisoners recently engaged there in counterfeiting, realizing how inflation is using up the Canadian dollar, have restricted themselves to the production of $100 bills.


FOOD PRICES
Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that in establishing the Food Prices Review Board the minister then and consistently since has refused to give the board any powers to act itself, preferring rather to act on recommendations of the board, will the minister, now that the board has brought in specific recommendations, give the House a commitment today that the government will act upon these recommendations?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have already said to an hon. member of the Conservative party that in fact we have given that kind of commitment and we are studying the report very actively to see what further action we can take in light of the recommendations. Second, but equally important, we have indicated we are already taking action in some areas mentioned through the legislation introduced in the House just a week or two ago.


George Harris Hees: And on, and on, and on.


REQUEST FOR EARLY CONSIDERATION OF BILL AMENDING COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT AND LEGISLATION TO BREAK UP CONCENTRATION IN INDUSTRIES
Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. At least those of us on this side of the House are able to make a distinction between study and action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terrence Wyly Grier: In view of the board's recommendations, will the minister speed up second reading consideration of his amendments to the Combines Investigation Act and other legislation introduced recently and, further, will his department accelerate the consideration and introduction of legislation to break up the concentration in the food and other industries which is injurious to the consumer?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to see second reading of the competition policy bill introduced a few days ago brought forward as soon as possible. I would also be happy to see further policy decisions taken in this area by the government and announced in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized on a last supplementary, and then the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Hillsborough.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the decision as to when second reading of this legislation will take place lies in the hands of the minister and his colleagues and not in the hands of the House, will the minister make representations to the government House leader to the effect that this legislation be proceeded with before Christmas?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have already been doing that and, with my hon. friend's support, perhaps we can continue the discussion on a different level.


REPORTED VIOLATION OF STANDARDS BY RETAIL FOOD
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Having regard to the Food Prices Review Board survey teams' opinion that a surprising number of stores have violated health and cleanliness standards, what remedial and effective steps will the minister take to assure that health inspectors will check on these allegations, and do so right quickly?
[ Transla tion]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for being slower than my hon. colleague. I have not read this report, but I will appear tomorrow before the committee and I will be glad to answer the questions of my colleagues.

[ English]


FOOD PRICES
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Having regard to the agreement made by Dominion, Food City, IGA, Canada Safeway and Woodwards that prices of any food items on store shelves, which prices had already been marked, would not be raised any more, and the fact that the survey found that none of these organizations had fully followed through on this agreement, what specific steps will the minister take to assure that retail stores will follow this decision and thus protect the consumer?
November 21, 1973


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have already anticipated this point-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What jail are they in?


George Harris Hees: He is alive.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -having placed in the competition policy bill the proposal that this practice be banned in the terms reflected by the bill, and my hon. friends will recognize that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works.
Considering that the minister has often answered members' questions in the House by saying that the present rules of his department concerning the maintenance and construction of retaining walls along the St. Lawrence do not allow him to give favourable answers to riparian residents' requests on this matter, has he recommended or will he recommend to his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the acceptance of LIP projects submitted in reference to maintenance or construction of retaining walls?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, has noted the suggestion of the hon. member. It will be his decision.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Will he tell the House whether it is the government's intention to accept the cash offer of approximately $400,000 received from the city of Vancouver covering the property generally known as the remaining 38 acres of the Jericho defence lands in Vancouver and, if so, when will the transfer of the property be completed?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, these negotiations are continuing.
Oral Questions


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister advise the House whether the government has reconsidered its earlier position that the city must pay for the land, or does the government now support the Conservative and opposition position that the land should be returned to the city of Vancouver for $1?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my reply to the first question, this subject is still under negotiation and the government's position is not being announced at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the refusal of the Soviet Union to discuss the question of human rights involving individuals and groups within tnat country with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will the government consider raising the question further in the United Nations as both Canada and the U.S.S.R. are adherents to the United Nations declaration on human rights, the twenty-fifth anniversary of which is on December 10?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Before answering that question, Mr. Speaker, I would want to have a report from the Secretary of State for External Affairs on exactly what happened at the meeting at which he raised that subject, and I would want-


An hon. Member:: We all want to hear it, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All right.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Can we expect the minister to take immediate steps to restrict the excessive advertising aimed at children and parents before Christmas so as to comply with the wishes of all hon. members?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brings up an important question but I think the minister responsible is the Minister of Communications, since it is a matter of broadcasting.
November 21, 1973

Oral Questions
[ English]


PENSIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance of which I have given him notice. In view of the possibility that directors of private pension plans may be investing pension plan funds in ways which do not give the best possible return to those who have contributed to these funds because of conflict of interest on the part of directors, as illustrated by the recent purchase by the Canadian Pacific employees pension fund of almost 800,000 shares of Algoma Steel, I should like to ask whether the minister and his department are giving consideration to possible amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act which would eliminate any possible conflict of interest on the part of directors of private pension plans?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his question. I am informed that the three pension funds for employees of Canadian Pacific own a total of 394,000 shares in the Algoma Steel Corporation and that none of the pension funds have bought any such shares since September 24, 1971. This represents 3.4 per cent of the outstanding shares of the Algoma Steel Corporation. I am also informed there are no purchases or sales of any shares between the pension funds and any of the Canadian Pacific Companies, so there does not appear to be any conflict with the regulations under the Pension Benefits Standards Act. We are reviewing the regulations, however, to see whether any improvements can be made.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in the survey or study that the minister is going to undertake, will he make an examination of the Canadian National Railways pension fund to see that the board of directors of that corporation is not misusing the pension funds by directing the investments of that fund to the ends of the CNR at low interest rates?

[La ter;]
[ Translation]


BROADCASTING
Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe wish to put a supplementary question?


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put to the Minister of Communications the question I asked a while ago to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to wit whether we can expect the minister to take immediate steps to restrict the excessive advertising aimed at children and parents before Christmas so as to comply with the wishes of all members.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the member for Saint-Hyacinthe is badly or inadequately informed as regards radio and television. I had the opportunity to say in the House-and this created an incident with another member-that the CRTC had encouraged radio and television broadcasters to agree on a self-imposed code. The CRTC opted for that voluntary solution because the passage of formal regulations would have taken too much time for any effect to be felt during the Christmas season.


RECOMMENDATION THAT TELEVISION ADVERTISING DIRECTED EXCLUSIVELY TO CHILDREN BE PROHIBITED- GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister what he proposes to do about the unanimous recommendation made by the House that the CRTC immediately bring in regulations to prohibit advertising directed exclusively to children on television?
[ Translation]


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I made a very detailed study of this report and I think that the hon. member should do the same, for on the points he has just raised the report is contradictory, recommending now the establishment of a code, now new regulations, now the complete abolition of publicity, and now the preservation of private stations interests, which are perfectly incompatible objectives.

[ English]



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the minister's recent statement that there are circumstances in the recent amnesty period in which the stage B performance of the RCMP security check is not absolutely necessary for granting of landed immigrant status, will the minister tell the House what these special circumstances are?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there are really three stages to the judgment whether a person should or should not be landed under that program. The first was under the relaxed criteria which is simply a judgment whether the person under consideration would fit into Canadian society in terms of employment. The second was the requirement of a health and medical examination which took a little longer but is being conducted in every case. The third was a background inquiry as to the person's record in terms of criminal and other matters. All those investigations will go forward on all people who applied. In the meantime they sign an attestation declaring their position with regard to any criminal record. If it turns out in subsequent
November 21, 1973

investigations that the information given was not correct, then the law will be applied.


Duncan M. Beattie: Can the minister inform the House as to the need for urgency in granting landed immigrant status when these applicants had been in the country almost a year or more and had to be flushed out of hiding?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, approximately 36 million tourists come to Canada every year. With these, and Canadians leaving Canada and coming back there are about 76 million border crossings each year. There is no way in the world any bureaucratic system could or should be set up to examine every one of those in such detail-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a point of order.


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, the minister is completely confusing the issue. I am not referring to visitors going back and forth across our borders every year. I am referring to the 50,000 people who declared themselves during the recent 60-day amnesty period-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State in the absence of the Minister of Labour in respect of the dispute between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian Wire Service Guild. Can the minister inform the House how negotiations are coming along and, particularly, why the CBC in effect refused the conciliation commissioner's report on October 5, which was a new procedure implemented by the Minister of Labour, when the union and the CBC negotiator accepted the report? Could the minister bring the House up to date in this regard?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment on the substance of the negotiations because the collective bargaining process is being carried on. The dispute is presently being mediated by Mr. Charles Poirier of the Department of Labour and I am hopeful that it will be resolved shortly.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the minister is up to date. Be that as it may, he still did not answer my question why the conciliation commissioner's report was not accepted by the CBC. I shall ask that again, but to bring the minister up to date it is my understanding that mediation proceedings have completely broken down and that the mediator-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a question. I think he will recognize that he should not at
Oral Questions
this point attempt to convey information either to the House or to the minister but should seek information by way of a question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just thought I would lay a little groundwork for the minister. Can the minister now advise the House what further steps are being taken by himself or by his colleague in order to see that negotiations are continued and that this dispute is handled amicably in such a way that we can expect a very early settlement?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on future steps but I will certainly make sure that objective is met.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Since there has already been one work stoppage, does the Secretary of State intend to use the prestige of his office to encourage CBC management to abandon its present intransigence so another costly strike such as the one in respect of NABET can be avoided?


James Hugh Faulkner: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for a last supplementary, following which I will recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour or perhaps to the minister replying on behalf of the Minister of Labour. In spite of the excellent work of the commission and the co-operation by the Canadian Wire Service Guild and as the differences between the guild and the CBC have not been resolved yet, since the new commissioner concept has failed in respect of a Crown corporation, what steps does the Department of Labour or the minister intend to take to enhance the success of this system-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Now that a public statement has been made by a Liberal member of the House and Privy Councillor to the effect that some cabinet ministers run their departments and others are prisoners of their departments, will the Prime Minister take steps to ensure that cabinet ministers representing the people in this parliament will run their departments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we will try to do a little better in this regard than the Conservative opposition obviously is doing with so

November 21, 1973
Oral Questions
many of its members, because it obviously has the wrong policies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure what will be served by that kind of question and exchange.



SHORTAGE OF PITUITARY HORMONE

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the extreme shortage of pituitary glands-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nowlan:: In the cabinet.


Philip Bernard Rynard: -and the number of patients now going without treatment, which can be tragic, particularly for children, would the minister look into this to see if, by pituitary banks or other means, this treatment could be made available and shortages avoided?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the federal government, through the Medical Research Council, is supporting research and development in this area. I am advised that the supply of this hormone is very limited. Since it takes about 100 pituitary glands to produce the necessary hormone for one treatment, it would appear that there will need to be concentrated effort by provincial governments and hospital administrators in particular with regard to services available in this respect in order to have a sufficient supply.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will the minister assure the House that in negotiations with the native people of James Bay he will recognize their land claims based on aboriginal rights, and that he will resist attempts to have a quick cash settlement substituted?
[ Transla tion]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Indians of James Bay enjoy more than a simple definition of their native rights, for their rights have been specified in the treaty of 1912. In the present negotiations, we want to maximize the social and economic benefits of the Indians and try to reach an agreement as soon as possible, for the Indians are not systematically opposed to the development of James Bay.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Will the minister give his assurance that there will not be a repeat performance of the discussions which occurred yesterday when attempts were made to force the native people of James Bay into a quick cash settlement rather than negotiate their land claims?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the allegation made by the hon. member. I have met with the Indians, as is my duty; we had long discussions yesterday and we have made progress. I think that I have always shown my interest in protecting the rights of Indians and in finding satisfactory solutions to their problems.



NEGOTIATIONS WITH YUKON NATIVE BROTHERHOOD-REASON FOR SUSPENSION

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with respect to the negotiations which were scheduled to have been carried on last Friday with the Yukon Native Brotherhood but which were delayed as the result of the delay of his own official in getting to the negotiations. Can he tell the House why those negotiations were suspended and whether or not the reason for the suspension of the negotiations last Saturday was in order to enable the brotherhood to consider an offer made by the federal government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations on the dispute in the Yukon were interrupted because the officials representing me made a proposition on the status of the Indian in the Yukon. The chiefs representing the Indians then asked to consult with their members before making a decision. It is as simple as that.
[ English]


Erik Nielsen: Can the minister inform the House whether any offer was made by the federal negotiating team with respect to either cash or land, or a combination of both, to the Indian side?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker, the negotiations have not reached that point yet.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance relating to a matter that has been raised repeatedly in this session and for a number of decades. In view of the chronic shortage of railway rolling stock to move a variety of products, lumber, livestock, potatoes, grain and so forth,
November 21, 1973

and in view of the fact that the CNR financing bill is presently before the transport committee, would the minister consider bringing in amendments to that bill to provide for additional capitalization for the purchase of rolling stock required to move Canadian products on Canadian National Railways?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly discuss that with my colleagues, but I would wonder whether that would be beyond the scope of the current measures in the financing bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Transport and the busyness of the Prime Minister I will direct my supplementary question also to the Minister of Finance. Since the CNR financing bill already has provisions in it for the purchase of railway rolling stock his answer is incorrect-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Misleading the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -but will he and the Minister of Transport prevail on Canadian Pacific, in view of the fact it has ample capital to finance high rise buildings, shopping centres and other activities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that is argument, not a question. We are running short of time. The hon. member has had a question and has attempted to ask a supplementary. Perhaps he might ask his supplementary quickly, and then I will try to see two or three more members before the end of the question period.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport prevail upon the Canadian Pacific Railway to place a higher priority on capital allocation for the purchase of rolling stock than for its other operations?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is a representation, and it will be noted.



FISHERIES


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader a question relating to the licensing program announced last week by the Minister of Fisheries. If he has not already done so, can he give us the assurance that this program will be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and, if so, say when it will be referred?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have not given final consideration to this suggestion but, aside from the importance of the subject, there are quite a number of committees meeting at the moment and I am very hesitant at the present
Oral Questions
time to add to the work load of any of the committees. It is in that light that the decision will be made.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I guessed what the answer would be. There is no reference before that committee yet. May I ask the Minister of Fisheries whether-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Will you believe him?


John Howard Lundrigan: -if in view of the fact that the program does have very sweeping implications for the people of the Atlantic region in particular, he would be prepared to hold the program in abeyance until it does have a proper hearing before the fisheries committee and subsequently, hopefully, it does have proper public hearing?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention of modifying the salmon licensing program as announced and put into effect two years ago, but I would be very happy to discuss this matter or answer any questions in committee if the hon. member wants to attend.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I want to get my question cleared up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary question, but we have reached the end of the question period.


John Howard Lundrigan: With regard to the program announced last Wednesday, with specific reference to licensing of fishermen, boats and gear and the like, would the minister be prepared to hold that program over until we have a chance to have public and committee hearings?


John (Jack) Davis: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Howard Lundrigan: That was the question.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the Canadian government's request for a temporary halt to the Garrison dam diversion project and the consequent serious degradation of the waters of the Red and Souris Rivers flowing into Manitoba, what other steps is the minister taking to remove this threat to communities along these vital boundary waters?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, a submission has been made through the appropriate channels to the government of the United States in this connection. We have yet to hear from Washington officially in this regard.

November 21, 1973
Oral Questions


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Because the downstream damage violates the Boundary Waters Treaty, is the International Joint Commission seized of the issue and, if not, will the minister refer this matter to this agency which is charged with the responsibility of resolving boundary disputes?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the International Joint Commission is watching this situation carefully.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I noticed a number of members rising, as I did myself on several occasions today, and I wish to protest, Mr. Speaker, against the practice of recognizing people on the official lists. Each member of the House is, if I understand correctly, equal under the Standing Orders. The parties are separated for certain purposes under several sections of the Standing Orders, but one of them is not the question period. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the use of these lists is both dishonest and unfair to you. I suggest that each member should be given recognition. I did not continue to rise and I do not intend to, Mr. Speaker, but I noticed, for instance, that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi did and was not recognized. The hon. member says he was not on the list. Mr. Speaker, that is the point.
It may be that in your discretion you are willing to accept a number of people on the list as well as a number of people not on the list, but these questions by members on the list are questions being asked collectively by parties in the House through the research people who are being provided by the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: These questions must be causing you some concern, Mr. Speaker, because they are long, they have a preamble and they are not necessarily shortening the question period to allow other members to participate.
I am aware that a committee is seized of this matter and I have had, on occasion, the opportunity to sit on that committee. However, on behalf of many members, Mr. Speaker, I protest the importance that the lists are receiving and the impossibility of the individual member, even though he rises only occasionally, gaining recognition. The less often you rise the less likely you are to be recognized. I think this is unfair to many members of the House, and I would ask Your Honour to give less consideration to the lists and more consideration to your own inclination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on this same point of order. I do not want to prolong the matter because it is being considered elsewhere. I hope the hon. member used the plural, "lists", because there is not just one list.


John Napier Turner: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the allegation of the hon. gentleman is correct I wonder if the rules of the House should not require that these written questions and lists of questions, upon which members of the opposition are relying, be produced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: What about the answers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Alternatively, Mr. Speaker, if the questioners are genuinely seeking answers, perhaps they might extend to us the courtesy that we do to them by giving us the questions in advance in order that we can prepare answers.


An hon. Member:: Like questions on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see at least six hon. members who would like to take part in this debate. Order please. May we have order, please. I bring to the attention of hon. members that this is a matter which has been referred to a committee. It is before the committee now, so I see no point in having a debate on the subject at the present time.
The point made by the hon. member for Timiskaming originally is a valid one in the sense that the Chair should not be expected to be bound in any way by suggested questioners. Hon. members know that when a list is submitted to the Chair it is very seldom that the Chair follows it strictly. I think today is a very good example of the situation. But I have personally found it helpful for the different parties to suggest to me who might be recognized first or second or if there is priority. This may be wrong, but I think it facilitates the task of the Chair. If it is the feeling of the committee that this system should be abandoned, and that such suggestions should not be made to the Chair because they are improper, I would, of course, discontinue this practice which has been followed in previous years and has not worked too badly.


Mr. Hellyer:: On the point of order raised by the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to miss this opportunity to repeat the same protest I often make, namely that it is true that there may exist lists within certain parties; it might be because there is little discipline or too few members stand up in those parties but the fact remains that the abuse in the question period lies in the great number of supplementaries. I think that the problem stems much more from that level than from the lists with respect to the discipline of a party.
The situation would be much improved if all parties stopped abusing supplementaries.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that you are the best voice in Parliament to convey that request to the committee and that should be put on the order of the day of the committee so a way can be found to curb the abuse of supplementaries and allow all hon. members to voice their views.
As to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), if he were in a party where there is no party discipline but where the member counts he would not have the problems he has now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister suggested that it would facilitate matters if we gave notice of some of the questions. On July 19,1 put 12 easy questions on the
November 21, 1973

order paper asking for simple information, none of which have been answered yet. Under the circumstances one wonders how it facilitates matters to give notice. This government is hopelessly inadequate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Let's have an answer to that one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. parliamentary secretary to the House leader indicate just a few days ago that the percentage of questions on the order paper which had been answered was in the area of 85 per cent. I would think that if hon. members opposite wanted to institute the practice which is followed in Great Britain of submitting questions to a ministry for oral answer in the House of Commons, and if they were looking for information rather than some cheap publicity-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I appeal to hon. members. Order, please. My original thought was that we should not discuss under a point of order a matter which is before a committee. The hon. member for Trinity persisted in pursuing the matter, the Prime Minister spoke a second time on the same point of order and now the hon. member wants to do the same thing. It seems to me that we are certainly not going to solve any difficulty by this kind of debate.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a duty to members-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: -I ask him to withdraw-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the hon. member has just given an example of seeking cheap publicity.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: What about your motorcycle days?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Did you ever drive a car? Are you looking for publicity?


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I, personally, would be happy to accept the Prime Minister's recommendation that members should provide written questions in advance. I would accept it on the basis that he provide me with the list of the ministers who are responsible for each department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: Former privy councillors have made public statements to the effect that many ministers are run by their departments.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think we have something going. Unless that last suggestion is going to be-
Foreign Investment Review Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! I have some doubts as to whether the Prime Minister should speak again on the point of order which was raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming. It is the same point of order which was discussed a few minutes ago and for members to speak more than once on the same point of order is irregular, I think. I suggest to hon. members once again that perhaps it might be better if we left the consideration of any difficulty which relates to the question period to the committee which has been charged with this responsibility.


George Harris Hees: Simon Fraser, here he comes. Goodbye, Pierre.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie that Bill C-132, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended speaking on this important bill until I heard a couple of the speeches made last night by members of the NDP, and the outstanding speech made by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).
The speech made by the hon. member for Crowfoot was completely at variance with the speeches made by our socialist friends. Their speeches were speeches of gloom and doom. They suggested that because of the activities of multinational corporations, of big business and of people in private enterprise, the average Canadian is unhappy and economically bankrupt.
I feel that is the wrong impression which this House ought to leave with the citizens of Canada. I will be the first to admit that there are many things which should be rectified in our society. The fact remains, however, that the average Canadian today never had it so good.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Yes, he never had it so good. A few weeks ago, on November 11, some of us attended at the cenotaph in remembrance of the thousands of Canadians who lost their lives in the battles of the two great wars. I wonder what would happen if those whom we honoured on that day could come back to Canada, look over the situation today and compared it with the situation existing when

November 21, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act they, unfortunately, lost their lives. Would they be happy, or not? Although there are many faults in our society, I suggest they would be extremely happy.
I remind my socialist friends that, no matter what they think of our society, when they return to Canada after having left it for a visit to another country, they are always glad. I remind them, those who live in this city, that when they get up in the morning and look out of their windows, they will see the finest housing available anywhere in the world.
Since Confederation, this country has been governed by the Liberal and Conservative parties, that is, by so-called free enterprisers. Let me say that it was not socialism which produced the finest housing in the world in this country; it was free enterprise.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to the Indians.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I could give many examples. It seems to me that the speeches of my socialist friends, and I advise all members to read them, were little else but condemnation of Canada and the citizens who live here. We have much to be proud of in Canada. Let me make this suggestion to my socialistic friends: if they can sing at all, let them go to some quiet room and sing, "O, Canada".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: That song is sung quite often in this country; it will be sung at the Grey Cup game, soon to take place. Its words are significant. I remind hon. members that we Canadians live in the finest country in the world. It has been made so, not by any socialist party, but by people who are willing to work, by businesses, big and small, and by those who are willing to invest their money in Canada.
In addition to seeing fine housing, you will see hundreds of thousands of cars if you live in Canada. You will see them in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and elsewhere. The cars are owned by the workers of this nation. They could buy them because of our system of government.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Ross, you are on the wrong side of the House.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: We have more refrigerators, more stoves and more amenities than almost any nation our size. Medical care is almost free for Canadian citizens across Canada. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we should sing of the advantages of being a Canadian instead of constantly condemning this country, as some people do, pointing to some weak spots, minimizing what is good and emphasizing what is bad. We should not do that. Again I say, show me the socialist who, after visiting another nation, does not say, after crossing the border of Canada, "Thank God I am back in this private enterprise country!" Show me the socialist country which in any way compares with our great country, in which the average citizen enjoys such a high standard of living.


An hon. Member:: How about Sweden?


Mr. Gilbert:: Boy, you are going to be swept out of power.


Mr. Paproski:: You are right on, Ross; carry on.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, when the great architect of the universe created this earth, he gave Canada something special. I am sure that the people of Vancouver, and of British Columbia generally where much growth has taken place, are proud of the Rockies. I am sure the people of the Prairies are proud of the millions of acres of grain they can harvest. Some of the greatest grain crops in the world have been taken from that area. I, as a citizen of Ontario, am proud of Ontario. As a citizen of Ontario, of course, I have the right to think that perhaps Ontario is the finest place in the world. On the other hand, my friends from Quebec, with the great natural resources of that province and the things they have done, may think their province is the best. For example, some of us have been critical of the fact that the Olympics will be held in Montreal. Let me tell hon. members that it took Quebecers and the mayor of Montreal to bring the Olympics to that city. I do not blame them for being proud of that fact.
Then, we go to other areas in the Maritimes. When we look at beautiful Prince Edward Island, we must surely admit it is something special in this world. More than that and more than the Maritimes, western Ontario, Quebec and so on, when the Great Architect of the universe created this earth, he put into Canada people who were willing to work hard. Our forefathers were not looking for a 35 or 40 hour week. They were not looking for an old age pension of $200 a month or $20 a month for each child. They were only looking for the opportunity to work hard. They certainly did work hard to make this country what it is. In so doing, they were happy.
Much has been said about this bill, the terrible Americans and the fantastic amount of money they have invested in Canada. I listened to the leader of the New Democratic Party. He said there is no reason why we should have an energy crisis in Canada because we are lucky in having all the oil we need. Who could disagree with him? Of course, we are lucky. We are also mighty lucky the Americans invested hundreds of millions of dollars in western Canada. Otherwise, we would not have any oil in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If a person is unwilling to face that fact, there is something wrong with him. What would be the advantage of building a pipeline from western Canada to Montreal if we did not have any oil to ship through it? Where would the oil come from if it were not for the American dollars that were used to drill for the oil 10 or 15 years ago?
A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to visit Sept lies, Quebec. If I recall correctly, the wage earners of that community are the second highest paid in all of Canada. The people in Oakville are first. Twenty-five years ago there were perhaps six or seven shacks there. You could not really say anyone lived there. Today, Sept lies is one of the most modern cities in Canada. Over 20,000 people live there. It has one of the highest standards of living in the world. One American laid out the town and developed the two mines that are there. Every single dollar that was spent was an American dollar. Every single labourer who
November 21, 1973

worked on that project was a Canadian, except the man at the top. They paid 100 per cent Canadian taxes. If the Americans had not come, there would still only be six or seven shacks in Sept lies.


An hon. Member:: There would be 50.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: That may be true. When I was a member of the Ontario legislature, I had the privilege of listening to a man whom I regard as the great Canadian, the Hon. Leslie Frost, who was then premier. He was speaking in an offhanded way. He said that in his opinion, there is not much difference between an American dollar bill and a Canadian dollar bill. He said if you go to the grocery store, you can buy just as many groceries with one as with the other. I will agree that things have certainly changed since the days of Leslie Frost.
There is no doubt that, as Canadians, we should have the control of our destiny and assets that are in Canada. On the other hand, we need the help and assistance of the United States and other foreign countries. We must be very thankful for the help we have received. I have the highest respect for my friends who are referred to as being "to the left" here in Canada. One thing is certain, they are sincere. They are sincerely wrong. Nevertheless, they are sincere and really believe that what they are doing is right.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is a man whom I really appreciate. He is a devoted, honest politician. When he was honoured for the length of time he has been a member of the House of Commons, he mentioned that when he came here there was no old age pension or, if there was, it was $20 on a means test. Today, it is substantially higher. I am in favour of old age pensions. I believe in assisting people who need assistance. However, you can only have the social security programs the country can afford. Somewhere along the line you must stop. What worries me about the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is now that the pension is $150 a month, he will want it to be increased to $200 a month. When it gets to $200 he will want it to go to $250. When it gets to $250, he will want $300.
I ask my socialistic friends, who made it possible to pay pensions at the level at which they now are? Who made it possible to give free medicare within reason across Canada? These things have been made possible through the development of this country by Canadian business and foreign business which invested here. It has been made possible by the individuals who pay the taxes. My friends to the left must remember that when pensions are increased substantially every year, the tax load goes up and up. They must remember that 85 per cent of the personal income tax that came from Canadians was paid by people who earned less than $15,000 a year.
In conclusion, I am glad this bill has been introduced by the minister. I have never really worried as long as foreign business interests have obeyed Canadian laws and hired Canadian labour. That is what is important. If this bill is not strong enough, and if we find the odd foreign enterprise which is not willing to do what we as legislators wish them to do, under our democratic system we can change the law so they will do what they should do for us as Canadian citizens.
Foreign Investment Review Act


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). He used to sit across from me when the Liberals were in the position of having a rump on this side of the House. As one of my colleagues said, perhaps we converted him because there was much in his speech with which I personally agree.


An hon. Member:: He will be joining Paul Hellyer.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: With the different kind of rump we now have in the House, the NDP, I am sure the hon. member for Bruce will not sit there. While I am sure the hon. member for Bruce is happy about the concept embodied in this legislation, I believe that like many of us he would be happier still if the minister were not so intransigent and if he had been more agreeable to allowing for more consultation with the provinces. However, much has been said on this point and I do not wish to go over old ground. The hon. member for Bruce has reminded us of the wonderful nation in which we live. I think he would agree, though, that the traditional free enterprise system which has made Canada such a great country has been badly eroded in recent years, and I am sure he is a little concerned about the alliance between his party and those in the New Democratic Party who are so left wing they would make the late Salvador Allende look like Ronald Reagan. Even so, there are differences of opinion within that party and, indeed, no party is entirely undivided when expressing opinions on this subject of foreign investment.
It seems to me, as the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) said yesterday, that during the period in which Liberal governments have been in control of the country, that is to say for 32 of the last 38 years, we have seen evidence of a deterioration in many aspects of our society. Perhaps this was to be expected. The present administration pays lip service to the idea of controlling foreign investment, but I am not at all confident that they are sincere in their promise of action to carry it out. Anyone who takes the trouble to look back in Hansard and refer to some of the promises which have been made by government spokesmen from time to time will understand the reason for this lack of confidence. I will cite just one example from the Hansard of March 14, 1972. The then minister of transport, now the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), is reported as saying:
I agree with the claim that a reorganized structure is necessary in order that members and the country generally can obtain more information, and obtain it more easily, about all aspects of transportation. With this objective in mind, I propose to bring before the House in the next session three important pieces of legislation on which work is proceeding at the present time. The first of those is a bill designed to reconstitute Air Canada as a separate Crown corporation, thus divorcing it, as it were, from the CNR. I will also introduce a Canadian National Railways Revision Act and a companion piece of legislation covering amendments to the Railway Act. Hon. members will know how involved and far reaching these changes are; they have been asking for them for the last two or three years. These changes have entailed a great deal of work, which is still proceeding. I believe, however, that these bills are essential and I will bring them forward as soon as they are ready.
This is the type of thing the country and the House has grown to expect from the government opposite. I sincerely hope we shall not see an example of foot dragging in the

November 21, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act case of the bill now before us, comparable to the example I have just cited. There are many other examples I might have used. Looking back on the record of the government during the last 32 out of 38 years, as far as examples of initiative and progressive action are concerned, and bearing in mind the situation today, I am bound to say I am reminded of the remark by Winston Churchill in his book "Great Contemporaries" when he said of Lord Roseberry: "He had outlived his past by 20 years and his future by 10." That comment could be directed with some justification toward the present administration, because it has been given no end of time in which to accomplish something.
Much has been made of the fact that in 1961 the Ottawa Valley Line was instituted to provide eastern Canadians with a source of oil other than western Canada. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) said not long ago, that for years eastern consumers benefited from this decision. We have seen no essential change made in these arrangements, since 1961 though during the intervening years a man has been put on the moon and the economic condition of the entire world has changed. This government did not possess enough initiative to make any change in the policy set in 1961 as far as energy is concerned, although the situation changed.
To get back to the question of foreign investment in this country, I would again ask the minister to show a desire to be open, fair and frank in his administration of this legislation. In this way, those who have to deal with this policy would know in advance the criteria to be met. It is true the minister told us he would provide certain guidelines. He has told us that various circumstances would be taken into consideration. But once he has made a decision he is under no obligation to build up, as it were, any jurisprudence, or to give reasons for his decision. I believe he should keep this aspect in mind when administering the act; disclosure is necessary. I fail to see how this legislation can have its full impact unless Canadians are given an incentive to invest in their own country, to take a few risks and be rewarded for doing so. As long as tax anomalies exist which afford certain advantages to foreigners at the expense of Canadians, the type of legislation we are now considering will not be as advantageous as might otherwise be the case.
Like the hon. member for Bruce, I want to refer to another party in this House, the socialist party, the New Democratic Party to my left. It is interesting to listen to what some members of that party have to say, because in that party just as in my own, there is a considerable divergence of opinion. This applies not only to the particular piece of legislation we are now considering but to many other subjects as well. It is apparent to me that the NDP understands perfectly well some of the negative aspects of foreign investments. Speakers for that party have drawn attention to the fact, as, indeed, speakers from my party have done, that in some cases when a large consortium invests in Canada there are certain undesirable side effects. Sometimes a corporation tries to bring in its own employees and technicians. Sometimes it tries to make certain that much of the heavy equipment is supplied by firms with which these financiers have close ties.

A situation of this type is bad, and this legislation, as far as it tends to reverse it, is certainly good. The government, as many of us have stated, is to be commended for bringing the bill forward at this time. We are not denigrating hon. gentlemen opposite for bringing it forward. We think it is a constructive step, possibly one of the few constructive steps hon. gentlemen opposite have taken.


Herb Breau: Don't get political.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I see the parliamentary secretary partly agrees. I say to him: Go a little further. Let him seek to persuade some of the policy-makers in the cabinet to give a tax break to Canadians who are running family businesses, to Canadians who are in business in a small way.


Herb Breau: We did.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Well, the government has not gone far enough. It is not sufficient to adopt a negative approach and curtail foreign investment unless one is prepared to encourage Canadians to pick up the slack and take the risks which must be taken if this country is to be developed. A capital gains tax has been introduced. This is a fact of life. Although many people on the extreme right politically were against this tax, I felt it was time a capital gains tax of some kind was enacted. But in our tax law no consideration has been given to the position of the investor who sets aside money systematically over the years, and invests it over the years, for the purpose of building up a fund for the education of his children. No consideration is given to this investor when he sells his securities. He is hit with the same kind of capital gains tax as the wealthy speculator who cleans up on the Toronto stock exchange and makes $20,000 in six months. This is wrong.
There are many other modifications that the government must make in taxation policy. Kicking and screaming, they finally agreed that they were wrong about taxing family farms and corrected the situation; I commend them for that. But I say with all sincerity that they have to go a lot further than that if they want to promote Canadian nationalism and encourage Canadians by giving them a break, in so far as taxes are concerned.
The New Democratic Party recognizes the problems that are implicit in foreign ownership, but they are very negativistic, if I may use that word, in looking at the corollary to which I have referred. They do not concede, for example, that the provinces need to be consulted, as we have suggested should be provided for in this legislation. At least, if they do, then they have not shown that to be the case. I suggest that the New Democratic Party has certain members who are very uncomfortable, as are some of us, about some of the provisions in this bill.
Just so that I will not be accused of making idle references, I had occasion not too long ago to refer to an interesting speech made by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) on a different issue, unemployment insurance. I have always admired my hon. friend from Waterloo-Cambridge, and I realize that in many ways he is probably an ideological prisoner of the NDP. I should like the House to listen to what he said about unemployment insurance, which is one of the "holiest of
November 21, 1973

holiests" as far as socialists are concerned. As reported at page 5892 of Hansard for July 23 last he said:
What is the point in fishermen being included under the provisions of the act?
He advocates taking fishermen off unemployment insurance, apparently, because he goes on to say this:
Insurance is supposed to take care of unpredictable hazards. What is unpredictable about fishermen being unemployed?
I will not comment on that observation; I merely use it as an illustration that certain members of the New Democratic Party have strong opinions. It makes me chuckle when I hear them in this House day after day taking the sanctimonious approach that everything they propose is an example of, shall I say, complete and utter unanimity within their party. The other day the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) proposed an amendment, but his party did not support him on it. Nothing much has been said about that, though it is of interest that when that sort of thing happens to the Conservative party, where there is a little more freedom to be individuals, the NDP, attempt to make a great deal of capital out of it.
It is also very interesting, when talking of the members of the NDP, to examine some of the comments made recently regarding some other contradictions in their official policy. I have in mind a very interesting article by a journalist named John Nichol, in which some of the NDP economic theories were attacked. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) in a speech not too long ago in this chamber made mention of various provinces and took issue with some provincial administrations, their history and background. This particular article, which I am prepared to table if you wish, Mr. Speaker, goes on to say, in part:
Headline: Looking for hard cold cash?
Picture: Cash register with its drawer open.
Text: Come and get it!
You'll have to put it to use by locating within this province. But it'll be worth it. Look at the facts. Resources, labour force, markets-East, West and South, all at your fingertips.
If you're in manufacturing or processing industry looking to expand .. . take a hard look at Saskatchewan. If you qualify, we can help you greatly.
How much in hard cold cash? Write us. We'll come to you.
This advertisement was placed by the deputy minister of the department of industry and commerce of the province of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Power Building, Regina, Saskatchewan. The article points out:
This conflicts directly with the views of the national NDP leader David Lewis.
I do not want to read this fairly lengthy article into the record in its entirety, but it goes on to say this:
The campaign of the NDP in the recent election campaign was one of very narrow focus. The only spokesman who got any attention was David Lewis, and he confined himself to his themes of "corporate rip-offs" and "corporate welfare bums" and the "phony incentive society".
Then, Mr. Nichol has this to say:
It is important to note that there are many dedicated supporters of the NDP who do not support Mr. Lewis on this issue.
I mention this not to be unkind to the leader of the New Democratic Party, a very able parliamentarian but one who, I think, sometimes degenerates into some sort of
Foreign Investment Review Act parliamentary "Pushme-Pullion" of Dr. Doolittle fame. He is pushing here, pulling there, all the time with great vigour, supposedly trying to topple the government, huffing and puffing but being completely ineffective and manifestly insincere. What John Nichol is pointing out is this:
The Manitoba Development Corporation, a Crown agency of Premier Schreyer's NDP government, loans tens of millions of dollars a year to private enterprise.
In short, these NDP supporters accept the fact that industrial incentives are an essential tool of government in desperately important tasks of finding jobs.
The premiers and the officials of the Canadian Labour Congress have active responsibilities for jobs. David Lewis does not. Therein lies the difference.
Looking once again at the ramifications and implications of this particular piece of legislation, just as the hon. member for Bruce indicated he was proud, so I too am very proud of being a Canadian. Indeed, I am sure all hon. members of this House are. We have a great deal of respect for the efforts that our forefathers made in building this nation. They did it, as the hon. member pointed out, with hard work and they were not unduly concerned with socialist doctrine. A lot of people from socialist countries who have voted with their feet, as the saying is, by crossing the border have come to Canada because they feel they have a chance under a free enterprise system. When I hear New Democratic Party members denigrating private enterprise, saying it has not done what it should and that the only answer is some magical solution to be found in socialism, I sometimes think that my hon. friends opposite on the government benches must be very uneasy indeed about associating themselves with such remarks and acceding to some of the policies to which they have been forced to accede in order to retain their precarious hold on power.
The day will come, Mr. Speaker, when there will be a reckoning. I have no doubt that in the not too distant future some of the provisions of this particular bill will be modified. They will be modified by a Progressive Conservative government. Hopefully, they will be modified before some of the more obscure and bureaucratically oriented provisions have damaged the economic climate in Canada to a very great extent.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by making a few comments on the speeches of the two members who have preceded me. The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) spoke for some 20 minutes, and it was not until the last minute of his speech that he said he was going to support this bill. The whole tenor of his remarks was a defence of the greatness of the free enterprise system, a defence that led me to believe he felt that the free enterprise system was so effective in meeting the needs of the people of Canada that we really had no need for the kind of legislation that his minister introduced and which the members of this party are going to support. However, the reason the hon. member for Bruce is going to support a bill which he spent 99 per cent of his time criticizing by implication I will leave the hon. member for Bruce to explain.
I want to say a few words about the speech made by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) who has just taken his seat. It was a speech that I could listen to with a

November 21, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act good deal more comfort than I could yesterday when I heard the speech made by another Conservative member, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). If the hon. member for Central Nova does not agree with members of the New Democratic Party that does not surprise me. If he did agree he would be over here as a New Democrat, and if we agreed with him we would be sitting somewhere near him, but certainly not near the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).
There is one thing the hon. member said to which I want to take sharp objection. If I misunderstood him I apologize in advance. He said that many people in Canada had showed what they thought of socialism by leaving socialist countries. If the hon. member for Central Nova implied that the people who came to Canada from communist countries because they did not like their systems felt there was any resemblance between the systems of those countries and the NDP and its policies, I reject that out of hand. If the hon. member did not imply that, then what I have said does not apply to his speech.


An hon. Member:: What do you stand for then?


David Orlikow: The NDP is associated formally and informally with the Labour Party of Great Britain, which has been and will be again the government of that country; it is associated with the Social Democratic Party of Sweden, which has been the government of that country for 40 years; it is associated with the Labour government of Norway, and that party has formed the government of that country for the better part of the last 30 years, and it is associated with the Social Democratic Party of the government of Willie Brant of West Germany. Those are the parties with which we are associated both in philosophy and through membership in the Socialist International. If the hon. member for Central Nova or any other member wants to criticize our position on this or on any other question they are welcome to do so. This is a democratic country and we are prepared to let the people of Canada, by their votes and in other ways, show what they think of our position. I want to say in the strongest terms that any suggestion by any hon. member of this House that our program has anything to do with or anything in common with countries in the communist world is simply not true, is unfair and a completely unfounded allegation.
We are discussing a bill which we hope, for the first time, will permit Canada to deal with one of the most important problems faced not only by this country but by every country in the western world. We have often heard it said here in the House and outside that we ought to look for examples of a country which has had the finest growth record since the end of World War II, and I suggest that country is Japan. For years now Japan has had legislation which requires that no foreign firm shall own more than 50 per cent of the company in Japan in which it has invested. This legislation was adopted years ago. It is not surprising then that we are for the first time beginning to think about what can be done in this country regarding foreign control.
The huge corporations of the world are, year by year, becoming bigger. The annual output of the 300 leading

multinational, transnational, or whatever you want to call them, companies which are today doing $300 billion worth of business a year will by 1990, if their present rate of expansion continues, be doing $2,000 billion worth of business. They will be responsible for 50 per cent of the gross national product of the free world. Those companies do not really produce and sell in the countries in which their factories happen to be located, their mines, their wells and other things. They set up branches and subsidiaries in other countries, import and export between each other and decide where they will get their raw materials and where they will produce their finished goods.
The hon. member for Bruce talked about visiting Sept lies and referred to how prosperous a city it was. I suggest that Sept lies is the port through which the iron ore taken out of northern Quebec and Labrador is shipped. There are some 10,000 miners digging iron ore in Quebec and Labrador. They are getting good wages, but that iron ore is shipped to Sept lies and most of it is exported to the United States where probably 200,000 U.S. workers are getting very good wages turning that iron ore into finished steel as well as processing that steel into manufactured goods such as cars, refrigerators, you name it, which are then sold in the United States, in Canada and in other countries. I suggest those workers in the United States are reaping the benefits of that iron ore, not the Canadian workers in Sept lies or in the iron ore mines of Quebec and Labrador.
In an article which appeared in the Toronto Star sometime ago Walter Stewart referred to the question of who makes the decisions in these multinational corporations. He quotes from the head of a British owned multinational corporation as follows:
"There is no such thing as a multinational firm. We have plants in half a dozen countries, trade in dozens more, but if you want to know who runs us, look where the control is-in London. That's where the budgets are approved, that's where the policies are laid down."
We should not be critical of the multinational corporations. They operate under the laws we have passed, and if we have failed to pass laws which assure that multinational corporations operate in the interests of the Canadian people rather than in the interests of their shareholders then we are at fault, not those corporations. Their objective, and it is legitimate from their point of view, is to make more money. The important thing is how they can make more money, where is the best place to provide jobs and where is the best place to locate their major plants? The answers to these questions in most cases are very simple. For political and economic reasons, the best places are not in Canada but in the country in which these companies have their head offices, where the real decisions are made. In most cases as far as Canada is concerned that is the United States.
It may be that because of the current crisis in the energy field resulting from decisions of the Arab states to cut back on the production and export of oil there will be a precipitous slowdown in economic activity, and I certainly hope that is not the case. However, when times are difficult, United States owned firms naturally tend to keep U.S. plants open at the expense of plants located in Canada. This has already happened in respect of certain industries. Westinghouse, for example, closed a plant in
November 21, 1973

London, and General Electric shifted its purchasing of T.V. tubes from Toronto to a plant in Japan. One could go on and on with examples, but this is the reason Canadians are concerned about foreign ownership.
This government has dithered and "dothered" about this for years. First, it had a study made under the former minister, Mr. Gordon, headed by Professor Watkins of the University of Toronto. Then, there was another study which they attempted to hide and which was finally made public. This was done under the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray). Then, last year a bill was brought in which did not begin to deal with the question. It was not proceeded with because we indicated very strongly that we would not support it. This is why we now have a bill which will give the government an opportunity to begin to deal with the question. There are many things which we believe should be contained in the bill which are not included. In earlier discussions we have suggested things which we believe should be included in the bill which are not. Some amendments and some improvements have been made, and because of this we will support the bill.
I want to say to the minister that we are very skeptical. In such a situation, the Americans would say they were from Missouri. I do not know what the Canadian equivalent is to being from Missouri.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Manitoba.


David Orlikow: My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says the Canadian equivalent is Manitoba. I can accept that as a Manitoban. However, I should like to say we are very skeptical about the real intentions of this government and this minister. One can have the best legislation in the world, but if a government does not want to use it and does not want to enforce it, then the legislation will not be much used. One could not have a better illustration than the fact that for almost 50 years anti-combines legislation has been on the statute books, and for 50 years nothing effective has been done to control the ever-growing power of monopolies in Canada, to disperse or break them up.
So, I say to the minister that, of course the first step in doing anything about this question is the passage of legislation. The second step, however, about which we are skeptical and in respect of which we will be watching very carefully the performance of the government, and particularly of the minister, is the use of the legislation when enacted, to police the situation and to do whatever can be done to ensure that the continued takeover of Canadian industry by multinational corporations be, if not halted, at least slowed down.
Let me point out to members of the House that the extent of control of foreign corporations in this country is fantastic. It is of an order which has not been duplicated in any other country in the western world. Over 90 per cent of the oil and gas resources in this country are foreign owned. Over 80 per cent of the mining resources are foreign controlled. I think over 60 per cent of the manufacturing industries are foreign controlled. The percentage of that control has been accelerating rather than slowing
Foreign Investment Review Act down. According to Statistics Canada, in 1970 the last year for which it had figures, foreign investment in Canada increased by a record $2 billion. United States firms account for $1.6 billion of that $2 billion increase in 1970. Their total holdings amount to $21.5 billion, a 7.7 per cent increase over their interest in 1969. That is what foreign control means.
I suppose one of the worst examples to indicate that we cannot afford to manage this country without foreign investment is in the speeches of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). The speech he made yesterday was by its nature a classic example of the type of speech he makes. It is the kind of argument which, if not endorsed by all members of the Conservative Party, seems to be supported certainly by every member of parliament from Alberta, everyone of whom, of course, is a Conservative. The hon. member for Crowfoot heaped scorn on us. According to him public ownership does not work. We believe in public ownership. He suggested that without private capital there would be no oil industry, no expansion and so on.
I wish to deal for a few moments with the illustration he used, the industry he used, as his clinching argument to show the fallacies in respect of public ownership and the fallacies concerning the position taken by the New Democratic Party. It is interesting to look at what has happened to the oil industry worldwide in recent years. I am sure I do not have to tell members of parliament what has happened in the countries which own the overwhelming majority of the proven oil reserves in the world. In virtually every country in the Middle East the situation has changed fantastically in recent years. From a time when the multinational oil corporations, such as Exxon, Shell and Gulf, owned the oil and paid a small royalty to the countries in which they extracted the oil, you have a situation now where in many cases the countries themselves have taken over and now own the producing oil wells. They have made arrangements with the multinational corporations to market the oil and so on but they now own it.
In other countries there has been a takeover to the extent of joint ownership, ownership on a 60-40 basis and so on, but increasingly the oil producing countries with the largest oil resources own the oil themselves or in partnership with private enterprise. The day when private enterprise was given free and exclusive rights to develop the oil resources in those countries is gone. What about the western world? In Great Britain, the largest company I believe is the British Petroleum Corporation. BP is almost 50 per cent owned by the British government. I am not sure whether that share of BP was acquired while the Labour Party formed the government or while the Conservative Party was in power. The Conservatives have been in office now for several years, and to my knowledge there has been and is no proposal that the state divest itself of its share. In France, the French government has a 35 per cent interest in CFP which is the eighth largest integrated oil company in the world. It also has a 100 per cent interest in the ELP oil company which was set up to exploit the crude oil deposits in those areas which operate with the French franc as their monetary standard.

November 21, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
The Italian government owns 100 per cent of the only oil corporation in the country, ENI, and incidentally it is the largest national oil company in the world, operating in Italy and many other countries. I have completely excluded countries which are communist controlled, and I give these illustrations simply to prove that more and more countries in the western world are finding it to the advantage of their people to have the state involved in the oil business and energy business. That is precisely what we have been advocating here.
Let me turn to the other point which was made so effectively last night by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), and I mean effectively if one thinks in terms of making a case for the oil companies. As I listened to the hon. member I was sorry I did not have a bucket with me to catch the tears which poured from his eyes as he told us about the plight of the poor, defenceless oil companies if the rights which we have given them to find oil in this country, to own oil, to sell oil at current prices, were not continued. He told us also that if they were not allowed to increase their prices, they would be bankrupt tomorrow. Somebody has to answer that kind of argument put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot. As I say, it was an extremely effective argument if one were only interested in the welfare of the oil companies. I want to put the facts on the record about the poor oil companies which, to listen to the hon. member for Crowfoot, are virtually going bankrupt. Let me take just three of those companies.
Gulf Oil in the five years from 1968 to 1972 in round figures made profits of $522 million. That is over $100 million each year. In deferred taxes, that is, taxes which it did not have to pay because of the kind of encouragement which governments have been persuaded oil companies need if they are to do business in Canada, to look for oil, and so forth, from 1968 to 1972 Gulf got over $109 million. Its actual profits for those years, and by actual profits I am talking about net income plus deferred taxes, were over $588 million. If you look at the return to the shareholders, which is shown as a percentage of net income, you see that between 1969 and 1972 that income was never less than 6.9 per cent in any year, and went up to a high of 8.7 per cent in 1972. If you include the deferred taxes as part of their earnings, their earnings for 1972 were 11.1 per cent. Need I tell hon. members of the House that because of increases in prices and increased use of oil, profits of the oil companies for the first nine months of 1973 are running at somewhere between 30 per cent and 40 per cent higher than they were in 1972?
Let me now turn to Shell Oil, another one of the companies about which I presume the hon. member for Crowfoot is concerned. In the ten years from 1962 to 1972, Shell Oil had a net income of $478 million. Its net income in 1972 was $79 million, an increase of 27 per cent over 1970 and, as I say, this year its profits are up probably by another 30 per cent. In 1971, Shell Canada had deferred taxes of over $8V2 million, and in 1972 its deferred taxes were over $10 million. Its actual profits with deferred taxes in 1971 were just under $71 million, and in 1972 they were over $89 million. The return on shareholders' investment capital in 1972 was 10.4 per cent. That is a pretty good profit for any

shareholder. I am not saying there is anything illegal or improper from their point of view. They are interested, and so they should be, in making as large profits as possible.
Now, what about the giant, the largest company- Imperial Oil? Between 1963 and 1972, Imperial Oil made $1,010 million in profits after taxes. In 1972, its profits were $151 million, an increase of 11 per cent over 1971. In 1971, its profits were $136 million, an increase of 29V2 per cent over the previous year. So far in 1973, its profits are running in the neighbourhood of 35 per cent more than they were in 1972. But, Mr. Speaker, that was not enough. In 1971, Imperial Oil was able to defer payment of taxes to the amount of $11 million, and in 1972 was able to defer payment of taxes to the amount of $26 million. Is it any wonder that members of this party cannot feel very sorry for the oil companies? They are doing very well for themselves, Mr. Speaker. If you look at the return on equity to the shareholders in percentage terms, through the years 1963 to 1972 you see that Imperial Oil never made less than 9.7 per cent, and in 1972 the return was 13.9 per cent. These were unconscionable profits.
This country faces an oil shortage in the maritime provinces and in Quebec. Why is that? It is not because of a shortage of oil. We have more than enough oil in western Canada to meet the needs of the eastern provinces. But we cannot supply those needs because there is no oil pipeline to carry the crude oil from Sarnia to Montreal. Why is there no such oil pipeline? The reason is simple. In 1961, the then Conservative government decided that the best way to meet the oil needs of the people of Canada was to adopt a policy under which oil for Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec would be supplied by imports from Venezuela and the Arab states, and that the rest of Canada from the Ottawa River west would be supplied with oil from Alberta sources. Mr. Speaker, until this year crude laid down in Montreal and purchased from Venezuela or the Arab states was cheaper than crude shipped from the west, so that is what the user got. The price of oil west of the Ottawa River was set by the oil companies in Alberta and that was what the consumer had to pay, even though it would have been cheaper to bring oil from Venezuela into Toronto. The Toronto-Hamilton-Ottawa user had to use western oil.
The price of oil has gone up now, and I do not blame the Venezuelan government for that. They are going to charge what the traffic will bear, but the eastern user is going to have to pay more. Had we built a pipeline, as members of this party and representatives of the independent oil producers have been recommending for years, western oil could now be shipped to Montreal to meet the needs of the eastern user. But that did not suit the western oil producers who had set the price so that they could make high profits. It did not suit them to have that pipeline built and former Conservative and Liberal governments went along with that.
It is not bad enough that homes and industries in the eastern provinces are going to have to pay more for oil because they have to pay the price which the Venezuelans and Arab countries want, but it is now proposed by the oil
November 21, 1973

companies, by the government of Alberta and their friends the Conservative members of parliament from Alberta, and also for reasons which I find impossible to understand by the Liberal party, that not only will the eastern user be held for ransom but that as of the end of January 1974 the price freeze imposed by the federal government will be removed. That will mean that the price of oil produced in western Canada will be as exorbitant as the price which has to be paid in Montreal.
The hon. member for Crowfoot talks about the interests of the western people. If the Parliament of Canada permits the oil companies to charge what they want, and if the Parliament of Canada permits the premier of Alberta whose brother by the way-and I do not know whether or not this is a fact-is vice president of an oil company-


Mr. Andre:: That is a cheap, cheap, cheap, statement.


David Orlikow: If the government of Canada permits that increase in the price of oil to take place-Mr. Speaker, somebody interjected from the corridor to the effect that what I said about the relationship between the premier of Alberta and his brother was a cheap thing to say. If the hon. member who made that statement says that it is not true, then I will withdraw the statement. However, if the statement is correct Mr. Speaker, there is nothing cheap about it; in fact, it is a very expensive thing for the Canadian people.
There is one thing which should be noted today, Mr. Speaker, and I hope it will be kept in mind by the constituents of the hon. member for Crowfoot when the price of gas goes up. If the government of Canada lets the price of oil go up the way the oil companies want, and certainly the Conservative party and certainly the hon. member for Crowfoot want, the price of gasoline will increase by 10 or 12 cents a gallon early in 1974.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


David Orlikow: Certainly.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My question to the hon. member is this: if there were a shortage of school teachers and if you were to freeze their wages would you get more teachers? He seems to understand school teachers' language, and that is a simple question.


David Orlikow: The hon. member for Crowfoot was not in his seat until a few seconds ago, Mr. Speaker. I saw him sit down a little while ago, but I do not know whether he was here when I began to make my speech. I have already put on the record the profit statements of Shell, Gulf and Imperial Oil. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the profits of the oil companies are high enough that they can afford to do the exploration that may be necessary.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They will go to the North Sea! They will go to Indonesia!


Harvie Andre: Do you know how much they make on their investment? Seven per cent.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am no more bothered by the interjections of the hon. member for Crowfoot than was
Foreign Investment Review Act my leader the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) the other night.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, you are telling a little more of the truth than he did the other night!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member only has one minute more, so I suggest that he be allowed to complete his remarks.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in calculating my time I hope you will not deduct from it the time taken by the interjections of the hon. member for Crowfoot. In my view, and I think I documented this pretty closely and conclusively, the oil companies operating in Alberta are making a very good return on their investment. I put the facts on the record, and their returns are more than sufficient to meet the needs, the desires and the legitimate-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Buy some of their shares then.


David Orlikow: -requirements of their shareholders. I say they have the ability to do the exploration for new resources which are needed and if they do not, the people of Canada through their government can put up the money. We can put up the money if we can continue to collect the export tax which the federal government imposed some time ago. I say there is no reason for an increase in the price of gas. I drive a car, though not very often, and an increase of 10 or 12 cents a gallon will not affect me very much.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. However, he can continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed.


David Orlikow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not abuse the privilege you have extended. Let me simply say that the hon. member for Crowfoot may have to answer to the farmers he represents when they come to buy the fuel for their tractors, their combines and all the other farm equipment they need. If they have to pay 10 or 12 cents a gallon more to the oil companies which, in my view, are already making exorbitant profits and then wonder what hit them, they can do no better than look at the speech made by the hon. member for Crowfoot, to find the reason.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And when all farmers in this country have run out of oil, perhaps they will read the hon. member's speech.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I wonder if I might raise a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), in his speech, suggested that I was trying to imply something unfair about his party. I want to assure my hon. friend that I had no intention of associating his party with international communism, because that would be like associating a cold sore with lip cancer. Also, I wonder if I may ask the hon. member a question.

November 21, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Only if the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the House, as the hon. member's time had expired, been extended, and has expired again.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my main remarks I wish to refer to the closing of the debation the report stage on Monday evening. As Your Honour is aware, I had an amendment to this bill which was listed last on the order paper. At six o'clock that day the Acting Speaker, then the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) suggested that it might possibly be out of order. As it was six o'clock, he suggested that perhaps comments could be made on the matter.
At the time I was unfortunately absent in Alberta, attending the funeral of our late colleague, Harry Kuntz. I only regret that the hon. member for Saint John-Lancas-ster (Mr. Bell) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) were in such a mood at that time that they felt this bill needed very speedy passage. I felt that the acting speaker at the time could have chosen some better precedent for ruling my amendment out of order. I believe His Honour expressed the feeling that the amendment interfered with the legislative procedure which we have grown accustomed to in this country. I am not saying my amendment was completely in order; I would not have been surprised if it had been ruled out of order. However, I should not like to see that ruling, which did not evoke any response, to become the precedent for future rulings on amendments of that kind.
It seems to me that the legislative procedure has been adopted whereby we allow the provinces to accept or reject federal legislation in many areas. As an example, I can think of the Criminal Code, which allows provinces to hold lotteries or not hold them, as they will; I think of the Canada Pension Plan, under which we require provincial consent if the plan is to operate; I think of the medicare legislation, which a lot of provinces did not accept immediately. We needed the club of the federal spending power to bring them into line and participate in that federal legislation.
In 1964-65, this House passed special legislation setting up a procedure for allowing provinces to opt out of what is primarily national legislation. So, I do not know whether the ruling was well founded; however, I want to point out to the House that it was not-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member's difficulty. It arose because he was not here that evening to defend something which he proposed to do at the report stage. I think his point has been noted by the Chair and by the officers present. Nevertheless, the ruling was made in good faith by the occupant of the chair at that time. Perhaps the hon. member would be good enough to drop the subject and proceed with his speech on third reading.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am in no way critical of the hon. member who was Acting Speaker at that time, because he was the one who invited comments. I am complaining of hon. members of this House who failed, in my view, to live 
up to their duty and give him some assistance. That is the point.
The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) said, when speaking on this bill at the report stage, that in his opinion this is the most important piece of legislation the present parliament has so far considered. I agree. This legislation will have far reaching effects on the economic and social life of this country. I do not apologize for the time I shall take in dealing with it. Perhaps I will use my 40 minutes; perhaps I will not. I will do my best to cover the situation, and I apologize in advance if some of my remarks appear somewhat disjointed. As has been pointed out, this bill will have far reaching effects. It will be of concern to every part of the country and therefore deserves full and complete discussion.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) suggested that Canadians are concerned about foreign investment in Canada. I suppose he meets more people than I meet in his perambulations around the country. I think all members do a fair amount of travelling and talk to many people. I must say I have not noticed any burning concern across this country about foreign investment. Perhaps there is a burning concern in a certain select, elite group in Toronto, concentrated probably most heavily in the editorial rooms of the Toronto Star. I know that Hon. Walter Gordon has had certain ideas on this question for a long time. I suppose he is using his influence with the Toronto Star, and of course he has some influence. I suggest that the main thrust behind this legislation comes from there. Of course, the Toronto Star influences commentators, newscasters of the CBC, and others. The main news gathering and public opinion promoting facilities of the corporation are based in Toronto. That city is also the headquarters of the Canadian television network, of Maclean's magazine and of other great makers of Canadian public opinion. I suppose, as a result of cross-fertilization among these entities, there is now a strong pressure for controls over foreign investment in Canada.
We did not hear too much on this subject from that area when investment was needed to make it what it is now. People like Eddie Goodman of Cadillac Development Corporation-many call him Fast Eddie-support this type of legislation. Let me say that the system which allowed Fast Eddie to arrive where he is today could work well in other parts of the country. Mr. Goodman and his friends are not offering any of their profits for the development of, say, the Atlantic shelf, that is, for the development of energy in that region. I do not know how great a risk he and his friends would be prepared to take in investing profits, derived in large measure from the activities of people who have utilized money from outside Canada, in the development of that particular area.
I want to spend most of my time trying to relate this legislation to the energy field. As a member from Alberta, I am probably most acquainted with the relationship of this legislation to that particular field of endeavour. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) so blatantly state the facts when referring to the problem of the great oil companies. However, it is important to note that the facts should be set out in a little different way.
November 21, 1973

I wish to refer to a story that appeared in the infamous newspaper the Toronto Star on November 14 under the heading "Imperial Oil tells employees its profits are not excessive". I quote:
In the current oil crisis, gasoline prices have been going up. Are the oil producers getting a larger share?
No, contends J. A. Armstrong, president of U.S.-controlled Imperial Oil Ltd.
Here's how he puts the company's position in a report to employees: "On the average the price Imperial receives for gasoline-the wholesale price at which the company sells it to the dealer, exclusive of federal and provincial taxes-has increased 21 per cent since 1948. In the same period . .. average weekly wages and salaries have increased by almost 400 per cent.
That does not sound like gouging.
"To put it another way. In 1948 the Canadian wage earner had to work 25 minutes to buy a gallon of gasoline. Today, he works eight minutes and today's gasoline is vastly superior to the product he bought in 1948."
Armstrong concedes that Imperial's profit has been increasing and has drawn some criticism. He mentions the high cost of exploration-$23 million spent by the industry during 30 years of exploration-
I question that. I think the reporter or typesetter left a zero off that figure. That should probably be an annual figure rather than the figure for 30 years. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I should have read a little further ahead.
-$23 million spent by the industry during 30 years of exploration in the Prairie provinces before discovery of the Leduc field in 1947 and $300 million risked in searching for oil on the Atlantic shelf since 1960.
We all know there has not been a find of commercial quality off the Atlantic shelf in that period.
"The Canadian oil industry made an after-tax profit in 1972 of 7.4 per cent on the money it used in its business. The after-tax profit in manufacturing generally that year was 7.3 per cent- essentially the same return in an industry that, by normal standards, is considered to face less risk."
Imperial last year had a profit of $151 million but, says Armstrong, these figures "tell nothing about the size of the investment on which it is based."
"A more meaningful way to look at a company's profit is in terms of how much it earned in total revenue. In 1972, Imperial's profit on each dollar was 7.3 per cent, which is just about the company's average of the past 25 years."
We have to realize that much capital is required in the resource industry. It is certainly a risky business, as I will attempt to show later. As indicated in Mr. Armstrong's statement, $300 million has been spent in the last 13 years off the east coast of Canada without a commercial find. We will not get people to put up that kind of money unless there is some hope for a better return if and when something is found. It is not the same as making widgets in Montreal because if that does not work, the company can go into something else. There is not the same risk over a long period of time.
Reference was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North to other countries. He mentioned British Petroleum, a company in France and an Italian company. It should be pointed out that none of those companies were formed for operations within the territorial boundaries of those countries. British Petroleum was formed under the auspices of the late Sir Winston Churchill when he was First Lord of
Foreign Investment Review Act the Admiralty prior to World War I. He realized Britain needed a secure source of fuel for its navy. He felt it necessary to have a company in which the government had an interest in order to ensure national security. Since that time there has not been any operation by that company within the territorial limits of Great Britain, except possibly in the North Sea where a great number of companies are operating. The North Sea has certainly not been closed to foreign companies.
We now find more Canadian companies changing the emphasis of their exploration from Canada to the North Sea, yet the NDP say that we have a situation in Canada where there is no risk. They say there is no need to worry, you can drill anywhere and find anything you want. If that is so, why is interest being lost in Canadian operations? Why are exploration companies moving from Canada to the North Sea and the American Gulf coast? It is primarily because they do not know what the climate will be here. They do not know whether restrictions will be placed on future access to foreign money markets or whether the federal government will have policies to artificially keep the price down. They do not know whether there will be a change in the tax policy, the competition act or any number of things that are making the people engaged in that industry pull out their hair.
There is too much concern about the financial side. We have to look at the human side of the problem. After all, these Canadian companies employ Canadians, as do the foreign-controlled companies. Canada has developed a large body of scientifically trained personnel who are engaged in this industry. If the present situation continues much longer, we will lose them. The minister said yesterday that this legislation is necessary in order to get Canadians involved. I can say that in the energy industry we have an indigenous group of research people and highly qualified technicians who are liable to disappear if the policies of this government and its socialist friends are followed much longer.
I do not think members realize what the energy industry does for employment in this country. I wish to put some facts on the record. For every oil or gas well drilled, there are 16 people employed directly on the rig as well as two employees from a testing company, two employees of a logging company, two from a coring company, one welder, four camp caterers, two mud suppliers, two cementing company employees, two casing company employees, two bit supplier employees, three employees of the fuel dealer who supplies the fuel for the operations of the rig, three water haulers, eight employees of a trucking company, three rathole-conductor contractor employees and three lease construction employees. There are two surveyors as well as between 15 and 25 people employed in electrical, plumbing, hardware, rental, grocery, fishing and other occupations. For every oil drilling rig, between 70 and 80 people are employed.
I have listened to Eric Kierans. As far as he is concerned, the oil and gas industry does not employ anybody. It does not really deal with labour at all. Well, why is it that the unemployment rate in Alberta and Saskatchewan has been lower over the past number of years than in any other part of the country? Why is it difficult to find people

November 21, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act to take jobs available in those areas if it is not because of the operations of the oil companies? In addition, the oil drilling industry is a totally Canadian industry. It is 95 per cent Canadian owned. Granted, it depends on two types of customers-oil companies which are not Canadian controlled, and oil companies which are. But this drilling industry, which employs a vast number of people, is 95 per cent Canadian owned and controlled. We do not always keep these things in mind. It seems to me we are sometimes so concerned about controlling foreign investment that we ignore some of the human consequences which may follow when some of these bureaucrats start fiddling around, as bureaucrats are apt to do, unsupervised by someone who has the interest of the whole country at heart.
The minister turned down every effort to get increased provincial participation in this area. He is convinced, it seems, that the job can be done just as well by some board which he intends to appoint in the interests of the whole country. I believe it is well known, however, that the interests of the whole country have not been well served up to the present time. This is why the party opposite me was turned down so resoundingly last year in every province but one. It is because hon. gentlemen opposite do not have a feeling for the whole country. They have a feeling for the triangle, Montreal-Toronto-Ottawa, and in this case I think it is Toronto which is calling the tune to which the government is dancing. I am not prepared to allow that type of interest to be injected into the national life of the country if I can possibly prevent it.
I should like to say something about the practical effects of this legislation. Here is a piece of legislation which will control every business and economic undertaking in the country right down to small businesses having $250,000 in assets and $3 million in turnover. Sometimes I think we become dazzled by figures. We must believe this is an awful lot of money and that these are large undertakings. I want to give hon. members an example of the kind of business these figures cover. I am thinking of the local Oldsmobile-Chevrolet-Cadillac dealership across from my office in the City of Drumheller. It employs a dozen people. It has assets of $150,000 and its turnover last year, in the second year of its operation under the present ownership, was $2 million. As things are going at present, it will not be long before its turnover exceeds $3 million in volume. Is it at all reasonable that a bunch of bureaucrats in Ottawa should be placed in the position of deciding whether or not it would be all right for someone from Montana to buy that business? What are we coming to when a government is so grasping that it wishes to exercise that kind of control?
I was about to mention that a rapeseed processing plant is presently proposed for the Town of Sexsmith in Alberta, a short distance from Grand Prairie. A report on this undertaking appears in the Albertan Business Report for November 13. I should like to quote from it:
This sleepy northwestern Alberta village where the main industry now consists of six grain elevators employing six people is about to get a shot in the arm from a $10.3 million rapeseed processing plant.
Sod for the plant, which will employ more than 60 people and have an annual pay roll of more than $450,000 will be turned shortly...

Nora Holscher, Village Secretary-Treasurer, says more than half the employees will come from Sexsmith, which has a population of 622, and the rest from the City of Grand Prairie, 12 miles to the south. "The plant will be the lifeblood of the village", Mrs. Holscher said.
The difficulty here is that money put up by Swedish and West German interests will finance the construction and operation of this new industry. What would happen if this development were proposed after the implementation of the legislation we are now discussing? There is a rapeseed crushing plant located in or close to the City of Montreal. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that the bureaucrats would say it was of significant benefit to establish this new plant in Alberta when it might possibly have an adverse effect on employment in the City of Montreal? I wonder what the answer to that question would be.
I, for one, do not think it would be favourable to Alberta, especially in view of the fact that the minister wishes to retain political control over all these decisions. If he wishes to give us clear proof of his bona fides he would be advocating a screening office one step removed from his own office and not subject to his dictates. After all, he is going to appoint people who will do as he says. I think this screening board should be given a measure of independence and that there should be representation from all parts of the country among its members. As things are, perhaps there will be one member from the far west, one member from the Atlantic provinces and four or five from the centres of Ontario and Quebec, directing all the new investment which is to be allowed to flow into this country. I am not optimistic about how this thing will work, if it ever is allowed to work, which I hope will never be the case. As far as I am concerned, the minister has not shown his complete bona fides in the way he is handling the situation.


Mr. Caccia:: What about saying something positive now?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Very well, I will say something positive. What this country needs is money to build. I would rather see Canadian money used before any other, but we will never develop this country completely by using our own financial resources. No other country has done so. The United States did not reach its present exalted position by building from within; it borrowed money extensively from Great Britain, France and other countries.


Charles L. Caccia: Is that where you want to borrow?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: If the bon. member can tell me of any country that has been built up entirely by using its own resources, then I would be glad to hear from him. Indeed, I hope he is going to participate in this debate. If there is one country, I suppose it might be Saudi Arabia. We have great resources in this country, as I think all members of the House will agree, but they do not magically fall from trees. You do not gather them up with a rake. You have to build buildings and dig holes. Incidentally, I would remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) that you do not dig for oil, you dig for coal. But he does not know too much about the industry.
The fact is that there is a lot of work to be done and it will take a lot of money. I completely agree we should use
November 21, 1973

Canadian money first, but when you have a coalition of socialists and semisocialists you are never going to have sufficient funds. All of the money will be wasted on grandiose, bureaucratic plans that take most of the thrust from the use of this money. The federal government itself is setting a bad example by paying higher and higher salaries. Look at our deputy ministers today. Certainly, they look after themselves very well. But you cannot have everything; you must have some sense of priority. If the federal government wastes money, then this sets a bad example to the provincial and municipal governments. They are just about as wasteful, but they have a good master to follow.
As I say, a lot of money will be required to develop this country. As Canadians, we should at least be given the same opportunity as foreigners to invest in our resources. This is what I have been requesting since I came here five years ago, but this bunch of so-called brains sitting on the treasury benches cannot seem to grasp the message that they should give Canadians a little bit of a break, or at least parity with foreigners, in the matter of investment. In this way you would be taking positive action. You say to Canadians: "We will give you a chance to invest in your country". But as long as we have something like the Benson tax bill that is going to take everything from our citizens or the great unemployment insurance rip-off, spawned by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) and costing billions of dollars that could be better spent on developing the resources of this country, our citizens will never have sufficient investment funds.
Let me put on the record some figures that relate to the energy situation today. Over the next ten years, $1,000 billion will be required to be spent to find new sources of energy. The industry itself can put up about 60 per cent of that, or $600 billion. This leaves a shortfall of about $400 billion. What I am fearful of is that, far from having too much foreign investment in this country, we will soon be reaching the situation where we will not have enough money to develop our resources. In Canada alone during this period about $30 billion will be required. The industry will be able to supply between $20 billion to $25 billion from their own resources, though the amount can vary, of course, with government policy. This leaves a balance of $5 billion to $10 billion which must either be raised in Canada or brought to Canada from abroad in order to make sure that we have a secure supply of energy. Thank goodness the policies we have followed to date have provided a good source of energy supply. It is fortunate, as the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) pointed out, that federal government policies have ensured that this safe source of supply will be available to all Canadians. Nevertheless, we have to admit that shortsightedness is a human frailty which is found in all people, and I suppose in Canadians in particular.
I was disappointed to hear, in these days of shortage of supply, that when the province of Alberta offered to make sure that Canadian interests would be served first a spokesman for the province of Quebec said: "Well, if you insist on building a pipeline to supply us with the oil that we need, we might take it on the clear understanding that it is a two-way pipeline. Then, if circumstances change, we can send oil out west through this pipeline". I do not regard that as the type of statement that produces a great
Foreign Investment Review Act feeling of national unity in this country. I am happy, however, that the province from which I come has recognized its duty, as a partner in confederation, to ensure that Canadians from coast to coast will have oil and gas made available to them in this time of difficulty, even perhaps to the extent of damaging permanently the fields from which those resources come.
Whether or not the government is going to do anything along this line, we do not know. I have to admit that when such a proposal was first made in 1959 and 1961, the Conservative party was in office. Representatives of the Alberta petroleum industry came to Ottawa to see whether they would be permitted to supply their products to Montreal. At that time western oil was too expensive so the idea was dropped. Just four and a half years ago, in June of 1969, the offer was repeated, and again the door was slammed in the face of western oil interests. I think the offer was renewed in January of 1972, but a lack of interest was still shown. I hope that the opportunity will be given Albertans to assist their fellow citizens in this time of difficulty. However, the fact is that if we follow the line of thinking embodied in this bill we are not going to have sufficient known sources of supply in Canada, even though we know they are there. It seems that a number of people in the federal bureaucracy, the opinion makers in this country, think you can turn on oil and gas supplies the way you turn on the water faucet, but this is just not so. It takes a long time to discover reserves, and I am afraid that unless action is taken now to encourage exploration activity we will not have the known reserves required for the future.
At this time I should like to say something about the composition of the Canadian energy industry. This is a very technical and high risk industry requiring large amounts of risk capital. The industry is composed of over 600 different companies ranging in size from the major international companies with assets in the billions to one-man geological operations. In the past number of years there has been increasing development of Canadian-owned firms. This is really amazing when you consider the tax and other difficulties which have been placed in the way by this federal government. These small firms have been influential in generating a large body of expertise in all phases of this operation, but I am afraid this expertise will be lost as a result of the attitude of the present government. The development of this expertise has been inhibited to a large extent by our tax policies. Our policies do not encourage Canadian companies or individuals to carry out exploration for oil and gas in this country.
It is interesting to note that while we are happy to have our known reserves, we must recognize the fact that these are known reserves because the U.S. government has in its wisdom subsidized U.S. exploration to the extent of 90 per cent.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Perhaps he could have more time.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.
8026

November 21, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I think you misunderstood me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I did not see any other hon. member rise to speak.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie).


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize there was consent for me to continue.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Do I understand the House gives unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: It is such a beautiful speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member rise on a point of order?


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask whether the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) would entertain a question? I understand that the House has agreed to extend his time.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Sure, go ahead.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is my understanding that the hon. member hopes this bill never comes into effect. I wonder if he would tell the House, in the few minutes left at his disposal, how he intends to vote; whether he will vote with the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), who thinks it does not go far enough, or with the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), who thinks it goes too far? We would all be interested in knowing how he will vote on third reading.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, I think the hon. member will have to wait to see. There may never be a vote, one never knows.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: A Conservative filibuster.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for the opportunity to continue, and I undertake not to impose on their goodwill for too long. I am afraid I have not progressed very quickly, as I still have a lot of material I should like to put on the record, but perhaps I might just finish this phase of my discussion.
It seems that recently there has been an increasing development of small independent operations in the oil exploration field in western Canada. Perhaps it would be useful to again look at some of the figures when dealing with this matter. In 1972 there was a total of 325 dry wells drilled in Alberta, of which there were 66 drilled by major companies. In addition 11 producing wells were drilled. It is interesting to note that you do not get a producing well

every time you put down a hole. During the same period of time, there were 259 dry wells drilled by independent oil companies, as well as 66 producers. Almost 81 per cent of the wells drilled in Alberta were drilled by small independent oil companies rather than by those major bogey-men my friends from Toronto seem to fear so much.
There was not the same degree of activity in Saskatchewan, but almost 92 per cent of the oil wells drilled there during the same period were drilled by small Canadian independent companies. The situation in British Columbia was somewhat different. The major companies seemed to have more confidence in the new government there, with the result that only 39.1 per cent of the wells drilled during that period were drilled by independent companies. At the same time all the wells drilled in Manitoba were drilled by independent companies. In total activity, 81.9 per cent of wells drilled in 1972 were drilled by small companies.
Considering the number of wells drilled one must realize that a great deal of money is required to carry out this activity. I am happy to see that Canadian companies are taking part to such a great extent in this activity, but I remind hon. members that they depend for their lifeblood on sources of funds outside Canada. These companies cannot operate without access to foreign investment. We must bear in mind that the financial communities of Montreal and Toronto are not free and easy with the money they control. An example of this is the fact that the premiers of various provinces, notably socialist premiers such as Premiers Barrett, Blakeney and Schreyer, immediately upon being elected ran off to New York, Switzerland and London for money. If there is so much money at such favourable terms in Canada why are these premiers not tapping this source? I know that members of the NDP will say that this is debt money rather than equity, but the fact is that the companies to which I have referred require debt money as well. That is the type of money we need in order to keep the cost of Canadian money competitive. There must be free access to foreign investment because Canadian investors have not shown any great ability to handle the job.
[Transla tion]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, a review of the progress of social, political, and economic thought since ancient times shows that interventionism evolves in spirals. This is the point I wish to deal with because I think that Bill C-132 relates to some kind of state intervention in very important areas.
We must accept this process not because we lack defensive means but because of our realism and understanding of the domestic and external economic and political environment of this country. If I were to give a name to this century, from an economic point of view, I would call it the "century of interventionism".
Interventionism is beneficial where it is well adapted. It is not surprising then to see states with the most liberal socio-economic ideas recognizing the principle of intervention and applying it in key areas of their society.
November 21, 1973

This is not the place to promote this principle but we should sensitize our leaders to this increasingly serious phenomenon in order to make everyone realize that this is not a magic panacea but rather a liberal principle that we should, in my opinion, not relinquish but modernize and adjust.
In liberal societies like ours, the intervention of governments is essential to regulate our activities. We must re-instate through government legislation the essential activities that will then become ordinary and timely.
The subject matter is very interesting and I could say, Mr. Speaker, that the present and former leaders of the government have implemented in the last years several interventionist plans in some very important fields. I could mention hospital insurance, the Canada Assistance Plan, unemployment insurance, family allowances, old age security, regional development incentives, social security, under which 50 per cent of all social security in Canada is paid by the federal government to the blind, the needy, the widows, the disabled, the welfare services and so on. Then the government intervenes in the areas essential to the quality of Canadian life.
Bill C-132 is merely intended to protect the high interests of the country and also to check in a certain way the economic problems caused by international operations.
Before dealing with the bill it could be useful to speak about the whole economic situation. Canada is a young country, a developing country, one of the largest territories in the world whose population is spread over 10 territorial entities and concentrated mostly in large centres.
Thus, the Canadian mosaic is characterized by population, geography, culture and economic voids. Political efforts consist, consequently, in rectifying the existing lack of balance between regions, areas, cities and urban centres, and also between fisheries and agriculture, between commerce and services, between communications and cultural laws governing the life style of Canadians.
The primary effort, I believe, should bear at first on the elimination of obstacles to development, while preparing welcoming structures to be used as solid foundations to the construction of a strong and united Canada.
The economic philosophy of the country and the noble nationalistic worries have left, in previous years, a free field to foreign societies and to capable businessmen, so that they were able to mold the Canadian economy in accordance with their own criteria.
As a matter of fact, during this stage of national construction and cultural harmonizing, Canadian leaders noticed that Canada's resources had passed into foreign hands, meaning that these resources were not used directly for Canadian needs, but in the interest of foreign countries.
Thus, Canada has become a raw material supplier, in the same way, maybe, as a few underdeveloped countries, which constitute a group of poor countries in front of the group of industrialized countries. The consequences of this situation on the Canadian economy are easy to forecast. Power no longer belongs to Canadians, but to those who
Foreign Investment Review Act own vital and economic interests, which causes a shift of the economic and political power.
Second, we have an economy sensitive to any sociopolitical change, hence the loss for all Canadians of the control over their social and economic destiny.
Third, the bridle of the Canadian economy is in the hands of foreigners and runs through the pulleys of foreign metropolises. I am talking here about multinational corporations.
In such a situation the effects of any economic chaos are easily felt because that close dependence ties us to economies enjoying far greater production and consumption capacities.
Fourth, the fact that Canadian products are destined to serve foreign interests results in a lack of jobs for Canadians. That is because those resources are channeled through a processing method without the Canadian economy, something which benefits in various respects to outside economies both in terms of employment, income, and market.
Fifth, that processing of resources moved outside our territory results in our infrastructure being incomplete and stopping at the limit of our frontiers.
The problems resulting from previous situations have the main effect of deteriorating exchange rates. Canada, a country rich in raw materials has to produce more, invest more, work more, and use more machinery to end up receiving in return the same service or the same machinery that cost increasingly more.
I could go on adding to that list, Mr. Speaker, but I think that the problem is well understood by the average Canadian citizen. We must now concentrate our priorities on curbing a situation unfair to Canadian interests.
This bill is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It ensures a flexible Canadian attitude that I find wise and reasonable.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, during this debate on third reading of this bill, we again are discussing the problem of foreign ownership of our economy and national life. It is too bad that, in respect of this bill, the minister did not see fit to accept some amendments, particularly the amendments dealing with the input the provincial governments should have with regard to the decision-making process of this tribunal which is being established. Without this possibility of the provincial governments having some input, the way the bill is set up makes it possible they would not even know that a takeover problem existed or that a company was being formed or being taken over until after the event. So, after listening to considerable debate, I am more than ever of the opinion that the effect of this legislation will not be what was intended because of its substantial deficiencies.
The first defect is that Canada should have expanded its approach to sector control of the economy, something which has already started in certain areas. But this legislation does not deal with that. In the beginning, I was of the opinion that there were certain significant areas of our
26635-77J

November 21, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act economy that should have been protected from foreign ownership. We are involved in communications, yet sometimes when I listen to the CBC I wonder if it was worthwhile trying to protect that part of the economy from outside influences.
There were other areas, and I mention one, uranium. But it should be remembered that uranium is found in vast quantities around the world. We must also remind ouselves, when we are thinking of these things, that we have substantial stakes in other parts of the world. We have a large Canadian aluminum industry, and according to the papers the other day a survey indicates that the aluminum industry will probably grow much more rapidly than any other metal industry. But where does most of the raw material for that industry come from, Mr. Speaker? It comes from outside Canada. Would we be so happy if people in other countries insisted on that raw material being processed there before being exported?
But having decided on what I would call this second best course of controlling foreign investment, basically we are falling back on a tribunal of civil servants who will impose their will on each and every business, with the sanction of the cabinet. What more autocratic or more bureacratic decision making process could there be to decide on whether the person who wants to buy the corner store or the little gravel hauling industry is entitled to do so?
These civil servants live in Ottawa. One of the great failings of people who live in this atmosphere in the centre of the country is that they grow insensitive to the surrounding regions with which they are not familiar. This is a very understandable human trait. We all share it. But in a country like Canada civil servants living in Ottawa take the country to include an area 100 miles around Ottawa. They are conscious of the strong influences of Quebec and Ontario. As a result, I think the rest of the provinces are in for a pretty rough time at the hands of this tribunal. Perhaps we would have been more fortunate if we had had our national capital in Prince Edward Island, a small province, where it would not be subjected to such great pressures, from the larger provinces, economically and politically. But this is an idea I would not want to discuss at great length with P.E.I. members.
There has always been a large degree of foreign ownership of our economy. This has been due to the fact that we have wanted a high standard of living, and we failed to invest in our own country to the extent required. I suggest we have failed, not because we have not wanted to develop our country, but because we have not had the investment money to do so. Without foreign investment, we would be without jobs for our rapidly growing labour force. We must remember that each time we complain about high unemployment, the answer we get from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) is that Canada has the most rapidly growing labour force in the world. Without foreign investment, it would be impossible for us to give our people the high standard of living they demand. All of us want to live as well as the Americans, as well as the Europeans, and through our social services we are making a strong effort to do so. But it is interesting to note that the Americans, with whom we compare ourselves and who have a some-

what similar economy, have not developed the welfare state concept to the extent that we have, although their economy is considerably richer and more mature than ours and basically they could afford a much higher welfare state than we can afford.
Because oil and gas are so important at this period in our national life we should take a look at investment in this industry. We may not like the American companies, just as the NDP do not like them. We may be anti-American. We may deplore the fact that they are here. But, let us face it, without the American oil companies most of Canada would be pretty cold today, including B.C. and Ontario, because no oil of any consequence was found in western Canada before 1954 when the Leduc field was opened. I can remember my family living on a farm in which they invested $1,300 back in 1937, at a time when that was a lot of money, and all they got out of the Alberta oil fields was a little bit of paper. In the main the American investors drilled the holes. Those who tell the story of the finding of Leduc in 1954 can recount how the premier of Alberta at that time brought certain people down to Montreal and Toronto to see if eastern financiers were interested in investing in oil. The answer he got was, "So what? You have a hole in the ground with a little oil in it. We are not interested in investing in that." It is fair to say that probably they did not have enough money. They had other things in which to invest.
As a result the Americans took over the oil industry to a large extent, mainly because of their investing habits. It was not a question of the large oil companies in the beginning. Many small American individuals, the professional people, the lawyers and doctors, people who were willing to put $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000 into betting on a hole in the ground. It was just like betting at a race track. They were the ones who originally opened up the oil fields. And what did the American government do? It allowed these people to write off their investments against their personal income tax. Even yet, in the three western provinces where intensive drilling is carried on, most of it is done by small independent companies financed by similar types of American investors. It is only in the Arctic islands that the large oil companies are actually involved in drilling. After the holes are drilled, then the large oil companies take over.
In 1948 or 1949 a group of people in my town wanted me to join with them in an enterprise in which each put in a couple of thousand dollars to form a small oil company. In those days it took $10,000 to drill a hole in the Lloydmin-ster area. I did not get any results, so I suspended the operation. A year later I asked one individual if he was still involved in the Lloydminster oilfield. He replied that the federal government had changed the tax law so he could not now deduct his losses from his income tax, and he was not going to risk his money any further. It took 20 years for amendments to be made to the income tax law to provide that losses could be written off, and even then there was a maximum of $1,000 a year. So if you lost $5,000 it would take five years to write it off. Mr. Speaker, with inflation the way it is you should be able to write it off in six months if the amendment is to be of any value. This action by the federal government, however, does not seem
November 21, 1973

to have been any inducement for investment in the small oilwells.
Some people have said that the Maritimes and Montreal do not have any oil because of the Ottawa line. Perhaps the people in Ontario have paid slightly more to assure themselves of a supply of oil, but without this they would be pretty cold this winter. Until recently the attitude of the Americans has been that they did not want our oil, but after the Suez crisis in 1967 they saw Canada as a secure source of supply. For years the Venezuelans demanded that the Americans take a certain amount of oil from them but the Americans refused although at that time oil was a dime a barrel all over the world. One cannot help thinking that they would have been no worse off if they had dealt with the Venezuelans instead of the Canadians.
The Globe and Mail today carries a report to the effect that Mr. Bourassa is not enthusiastic about a pipeline to Montreal. He wants it if necessary apparently, but wants the federal government to pay for it. He also wants the federal government to pay for the oil that is transported through the line. According to the article he wants to continue to rely on offshore oil for the factories and refineries that he hopes to build in Quebec. I think this indicates the feeling that we will eventually return to normal conditions.
It has been said in this House by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) that we will have to hold the line on gas and oil prices, and that after the end of January he will bring down the government unless this is done. I do not know how this fits in with the fact that Westcoast Transmission in British Columbia, encouraged by the B.C. Energy Commission, has raised the price of natural gas by 81 per cent. This fact was admitted by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) in answer to a question I put to him a couple of days ago.
A report was carried on the radio last weekend to the effect that Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan told the New Democratic Party convention there that the dwindling oil reserves in that province would last for about 16 years, but he added that if no exports were allowed the supply would last for 50 years. Does this mean that he intends to keep the oil at home, Mr. Speaker? Where would we be if we all adopted this attitude, that our resources must be kept within our provincial borders and not sold on the open markets of the country. There seems to be a great deal of inconsistency within the New Democratic Party.
If we deplore the foreign investment in our country, we should realize that there are many countries in a similar situation. In the last century the United States was largely financed by British capital. It is always stated that capital in the form of loans and bonds is better than capital in direct investment because of the possible conflict of interest between decisions made in local head offices and decisions made in corporate head offices outside Canada. I think this theory is greatly overrated because, although it is often indicated that decisions by parent companies outside Canada are not good for Canada, very little evidence of this has been produced that I have seen.
When this bill was in committee, the management of a small oil company with 28,000 U.S. shareholders was asked
Foreign Investment Review Act what influence the shareholders had on company policy. The management of this company was Canadian I might add. The answer given was that there was no evidence of influence, that all the shareholders wanted was a reasonable return on their money. They wanted some profit and the only time they were likely to interfere was if they did not get it.
There seems to be substantial evidence that we are buying back control of our economy. So long as the shares of large companies are traded freely on the stock exchanges, Canadian investors will be able to buy these companies back. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that many Canadians are not greatly interested in this. In effect, so-called Canadian ownership will depend largely on whether Canadians as a whole are interested in saving for this possibility. These savings in the final analysis are a matter of individual preference.
We have only to study the effect of the new Canada Pension Plan, which has a new cost of living clause built into it, to realize that for many Canadians in the lower income brackets it is almost foolhardy to have any personal savings. With complete medicine, hospital and nursing care for our citizens over 65 years of age, and with old age pensions and escalating Canada Pension Plan benefits, there is no need for the lower income Canadian to suffer. He may, of course, want to buy some article that will be helpful or gratifying in his daily life but in fact with the old age pension and the Canada Pension Plan available to him, the average individual could not save as much money as would give him a comparable annuity in his old age. Considering present inflation rates, why would any person want to save, say up to $500 per year, especially as the return on the money would be so small as to make the saving hardly worthwhile. I am reminded of the person who took an airplane trip to Hawaii; he said that at least the income tax man cannot take away that experience.
There is substantial evidence that investment money, at least from the United States, will recede in the immediate future. Passage of the American DISC program, the fact that there is a distinct possibility that Canadian provinces and municipalities may be shut out from the New York market, the surcharges of a year or so ago and changes in the investment picture all point to the fact that the Americans want their capital to come home. We had the funny experience of seeing Canadian unions trying to show their American counterparts the folly of supporting the Burke-Hartke bill presently before Congress.
The other day the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) was complaining that American auto companies had not invested enough money in auto plants on the Canadian side of the border. We are now witnessing the fact that at a time when the demand for oil and gas is at its height and we are running short of supplies, drilling is decreasing in the western provinces. It has decreased in B.C. and Saskatchewan. Last week, Winnipeg newspapers reported that Canadian expertise is flooding over into Montana. Apparently Canadian experts are active in all the oil fields of the world. Significantly, an analysist in a Montreal newspaper said the other day that if you want to invest in oils, invest in Canadian companies which are active outside Canada; do not invest in a company whose

November 21, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
main drilling rights are in Canada, because we do not know what their future will be.
Two or three years ago we passed legislation in this House aimed at controlling the manufacture of drugs in this country, in the interest of lower drug prices. That legislation wiped out their patent protection. It may have lowered drug prices. That is difficult to say. We are paying for that lack of protection in other ways. New drugs are being mentioned in the medical literature of the United States, of western Europe and of England. Those drugs do not seem to be available in Canada. I think, without any doubt, the drug legislation, which may have lowered drugs costs, has also discouraged the introduction of new drugs into Canada. The drug industry shows what foreign investment can do. Expertise in drugs is not confined to one country. Knowledge about drugs stretches beyond the borders of the United States, beyond the borders of western Europe, and extends to the communist world as well.
Turning to the instrument by which this government hopes to control foreign investment, its obvious weakness is its autocracy. Businesses will be controlled down to the value of $250,000. That means that a great many businesses will need to be screened, and often the seller will not know who the buyer is to be. In effect, this provision means that any business with three or more employees will have to be screened. I can see that the small businessmen will undergo considerable strain in trying to find out whether or not a buyer will come under the definition of foreign owner. I submit that the seller often will not know.
Let me refer to an article carried in the Globe and Mail of November 20, 1973, entitled, "Proposed investment review act comes under strong criticism." The investment review bill was strongly criticized by a former official of the department. The article reads in part:
The proposed federal Foreign Investment Review Act has come in for some strong criticism at the University of Toronto Faculty of Administrative Studies Issues at Interface Seminar.
Andrew Kniewasser, president of the Investment Dealers Association of Canada, said the difficulty with such legislation arises from the fact that 'its real effect will turn largely on the administrative performance of the agency.'
The act provided for creation of a review board reporting to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with power to prohibit takeovers unless they are found to be of 'significant benefit to Canada.'
Mr. Kniewasser, a former deputy minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said:
'I doubt very much if it would have been possible to limit administrative discretion by putting more criteria in the bill.'
In other words, the weakness of the bill is this: how are you to decide the criteria on which decisions should be based? You might as well toss a coin. You are as likely to be right as wrong.
The article continues:
Canada is still regarded by foreign investors as an interesting place to commit funds, with first rate economic propects and a rather moderate degree of government red tape . ..
If this bill passes, that may no longer be so. Mr. Kniewasser then said:
If the administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act does become restrictive or cumbersome or if it should lead to serious confrontations and additional uncertainties between the Government of Canada and the provincial governments, we would quickly be in trouble.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Six o'clock.


Mr. Gillespie:: Question.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if someone on the government side of the House, perhaps even the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) who is talking to someone on the government side, will tell us what we shall be doing tomorrow.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I was just trying to get confirmation of that from the government. Word has been passed, through the page boys, that we may take the wiretapping bill. That is all I know.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, November 22, 1973