1973-03-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of lustice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), copies in both official languages of a report on the questionnaire on two-price wheat confirming the acreage basis of distribution of payments to western Canadian producers.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose, in the circumstances, my question should be directed to the President of the Treasury Board who I assume is Acting Prime Minister. On Wednesday last I asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increase in the wholesale price index in Canada of almost 14 per cent between February, 1972, and February, 1973, the government proposes to take any new initiatives. The Prime Minister said he had nothing to announce that day. Now that the government has had a couple of days to reflect on this alarming statistic, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government intends to adopt any new measure to control inflation in Canada in light of that alarming statistic?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as of today there is nothing further to add to what the Prime Minister said.


FOOD PRICES-PLACING OF CEILING ON MEAT BY PRESIDENT NIXON-POSSIBILITY OF SIMILAR ACTION BY GOVERNMENT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: In
light of the initiative that President Nixon took yesterday in placing a ceiling on beef prices and in view of the fact that food prices generally in Canada have gone up sub-26087-291
stantially more between February, 1972, and February, 1973, than they have in the United States, is the government now going to consider any similar or related action with a view to holding down and controlling the retail and wholesale prices of food commodities that have been leading the price increases in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the House will be aware that the experience in most countries has indicated the inadvisability of imposing price controls on food items. The situation in the United States with respect to meat and meat products, however, has reached the point where Mr. Nixon felt it was necessary to impose a ceiling on those food items alone. I think the hon. member is aware that Canada is a net importer of beef, and as a consequence beef prices in Canada tend to be regulated or controlled by world prices rather than by domestic considerations. The action of the United States in imposing a ceiling on beef and pork hopefully will have a useful controlling effect on beef, pork and lamb prices in Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I take it from what the Acting Prime Minister has said that despite this alarming statistic and despite the initiative taken by the President of the United States, the government of Canada does not intend to take any further action?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I was not saying that at all. I was merely saying that as of today-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As of today.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -we will not be doing anything.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I see.


Mr. Baldwin:: Can we count on action on Monday?


ACTION TO ASSURE SUFFICIENT PRODUCTION OF MEAT AND BUTTER TO MEET DEMAND IN LIGHT OF NET IMPORT POSITION
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. As Canada has become a net importer not only of beef but also of dairy products, can the minister give any assurance to the House that he will recommend policies to the government so that this country will produce enough meat and butter to satisfy the needs of its citizens?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr.Speak-er, I think we are all concerned about what the hon. member has stated. This is one of the dangers of okaying boycotts or anything of that type. This is what happened in the past and producers were discouraged because they

March 30, 1973
Oral Questions
did not receive the right amount tor their products. They do not know whether they will be guaranteed the security they need for the costs involved in the production of these products. This is a matter of concern to the government. As far as I am concerned, we are going to ensure that this does not take place. I do not think what President Nixon did in the United States can be done in the same fashion in Canada because, as President of the United States he has a lot more authority than the Prime Minister of Canada has.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: The President of the United States almost has dictatorial authority. The Prime Minister of Canada does not have that authority.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize two or three supplementaries, but we will then try to complete the first round of questioning and return to this subject which obviously is of interest to many hon. members. For the moment, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, then the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, and then try to complete the first round of questioning.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Minister of Agriculture. May I ask the minister if, in the interest of the Canadian people, both producers and consumers, he will in the very near future make a statement in the House or introduce legislation to meet this situation and make it unnecessary to bring in the kind of price controls that have been established in the United States?


Eugene Whelan: As I stated, Mr. Speaker, we are discussing these topics at the present time. If I feel that a statement in the House is warranted, or legislation, I will certainly recommend it. However, the study that I feel is necessary on this subject is not yet finished.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that this morning the Acting Prime Minister laid such great stress on the fact that Canada is a net importer of beef and, as a matter of fact, the Minister of Agriculture made that statement over the media last night, is he by any chance intimating that the United States is not a net importer of beef as well?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should resume his seat. The hon. member's question is obviously out of order. Will the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member for York South.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What I am really trying to do is give the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture the opportunity to correct an extremely erroneous impression they are leaving with the Canadian people, that conditions in Canada are really different from those in the United States. Our point is that there is no difference. The situation here is worse than it is in the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT-OBTAINING OF INFORMATION FROM PRESIDENT OF MEXICO ON THAT COUNTRY'S CONTROL POLICIES
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister on another subject. Is the government taking advantage of the presence in Ottawa of the President of Mexico to discuss with and obtain information from him as to the policies which that government has introduced to control foreign investment in that country, with the effect, for example, that with regard to all mineral reserves there must be at least 75 per cent local capital and no foreign corporation can control any industry in that country?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there are discussions now going on between representatives of the government of Mexico and Canadian ministers on a variety of topics particularly the kind mentioned by the hon. member. I may say I was pleased to note a report in the media that the President of Mexico said he rather admired the Canadian model in this respect.


David Lewis: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the President made clear the source of his information about the Canadian model, and was that source either the Prime Minister or the present Acting Prime Minister?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would hesitate to question the President's sources.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell the House whether he intends to meet the Quebec Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to discuss the report requested by the Quebec Planning and Developments Bureau on the feasibility of making Mirabel airport the air transport centre for Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall wait until I am familiar with the report and then I shall decide if I should meet the Quebec minister.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, does the minister intend to make a statement when he has studied the report?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I already make enough statements as it is! If there is cause to meet the Quebec minister, and if we are able to make a joint statement, then perhaps we will do so, but that is all hypothetical. I am not familiar with the contents of the
March 30, 1973

report, and I do not even know what the province intends to do with it.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: May I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker?


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, could the minister say whether there has already been any discussion of this matter between the Quebec government and the federal government?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there has certainly been some discussion about Mirabel airport.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. It arises from the action taken by the President of the United States which has resulted in thousands of tons of beef, both live and dressed weight, being directed to Canada, and the fact that Canada has barred the use of stilbestrol as a livestock food additive because of the hazard to human health, though it is not barred in the United States. Is any action contemplated by the government to stop the importation of beef into Canada on those grounds?


Eugene Whelan: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that thousands and thousands of tons of beef, live and dressed, are being directed to Canada at this time. I would point out that the President's freeze on beef prices was not at the producer level but at the retail level and the basis was the average price on the last 30 days. We are discussing with the food and drug directorate the course to be followed concerning the importation of beef having a heavy carry-over of DES. A decision has not yet been made on this aspect, but one will have to be made.


Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: In view of the fact that the President of the United States saw fit to freeze retail prices, which will immediately freeze the price at the farm gate and have the effect of freezing the price at the farm gate in Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Norval Alic Horner: -and as the minister in recent weeks has made much of the fact that meat is the best possible buy, will he now, in the absence of the Prime Minister, protest most vigorously to the United States? If you are going to freeze the price of beef, freeze the price of farm machinery and tractors as well.


Eugene Whelan: I do not agree with the hon. member as to how President Nixon's program can work on the basis of freezing only one product in that country. I believe that if this is to be done successfully the freeze has to apply generally in order to control the cost of living in a country.
Oral Questions


Norval Alic Horner: You said beef was the best buy, so resign.


An hon. Member:: What are you going to do about it?


Eugene Whelan: An hon. member asks what I propose to do about it. One of the members over there is a former cabinet minister in a provincial government and he knows darned well that the provinces have the authority to do these things. If they want to segregate the problem and just pick out parts of it, they can do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Federally, we do not have the authority that the provincial legislatures and governments have.


An hon. Member:: Pass the buck.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the confidence expressed to the Prime Minister Wednesday by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer about the success of wage and price controls and Britain's determination to continue controls, and in light of all the indications that price increases are escalating in Canada, is the government going to hold immediate talks with Canadians, labour and industry, on whether controls should or should not be implemented in this country?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, that is somewhat similar to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the answer is the same.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that among the seven largest trading nations in the western world Canada experienced the greatest acceleration in prices last year, and at the same time four of our greatest competitors actually experienced reduced rates of inflation, would the minister tell the House whether the government is going to initiate any significant measures to reduce our inflation rate and to abate growing deterioration of our unfavourable price differential with that of our major competitors? If so, when will a statement be made?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is talking about our export competitiveness; at least, that is what I inferred from his question. I can assure him that Canadian export industries are doing very well. In fact, on a competitive basis our exports are up nearly 25 per cent in the first two months of this year.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the validity of the information just given to us by the minister, may I

March 30, 1973
Oral Questions
direct a further supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that this government is more backward and reactionary than the government of either Great Britain or the United States-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -will the government now take action to see-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -that confidence in the Canadian economy is restored?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please I would suggest that perhaps the House should never sit at ten o'clock in the morning. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, I am sure, will have a very non-controversial type of question.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am always non-controversial. I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that under the government's present policy our reserve forces have been reduced from 23,000 to 15,000, or roughly one-third of their strength, within the last two years and at the present rate of attrition these forces will disappear within the next few years, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House and the country what the government's policy regarding the future of our reserve forces is to be?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will give consideration to that request. However, I should like to say right now that our reserve forces do play a very important part in our whole concept of the work of the armed forces.


George Harris Hees: It is because of the great good the reserve forces provide for the defence of this country, both for the future and at present, that I ask this question and everybody knows that. I therefore ask the minister to give consideration to bringing these forces back to their original strength so they can operate much more effectively, as they wish to do but are being prevented from doing by the present government.


RESERVE FORCES-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN SUMMER TRAINING AS A RESULT OF LARGER BUDGET
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to one asked previously of the Minister of National Defence in respect of the reserve forces. Will the announced unfreezing of the defence budget this year allow for increased summer training for reserves by reason of an increase in our reserve forces and also provision of summer employment for young people?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is yes. The reserves and our summer student program will be enlarged this year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister or perhaps, if there is one, to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs.


George Harris Hees: They are all acting over there and not acting very well.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Has the government received information that six Greek lawyers involved in the defence of students on trial in Athens have themselves been arrested, are being detained in police headquarters there and are reported to have been subjected to torture? If so, will the minister take the appropriate steps to indicate the humanitarian concern of the Canadian government and the Canadian people?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if the facts as alleged by the hon. member are correct, obviously we have a concern and will express it, but I am not aware of this report.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, will the Acting Prime Minister undertake to bring this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and make inquiries in this regard?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will be glad to, Mr. Speaker.


INCOME TAX
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Will he assure the House that he will impose a penalty or fine on his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who is responsible for the government annuities branch, in view of the fact this branch failed to issue T4 slips by February 28 as required by rule or regulation of his department?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: certainly will be glad to look into that, Mr. Speaker, but I hope there will not have to be a by-election as a result.


An hon. Member:: You would lose it.
March 30, 1973


CANADIAN COASTGUARD
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Some days ago I posed questions to him in respect of bilingualism at the Canadian Coastguard College with particular reference to the promotion and nourishment of the French language. At the same time I asked him about a complaint that was submitted to the Commissioner of Official Languages Act and what had happened to his recommendation. Is the minister in a position today to answer those questions?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know that the director of the college is studying the recommendation of Mr. Spicer, and as soon as he has come to a decision he will inform me on the matters raised by the hon. gentleman.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that food products are often imported into this country prepackaged and sold under labels such as "Canada No. 1 Grade", and in view of the preference of many shoppers to buy Canadian goods, will the minister indicate whether consideration is being given to requiring a clear imprint of the word "imported" on such products?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Two days ago I asked him a question concerning the death, possibly by poisoning, of a New Quebec Indian. Can he tell us whether he got in touch with the Quebec authorities to find out the real cause of that death?


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have checked since the hon. member put the question. Indeed an Eskimo died after eating whale meat which had frozen and thawed out several times; six other members of his family were sick. They were hospitalized and are now recovering quite well. A natural phenomenon, that of the
Oral Questions
meat eaten having become toxic, was the cause of death in the one instance.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
STE THFrESE-MEASURES TO AVOID LAY-OFFS AT GENERAL MOTORS-DISCUSSIONS WITH MANAGEMENT AND UNION REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I
wish to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Pursuant to the assurance given the House by his parliamentary secretary, would the minister tell us whether he is interested in the matter of dismissal of employees at the Ste Therese General Motors plant? If so, could he report his findings to the House?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have been in contact with the company in respect of these lay-offs. We have been assured this is not as a result of any diversion of the Vega model to a United states plant, that in fact the reduction in production at Ste Therese has been as a result of market forces. However, I would like to make this point to the hon. member if I may. As a result of the recent devaluation of the U.S. dollar and Canadian parity and the commitment we have from the auto companies in Canada in respect of a price freeze on North American made vehicles, there should be a growing market for Canadian made and North American made models as against imports. That is an important consideration.


Claude Wagner: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In view of this critical situation for the workers of Ste Therese, could the minister tell the House whether he intends to meet both the management and the union concerned?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have already been in contact with the management. I would be very pleased to meet with representatives of the union if they would like to meet with me. The point I want to emphasize is that because foreign imports will be going up in price, whether that imported car is imported by one of the big three or is imported from a foreign country unrelated to the big three, the competitive advantage of the Vega and other models of that kind should improve.

March 30, 1973
Oral Questions


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of lustice):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very urgent question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since the STAP program of assistance to shipbuilding ends on March 31, that is tomorrow, does the minister intend to announce the extension of this program which has ensured the survival of shipbuilding?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to announce-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: -that the shipbuilding temporary assistance program has been extended by the government for a further two years.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Will the assistance under the new program be at the same rate as under the former agreement, namely 14 and 17 per cent?


Alastair William Gillespie: No, there have been some improvements. We think that the subsidy rate instead of being on a two-part basis will be on a single basis and on the same basis as that of the subsidy for Canadian-made, Canadian-registered and Canadian-owned vessels. So it will be a straight 17 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has a supplementary to the previous question. For the moment I will recognize the hon. member for Lambton-Kent and then the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and is supplementary to a question asked previously. In view of the fact that as recently as yesterday between 800 and 1,000 cattle entered Sarnia from the United States, in view of the fact that diethylstilbestrol has widespread use in finishing cattle in the United States, and in view of the fact that DES was banned from use in finishing cattle in Canada because of potentially hazardous side effects to consumers, will the minister assure the House that immediate action will be taken to stop the importation of beef from the United States which is in direct violation of health regulations recommended by the health protection

branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if there are live cattle coming in and being finished here there is nothing wrong with that, but if cattle with DES are being brought in this would be contrary to our laws and regulations and should be stopped.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
ste therEse-measures to avoid lay-offs at

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and refers to what he said about the production of cars in the plant at Ste Therese. In view of the fact that the only other plant that produces Vegas in North America is at Lordstown in the United States and is operating starting this coming Saturday on an overtime basis and there has been a cutback in employment at the Canadian plant at Ste Therese by about 60 per cent, could the minister explain to the House what he means when he says there has been no shift in production of that car from Canada to the United States?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the reduction that the hon. member is referring to in employment levels goes back over a very long period.


George Harris Hees: It must be a couple of weeks anyway.


Alastair William Gillespie: No, many months. The assurance I have received from the company is simply that there has been no diversion from the Canadian plant to the Lordstown plant. I think it is also worth noting that the Astre, another vehicle, has been added to the Ste Therese plant to help provide increased employment at that plant.


HOUSING
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and stems from the decision taken by the Attorney General of the province of Ontario in ordering a report on the activities of Rochdale College, Toronto. In view of the fact the government of Canada has several hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in Rochdale College plus a tax exemption certificate, what action does the minister intend taking?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the federal interest in Rochdale College comes more properly under the responsibility of the minister responsible for housing. Matters which have to do with the conduct of
March 30, 1973

persons of course properly fall within the jurisdiction of the provincial Attorney General.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. This is my first question in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: I also think there is another first today. This is the first time we have not been bombarded with motions under Standing Order 43,1 believe.
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of a report in today's Globe and Mail, the official organ of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: -is the minister aware that under the table bounties are being offered to travel agents by airlines in the scramble for passengers under Canada's new charter flight rules? Agents and tour operators say they have been promised between $5 and $35 in addition to their 10 per cent commission. I understand this is against the ABC regulations which prohibit airlines offering any incentive whatever.


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister oi Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if the Globe and Mail is our official organ they do not send me a copy of it. I do not have a copy of today's paper so I have not read the story. I will read it and answer the hon. gentleman later.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask a question that is somewhat supplementary to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster of the Minister of Transport. Would the minister urge on his colleagues in the government that they consider putting a freeze on the increase in shipping container rates to take effect tomorrow until such time as he has had an opportunity to meet with the Atlantic premiers on the broader question of rail transportation rates?


Jean Marchand: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that my answer must be the same as the one I gave yesterday.
Oral Questions PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


REQUEST THAT AIDS BE CONSTRUCTED TO FACILITATE VISITS BY HANDICAPPED
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that many hundreds of handicapped people visit the Parliament Buildings each year, would the minister now embark on a program to construct such aids as are necessary to facilitate these visitors?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure that this falls under my jurisdiction but it does sound like a marvelous idea and I will give it my most sympathetic attention.



HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS ACT


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that a meeting was just held with port authorities and harbour commissioners, was any recommendation made by the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners to the effect that their act should be updated in order to indicate the responsibilities and jurisdiction of the city, the province and the federal government? Was any such recommendation made at that particular meeting?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will have to inquire before giving the hon. member the answer.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that perhaps this did not occur, would the minister use his good offices in order to see to it that the resolution I have on the order paper can be brought forward for debate as soon as possible as this will cover the entire problem?


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not expect the minister to give me an elaborate answer but I do think it would be courteous of him to give me either a yes or a no to my last question.


Jean Marchand: The hon. member speaks about something that is on the order paper. I think he should address his question to the House leader. I am not the House leader.
2774

March 30, 1973
Oral Questions



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the fact the Solicitor General is not introducing or reintroducing the Young Offenders Act at this session, would he refer the subject matter to the Law Reform Commission so that they may study this problem in depth?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a previous question I stated that we were discussing the Young Offenders Act with the provinces in order to improve the penal services for young offenders and that following these discussions we would introduce new legislation. But I will consider the hon. member's suggestion.



REQUEST FOR ACTION TO STOP EXPORTING OF PRE-1969 CANADIAN QUARTERS TO UNITED STATES BECAUSE OF SILVER CONTENT

Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that a highly organized immoral, if not illegal, racket has been established in western Canada to collect and export to the United States hundreds of thousands of pre-1969 Canadian quarters and in view of the fact that these quarters are melted down to produce $1.50 worth of silver for each dollar at face value, can the minister indicate whether he is aware of this situation and what steps are to be taken to stop this apparent illegal theft of Canadian silver?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the facts to which the hon. member refers, nor am I completely convinced by the suggestion he makes concerning the significance, but I will be glad to look into the matter.



MEASURES TO COPE WITH VENEREAL DISEASE

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. and benign Minister of National Health and Welfare. In one of his multitudinous statements outside the House he was reported as saying that venereal disease in Canada has reached epidemic proportions. I should like to ask him if his department has activated or has in preparation or contemplation any new measures to cope with this serious situation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we will have a meeting very soon about that with the provincial representatives at the deputy ministers' level; I intend to discuss this question with my provincial colleagues at the next ministers of

health conference. We shall have certain propositions to discuss with them at that time.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague from Vancouver, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I should like to ask him if the government this weekend is going to offer the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia at the tri-level meeting the amount of money they had offered for a second crossing of the First Narrows, which the provincial government has now thrown away, for a rapid transit system in the city of Vancouver?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we will be meeting with representatives of the province and of the greater Vancouver regional district at a rather historic tri-level meeting in which three federal ministers will be participating. Transportation issues of relevance to the lower mainland are on the agenda, but it would be quite improper for me to say now what the various positions will be at the meeting.



REQUEST FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA PROPOSAL OF RAILWAY ROUTE TO TRANSPORT ALASKAN OIL AND ACCELERATION OF STUDIES

Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the evidence given by Professor North before the energy committee that there are no known oil reserves in the Mackenzie delta and that there is almost no likelihood that there will be oil in the Mackenzie delta, will the minister now give further attention to the proposal of British Columbia for a rail route to transport Alaskan oil, and will he also accelerate the studies that are supposedly being done on that subject?


Mr. Speaker:: The second part of the hon. member's question is more of a representation or suggestion. Perhaps the hon. member would like to rephrase the question.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I will withdraw the second part of my question so the minister may have an opportunity to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley.

March 30,1973



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. I. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Communications. Can he tell the House if the details and plans for the federal-provincial conference on communications have been finalized, how many provinces have accepted his invitation extended on March 16, and when and where it is to be held?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister oi Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows what our proposition was. The letter was sent to the ministers of communications of the various provinces last week or ten days ago. I have had some tentative reactions from a number of ministers, but I cannot give a final answer to the question of the hon. member. Regarding the last part of his question about the date of the proposed meeting, I might say that from the contacts we have with the provincial ministries it seems that the dates we proposed at the beginning of July would be acceptable to the majority of the provincial ministers.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Once the invitations and acceptances have been clarified, to try to define how meaningful the conference will be can the minister tell us if the discussions will involve the provincial role in programming in relation to cable rather than just the question of the hardware of cable, because of the silence on the subject in the green paper?


Gérard Pelletier: I do not accept the premise that this is passed over in silence in the green paper. There is certainly an allusion to it and a very clear one. I think my general answer to the hon. member should be that of course we propose to the provincial ministers of communications to take up as the agenda the various questions and issues that are set forth in the green paper but also any question of interest to them that they would like to come up with.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF FINANCE RESPECTING INTERVENTION-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Can he tell the House whether the Minister of Finance was stating government policy when he said that the federal government could not intervene in the James Bay hydroelectric project unless the Navigable Waters Protection Act were being violated, and does this mean that the federal government has abdicated its constitutional responsibilities to the 7,000 Indian and Inuit people of James Bay whose rights are very clearly defined under the BNA Act and the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act of 1912?
Oral Questions


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, my knowledge of the statement reported by the hon. member is like hers, from a newspaper. I would be glad to talk to the Minister of Finance to find out what he actually did say. As the newspaper report indicated, he was merely stating a basis for intervention. I can assure the hon. member that he was not stating government policy if indeed he did say that we would not intervene in order to protect the rights of the Indians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are reaching the end of the question period. I was hoping that we could have a few rapid questions before calling orders of the day. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris may ask a supplementary question and after that I will recognize the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.



SOUTH INDIAN LAKE-WATER REGULATION

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. He indicated he had a reply on his desk with relation to water regulation at South Indian Lake and Lake Winnipeg. Is he now in a position to give that information to the House?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am informed that nothing has been built there. Only a few miles of highway were built and a campsite was set up. There is nothing that can paralyse or disrupt transportation by water.



NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the attention of the usually well informed Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can he say whether consideration is being given to the feasibility of employing some part of New Horizons funds to enable senior citizens to travel, perhaps to their home province or homeland? Is such a program still under consideration?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, that proposal is still under consideration but I must tell the hon. member that for the time being we are giving priority to using the funds for the transport of senior citizens within the area or city in which they reside. It would seem that the most urgent needs are in that area and that is where top priority goes.
However, the suggestion of the hon. member is still being considered and it has not been rejected.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-
2776

March 30, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was about to call orders o f the day but the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich rises on a point of order.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from your ruling yesterday. I am not questioning your ruling. I seek guidance. It seemed to me, although I do not have Hansard in front of me, that your ruling was given on the ground that there did not appear to be urgency to my question. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine the urgency without the answer. The minister seemed to be on the point of answering the question. I would be very happy if you would permit him to do so today, or otherwise instruct me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot seek the instructions of the Chair in such a matter. The Chair has to make a decision whether a question appears urgent, and hon. members will appreciate it is very seldom that I intervene in this way. The Standing Order puts the situation clearly. The hon. member says he is seeking my direction. I suggest to him that he read the Standing Order on the point, which says that the matter shall be determined immediately by the Speaker, without appeal or discussion. If the hon. member thinks the matter is urgent, he can give notice to the Chair and have it considered at the time of adjournment, as it could have been considered last night at ten o'clock.


Mr. Bell:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Minister of National Revenue instituted a program of do-it-yourself income tax returning, with Mr. Fred Davis being well paid to look after this. Can the minister confirm or deny that Mr. Davis did not in fact make out his own return but consulted an expert on income tax in Toronto the other day?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the time has come, at this point of disorder, to call orders of the day.


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: After reading yesterday's debates I would ask you to check, Mr. Speaker, if what is reported at page 2725, in the left column, is what was actually said when, for instance, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is quoted as saying in reply to a question:
I am a very innocent man.
A little further down the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) is reported as saying:
You have had your opportunity, and now you should sit still. Mr. Speaker, I am just as innocent as the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that if this is what was actually said we are faced with a very serious problem in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Justice rises on a point of order.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour I wonder whether hon. members might be agreeable to calling it eleven o'clock, so that items of business for today might begin to be considered in total at two o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being nearly eleven o'clock, this House stands adjourned and will resume this afternoon at two o'clock.
At 11 a.m. the House took recess, pursuant to special order.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Today we had the pleasure of welcoming the President of Mexico, who delivered an excellent speech. I would like to ask that this speech be printed in its original language, i.e. the Spanish language, for the benefit of new Canadians of Spanish origin, and of our Canadian students who want to improve their knowledge of this beautiful language.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bonaventure-lles de la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) acceptable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Alastair William 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 second time and referred to the
March 30, 1973

Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian future is not something that just happens. Our future does not need to be merely a response to external factors, however important they may be. We, as Canadians, can determine in large measure what that future will be. That, Mr. Speaker, is the underlying philosophy of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: In introducing the foreign investment review bill for second reading, I wish to remind hon. members that this bill is only one of the measures on foreign investment which this government proposed in the Speech from the Throne. This bill is a major extension of the review process to cover, not only takeovers, but the establishment of new foreign-controlled businesses in Canada.
My department is preparing a bill as well, which I hope to introduce very shortly, to provide for the registration of technology transfer agreements. There will also be legislation providing that a majority of the board of directors of federally incorporated companies be Canadian. Measures to increase Canadian participation in the ownership and control of resource projects are under consideration. Lastly, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has proposed that the next meeting of first ministers examine the desirability of restricting sales of land to foreigners. It is against that kind of background that I want to speak this afternoon in introducing what I consider to be one of the most important bills, not only in this parliament, but in other parliaments from the point of view of the development of a distinctive Canada.
The government's purpose in introducing this bill is very simple. It is part of a package of measures designed to build that kind of Canada I have described, a vital and distinctive Canada. We already have in place a number of policies to support Canadian entrepreneurship and initiative. Others are under consideration. But we also need measures to ensure that initiatives inspired by non-Canadians are of significant benefit to Canada. Bill C-132 asks parliament for this power.
Foreign ownership policy is not an end in itself. Together with other measures, this bill will help to generate meaningful and satisfying employment for Canadians and promote economic growth. Moreover, there is a cultural and social as well an economic dimension to this measure. It can be seen I believe as a positive measure to help shape a positive Canadian identity. In this sense, the bill should be unique and distinctive, reflecting the reality of Canada. Canadian identity will be determined to the extent that Canadians acquire or increase their power to decide what their economy shall produce, what markets shall be served, what research and development will be undertaken. We want an economy which gives us power to innovate in response to a changing environment. If we lose this power, we turn control of our future over to those who retain it. In short, we have four objectives: one, to support the development of strong, Canadian-held business enterprises; two, to ensure that future foreign take-
Foreign Investment Review
overs and the establishment of new foreign-held businesses will be of significant benefit to Canada; three, to help arrest and reverse the increasing degree of foreign control of our economy; four, to contribute to the development of a distinctive Canadian identity.
Surely, no one in this House will dispute the propriety of these objectives at a time when foreign control of our economy is so extensive. Nearly 60 per cent of manufacturing industry in Canada is foreign-controlled, and in some manufacturing industries such as petroleum and rubber products foreign control exceeds 90 per cent. Recent figures for Canadian mining and smelting indicate that 65 per cent is controlled from abroad. Approximately 80 per cent of that foreign control over Canadian manufacturing and natural resources rests in the United States.
In offering these figures, I want in no way to downgrade the important role which foreign capital has played in the economic development of Canada. Foreign direct investment has brought us new products, new technology, managerial skills, access to foreign markets and the economies of scale which this implies, as well as improved productivity. But the benefits of foreign capital are not an issue in bringing forward this bill. It is not my purpose to deprive Canada of the benefits of foreign capital. This is not a bill to close the door to international investment and turn inwards on ourselves. Quite the contrary. The issue the bill faces is that foreign investment, in addition to its benefits, can also involve costs. A branch plant economy tends to lack the capacity for dynamic innovation-lacks an inner dynamism and outward-looking attitude. It is not necessarily efficient for a $100 billion economy to be designed as a minor replica of a trillion dollar economy.
Our foreign controlled sector is subject to some limitations of research and development, restrictions on export and procurement policies which tie it to international sources of supply at the expense of the stimulation of domestic sources.
We are entering a period in which world demand for our resources will accelerate. We possess a rich and diversified resource base. Our social environment is stable. In the resource area we possess considerable management and technological skills of our own. Given these basic strengths, is it wise for us to let decisions taken abroad in response to foreign needs and priorities determine the rate of extraction of our natural resources and the industrial mix which is likely to result? Does the government not have a responsibility to ensure that development takes place in accordance with Canadian needs and objectives?


Mr. Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Yes, it has, but what are you going to do about it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: If you listen you may learn something.


Mr. Baker:: Not very much.


Alastair William Gillespie: Foreign direct investment has helped fill a number of gaps in the Canadian economy, including those involving capital, technology, management and markets. It has frequently been the most efficient way of doing so. But I also believe that extensive foreign direct investment in Canada has reduced Canadian entre-

March 30, 1973
Foreign Investment Review
preneurial skills and skills and risk-taking by comparison with what might have been developed in the absence of the high degree of foreign initiative within our economy.
Some observers have noted that the foreign-controlled sector performs in more or less the same way as the domestic sector. This comparison tells only part of the story. More interesting to me is a comparison between the way in which the foreign-controlled sector performs today and the way it might perform if maximum benefit and minimum cost were achieved at every opportunity. The existence of restrictions on research and development, exports and procurement, suggests that scope for increasing benefits exists. Some of these restrictions may reflect basic comparative costs but others are arbitrary and should be removed.
The scope for increasing benefits will vary from industry to industry and from case to case. It is probably greatest in the resource-based industries where the advantage, the location of the resource, is in Canadian hands. Although it is unlikely we can change, in the short run, the location of many processing and fabricating facilities, we may in future be in a position to secure expansion in Canada rather than outside Canada. In the manufacturing sector our main advantage lies in a small but affluent market, a skilled labour force, a relative wage advantage over some countries and a stable political environment. While our position in this area is not overwhelmingly strong, there is undoubtedly scope for reducing the restrictions where foreign investors have not taken advantage of basic Canadian strengths. I am not expecting this bill to transform the situation in Canada overnight.


Harvie Andre: Or even in a year.


Alastair William Gillespie: I see it as a reasonable and realistic step in line with our needs; a real step toward the achievement of the objectives I have described, and one entirely in line with action other industrialized countries have taken.


Mr. Yewchuk:: A timid step.


Alastair William Gillespie: We believe it to be a positive and realistic one, and we commend it to the House. Part of the problem in dealing with the position taken by the Official Opposition is that conflicting statements are made by their party spokesmen. I have heard some today which are quite different from their comments on other occasions. When pressed, they retreat behind a smokescreen of vague generalities, scattering the ground around them with pious statements of intent. They call for effective guidelines for foreign corporations. That is one of the phrases they use. But what guidelines, and for what corporations? They stress the need for more key sectors. But which key sectors are key? And how would they be defined? How much should they be protected? Liberal governments have protected key sectors in the past, but we now see that more comprehensive measures are called for.
Let me explain in more detail why this government decided that the delineation of further key sectors was inappropriate as a general policy response at this time to foreign investment-something that I think some Conservative spokesmen have advocated. Many key sectors in

the so-called commanding heights of the economy have already been protected in a regulatory way. I refer to our legislation in the fields of financial institutions, banks, life insurance companies, trust and loan companies, broadcasting, newspapers and periodicals.
Think back to the period 1957-62, Mr. Speaker. Was any legislation of this kind put on the books by the Conservative government then?


Some hon. Members:: None.


Mr. Lefebvre:: They didn't have the guts.


Mr. Nielsen:: We didn't have the problems, either.


Alastair William Gillespie: The major areas of the economy where foreign direct investment is unregulated are the manufacturing and resource sectors. How are we to determine which industries in these sectors are most important? What criteria should we use to determine the key or critical sectors that should be protected? Should it be the high technology industries? But technology is not restricted to any one sector. Are we to say that a moribund electronics plant is more important to the country than an innovative, profitable and competitive clothing manufacturer?
Even if we were able to develop a set of criteria to identify key sectors, there are difficult questions regarding which businesses should be included. Let me take automobiles as an hypothetical example. This illustrates the problem of definition in a key sector, the manufacturing sector and the resource sector. Automobiles could include buses, trucks, snowmobiles, off-road vehicles, tires, car radios, air conditioners and so on. You can expand it into a whole series of related products. Where precisely does one draw the line?
Let us look at some of the other questions related to this key sector idea. What degree of protection should we give a key sector? There are a number of alternatives. We could allow no foreign investment. Assuming that you have been able to define and identify-two quite different things-a key sector, what do you do? Do you allow no foreign investment? In that case, we risk cutting ourselves off from the benefits of technological developments elsewhere. Is this sensible if we regard the sector as important in terms of the achievement of national goals? Do you wipe it out? I do not think so.
Second, should we restrict foreign control of assets in a particular sector? Take, for example, computers. Do you say that no more than 50 per cent of the computer industry should be foreign controlled? Think about that particular principle for a moment. This would mean allocating arbitrarily a certain maximum proportion of an industry to foreign control, a simply horrendous administrative and economic problem.
Third, look again at the question of the key sector. Do we say that in a key sector 51 per cent of the shares of every foreign company must be held by Canadians? However, when the 51 per cent is widely held, control could still lie with the foreigner. Scarce Canadian savings could be dissipated, then, in a number of non-controlling situations, thereby reducing the availability of capital for genuinely Canadian-controlled enterprises. Most of these same arguments with respect to the key sector question apply to

March 30,1973

a policy requiring 51 per cent Canadian ownership in all foreign companies irrespective of the particular sector in which they operate.
In summary, the establishment of mandatory Canadian ownership, either across the board or in particular key sectors, as a general policy is arbitrary, protectionist, and potentially very costly economically. It could discourage needed foreign investment in some areas.
To say, however, that a general key sector policy is not appropriate for Canada at this time does not rule out the identification of further key sectors in future where the circumstances are appropriate. For example, it is conceivable that in some resource industries where Canadians have the technology and managerial capability, where foreign demand assures markets, and where capital is available in Canada or can be readily borrowed abroad, the establishment of another key sector may be feasible.
Some Conservative spokesmen seem to think that the only response to the foreign investment issue is to call for measures to encourage Canadians to invest in Canada.


Erik Nielsen: That is one way.


Donald W. Munro: And it is a good place to start.


Alastair William Gillespie: This may be their position and I shall look forward to hearing from them. But I imagine that that is as far as they can go.


Walter David Baker: You are not even prepared to go that far.


Alastair William Gillespie: I agree that Canadians should be encouraged to invest in Canadian business. And, indeed, successive Liberal governments have done more than simply talk about it.


Erik Nielsen: Now then, you are not on the hustings now.


Alastair William Gillespie: There are real measures of tax reform already at work to encourage Canadians to invest in Canada. Already there is a high rate of savings by Canadians. This Conservative party approach to foreign investment fails to recognize that foreign control is not occurring in response to a lack of Canadian capital or lack of savings, but rather is occurring as a result of industrial factors that must be dealt with by a foreign investment policy. That is the difference. The stimulation of greater Canadian savings is not, in itself, the answer to the problems of foreign investment. Failure to accept this is simply a non-recognition of the fact that we live beside and are plugged into, the largest generator of technical innovation and the most successful marketing economy in the world.
This is not a challenge which can be met simplistically without a foreign investment policy. Slogans about incentives are attractive but they do not deal with the fundamental question of Canadian public interest in takeovers or the effect of the potential power of multinational corporations proposing a new investment. After all, just think of this for a moment; a profitable Canadian company is a prime takeover target. Incentives to Canadian
Foreign Investment Review
investors will do nothing to protect the Canadian interest when a takeover offer has been made. That is why a screening mechanism is important.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: The NDP voted against the original takeover bill because it did not go far enough. This bill goes farther. At the same time, we are not opting for a public ownership solution to the extensive foreign control of the Canadian economy. We believe that a screening agency is a realistic answer to express the national interest.
We also do not feel that Canadian resources should be directed toward a substantial buy-back of the foreign controlled sector. We do not believe that the future development of Canada should be jeopardized by committing our scarce funds to an enormous repatriation of the past. For instance, the book value of foreign-controlled firms exceeds $30 billion. No estimate of current market value is available. Any kind of program launched in that direction would set us back, not move us forward.
Quite apart from the priorities, there are serious economic problems in buying back foreign-owned enterprises. Let me give you an example or two. Those which most manifest the costs of foreign control, those which are most truncated, least autonomous and self-directing, those where the costs are greatest, should be on top of the list for acquisition because there would be great opportunities for improving their performance. Let us look at the difficulties of buying them back. Who would buy them? Would it be government or private interests, and at what prices? How would the new owners cover the difficult transitional period from acquisition until they could operate as autonomous enterprises? How would the new management deal with the transitional period while building up their innovational capacity, finding Canadian sources of supply and building up their markets? What additional costs would be involved, and who can guarantee their success?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have all the questions, but you don't have any of the answers.


Alastair William Gillespie: At the bottom of the list for acquisition are those foreign-controlled businesses which do operate here largely as autonomous independent enterprises. For these companies, acquisition by Canadians would provide few increased benefits other than the change of ownership.
The bill I am introducing for second reading is not Conservative policy, nor is it a nationalization policy.


An hon. Member:: It is not much of a policy at all.


Alastair William Gillespie: It is neither the beginning nor the end of this government's determination to achieve greater Canadian ownership and control of our economy. Liberal policy on foreign investment is based on two pillars.


An hon. Member:: One of salt.


Alastair William Gillespie: First, positive support for the development of Canadian-owned and controlled corporations. This may not be of any interest to Tories, but we think this question is of vital importance to Canadians. I hope

March 30, 1973
Foreign Investment Review
they will have something to say about this issue which is responsible and intelligent rather than this kind of picayune, noisy interjection which indicates they are not serious about this issue. We are serious about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You can't say anything without asking Trudeau first.


Alastair William Gillespie: We have a sense of commitment in respect of foreign investment which you as yet do not have. Our sense of commitment is based on two policies. The first is positive support for the development of Canadian-owned and controlled corporations, and the second is positive measures to maximize the benefit to Canada of foreign investment; a balanced program operating as part of a coherent set of industrial policies for the development of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Nobody is against that principle.


Alastair William Gillespie: The heart of the Liberal thrust has been the introduction of positive measures to support Canadian industry, particularly those which demonstrate the capacity, the self-interest and the will to grow. The last parliament saw a number of measures implemented to stimulate Canadian ownership and control. A reduced corporation tax rate of 25 per cent on the first $50,000 of income is available only to Canadian-controlled corporations and must be repaid if the firm is transferred to non-Canadian control. The government has now proposed that this rate be reduced to 20 per cent.
When capital gains taxes similar to those in the U.S. were introduced a year ago, federal estate taxes were eliminated, thus reducing the pressure to sell controlling interest in private Canadian corporations which controlling interests would pass on death. The Canada Development Corporation was established to help provide, develop and maintain strong Canadian controlled businesses, and the benefits of this approach have already been manifested in the pharmaceutical area.
A number of other programs or measures do not discriminate, in intent or application, between Canadian-owned and controlled or foreign-controlled firms, but do in fact benefit mainly Canadian-controlled firms. These are, for example, the measures to keep savings in Canada; pension funds must retain 90 per cent of their assets in Canada to avoid paying a penalty special tax of 1 per cent per month on the proportion of their assets abroad in excess of that amount. On this point I think it is well worth noting that substantial Canadian ownership in a number of major firms has shifted back into Canadian hands over the last year and a half. In addition, the gross-up provision on Canadian dividends introduced in the last parliament has encouraged investment in Canadian equities.


An hon. Member:: You have to be kidding.


Alastair William Gillespie: I am not, Mr. Speaker, but hon. members may not know the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Canadian corporations are able now to deduct as expense the interest paid on funds borrowed to finance the purchase of shares of other corporations. This was introduced to offset similar United States measures which allegedly made it cheaper for a United States company to finance the takeover of a Canadian business.
There is another thing which I believe is worth mentioning; that is the area of government support and government departmental support. The Department of State for Science and Technology was formed in the last parliament. Its objectives include the promotion of an innovative Canadian economy. There are ongoing programs-I want to emphasize this-such as the general adjustment assistance program, the Industrial Development Bank, the program for advanced industrial technology and the IRDIA program all of which play an important role in promoting the vigour of Canadian-controlled enterprises.
In closing the catalogue, I should like to refer to new proposals which I am preparing in order to provide additional special assistance to small business. This is the sector which employs most of our work force. In my view it is the sector which generates most of our new products and services.
I have referred to the first pillar, the support of Canadian-owned, directed and controlled corporations. The second pillar is designed to protect the public interest by ensuring that foreign investment is of significant benefit to Canada. If one listened to the Tories, in the past at any rate, it would seem that we need not have concerned ourselves about questions other than the stimulation of business growth. If that is still their view I would like to pose two questions to them. Are takeovers not a potential threat? Were they concerned about Home Oil? Were they concerned about Dennison Mines? I am not sure, because the answer has not come through very clearly. The second question I would put to the Tories is this: is it of no importance to the Canadian public interest that the Canadian government have a say in the establishment of foreign-controlled business in Canada or the extension into unrelated fields of existing business.


An hon. Member:: Who is going to argue against that?


Alastair William Gillespie: Is that now your party's position? If it is, I welcome you to the fold. If it is, I hope it will be stated clearly. I hope they will come up with a commitment because we are looking for a commitment from them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Drummond.


Mr. Boisvert:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Drummond on a point of order.


Jean-Marie Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, I have taught school for nine years and in several grades, and it was never as bad as here. Even if I do not agree with all the Minister's state-
March 30, 1973

ments, I still would like everyone to listen to him with respect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I agree with the hon. member. His point of order is quite proper.

I think the hon. member for Drummond has raised a very good point. Even the Chair has had difficulty in hearing what the minister was saying. I would ask for the co-operation of hon. members. I am sure the subject is very interesting and that we would find it worthwhile to hear what is being said.


Alastair William Gillespie: The positive policies that I have discussed earlier all do their part in promoting Canadian ownership and control, but they do not meet the challenge of other far more powerful centres of economic activity abroad. They do not compensate for the attractiveness to foreign capital of our stable political and social environment, of our skilled labour force and substantial resource base, and, in the case of the United States, for our proximity and cultural similarity. They do not compensate for the dynamic power of the multinational corporation whose activities here may be rational from an over-all international perspective but which may impose avoidable costs on Canada.
Finally, our other policies do not compensate for the imperatives of some foreign governments which have intervened to distort market forces in their own national interest threatening to leave Canada holding the short end of the stick. For example, we have the Japanese policies on trade and investment, the new Australian policies and the Mexican policies on foreign investment which we heard so eloquently described in this chamber today by the President of Mexico, and the screening undertaken by the French and British. Even the United States has its DISC, municipal bonds, uranium embargo and countervailing powers requiring no proof of injury.
Canada, no more than others, can rely passively on the operation of market forces alone to protect our interests. For this reason, past Liberal governments have moved to protect the public interest in relationship to foreign investment. I have already referred to the key sectors established in banking, insurance, life insurance, trust and loan companies, broadcasting, newspapers and periodicals. These are still in effect. Other industries and other enterprises already have substantial government participation, for example, the Canadian Broadcasting Commission, Air Canada, Panarctic, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the CNR.
In other sectors where there is already substantial foreign ownership there is one form or another of public regulation, for example, energy development. The combination of provincial regulations and regulation by the National Energy Board tend to ensure Canadian control over the foreign-controlled firms in this sector and performance in accordance with national objectives.
This bill and the positive policies I have described form part of a coherent set of policies designed to foster the achievement of national goals in general and Canadian economic development in particular. They tie in with the proposed reduction in corporate income taxes, the re-
Foreign Investment Review
examination of competition policy and our effort to promote further trade liberalization. It must not be forgotten that the benefits from investment-both foreign and domestic-are enhanced in a competitive and dynamic economy.
Liberal government policy has been an evolving process. Much has already been done. But we recognize that further steps are needed. We are, therefore, moving forward to the more comprehensive foreign investment policy represented by this bill.
This bill is a major step forward. I regard it as the most important part to date of Canada's developing foreign investment policy. The approach chosen is that of screening. We expect in this way to achieve a foreign investment policy which will give us the benefits of foreign investment and at the same time minimize the costs. This requires flexibility. Screening based on performance criteria gives flexibility. The arbitrary alternative approaches of a discriminatory tax system, or of mandatory Canadian ownership rules either across the board or in numerous key sectors could involve a trade-off of employment, investment and growth, which we want to avoid.
We do not want a foreign investment policy which is a luxury commodity for which other economic benefits are traded off. Our objective is to introduce a policy that will have no adverse impact on employment or investment. On the contrary, we see this policy as a necessity if we are to achieve our long term goals for Canada. We see this as a way of building and creating jobs for Canadians in the years to come.
The government will allow those proposed foreign investments likely to result in significant benefits to Canada. It will be able to negotiate with a foreign investor to up the ante and get a better deal for Canada. But takeovers or the establishment of new foreign-controlled businesses that would not bring significant benefits to Canada will be blocked. The bill will be administered by a separate foreign investment review agency reporting directly to the minister.
In considering whether the foreign investor's proposed investment in a Canadian business brings significant benefits to Canada, five factors will be taken into account. The first factor is the effect of the proposed investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada, including employment. The second factor is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise and in any industry or industries in Canada of which it forms a part. The third factor is the effect of the proposed investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada. The fourth factor is the effect of the proposed investment on competition within any industry or industries in Canada. The fifth factor is the compatibility of the investment with national industrial and economic policies, including those enunciated by the provinces.
The factors are general. They cover all sectors of the economy, resources and services, as well as manufacturing. They are performance oriented and are designed to increase the efficiency and competitiveness of our econo-

March 30, 1973
Foreign Investment Review
my, while recognizing that we live in a mutually interdependent world.
The government proposes that the review come into effect in two phases. First to be proclaimed will be the review of foreign takeovers of Canadian firms valued at more than $250,000 in terms of their gross assets or with revenues exceeding $3 million. This will be followed by the screening of the establishment of new businesses by foreigners not already doing business in Canada or the opening of a new business by an existing foreign controlled firm in an unrelated line of activity. Because of the possibility of major enterprises being phased into existence from small beginnings over an extended period of time, there would be no thresholds relating to the establishment of new businesses. Expansion of existing foreign-controlled firms through the creation of related businesses would not be screened. When the new business review is introduced, the thresholds applicable to takeovers will be removed except for the important case of an existing foreign-controlled business operating in Canada that proposes to acquire a related business. This step is required to avoid indirect circumvention through the takeover of an unrelated business below the threshold and subsequently expanding it.
The second phase of the bill is delayed to give the government an opportunity to gain some experience operating the review process with takeovers before this second feature comes into force. More important, it will not come into effect until the provinces have been consulted. This is a major feature of the policy. It is a national policy with provincial consultations as an important part. Even more provincial consultation is provided for in the operation of the bill because one of the criteria is a consideration of provincial industrial and economic policy objectives. Machinery will be needed to achieve this consultation.
In connection with the role of provincial priorities, I would like to assure the House that the bill will not have an adverse impact on regional development. Foreign investment needed for the growth and development of a province is likely to be of significant benefit and would be allowed. On the other hand, this bill is not an instrument of regional development policy. It does not contain the bias which is deliberately built into the policy of regional economic expansion. We will not be directing proposed investments from one part of Canada to another under this proposed act. But the economic realities of the region concerned will be emphasized in meeting national economic goals.
One of the criticisms of the bill with which I would like to deal is the fact that it does not cover the expansion of existing foreign-controlled firms unless, of course, they propose to establish unrelated new businesses. We have refrained from proposing this type of review for a number of reasons. Given the large number of firms that are already foreign controlled in Canada, a review of normal expansion would call for an enormous amount of intervention. I am not prepared to argue that the state should have such sweeping authority over normal private decision making. In addition I think there is a difference in kind between the normal growth which takes place as a business prospers and expands its activity on the one hand, and the opening of unrelated businesses on the

other. It seems to me that there is almost an element of retroactivity in intervening in the process of normal growth.
We recognize that this bill will not directly roll back the present level of foreign control in Canadian industry, but as a long term policy objective it will help, along with the success of other policies designed to foster the development of strong Canadian controlled companies, to increase the proportion of Canadian industry controlled by Canadians.
The review process itself is not indifferent to Canadian ownership. The criterion of significant benefit indicates that this is an important concern. Canadian ownership and control is preferred unless the foreign investor is in a position to make a significant economic contribution which a Canadian cannot make. If we were indifferent, we would allow foreign investment as long as it did not involve any detriment to Canada. This is a very important distinction.
There is another point which underlies the importance we attach to Canadian ownership. In determining whether a proposed investment is of significant benefit to Canada, consideration will be given to the degree and significance of Canadian participation which includes the question of ownership. I do not think, on the ownership side, we can be more direct than that.
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize the main elements of the policy that underlie this bill. Canada continues to recognize that foreign investment has a role to play in Canadian development. Provided it contributes to the realization of Canadian objectives it is welcome. This bill asks parliament to give the government the means to achieve this purpose-to ensure that to the maximum possible extent foreign takeovers and the establishment of new foreign-controlled businesses are of significant benefit to Canada. If they are not, they are blocked.
The review process is a flexible instrument which recognizes that foreign direct investment is a complex of costs and benefits. The choice of this approach to foreign investment reflects the government's determination to avoid a trade-off between jobs, investment and growth on the one hand and greater ownership and control on the other. In recognizing the potential role of foreign investment in the Canadian economy, the government rejects isolationism and protectionism but it seeks a way to ensure that Canada achieves better balanced interdependence.
The foreign investment review bill will have four effects. First, it will provide one more public lever in promoting national economic development. Second, it will help us to obtain better performance from foreign investment in Canada on the basis of the criteria contained in the bill. Third, taken with the rest of the policies in this area, it will tend to arrest and reverse the unacceptable trend toward foreign control of enterprise in Canada. Finally, it will be seen as a useful step in supporting the development of a distinctive Canadian identity.
I mentioned during my remarks that Liberal governments have adopted a two pillar approach. While I have spent most of my time describing the policy which under-
March 30, 1973

lies the review process, this in no sense means that the government does not attach the highest importance to policies to develop Canadian entrepreneurship. That is the first pillar. Indeed, to the extent that Canadians- government, businessmen and labour-are able to develop the ingredients of industrial growth in Canada our need and dependence for foreign direct investment decreases. We shall, therefore, pursue with determination policies supporting the development of Canadian entrepreneurship and business efficiency.
Yet the level of foreign direct investment in Canada- the highest in any industrial country- is of concern to all Canadians. Hence our need for the second pillar to protect the public interest of contemporary Canadians and Canadians yet unborn. This bill contains a reasonable and realistic proposal to help us come to grips with this issue. I hope that members from all parties in this House will give this bill their support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Today is an historic occasion for Canada, Mr. Speaker. It is the first time, and perhaps the only time, in Canadian history when a debate on Canadian economic nationalism has been opened in the House of Commons by the President of Mexico. We appreciate him sharing with us the experience of the people of that great country.
Compared to the contribution made by the President of Mexico this morning, however, the minister's contribution this afternoon has been very disappointing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was a disappointing speech-it was almost depressing. The split in the Liberal party on this subject, Mr. Speaker, is obviously much deeper and more serious than was thought. The minister also made it obvious that he, like some other ministers of his government, has not yet read the new Income Tax Act or he would not have made some of the assertions he is making now.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I thought the number of questions the minister asked of the Progressive Conservative party this afternoon gave a clear indication that his pessimism is so deeply rooted that he is practising for his role on this side of the House. Bill C-132, "an act 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", appears to represent the government's total response after five years to the growing problem of foreign ownership and control of Canadian industry and resource development. I wish I could say that the mouse had brought forth a mountain or at least an elephant, but after labouring five years all the mouse has managed to bring forth is another mouse. It is a pitifully inadequate response and demonstrates an abject failure in this regard.
The fact that the problem now exists is accepted by most thoughtful people in Canada. Not everyone agrees of course, and there are some strong regional differences of opinion. It is understandable if those areas of Canada where high chronic unemployment exists place a higher
Foreign Investment Review
priority on the creation of new job opportunities than the nationality of the capital which makes them possible. Consequently, it is a matter of regret to the Conservative party that a bill of this importance to various regions of Canada should be introduced without prior consultation with the provinces. Certainly the provincial governments must now be consulted, and must have an input to the determination of guidelines by which significant benefit is determined. Nothing less will satisfy the diversity of approach which is endemic to Canada.
But on an over-all Canadian basis, some acceptable alternative to the present trend must be found. When we reach the point, as we did in 1968, where 46.9 per cent of our metal fabricating industry, 71.8 per cent of our machinery industry, 86.6 per cent of our transportation equipment industry, 81.5 per cent of our chemical and chemical products industry, and 99.5 per cent of our petroleum and coal products industries, as measured by assets, are owned outside Canada, we are in trouble. Since then the level of foreign ownership has continued to increase. Obviously, something must be done. This leads to agreement with the purpose of Bill C-132 as stated in Clause 2(1) which reads:
This Act is enacted by the Parliament of Canada in recognition by Parliament that the extent to which control of Canadian industry, trade and commerce has become acquired by persons other than Canadians and the effect thereof on the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment is a matter of national concern,-
It is easier to agree with the purpose of the bill, as just stated, than it is on the efficacy of its provisions to meet the need. Basically, Bill C-132 is totally negative in its approach. The minister tried to persuade us this afternoon that the opposite is the case, but he was not convincing. It is another "thou shalt not" added to the tens of thousands which already exist. It states that takeovers will only be permitted and new investment allowed when it can be demonstrated that significant benefit will result. But the determination of significant benefit will be largely subjective. It will depend to a considerable extent on the attitude and approach of the commissioner, the minister and the governor in council. The latter will reflect the opinion of the key members of cabinet or "in group" in control at the time. The extent of the inevitable subjectivity concerns me. I know people who could, and probably would, find significant benefit in any proposal, while others of my acquaintance would find it difficult, if not impossible, to find significant benefit in any proposal from foreigners. Any law which is so dependent in its application on the personality and attitude of the people who administer it as Bill C-132 is almost certain to be bad law.
While Bill C-132, unlike its predecessor, extends the screening process to include new investment as well as takeovers, it pays no heed to the expansion of existing foreign-owned companies in Canada except in respect of entry into new and unrelated business. As the Gray report cited 1969 Statistics showing that of the three ways in which foreign ownership in Canada had increased the most imporant was the expansion of existing foreign-con-trolled enterprises, one must conclude that the intent of

March 30, 1973
Foreign Investment Review
the bill is largely cosmetic. Nevertheless, we are prepared to refer it to the committee, where we think it should be subject to the most minute examination.
Why have we reached the stage where a bill such as this is considered expedient? It is the recognition that policies that have been pursued in the past, which may have been appropriate then, are no longer appropriate to Canadian needs, and that unless there is a massive change in policy soon Canada will recede into an industrial and technological backwater. A brief review brings us to the crossroad.
Dependence upon external sources of capital for financing in periods of heavy investment activity has been characteristic of Canadian development. During the exceptional growth that occurred before World War I, non-resident investment was very high and the main source of that investment was London. However, during the first part of the inter-war period, the United States became the principal source of external capital, and by 1926 the portion of Canada's international debt owned in that country exceeded that owned in Britain. With some interruption during the 1930's, United States investment in Canada continued to increase, particularly after 1947, when the period of intense activity in the petroleum industry got under way.
This transition from Britain to the United States as the major investing country also involved a shift in the major type of investment. Whereas British investment has been primarily portfolio investment in railway and utilities, American investment has been primarily direct investment in other Canadian industries. More than half of the United States investment in Canada at the end of 1967 was accumulated since 1957. At $28,030 million, United States investments in 1967 continued to represent more than three quarters of all non-resident investments in Canada. The main rise in that period occurred in direct investments in companies controlled in the United States, which almost doubled. In the same period, portfolio investments in Canada owned in the United States more than doubled, due mainly to large sales of new issues of securities in that country.
Since 1968, an increasing proportion of the capital requirements of United States affiliates in Canada is being raised on the domestic Canadian market rather than being drawn from the parent concern. This is partly due to the effect of the United States foreign direct investment program which was made mandatory in 1968. Even if this tendency for foreign-owned firms to raise money on the Canadian market rather than from the parent concern continues or even increases in the future, there will not necessarily be corresponding changes in the amount of total foreign investment, for the definition of foreign investment hinges on the nationality of the owner of the capital and not on the nationality of the capital itself.
Direct foreign investment can be fairly viewed as one of the most crucial and most dynamic elements in the postwar evolution of Canadian industry. Its effects have been greatest in the petroleum, natural gas and mining industries, which have absorbed over half the total. But very substantial amounts have gone into major branches of the manufacturing sector, such as pulp and paper, automobiles, chemicals and electrical apparatus. This large-scale financing, though highly significant, does not tell the
[Mr. Hellyer.J
whole story. There have been real benefits from the package of technological skills and markets that came with the investment.
While there has been an important positive aspect to direct foreign investment, there has been a negative side as well. Foreign controlled firms undertake little research and development in Canada. A 1970 Industry, Trade and Commerce report on the 1964-67 operations of 326 foreign controlled firms with assets exceeding $5 million each found that many were spending little or nothing on scientific research and development. Their sales had risen a healthy 35 per cent, from about $15.3 billion to $20.7 billion. But research spending rose from $88 million to only $106 million, an increase of just 18 per cent. In the last year of the survey, the average was $325,000 each, a trivial sum for firms of this size. The survey concluded that nowhere in today's industrial world, where science and technology have superseded financial resources as the principal source of corporate power, is the significance of foreign ownership more apparent than in Canada. The report said that the government faces formidable difficulties in devising a program to counteract the bad effects of foreign investment in Canada.
In addition to the sparse expenditures on research and development and the effect of this on career opportunities in Canada, there are other negative aspects of too much foreign control of Canadian industry. Several instances of refusal to sell to countries when sales to those countries would be contrary to U.S. foreign policy have been documented. I will not repeat them here. Far more serious, at this point in time when restrictions on sales to socialist countries are abating, is the tendency of parent organizations to restrict Canadian branch plants and affiliates from aggressively expanding their export sales. While this is not true in all cases, it applies all too frequently and entails a considerable and serious restriction of freedom in so far as Canadian manufacturing industry is concerned. The latest trade statistics released by Statistics Canada bear testimony to the problem.
If Canada had not reached the stage where we are capable of generating the savings necessary for capital expenditures, our options would be more limited. I think that is an essential difference from our position and that of Mexico, as outlined by the president this morning. Fortunately, we have progressed to the point where we can provide, in the aggregate, our own capital requirements. In their first of a series of studies for the Toronto Stock Exchange examining Canada's capital markets, Professors David Shaw and T. Ross Archibald provide statistical documentation of Canada's sources of capital funds since the end of the second world war.
In 1950, domestic savings accounted for 92 per cent of total capital expenditures while foreign sources financed only about 8 per cent. At that time gross domestic savings equalled 20 per cent of GNP. By 1960, domestic sources declined and provided only 83 per cent of capital formation. Similarly, the rate of domestic savings in 1960 had fallen to 16 per cent of GNP. By 1970, Canadian domestic savings amounted to 23 per cent of GNP and exceeded domestic capital formation so that Canada became a net
March 30, 1973

exporter of $1.1 billion. Consequently, Shaw and Archibald were able to conclude, and I quote:
Canada's historical international position as an importer of funds (had) changed and this country (could now) generate sufficient savings to finance the current level of capital expenditure.
While this is good news, it is necessary to add the caution that a significant proportion of these Canadian savings accrues to foreign controlled companies in Canada. Their retained earnings represent a substantial proportion of the net savings of the corporate sector. One must concur in the conclusion of the Gray report where it states:
Canada's capacity to finance its own future growth does assume a large savings role by foreign controlled companies in Canada.
While it is encouraging to believe that Canada now has the potential to paddle its own canoe to a much greater extent, it is disappointing to conclude that Bill C-132 will not do the job. Greater economic independence is possible and the reasons for seeking it have never been stronger, but something more than Bill C-132 is required.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: While it may be necessary to provide breathing time, its very appearance before us is an indictment of the government's other policies. If the government had been vigorously pursuing positive policies to encourage Canadian entrepreneurship, to encourage Canadian savings, to encourage Canadians to innovate and invest in the development of Canadian industry and resources, this bill would have been redundant. For years the government has known that it is more advantageous for Americans to explore for oil in Canada than it is for Canadians, but it has not acted to achieve equality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The government is well aware that hundreds of family businesses have been sold because under Canadian law it is often impossible for the business to survive the death of a principal shareholder, yet fails to take action to offset the negative effects of its laws.
In his speech today, the minister stated that incentives to Canadian investors will not prevent a takeover. This just is not true. I can document cases where lack of incentive to Canadians and Canadian law have been the very reasons that Canadians did sell out to Americans against their will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The fateful tight money policy of 1969-70 put hundreds of small Canadian businesses into bankruptcy, unnecessarily. Hundreds more were sold to foreigners when they were unable to get the credit necessary for continuation and expansion. The new Income Tax Act provides less favourable treatment to shareholders of Canadian corporations in many cases. As a matter of fact, the government has done just about everything imaginable through high unemployment, high inflation, high taxes, excessive bureaucratic regulation, etc., to drive Canadian entrepreneurs and risk-takers from their own promised land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Foreign Investment Review


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The last two Liberal governments have done more to sell Canada down the river than all previous Canadian governments combined. To right the situation will require a new government with a new and positive policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The core problem facing Canada's economy today is the serious lack of Canadian-owned companies. If Canada had its proper share of Canadian-owned companies, the foreign ownership problem would then be seen in its right perspective. Until Canada adopts an effective and creative industrial policy to encourage the establishment and growth of Canadian-owned companies, adoption of a foreign ownership policy will amount only to deluding the public into thinking that action has been taken. A sensible foreign ownership policy is completely impossible without an over all industrial policy to delineate the industrial goals to be achieved.
I should like, in the remaining time available, Mr. Speaker, to put forward a five point plan of positive Canadianism. It will propose to substitute action and innovation for rhetoric. It will be a plan designed to encourage Canadians to participate fully and creatively in the development of their own country and in the design and production of ideas and products useful to others as well.
The first essential point is the vigorous pursuit of a full employment policy for Canada. To accomplish this, it will be necessary to implement the approach of the Progressive Conservative party as outlined in the budget debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A more expansionary budget, along with a temporary wage and price freeze of 60 to 90 days' duration followed, after discussion with the provinces, labour and industry, by guidelines designed to control inflation while permitting a rapid rate of expansion of the Canadian economy until it reaches its full potential is necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The objective will be high productivity and maximum growth as long as it is necessary to produce the real wealth to solve our real problems.
As unemployment is reduced, output will rise. It has been estimated that the loss, in real terms, due to excessive unemployment is $5 billion a year. This extra increment of production, over and above what would otherwise be the case, can be used for the elimination of poverty, elimination of slums, the construction of urban transportation systems, the provision of adequate housing, the control of pollution and the development of Canadian industries and resources by Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Even $1 billion to $2 billion a year extra investment in industrial and resource development from this source would help immeasurably.
Step number two would be the introduction of tax and other laws designed to encourage Canadian savings and

March 30, 1973
Foreign Investment Review
Canadian entrepreneurship. Imaginative proposals such as allowing individuals to deduct from taxable income investment in new Canadian equities up to a maximum of $1,000 each per year should be considered. Dividend tax credits comparable to those in the previous Income Tax Act might be restored. More important than the precise details is the determination to make it attractive and worthwhile for Canadians to invest in their own future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The small business investment plan put forward by my leader during the election campaign should be vigorously pursued.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Capital gains tax should only be applied to real capital gains and the present confiscatory practice of taxing inflation should be abandoned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Family farms should be passed from one generation to the next, before the death of the farmer, without deeming the capital gain to be realized. Arrangements should be worked out with the provinces whereby other small and medium-size family businesses could be continued without the necessity of crisis liquidation for purposes of death duties in respect of the shares of a principal shareholder. Other changes in the tax laws would be effected to give Canadians an equal or better opportunity to participate.
Colleagues of mine who will be speaking later in the debate will give examples to demonstrate that in many cases there is not equal opportunity, and that in other cases Canadian businesses have been sold to foreigners as a direct result of the way in which Canadian tax laws apply. The objective of the changes in tax regulations and death duties would be to encourage savings, to encourage investment, to encourage risk-taking and to give Canadians a competitive equality, at least, in the development of their own industries and resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Step number three would be a gradual but massive increase in the extent of research and development undertaken in Canada. Canadians must come to realize that the development of modern technology requires massive public investment and cannot be left entirely to the vagaries of the marketplace. In 1967, only 18 per cent of research and development spending by Canadian firms was financed out of public funds; in the United States 53 per cent of research and development spending by private firms was government-financed, while comparable figures for the United Kingdom and France were 35 per cent and 42 per cent respectively.
The United States government financed the development of the first U.S. computer, the Univac model by Remington-Rand, as a naval fire-control device, and the first IBM models for the DEW line. The formation of International Computers Limited in the United Kingdom

was backed by the U.K. government to the extent of an $8.4 million equity position and $32.3 million in research and development funds in 1968.
Canada lost out in this race even though we were at one time on the cutting edge of technology. In the 1950s and early 1960s, British-owned Ferranti-Packard Limited of Toronto developed a series of advanced computers beginning with the Datar, a naval operations control system, and climaxing in the FP 6000 which was a resounding technological and commercial success. But after making four of the units, Ferranti-Packard ran out of funds and, since British capital exports to dollar nations are subject to foreign exchange controls, was unable to draw more financing from the parent firm.
Consequently, the computer designs and technology were sold to another British firm which has since become International Computers Limited. The FP 6000 evolved into the ICL series, of which 1,500 had been sold by the beginning of 1970. With the Canadian development start, ICL gained 43 per cent of the British market for computers, compared to only 30 per cent for IBM, making Britain the only market in the west where IBM is not the major seller of computers. By 1970, ICL had sold 47 installations in the Soviet Union and other eastern bloc nations, for $35 million, making it the largest seller of computers to eastern Europe.
Professor Arthur Porter, head of the team which designed the Datar computer, told the Special Senate Committee on Science Policy:
Canada made a tremendous breakthrough in information technology ... I believe Canada was the first nation to set up three individual data-handling systems and to tie them together over radio links
He said Britain's ICL computer series could be said to have been "conceived and designed in Canada".
We were ahead. We were not only ahead in interactive computer systems, but we were ahead in modular solid state computer technology, which is the basis of the modern computer.
Canada can compete in research and development, but must have the ownership, control and follow-through to capitalize on early advantages. In this, as in so many other cases, that important early lead was lost.
There are, fortunately, some happier examples. One is Northern Electric, a major Canadian producer of telephone equipment. This corporation provides us with an illustration of how a Canadian subsidiary can succeed after its ties with its U.S. parent have been severed. Ironically, the cutting of the umbilical cord was due to American rather than Canadian policy. The abandoned baby survived and thrived. From its inception, in 1895, to 1956 the corporation did very little of its own research and development. Instead, it manufactured products designed in the United States by its parent corporation, Western Electric. In 1956, however, U.S. anti-trust legislation forced the parent to divest itself of its control over the Canadian subsidiary.
Since that time, the Canadian corporation has transformed itself from an importer and purchaser of technology to a producer and exporter of technology. Recent statistics bear this out. In 1960, 90 per cent of its designs came from foreign sources, but by 1970 only 19 per cent of its designs came from foreign sources. In the same period,
March 30, 1973

its own designs rose from 5 per cent to 80 per cent, with about 20 per cent being hybrids of domestic and foreign work. Professional staff rose from three in 1967 to 727 in
1969.	Total R and D staff increased from 153 in 1960 to more than 2,000 in 1970. The research and development budget went from $2.6 million in 1960 to $37.7 million in
1970.	This represented an increase in research and development, as a percentage of sales, from 1.5 per cent to 8.2 per cent.
Since its Canadianization, Northern Electric has also helped to strengthen Canada's balance of trade by expanding exports and displacing imports. Export sales rose from 2.5 per cent of its total sales in 1963 to 17.9 per cent in 1970. Between 1958 and 1968, the percentage of sophisticated components from Canadian sources rose from 62 per cent to 85 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As another consequential benefit, it is to be noted that though Northern Electric accounts for only 13 per cent of the output of electrical machinery in Canada, it is responsible for almost 50 per cent of the annual research and development by that industry. The important lesson learned by Northern Electric has been that because of licensing fees for importing designs and the costs of staff to use these imported designs, it is just as expensive to import technology as it is to develop one's own.
A second success example is the Canadian-owned Electrohome Corporation of Kitchener, Ontario. This corporation has had an extensive research and development program since as long ago as 1965 when its research and development budget amounted to 3.3 per cent of its sales, or $940,000. As a result of this extensive program, sales rose from $35 million in 1968 to $69.7 million in 1971. Electrohome files more patents than any other Canadian firm, and exports 25 per cent of its production.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Surely, then, these two success examples of Canadian corporations demonstrate what a manufacturer can achieve through greater research and development and aggressive management and, conversely, what a manufacturer can lose through lack of its own research and development because of non-resident control.
Canadians can do it if given the chance. These two untypical examples should become the norm. Canadian-owned corporations should be given preference in research and development funds, but incentive should also be provided to foreign-owned corporations willing to expand their research and development facilities in Canada and to develop products for export markets. The aim of Canadian research and development policy should be the employment of Canadian scientists, engineers and product planners in the development of a capability which, proportionately to our resources, is second to none on earth.
Step number four is the development of more flexibility in our financial institutions in order to cope with our policy objectives. Although, as I indicated earlier, Canada has sufficient funds to finance current investment
Foreign Investment Review
requirements, the allocative functions of Canadian capital markets leave much to be desired. This is true both nationally and regionally. We have not yet mastered the technique of matching the entrepreneur and the capital he requires at the proper time.
There is a desperate need in Canada for the creation of new institutions or the expansion of existing ones to supply more venture capital. We must expand, dramatically, our capability to assemble the financing and all the other elements required to establish a new domestic enterprise or to acquire control of an existing foreign-owned enterprise with substantial assets and activities in Canada.
Canadians often feel, with justification, that it is easier for a foreign-owned corporation to get a loan from a Canadian bank than for a Canadian entrepreneur.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Indeed, our banking system has performed a considerable disservice to Canada by financing the takeover of Canadian industries by foreigners. They must change their policies and make Canadian credit readily available to Canadians, even if that involves some small risk. The chartered banks, acting collectively, should be encouraged to form one or more subsidiaries specializing in merchant banking and venture capital. Insurance companies and pension funds should be encouraged to mobilize funds for similar purposes and to form syndicates to permit sufficient diversity to spread the risks associated with venture capital investment. The role of the Industrial Development Bank should also be expanded to increase substantially its capability and, hopefully, its daring. It could play a much more dynamic role, especially in the alleviation of regional disparity.
If anyone doubts the necessity for major change they need only look at the present situation. An oil refinery is to be built in Newfoundland. It will be equipped with British machinery, financed by British capital and, of course, owned in the United States. The Canadian government and Canadian institutions either could not or would not help. Canada can support development for the people of Tanzania, Algeria and Chile, but not for the people of Newfoundland. While the former may be desirable, surely we should also be able to support at the same time our own growth and development.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is quite obvious that Canadian financial institutions, if the chartered banks are included, have the financial ability to mobilize the vast sums of venture capital required. A very significant reorganization will be required, however, together with a change in outlook in tune with the times and cognizant of Canada's real industrial needs. Canada desperately needs a renaissance of entrepreneurship in its business community. Without the vision and initiative that only gifted entrepreneurs can bring to a nation's economy, Canada will remain locked into the secondary roles offered by the head offices of large, multinational enterprises. However, if the nation's imagination responds to the entrepreneurial instinct

March 30, 1973
Foreign Investment Review
latent in Canada, we could develop into an innovative country imbibed with a sense of initiative and achievement.
Step number five, Mr. Speaker, is to combine all of these ingredients into a massive effort to increase Canadian exports. We must remember that success goes to the commercially adept and not just to the technically brilliant. Our managerial skills must be put to work and developed. The objective would be not just a balance of transactions on current account but a substantial surplus. The surplus would not be allowed to accumulate, however, and add to our already swollen reserves of United States' dollars. An equivalent amount would be used to purchase equities and reduce our foreign indebtedness. In other words, we would acquire ownership and control of major companies with substantial assets and activities in Canada.
The objective of this strategy would be a gradual but significant shift in ownership. A 20 per cent reduction in foreign ownership in a ten-year period would not be an unrealistic goal. We would attempt, over a period of years, to achieve Canadian ownership and control of giant, multinational enterprises in such industries as electronics, rubber, chemicals, transport equipment, etc. The list would include each field of endeavour that is important to us and which offered a reward commensurate with the investment we would be required to make. The President of Mexico said this morning that the question is of decisive importance. The future of Canada's independence of action is at stake. These industries would not be government-owned; they would be Canadian-owried, with the widest possible equity participation both directly by individuals and through mutual and pension funds. Their acquisition and development would be a team effort by Canadian entrepreneurs and Canadian financial institutions with the encouragement and assistance of the government and the people of Canada.
This positive, Progressive Conservative strategy represents a positive approach to a serious problem. It recognizes that in a world of giants, the benefits of independence go only to those who are giants. That is not to say that small business will be less important. Quite the contrary; small business will benefit from the extra thrust and by the enlarged requirement for Canadian sourcing of sophisticated components and products of all kinds. The emphasis on giants is merely recognition that Canadians should not be limited to small business but should have access to the major league as well. Only a strong and mature economic and industrial base will give Canada the capacity to retain and expand its position in world markets. To achieve that level of economic competence, Canada must develop internally that pinnacle of technological expertise which is a prerequisite for an innovative and dynamic economic structure.
Can we do it? Of course we can. It is just the kind of challenge young Canadians want and need. In closing, I would like to borrow a phrase I believe to be appropriate: Make no small plans for they hold no fire to stir men's blood.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party throughout the country have for many years

expressed concern about the extent of foreign ownership of the economy in Canada and about the trends that have continued throughout the years. I must begin this afternoon by saying to you, Mr. Speaker, that as I listened to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), and later to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), I continued to feel sad for my country as far as its economic independence is concerned.
The minister, who really ought not to have done so, boasted about the steps that have been taken by Liberal governments. It is not until now that this government has come to realize that the question of Canadian economic independence is an important one, that Canadian economic independence is being demanded by ever-increasing numbers of Canadians. Only now has the government begun to realize that fact. While the minister boasted about the tiny, mincing steps that have been taken through the years, the situation is really rather shameful since they did not accomplish anything, and could not accomplish anything as far as the major problem of the control of Canada's economy is concerned. Nor should the minister have boasted about his bill, though I detected in his speech the realization that Bill C-132 was merely one step, and perhaps not a very large one, in the direction that he claims we want to go.
We then heard the hon. member for Trinity, who spoke vigorously and held out, he said, promises of a positive and dynamic policy. But analyse that policy, Mr. Speaker, and all it amounts to at every turn is further tax concessions to the corporations, additional tax concessions to the wealthy investors, more tax concessions to those who will build, he says, Canadian entrepreneurship-everything at the expense of the Canadian people. When the hon. member talked of further and massive progress in research and development in this country, what did he really say? He chided the Canadian government for the fact that only 18 per cent-I think that was the figure-of public money has gone into research and development in Canada, whereas 53 per cent has been spent in the United States.
What the hon. member is saying to this parliament and to the people of Canada is that most of the corporations of this country in these fields which are foreign owned should be given millions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money to carry on research and development in Canada. Those were his solution to the problems of Canadian economic independence. He suggested greater tax concessions for the wealthy, the rich and the powerful corporations.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


David Lewis: The hon. member can say "nonsense" as long as he likes, but that is exactly what the hon. member for Trinity said. He criticized the small capital gains tax we have in this country and all the other little measures we have undertaken to close some of the loopholes. He wants more tax concessions for investors and more tax concessions for corporations. That is one way, he says, in which we are able to carry out research and development in this country. He says the federal treasury should not put in 18 per cent of what is now being spent on research and
March 30,1973

development, but 53 per cent. That is exactly what the Conservative party is proposing.
In that respect the Liberals and Conservatives are clearly one. The only way they can see of promoting the economy of Canada is to make the wealthy wealthier and the powerful more powerful, all at the expense of the ordinary Canadian worker and the small Canadian businessman. We reject that kind of approach to Canada's economy and Canadian economic independence.
The hon. member for Trinity said-and this is the kind of statement that is so often made by Tories, particularly in this parliament, which lowers my respect for them- that if you have a screening agency, the decisions will be subjective. I should like to know what, in heaven's name, he means. I should like to know what agency, what board, what minister or what other organization you may have for making decisions in other than a subjective way.
My criticism of the bill is very considerable. I will come to that in a moment. I want to add at this point that I reject the dogmatic position of the Conservative party as an alternative to the bill before us, because in my opinion it is not an alternative; it is merely a continuation of the policy which has been followed until now. The minister was right when he said that a successful, profitable Canadian company is obviously a very attractive firm for foreign takeover. That is what has happened in the past and that is what will happen in the future.
We consider the discussion on this bill as being of immense importance to this parliament and this country. I am grateful for the statement by the President of Mexico to the Parliament of Canada this day. As I listened to him, I was both grateful for his eloquence and appreciative of his statements, and at the same time ashamed for my country. Mexico is a country much weaker than Canada, with fewer resources, much more dependent upon the outside world, and with a history of violence. But Mexico has gained its independence. It is a country that had the courage to nationalize the oil industry, taking it out of the hands of foreign corporations and putting it into the hands of the people of Mexico.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: It did so despite the history of relations with the United States, which might have involved a great deal of fear about the things that might happen. Mexico has had a history of relations with the United States which has not been as peaceful as ours since 1812. Their history being different. One might have expected the government and the people of Mexico, having had this experience of U.S. forceful intervention, to have hesitated in taking steps against the American-owned oil corporations in Mexico. But that country had the wisdom to recognize the importance of this industry to their economic independence, and the courage to act upon it. They did not stop there: they went on to further measures which have just been introduced and about which His Excellency spoke this morning.
The President of Mexico said last night, and this morning, that his government intends to adopt further measures to reduce holdings of foreign corporations in that country's economy. I said that as I listened to the Presi-
Old Age Security
dent I was proud to be associated with him in this House, but at the same time I was ashamed at the timidity which Canada has shown throughout the years. I was ashamed by the fears which Liberals and Conservatives have shown, and particularly about the way Canadian business leaders have been prepared to sell off Canada's wealth to multinational corporations because they could make an easier and faster buck.
We are not concerned about Canadian economic independence on the basis of some arid or negative kind of nationalism. This is not because Canadian corporations are any more thoughtful of workers or consumers than foreign-owned corporations might be. The objectives of a corporation, whatever its ownership, are the same. The interest in profit and power is the same. The public interest takes second place whether the corporation is privately owned by Canadians, owned by Americans or owned by nationals of any other country.
Our concern is not in respect of this question concerning Canadian economic independence. Our concern is in respect of the question regarding the future of this country being decided by forces outside which we cannot even influence. Our concern is for the future of jobs for Canadian workers. We are concerned with the fact that these jobs are often is jeopardy as a result of a branch plant economy. We are concerned about a resource industry which yanks the wealth out of the ground and ships it away as quickly as possible, without taking the trouble to process, refine or develop it by employing Canadian workers in Canada. These are the things that worry us. Above all, we are concerned because history has taught us that a country which does not control its own economic destiny is unable to control its own political and social destiny.
If it is our intention to go on with private members' hour at four o'clock, as is usual on Friday, this might be a good point for me to finish my remarks, Mr. Speaker.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to the establishment of a program, in conjunction with the provinces, that would guarantee a basic income to a man and wife, upon one or the other attaining age 65, of not less than that amount they would qualify to receive under present federal legislation, were both to have attained age 65 on the date one or the other attained that age.

March 30, 1973
Old Age Security
He said: Mr. Speaker, I embark upon the debate of this private members' notice of motion with a degree of optimism that certainly did not exist prior to October 30, 1972. I do so for two reasons. First, there is no doubt that a government, whatever government it might be, which finds itself in a minority position in this chamber indicates a degree of sensitivity for the problems of people which does not exist when a government holds a majority position in the House.
Second, I take this approach because of the activities and the statements of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). He is new to this House but is not new to this government, bearing in mind that for a number of years he sat in the back room conceiving policy for the government. For a number of years he has made a contribution to one government after another, as a bureaucrat. I may say it has come as a pleasant surprise to me and, I am sure, to many Canadians, especially those who are affected by social justice legislation, that the new minister has grasped, in the way he has, the responsibility associated with his portfolio. My only concern is whether the minister can translate into action the words he has spoken about social justice.
I feel more confident about his ability to do so because he has been a bureaucrat for a very long time. If anyone should be able to cut the red tape associated with federal bureaucracy, it should be him. I say this because I have read very carefully the many statements the minister has made, and I agree with most of them.
There is an unbelievable morass associated with social justice which must be straightened out. I do not know whether the end result should be a guaranteed annual income or some other program that would eliminate the duplication and, I hope, much of the heavy burden of cost associated with many of the problems relating to the minister's department.
The legislation which has been introduced relating to social justice is important. At the same time, however, far too much money is being spent on administration. In too many instances, federally, provincially and municipally, the people affected by social justice programs and the problems associated with them are not receiving sufficient income to maintain themselves with dignity.
I was very pleased to read the minister's comments regarding the social assistance programs which exist in many of the provinces. I agree with him that too many people who must rely on assistance associated with the Canada Assistance Program are not receiving as much money as our old age pensioners. These people face a terrible burderi, especially when the breadwinner is disabled and there is a family of anywhere up to ten persons dependent upon a cheque from the provincial government that does not provide them with sufficient income on which to exist. But that is the case. It is the case in the province of Nova Scotia where until recently, when amendments were proposed to the act, a disabled person, his wife and family had to exist on $200 a month. That was a scandalous situation.
My motion relates to another unfortunate situation affecting a great many older Canadians. I refer to a situa-

tion in which a man and his wife, or a wife and her husband, endeavour to maintain themselves on what is available to them through one cheque for old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement. I wish to place on record a few of the letters I have received from constituents. These letters bring the point very much to mind. They are all of recent date and come from various areas of my constituency. I am sure this indicates that if people were writing me from all across Canada, the letters would contain the same type of wording. This situation exists wherever there are older people and it is a situation we must eliminate. This letter comes from Oxford, in my constituency, and is from a lady who writes:
I am writing to state I think the old age pension should be dropped to age 60 years. For instance, my husband gets the old age security pension, and I am not old enough for this by several years. And by the time we pay electricity, fuel, groceries and medicine there just isn't enough to go around. I am also diabetic and should be buying special foods without sugar, etc.
I wonder if the government thinks that I should starve or do without the necessities of life.
That letter is dated January 25, 1973. The next letter is from Parrsboro, which is quite a distance from Oxford, and is dated January 25, 1973. It reads:
I am writing to ask if there is anything that can be done to help us. My husband is an old age pensioner, but I am not old enough to get the pension and I am unable to go out to work. What with the cost of living going up, so also the cost of medicines, we just can't have the things which we need. We both have to take some medicine, not as much as some people, thank goodness for that, but even so we can't always get the medicine we need.
My husband gets a small Canada pension each month, which gives him a total of $174.28 a month, which doesn't go very far with the cost of living so high.
Here we have two people who are trying to live on $174 a month. The position in which these people find themselves is scandalous. It is caused by the situation which exists at the present time. Here is another letter from Springhill:
If I may take a few minutes of your valuable time and express my views regarding old age pensions and unemployment insurance; in regards to pensions, in the majority of cases the wife is five to ten years younger than her husband, which means he cannot afford to retire at age 65 on one pension due to cost of living, taxes, etc., and due to the fact that older people seem to require more drugs and medicines.
I will be 67 next birthday and can see no way that I can retire before reaching 69 or 70, due to the fact that my wife is six years younger than me and does require continual medical care. So I think that the wives of older husbands should be given the pension when their husbands reach age 65, instead of putting millions of dollars into unemployment insurance. Let the younger men go to work. Instead, we are building a country of soft young men.
The next letter I wish to quote is from Amherst and reads:
My family and I have given you support before in elections and will again if you can possibly help me any in receiving a pension. I was 60 years of age on September 13, 1972. My husband receives the 65-year old pension and it is not enough for both of us. He only receives $84 a month and it don't even commence to pay the bills; there is nothing for medicines and clothes.
Here is another letter, from Joggins. It reads:
I am writing this letter to see if you can help us.
March 30, 1973

Mr. Brown is 71 years old and I am 64 years old. Mr. Brown is getting the old age pension, $150, and I get a small $46 cheque from the welfare. We have rent to pay, electric bills, coal bills, groceries bills and doctor's bills and medication bills, and have to hire someone to do the housework. At times Mr. Brown has amnesia and I have heart trouble and arthritis.
This is the sad situation in which a great many people of this country find themselves: one of the two spouses qualifies for old age security, and the two of them try to survive together until the other one qualifies for old age security. There is no reason why we cannot work out a scheme whereby when the breadwinner reaches the qualifying age for old age security, the other spouse will qualify for an equivalent amount, so that at least the two people can have a decent amount of money available to them.
A great many of these cases would be eliminated if we were to drop the age of eligibility for old age security benefits from 65 to 60 years of age. I realize the cost would be great. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said it would cost $1.1 billion. First of all, I do not think that that is too high a price to pay to ensure that our elderly people receive a decent amount of money, in a nation as affluent as ours. Second, I think there are systems which would allow us to do it gradually, in the same way as when we reduced the age of eligibility for old age security from 70 to 65.
I am informed that the total number of males in Canada between the age of 60 and 64 is 381,690, and the total number of females in the same age bracket is 395,320. This gives a total of 777,010. I feel that over a five-year period, a program could be implemented that would eliminate the problem that I am bringing to the attention of the House and also reduce the age requirement for old age security. This would do two things: first, it would eliminate this problem, which is a very real and severe one, faced by many Canadians; second, it would allow a great many people to remove themselves from the labour force at a time when we have high unemployment and it would allow younger people to move into the labour force.
This would accomplish two things: it would ensure that people could retire when they desired to do so; and, second, it would provide an income for people which would at least provide them with the necessities of life, which a great many of them do not receive at present under this system. It would also eliminate some of the older people from the labour force by allowing them to retire when they desire to do so, and provide opportunities for younger people to move in and take their place.
In this way the government would achieve two things: first, it would ensure that older citizens who have contributed so much to the building of this nation would receive a decent income on retirement; and, second, it would provide further opportunities for younger people who desire jobs but cannot find them now.


Mr. Francis Fox (Argentouil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I have read with great interest the motion before the house. The hon. member proposes:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to the establishment of a programme, in conjunction with the provinces, that would guarantee a basic
Old Age Security
income to a man and wife, upon one or the other attaining age sixty-five, of not less than that amount they would qualify to receive under present federal legislation, were both to have attained age sixty-five on the date one or the other attained that age.
Mr. Speaker, the welfare of our fellow citizens who have reached the golden age is a subject close to my heart. I was reading recently in a Statistics Canada publication that we are happy to number among the people of Canada more than 1,744,000 Canadians aged 65 or over. Among these are men and women who did their share to build this Canada we are proud of, men and women who still contribute to the welfare of the society they live in men and women who face their golden days with confidence, with serenity.
Mr. Speaker, it is undeniable that the recent changes to the Old Age Security Act proposed in the House by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) are a source of great progress, a progress which will allow a greater number of our fellow citizens aged 65 or over to face the future with confidence and serenity.
When we look at the history of this programme, since its implementation, we can notice this progress.

Twenty-five years ago, the only payment available for senior citizens was the universal old age security benefit, which amounted at that time to $40 a month. In 1957, that payment amounted to $46 a month starting at the age of 70. Between 1957 and 1962, when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister of this country, the benefit was increased by $9 during the first part of the Conservative administration and by $10 toward the end of their administration.
Successive Liberal governments have raised the benefits available to pensioners on eight occasions since that time. In 1963, during the stewardship of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, the old age pension was raised to $75 a month. A 2 per cent escalation clause to offset the cost of living was introduced in 1966. In 1970, under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the pension was set at $80 a month and became payable to persons aged 65 and over as a result of action taken in 1966. In 1972, the Liberal government introduced an escalation clause to fully adjust the old age pension to increases in the cost of living, and during the budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) announced that as of April 1, 1973, the basic old age pension would be increased to $100 a month.
Ten years ago there was no income supplement for senior citizens who had no other source of revenue aside from the old age pension. The guaranteed income supplement was introduced in 1966 and provided a maximum payment of $30 a month above the old age pension to pensioners with no other income. In 1970, the maximum supplement was increased to $55. In 1972, the government under the present Prime Minister increased the maximum to $67.12 per month and indexed the guaranteed income supplement to fully reflect increased in the cost of living. Canadians over 65 years of age were eligible, before the recent amendments to the Old Age Security Act were introduced, to receive a basic old age pension of $82.88 a

March 30, 1973
Old Age Security
month and a maximum supplement of $67.12, depending on the level of their income.
As of April 1, 1973, taking into account the measures enacted under the Old Age Security Act, the basic pension of $100 a month, added to the newly-indexed supplement of $70.14, will mean an income of $170 a month for a single Canadian over 65 who has no other income. In the case of a married couple both of whom are over 65, the maximum benefit payable will be $325.

Mr. Speaker, it is to the credit of the Canadian parliament that it has always taken a keen interest in the problems of those of our citizens who have reached the normal retiring age of 65. I therefore consider that the matter before us today deserves our thorough attention.
Mr. Speaker, I have never been one to oppose reform or progress simply because it is piecemeal rather than universal. There is no shortage of excuses for stagnation. In my opinion, it is better to improve the financial condition of certain groups, when we can afford to, than to do nothing. Nevertheless, we must be aware of what we are doing, and make sure that public funds will be spent in the best way possible. This is an area in which the federal and provincial governments have responsibilities in common, and must act together as far as they can.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial governments have a very special responsibility to those under 65, by virtue of their various social welfare programs. The federal government contributes enormously to the social welfare programs that the provinces devise and administer. Under the Canada Assistance Plan adopted by the federal government, 50 per cent of payments made by provincial governments to people in need are taken from funds voted by parliament.
Some will say-and often rightly-that a couple in which one of the partners reaches 65 may need special assistance. We must not, however, forget that people under 65, whether single or married, may also be in need. The answer of course is not easy. It is true that those people under 65 come under provincial social assistance programs. For those people, particularly those who are incapable of working, there is sometimes a considerable gap between what they can get under the provincial plans and what they could get under the federal old age security plan.
I fully agree, Mr. Speaker, that we must give additional help to those people but I think that the solution to this problem lies in the guidelines contained in the Speech from the Throne and the authoritative speeches made in this House on January 11 and March 1st by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). Those problems can only be resolved through close co-operation with the provinces and the integration of security plans but I think, Mr. Speaker, that a couple where one of the spouses, particularly the spouse who is the breadwinner of the family and who reaches the age of 65, generally faces the same problem as the family where both spouses have reached the age of 65. Nevertheless they come under different plans.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the government should look further into that in co-operation with the provinces so that

we, as parliamentarians, can know clearly and exactly what is the plight of those families and act with full knowledge of the facts.
The blue book introduced in 1970 by the predecessor of the Minister of National Health and Welfare said, and I quote:
More than 800,000 aged persons over 65 have such low incomes that they qualify for the income supplement.
Among those, Mr. Speaker, we find of course married people where one of the spouses is under 65. If it is true that the eradication of poverty depends basically on the strength of the private sector of the economy as well as on the efficiency of government measures for growth and stability, nevertheless the fact remains that our fellow citizens aged over 65 can benefit from them only through an act of parliament.
The case of the family whose main provider has reached the age of 65 ought to concern us just as much as that of the family where both spouses have reached that age. The problems are the same and perhaps the solutions should also be the same.
Mr. Speaker, it is too easy to succumb to the temptation of playing politics in that field. Why not bid higher than the other guy? Why not gain temporary popularity by promising favours to certain categories of people? But a government, a parliament that is aware of its responsibilities must study the possibilities of extending them to the other categories as well if it wants to reach enlightened conclusions. To set new priorities without first clearly identifying them with the provincial authorities would not serve the true interests of the Canadian people.
Speaking in the debate on the throne speech on January 11, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) said there ought to be a review also of the whole of Canada's social security system. The minister also proposed a framework within which this review could be carried out. The five-point framework is built around the following principles. First, the social security plan shall ensure to persons unable to work, the elderly, the blind and the disabled, an annual guaranteed income that is fair and compassionate; second, the social security system applicable to persons able to work shall include incentives and emphasize the need for reinstatement of social welfare recipients into the labour force; third, a just ratio must be maintained between the income of workers who earn only the minimum wage or not much more, the guaranteed income of those unfit to work and the allowances paid to persons able to work but temporarily unemployed; fourth, the provinces may wish to have a social security system modified in accordance with tlpe social needs, the income level and the cost of living within their jurisdiction; fifth, the reappraisal of Canada's social security system must be conducted jointly by the federal government and the provinces.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the best method of fighting poverty in this country is through the creation of meaningful jobs which take people off the welfare rolls. There will always be citizens, however, who for one reason or another, in temporary or special circumstances, are
March 30, 1973

unable to work. To give a few examples, there are in this country 150,000 abandoned mothers who must take care of 350,000 children; 200,000 disabled people between the ages of 18 and 65. Furthermore, some families would certainly welcome increases in the family allowance.
There are some of the reasons why I believe we must undertake a complete review of present social security legislation. Our reserves are not unlimited; therefore, our priorities must be clearly set out. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people and this parliament will follow very closely the discussions between the federal minister and the provincial ministers of health and welfare. Hopefully, a new format will evolve from these meetings which will meet the five-point framework I have outlined which has gained, and is continuing to gain, widespread acceptance.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), as I would commend any member of any party of this House, on raising the question of lowering the pensionable age. The hon. member who has proposed this motion has suggested in it just one means of achieving that object, namely, lowering the pensionable age, and that is by providing the pension to the spouse of a pensioner where that spouse has not yet reached the age of 65. I believe he will agree that this is a step in the direction of what he really wants to achieve, and not only am I completely with him in what he wants to achieve, but I have the same notice of motion on the order paper and I think I have had something to say about it on a number of occasions.
I say to the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Mon-tagnes (Mr. Fox) that this is not exactly a time for boasting over what his party has done over the years, all of which has been provided. Some of us could recount the story in our sleep, having heard it so often. Indeed, I have lived through all of it. Nor is it a time to push off the issue by saying it has to be studied in depth in the context of the whole of our social security problem. I do not think there is any question but if that mythical thing, a free vote, could take place in this House so that members could express the views that are being expressed to them by their constituents, there would be wide support in all parts of the House for immediate action to lower the eligible age.
One of the reasons I am glad the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North was in a position to proceed with this motion this afternoon is that this is the very week in which we have given third and final reading to one bill respecting the Old Age Security Act-we passed it a couple of days ago-providing for an increase in the basic amount of the pension to $100 a month. I was disappointed, when that bill was brought in, that it did not do something about lowering the eligible age as well.
I remind hon. members that the general practice around here is to be satisfied if an act is amended once a session, but I hope this House does not feel that way about the Old Age Security Act. It will not be enough just to coast along on the knowledge that the pension was raised in the present session to $100 a month. The issue of people under 65 particularly those who have been referred to this afternoon, namely, spouses of pensioners on a pension-the
Old Age Security
result being that two people are having to live on a pension for one-is one that must be resolved.
I say to my hon. friend who has sponsored this motion that although I support him in this as an initial step, I am sure he will agree with me that if we provided pensions for younger spouses, we would immediately be faced with the problems of widows below the age of 65 and of spinsters below that age who would say that if certain people are getting the pension, why should they not get it? The real answer to this problem-and I give the hon. member full marks for referring to it in his speech today-is to lower the pensionable age to 60. I urge that this be done, not only with respect to the Old Age Security Act but also with respect to the Canada Pension Plan.
I support those who contend that we would make a significant contribution to our unemployment problem if we could make it possible for people over 60 to retire, because then there would be more jobs for younger people. But there will not be sufficient inducement for people to retire at age 60 if all they will then get is the old age security pension. In addition to the old age security pension, they must also be given the Canada Pension Plan benefit. We must also develop a climate in which industrial pensions are made available at age 60.
I believe that is one of the next important reforms that we must now make in old age security. We have made many reforms over the years, as hon. members know. My connection with old age pensions began in the days when it was $20 a month at age 70, with a means test. Now the age has been reduced to 65, and for the larger part of the pension we have got rid of the means test. We also have an escalation clause in our pension legislation. I think we must improve that escalation clause and provide for an escalation not just equal to the rise in the cost of living, but for one equal to the rise in the standard of living.
The other point that is before us this afternoon, in my view, is an extremely important one and I want to see it resolved in the present session. I want to see a break in the age 65 floor. I know that this view is not held just by members of my party; it is held by members of the Conservative party, and my friends across the way in the Social Credit party also hold this view strongly. To my knowledge, there are scads of members in the Liberal party who feel the same way.
So I hope we will not just have discussions like the one we are having today; that we will not just have a valuable discussion in the Standing Committee on Health, Wealth and Social Affairs and a discussion with the provinces: I hope the government realizes that it will be bombarded with demands on this issue throughout the session and that what we really want is another bill amending the Old Age Security Act in the present session of parliament. That bill must provide for pensions to be made payable to spouses who are below 65 when the breadwinner is a pensioner. Preferably, pensions should be made payable across the board, right now, at age 60.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the hon. member for Cumberland-

March 30, 1973
Old Age Security
Colchester North (Mr. Coates) for having introduced a motion which reads in part as follows:
The government should give immediate consideration to the establishment of a program, in conjunction with the provinces, that would guarantee a basic income to a man and wife, upon one or the other attaining age sixty-five-
One could say in the future, I hope, "the pensionable age". I am sorry that this private members' hour does not allow us to achieve positive actions and I have always hated that period which means nothing. We talk during one hour, everybody expresses good wishes, but by the end, the bill is talked out and its study is put off until the twelfth of never. Tonight, I hope we end our remarks before five o'clock in order, at least, to have the motion voted on. However, I am afraid that, as usual, the question will fizzle out.
For years, we have been asking for an equal pension for the spouse having not yet reached the pensionable age when the husband has become eligible.
In fact, in 1966, my colleague from Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) introduced a similar motion; as can be seen, the question is not new but it still took us six years to convince the members of the Conservative party, and we still hope that the Liberals also will finally give their agreement.
Six years is a long period for the older people-and perhaps are they to wait another six months or another year-to get at last a favourable reply to a request that the whole population has put before the governments in all provinces.
What is new today is the progress the idea has made, although a difficult one, but we have scored marks.
In the fight we put up on March 27 and 28, we obtained the support of the New Democratic Party. I have just heard the speech of that party's spokesman and I was happy to note that the New Democratic Party is unanimous on this matter, as could be expected from their statement, as today I feel one cannot rely on the statement of one individual but must know the opinion of each and every one. At any rate, they even congratulated us on putting up this fight, which opened the eyes of many hon. members.
It would now appear that Progressive Conservatives are following suit-oh, with great caution-but let us hope they will have the courage to support us in our efforts to bring the age of eligibility for the old age security pension down to 60.
I am raising this point because I was appalled to note, on March 28 last, barely two days ago, that all Progressive Conservatives voted with the Liberals against an amendment to bring the age of eligibility for the old age pension down to 60 while granting the same pension to the other spouse, of whatever age. The reason why we hoped for Progressive Conservative support on the occasion of the vote on March 28 is that the motion before us today has been on the order paper of the House for several weeks, but some political reversals have no other explanation than opportunism.
I recall that, on the occasion of that vote of March 28, Social Credit members were termed demagogues by the new Minister of National Health and Social Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and also by the spokesman for the official oppo-

sition. In fact, we worked to make the government bring forward a bill similar to the motion under study. I have always noticed that such words as "demagogues" and others like it are always the last arguments of a defenceless government.
Being more logical than two old parties and, consequently, not at all demagogues, we heartily congratulate the progressive conservative member and we urge him to be firm in order to convince once and for all his hon. colleagues of the merit of his motion and of our determination to fight to obtain the reform of the old age security plan.
The problem of the wife who is younger than her husband who has reached pensionable age is much more dramatic than some members suspect, particularly in Quebec. If this were an ordinary debate, I would have made a point of bringing letters I have received from my riding. I have hundreds of letters asking for the granting of a pension for a wife who is younger than her husband, because the Quebec Welfare Services are experiencing serious difficulties.
The situation may be better in other provinces. But, as I come from the province of Quebec and know what is happening there, I am specifically speaking about my province. In fact, the Quebec minister, Claude Caston-guay, is still convinced that a couple can live on $150 a month.
This is the reason why, when the federal government pays $150 or $156 a month, the wife who is younger cannot get anything from Quebec. The standard amount is a $150 a month. They are being told: whether you die or not, a payment of $150 is enough, so be comforted. Such is the democratic regime in Quebec, which is headed by former technocrats. We are all the more justified in protesting now that the pension has been increased to $170 a month, Mr. Speaker. If the wife is only 55, this means that the couple will have to live for five years on $170 a month. This couple will be lucky if it does not have to pay a special tax on the $20 increase.
I have already exposed in this House all the anti-social measures that the government takes pleasure in bringing before Parliament. The legislation on old age security pensions is a striking example.
When they do introduce a social reform, it is always in driblets, because all those measures are devised, worked out and prepared by technocrats who never came down among the people to learn its needs and because the government never listened closely to the expectations of the people, or if it did, it pretended not to hear anything.
In my opinion, both members of the government and the opposition hear from their constituencies. Surely, they must receive letters asking them for a reform. We can wait six years for a small reform. We have been yelling, asking, begging for six years, by proposing motions and amendments, and always we have been answered by fine words and nothing else. And the wives who are not yet 65 are still waiting for our social reforms, Mr. Speaker.
I said a while ago that all this was caused by a group of technocrats who don't really know the needs of the popu-
March 30, 1973

lation, while here they are all-powerful. If all our social reforms originated among the population, one can be sure that we could at last lay the foundations for a true social reform.
As long as the population will be governed by Ottawa mandarins who are very well paid all their life and unafraid of being attacked by the people, it will be impossible to pass the legislation which the population so badly needs.
The only solution is to give back to the member of Parliament full freedom of action and his responsibilities in his riding, that he might truly reflect the opinions and the will of his electors.
The ministers should remain strictly the servants of Parliament, instead of acting as screens, not to say flunkeys, of big financial interests.
Only on that condition will we pass in this House measures as humane as the one before us today.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I will speak only briefly in this debate because it is obvious that all hon. members now in the House strongly support the intent of the motion. With such unanimity, I am sure we all want to see its formal acceptance as one of the serious areas of neglect in our welfare program as it applies to the senior citizens of Canada. In his presentation the hon. member, as others have done, referred to letters he has received from constituents. I am sure all of us in this House could quote innumerable letters of the same kind.
The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox) referred to the recent statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in which he outlined the priorities of social welfare legislation. The first priority is to deal adequately and comprehensively with the special needs of the elderly, the physically handicapped and the blind who obviously are not in a position to take care of their own economic and financial needs. I couple this plea, Mr. Speaker, with the suggestion which has been made with respect to senior citizen, married couples. I trust the government will exercise the authority it possesses to bring before the House an adequate legislative program which will implement the criteria which the minister himself has described as of first importance, namely, legislation which will look after the needs of the elderly and the physically handicapped in a satisfactory way.
This is an area in which there need be no hesitancy on the part of the federal government. There is no jurisdictional dispute involved: it is exclusively the territory of the federal government. I trust that before this hour closes we shall have given unanimous consent to the resolution, thereby empowering the government to take necessary action.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult to oppose the spirit of the motion before us, because it recognizes a very real problem in our society. There are cases where a person of pensionable age has a spouse who is slightly below that age. Consequently, they have to live on one person's pension. This is
Old Age Security
a difficulty which has been considered by the government and is still under active consideration.
The motion before us goes beyond this point, however. It talks about a spouse married to someone of pensionable age being eligible to draw a pension regardless of his or her age. There may be situations in which the person of pensionable age is married to a spouse who is 20 years younger, to someone still a member of the work force. It seems to me that it would be more reasonable to suggest, for example, that spouses between 60 and 65 who are married to someone of pensionable age should be eligible for pension as though they were of pensionable age. It seems to me this would be more acceptable than taking a broad approach and saying that anyone in that category, regardless of age, should be entitled to a pension.
My feeling is that implementing such a program might easily give rise to difficulty and, perhaps, to some abuses. A spouse who received such a pension when she was young might, after the death of his or her partner, continue to be eligible for pension for a very long time. The department has given a good deal of thought to this matter, particularly in light of the forthcoming federal-provincial conference on social security at which it is intended to review the social security system in Canada.
When the original federal-provincial conference on this subject was held a month or so ago, the provinces asked the federal government not to make adjustments to the old age security and related programs by altering the age qualifications and making other adjustments. They felt there were other priorities which should be taken into account in ensuring that justice was done all the way around. They were afraid that if steps were taken of the kind suggested in the motion before us in the absence of consultation with the provinces, there might be no money available to meet other requirements and priorities which might be put forward.
As members know, there are other areas which must be considered in terms of priority; for instance, the family allowances scheme, the situation of the working poor, the needs of the handicapped, touched upon by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), to mention only three. All these needs must be considered in relationship to each other, and it seems to me it would be improper at this time for the government to take a position with respect to one problem, even though it is an important human problem, and say it proposes to deal with it in a particular way, before the provinces have had an opportunity to review the whole question with us and reach a common decision which will take all priorities into consideration. It seems to me that in terms of national unity alone, the federal government ought to give consideration to the views of the provinces when fixing priorities.
As I say, the government is concerned about this problem and is giving it immediate consideration. We shall be attending the conference to be held during Easter week, which is not far away, when all these matters will be brought forward, and we shall be proposing an over-all approach to social security which, hopefully, will establish the right kind of priorities so that not only senior citizens but the working poor and those who are unable to work at all, such as the handicapped, are dealt with fairly. We would then be able to proceed with a plan which

March 30, 1973
Old Age Security
would recognize the passage in the Speech from the Throne which spoke about a guaranteed annual income for those who are unable to work, and total reform of social security policies affecting everyone in Canada.


Robert Carman Coates: Would the hon. member reply to a question?


Norman Augustine Cafik: When I have completed my remarks I will be delighted to entertain a question.


Robert Carman Coates: If the hon. member does not allow me to ask a question now, he will have talked out the resolution.


Norman Augustine Cafik: As a matter of fact, I have already indicated that in my view this subject is being given adequate, immediate consideration. So in my view it is redundant to
pass the resolution before us today. It is after the fact. The government has already stated its position and the importance it attaches to the social problems of the nation.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Robert Carman Coates: It is not five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, so perhaps you will put the question.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Look at the clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired.	.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
March 30, 1973



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
of

[Stage Direction]
Constitutional President of the United Mexican States to
Both Houses of Parliament in the
HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER, OTTAWA on
Friday, March 30, 1973
The President was welcomed by the Right Honourable P. E. Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Honourable Muriel McQueen Fergusson, Speaker of the Senate.
[Translation from French]
Hon. Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons):: The Senate and the House of Commons of Canada rejoice in the presence here of the President of Mexico, His Excellency Luis Echeverria and' Mrs. Eche-verria.

We are highly honoured and pleased that His Excellency, the President of Mexico, has accepted our invitation to address this joint meeting of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada. On behalf of my colleagues of the House of Commons and of the Senate I would invite the right hon. Prime Minister to welcome and introduce our distinguished guest.
[Translation from French]


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. President, Mrs. Echeverria, Madam Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, Ladies and Gentlemen Senators and Members of Parliament.
On behalf of the Canadian people and their parliamentary representatives, I have the honour of extending to you, Mr. President, to Mrs. Echeverria and to all the members of your entourage, the most cordial welcome to this joint sitting of both Houses of the Canadian Parliament.

Although we could point to obvious differences between Mexico and Canada, we would like to think of ourselves as similar in many ways. Among the most important similarities for our present and future relations is our common status as intermediate powers on the world scale. We would not claim to rank with the super powers, with populations of hundreds of millions, with relatively self-contained domestic markets, and with a



DISCURSO

[Stage Direction]
de

[Stage Direction]
Presidente Constitucional de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos a
Ambas C&maras del Parlamento en la
CAMARA DE LOS COMUNES, OTTAWA el
viernes, 30 de marzo de 1973
Dio la bienvenida al Presidente el Excmo. Sr. P. E. Trudeau, Primer Ministro de Canada, y le dio las gracias el Excmo. Sr. Muriel McQueen Fergusson, Presidente del Senado.
[Traduccidn del frances]
El Excmo. Sr. Lucien Lamoureux (Presidente de la Camara de los Comunes): El Senado y la Camara de los Comunes de Canada se complacen en acoger aqui al Presidente de Mexico, Su Excelencia Luis Echeverria y la Sra. de Echeverria.
[Traduccidn del ingles]
Constituye para nosotros un gran honor que Su Excelencia, el Presidente de Mexico, haya aceptado nuestra invitacion a dirigir la palabra a esta reunion conjunta del Senado y de la C&mara de los Comunes de Canadd. En nombre de mis colegas de la Camara de los Comunes y del Senado, quiero invitar al Excmo. Sr. Primer Ministro para que de la bienvenida y haga la presentacion de nuestro distinguido huesped.
[Traduccidn del frances]
El Excmo. Sr. Dn. P. E. Trudeau (Primer Ministro):
Sehor Presidente, Senora de Echeverria, Senora Presidente del Senado, Sr. Presidente de la Camara de los Comunes, senoras y senores Senadores y Diputados.
En el nombre del pueblo canadiense y de sus repre-sentantes parlamentarios, tengo el honor de desearle a Ud., Senor Presidente, a la Sra. de Echeverria y a todos los miembros de su cortejo, la bienvenida m&s cordial a esta sesion de las Camaras reunidas del Parlamento de Canada.
[Traduccidn del inglis]
Aun cuando podriamos senalar las diferencias exis-tentes entre Mexico y Canada, quiero ahora pensar m&s bien en lo que nuestros paises tienen de semejante. Una de las semejanzas mas notables que aceptan nuestras relaciones presentes y futuras es nuestra calidad de potencias intermedias en el mundo. No pretendemos estar a nivel de las super potencias, con poblaciones de varios cientos de millones, mercados domesticos auto-suficientes
[Stage Direction]
March 30, 1973
huge arsenal of military force. But as countries with over one hundred years of political independence, with considerable human and natural resources, and with a strong desire to govern our own destinies and to make our own contribution to world affairs, we can and we do fulfil a useful and constructive role.
I am inclined to think, Mr. President, that this role is likely to grow in importance. Since World War II, Canada has focused considerable attention on its participation in the United Nations and in multinational organizations such as the Commonwealth and La Francophonie. We will continue to do so, but in today's world we must also place renewed emphasis on direct relations between a network of well placed intermediate powers. Among these, for many reasons, Mexico is foremost in our thoughts.
There is the compelling argument of geography. It is the declared policy of our government to draw closer to our friends and partners in the western hemisphere. Over the past year or two we have given evidence of this desire by cementing our links with the institutions of the inter-American system. In particular, we have sought to identify ourselves more closely with the progress of Latin America in the achievement of social and economic goals. In these activities we consider Mexico to play a very useful part. It is special not only because of the important part you play in the deliberations of the hemisphere but also because our understanding of Latin America is necessarily enriched by a close and mutually beneficial relation with Mexico, a country with which we share so many common perceptions and interests.
In our meeting this morning, we and our ministers made much progress, Mr. President. We talked in the very candid and practical way that is characteristic of two North American partners and neighbours. Our discussions have confirmed our common conviction that there is much that our two countries can do together, and now is the time to broaden and strengthen our existing relationship and to add new dimensions to it.
[Translation from French]
The distance between our countries has long since ceased to be an obstacle. There are many commercial, technical and human links between us that have contributed to the growth of our economies and the fulfilment of our peoples. More than 100,000 Canadians go to Mexico every year, for reasons of leisure, of course, but also to steep themselves in your extraordinary human heritage from advanced civilizations from the Mayas onwards. Places such as Acapulco and Cozumel, Chichen Itza and Uxmal, artists and musicians such as Rivera, Orozco and Chavez, have become familiar figures, even close companions for us.
Mr. President, since your inauguration in 1970, you have constantly seen to the welfare of your fellow citizens, you have sought to encourage greater participation in the process of government, and you have attempted to keep economic progress inseparable from social justice. You have also tried to obtain world-wide recognition of these principles, these ideals, so that all nations, whatever their power, may have a share in decisions that concern
y con un enorme arsenal de fuerza militar. No obstante, como parses con mas de 100 anos de independencia politics, recursos naturales y humanos considerables y con un marcado deseo de dirigir nuestro propio destino y con-tribuir a los asuntos del mundo, podemos desempenar, y en realidad desempenamos, un papel util y constructive.
Me siento inclinado a pensar, Sr. Presidente, que este papel va a crecer en importancia. Desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial, Canada ha prestado gran atencion a su partieipacion en las Naciones Unidas y en organiza-ciones multinacionales como la Commonwealth y La Francophonie. Asi seguiremos haciendolo, pero, en el mundo de hoy, debemos prestar una importancia renovada entre una red de potencias intermedias bien situadas. Entre ellas, Mexico ocupa un lugar primerisimo en nuestro pensamiento, por muchas razones.
Existe, evidentemente, la situacion geografica. Existe ademas la politics de nuestro gobierno de acercarnos a nuestros amigos y companeros del hemisferio occidental. Hemos dado prueba de este deseo a lo largo de los dos ultimos anos, al hacer mas estrechos nuestros vinculos con las instituciones del sistema intera-mericano. De modo especial, hemos procurado identifi-camos mas estrechamente con el progreso que realiza Latinoamerica en la consecucion de sus metas sociales y economicas. Creemos que Mexico represents un papel muy util en estas actividades. Y esto es asi, no solo por el importante papel que representan ustedes en las deliberaciones de este hemisferio, sino porque nuestra comprension de Latinoamerica se enriquece a traves de nuestras relaciones estrechas y mutuamente beneficiosas con Mexico, pais con el que tantos intereses y puntos de vista tenemos en comun.
En la reunion de esta manana, Sr. Presidente, tanto nosotros como nuestros ministros, hemos realizado notables progresos. Nuestra conversacion fue Candida y practica, como es caracteristico entre dos vecinos y companeros de America del Norte. Nuestra conversacion nos confirmo la conviccion comun de que existen muchos campos en que nuestros paises pueden trabajar juntos y que este es el momento de hacer mas amplias y fuertes las relaciones existentes, y darles un nuevo alcance.
[Traduccion del franees]
La distancia que nos separa ha dejado de ser una barrera desde hace ya mucho tiempo. Los intercambios comerciales, tenicos y humanos entre nuestros dos paises, desde hace varios decenios, han estimulado el crecimiento de nuestras economias y la plenitud de vida de nuestros pueblos. Mas de cien mil canadienses se dirijen a Mexico cada ano para reposar, naturalmente, pero, sobre todo, para impregnarse de esta herencia humana que, desde el tiempo de los Mayas, les han dejado civilizaciones extra-ordinarias. Lugares como Acapulco y Cozumel, Chichen Itza y Uxmal, artistas, musicos como Rivera, Orozco y Chavez, nos son ya familiares y, por asi decirlo, intimos.
Desde su toma de posesion, en 1970, Sr. Presidente, se ha preocupado por el bienestar de sus conciudadanos, se ha esforzado porque la partieipacion en el proceso guber-namental fuera mas intensa y ha procurado de que el progreso economico fuera inseparable de la justicia social. Principios e ideales que Ud. ha querido tambien hacer reconocer en la escena mundial, a fin de que todas las naciones, cualquiera que sea su potencia, puedan
March 30, 1973
[Stage Direction]
them, and so as to bring about greater equity in the conduct of international affairs. I can assure you, Mr. President, that Canadians are with you in the ardent hope that these aims will be reached.
[Translation from Spanish]
It is with these thoughts for the future of our countries working together in a relationship of new meaning and purpose that we extend to you, Sir, a very warm welcome. This special session of the Parliament of Canada is an historic occasion and it is an honour and a privilege for us to welcome you, Mr. President.
His Excellency Luis Echeverria (President of Mexico): Madam Speaker of the Senate,
Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons:
First and foremost, I would' like to thank you for the opportunity you have given me to express the points of view of the Mexican government on important matters which concern our two nations. Nothing could be more satisfactory than to speak before this House of Commons, symbol and seat of the best democratic traditions of this great country.
The main purpose of my visit to Canada is to propose to you a new stage of wide range and increasing exchanges, mutually beneficial to our two countries.
Up to now, our relations, though insufficient in number, have always been cordial. In a world conditioned by economic and political ambition, expressions of friendship are not enough to resist the pressures of the hegemonic attempts made by the strongest nations. It is necessary for us to come closer together and share experiences, increase our contacts and persevere in the defense of the theses that we both support at multilateral forums.
It is our conviction that the points we have in common in our respective political philosophies, our particular location in the world, and the complementary aspects of our economies will allow us to establish increasingly deeper bonds.
For you, as for us, democracy is a way of life. It implies absolute respect for different forms of thought. It also means respect for self-determination of peoples, coexistence and even cooperation between states with different ideologies.
Freedom is not an abstract capacity to take decisions, but a concrete possibility of implementing these decisions. In the same way in which an unjust society actually annuls all freedoms, unfair relations among peoples condemn the poorest to a virtual loss of autonomy.
The true democratic ideal calls for each man and each nation to have the means to satisfy their needs and develop their personality; to exercise effectively the rights they have as individuals, human groups and nations.
Mexico has been a frequent victim of intervention, abuse and injustice. It has learned that its national identity and sovereignty can only be based on an effort to defend its integrity before others and at the same
26087-31J
participar en las decisiones que les atanen, favoreciendo asi una mayor equidad en la direccion de los asuntos in-ternacionales. Puedo asegurarle, Sr. Presidente, que los canadienses desean ardientemente como Ud. la realizacion de estos objetivos esenciales.
[Stage Direction]
Con estas ideas sobre el futuro de nuestros dos paises colaborando en une relacion de intenciones y propositos nuevos, le damos, Excelencia, nuestra mas cordial bien-venida. Esta sesion especial del Parlamento de Canada constituye una ocasion historica y es para nosotros un honor y privilegio escuchar sus palabras, Sr. Presidente.
Senora Presidents del Senado,
Senor Presidente de la Camara de los Comunes.
Quisiera, ante todo, agradecer cumplidamente la oportu-nidad que se me ofrece para expresar, ante ustedes, los puntos de vista del gobierno mexicano sobre cuestiones relevantes que conciernen a nuestras dos naciones. Nada mas satisfactorio que hacerlo ante esta Camara de los Comunes, simbolo y sede de las mejores tradiciones demo-craticas de este gran pais.
El objetivo primordial de mi visita consiste en propo-nerles una nueva etapa, de amplios y crecientes inter-cambios, mutuamente beneficos para los pueblos de Canadd y Mexico.
Hasta ahora, las relaciones han sido siempre cordiales pero insuficientes. En un mundo condicionado por ambi-ciones economicas y politicas, las muestras de simpatia no bastan para resistir las presiones y las tentativas hegemonicas de los mas fuertes. Es preciso aproximarnos y compartir experiencias, multiplicar contactos y persistir en la defensa de las tesis que nos identifican en los foros multilaterales.
Tenemos la conviccion de que las coincidencias de nuestras respectivas filosofias politicas, nuestra peculiar ubicacion en el mundo y los aspectos complementarios de nuestras economias, nos permitiran establecer nexos cada vez mas profundos.
Para ustedes, como para nosotros, la democracia es un modo de vida. Implica respeto absoluto a las distintas formas de pensamiento. Significa, igualmente, respeto por la autodeterminacion de los pueblos, coexistencia y aun cooperacion entre Estados de diferente orientacion ideo-logica.
Pero la libertad no es solo una capacided abstracta para tomar decisiones, sino un poder concreto para realizarlas. Del mismo modo que una sociedad injusta anula de hecho las libertades, las relaciones inequitativas entre les pueblos condenan a los mas pobres a la perdida virtual de su autonomia.
El verdadero ideal democratico pretende que cada hombre y cada pueblo, dispongan de los medios adecuados para satisfacer sus necesidades y desarollar su persona-lidad; para ejercer, efectivamente, los derechos que tienen como individuos, como grupos humanos y como naciones.
Mexico ha sido victima frecuente de la intervencion, del abuso y de la injusticia. Ha aprendido que su identi-dad nacional y su soberania solo pueden fundarse en un esfuerzo simultaneo por defender su integridad frente
[Stage Direction]
March 30, 1973
time promote within the country progress with equality for all.
We are certain that a new international society is in the process of being built. Small and medium-sized countries must participate in this era of transition by renewing and1 strengthening their nationalistic attitude; they must also acquire new instruments to make their full development feasible.
If we have overcome the colonial mentality domestically, we should do the same in our relations with other countries. We must weigh with serenity the changes that are taking place on the world scene and act with flexibility and courage in favor of our national objectives.
The end of the cold war and of bipolarism points to a different political structure characterized by the emergence of new centers of power, by the establishment of more flexible alliances and by a greater participation on the part of developing countries in the management of world affairs.
Only dangerous fatalism could' lead us to believe that the international community should be structured in the future in accordance with old systems of domination and that the only possible way of change would be to redefine spheres of influence. Such a belief would mean facing the future with a nineteenth century outlook and condemning ourselves irrevocably to dependence.
On the contrary, we believe that countries like ours are called upon to play a more significant role in the field of international relations, not only because of their rate of development, their unexploited wealth or demographic growth, but also because of the enormous possibilities of concerted action and the moral force of a behaviour which adheres to the standards of public international law.
Neither of our countries wants to arouse systematic opposition or enmity with any nation. We hope, from similar positions, to modify hemisphere relations in order to share prosperity in a better way. We realize that this option means not only basic modifications in our relations with other countries of the continent, but also a definite extension of our contacts to other areas of the world.
Canada is in a wonderful position to play a more dynamic role in this hemisphere. I wish to reiterate that my government views with pleasure the Latin American policy of Canada, especially its recent entry into various organizations of the regional system. Although we feel certain that its participation as a full member in the Organization of American States would be more fruitful, we respect its reasons for joining only as a permanent observer at this time.
Moreover, we share many of the doubts that rightly concern Canada with respect to this organization. We realize that its decisions only appeared to be democratic and that ideological intolerance frequently diverted this institution from its objectives. Mexico has invariably fought, and will continue to do so, for our regional organization to be zealously respectful of the sovereignty of
a los demas y por obtener, en lo interno, un progreso igualitario.
Tenemos la certidumbre de que en estos anos se esti gestando una nueva sociedad intemacional. Los pequenos y los medianos paises, deben actuar en esta epoca de transition renovando y fortaleciendo su actitud nacio-nalista; pertrecharse con nuevos instrumentos que hagan viable su pleno desarrollo.
Si hemos superado en lo interno la mentalidad colonial, debemos hacerlo tambien en nuestras relaciones con el exterior. Tenemos que ponderar, serenamente, los cambios que se estan produciendo en el panorama mundial y actuar, con agilidad y valentia, en favor de nuestros objetivos nacionales.
El fin de la Guerra Fria la liquidation del bipolarismo anuncian una distinta composition politica caracterizada por el surgimiento de nuevos centros de poder, por el establecimiento de alianzas mgs flexibles y por la mayor participacion de los paises en vias de desarrollo en la direction de los asuntos mundiales.
Solo un peligroso fatalismo podria hacernos suponer que la comunidad intemacional habra de estructurarse manana conforme a los antiguos esquemas de domination y que el unico sentido posible del cambio es re-definir las esfras de influencia. Considerarlo asi, seria enfrentar el porvenir con mentalidad del siglo pasado y condenarse, irremisiblemente, a la dependencia.
Pensamos, por el contrario, que paises como los nuestros estan llamados a desempenar una funcion de mayor significado en el campo de las relaciones internacionales. No unicamente por razones derivadas de su ritmo de crecimiento, de sus riquezas inexpiotadas o de su creci-miento demografico, sino tambien por las enormes perspectives de una action concertada y por la fuerza moral de una conducta apegada a las normas del derecho de gentes.
Ninguno de nuestros paises pretende suscitar oposici-ones sistematicas ni enemistades con nation alguna. Aspiramos, desde posiciones semej antes, a modificar las relaciones hemisftiicas en favor de una prosperidad mejor compartida. Sabemos que esta option incluye modificaciones sustantivas de nuestras relaciones con los demas paises del continente pero, tambien, una decidida ampliation de nuestros contactos con otras areas del mundo.
Canada se encuentra en magnifica situation para desempenar un papel m&s dinamico en el hemisferio. Deseo reiterar el beneplacito con que mi gobiemo ha seguido la politica latinoamericana del Canada, signifi-cada recientemente por su ingreso a diversos organos del sistema regional. Aunque estamos seguros de que su plena participacion en la Organization de los Estados Americanos seria mas fecunda, respetamos sus razones para incorporarse, por ahora, solo con el rango de obser-vador permanente.
Mas aun, compartimos muchas dudas que verosimil-mente preocupan al Canada respecto a esa Organization. Estamos conscientes de que, a menudo, sus decisiones s61o en apariencia fueron democraticas y de que la intolerancia ideologica, la desvio frecuentemente de sus propositos. Mexico ha pugnado invariablemente, y lo seguira haci-endo, porque nuestro organismo regional sea celosamente
March 30, 1973
[Stage Direction]
its Member States and for economic and social cooperation to have a position of priority among its tasks.
Neo-colonial attitudes and international injustice will not decrease substantially over a short period. It will take time to overcome inertia and certain barriers. The best way to do this is by extending exchanges and unifying the positions among countries that have interests which are alike.
For years, Canada and Mexico have had similar attitudes on some of the most important questions of our time. Both our countries are concerned, for instance, about finding formulas to harmonize industrial growth with the conservation of the human environment and natural resources.
Air, water and land pollution becomes a new source of servitude when it is the result of relations with more industrialized countries. Ecological aggressions which cause serious damage to life, health and the economy are an additional load for less developed nations to bear.
Economic sovereignty is one of the expressions of political sovereignty. That is why we affirm the unalienable right of all countries to defend and exploit their basic resources. Therefore we fight for the establishment of a regime of international protection of the environment through regional and international agreements that take into account the legitimate right of States.
The desire on the part of many countries to extend the limits of the territorial sea is a growing and legitimate one. Mexico grants priority to the need to establish a zone of exclusive exploitation for coastal states.
We believe that a new maritime system to establish the rights of coastal states with fairness and precision is indispensable, in view of the present-day needs, and the nature of the conflicts that arise from the possibility that some countries have to exploit their own wealth and that of others.
I would like to give special emphasis, in the presence of this assembly, to the pleasure of my government at the growing affinity of our two countries on these subjects, and on the interest Mexico takes in the valuable precedent Canada has set by establishing a system for the protection and preservation of the maritime species that inhabit the arctic region.
The general and universally compulsory standards that would govern both rights to the sea and the protection of the environment should be included in the Charter of the Economic Rights and Duties of States which is now being drafted by a group of forty countries at the request of the United Nations.
When, at the Third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, we proposed the adoption of this document by the international community, Mexico outlined the principles of international equity that come from the struggle of the people of the Third World and which are a basic requirement for harmonious coexistence among States.
In an interdependent world, the strategic problem for developing countries is to reorient the trend of their growing trade. We insist that it is necessary for the genrespetuoso de la soberania de sus Estados miembros y porque, entre sus tareas, ocupe un lugar preponderante la cooperation economica y social.
Les actitudes neocolonialistas y la injusticia inter-nacional no se reduciran sensiblemente a corto plazo. Hay inercias y barreras que tardaremos en superar. La mejor manera de hacerlo es ampliando los intercambios y uni-ficando las posiciones entre paises con intereses semejantes.
Canada y Mexico han tenido, durante anos actitudes similares en algunas de las cuestiones mas importantes de esta epoca. A nuestros dos paises preocupa, por ejemplo, encontrar las formulas que permitan armonizar el creci-miento industrial y la preservation del medio humano y de los recursos naturales.
La contamination de la atmosfera, de las aguas y de la tierra, se convierte en una nueva servidumbre cuando es impuesta por las relaciones con paises mds industrializa-dos. A las pesadas cargas que soportan los pueblos de menor desarrollo, se suma ahora la agresion ecologica que lesiona gravemente su vida, su salud y su economia.
La soberania economica es una de las expresiones de la soberania politica. Por eso afirmamos el derecho inalienable de todos los pueblos a la defensa y a la explotacion de sus recursos b&sicos. Pugnamos, en consecuencia, por el establecimiento de un regimen de proteccion internacional al medio ambiente, conformado por acuerdos regionales y mundiales que toman en cuenta el legitimo derecho de los Estados.
Es creciente y legitima la pretension de muchos paises por extender los limites del mar territorial. Mexico otorga una atencion prioritaria a la necesidad de establecer una zona de explotacion exclusiva para el Estado ribereno.
Estimamos indispensable la estructuracion de un nuevo regimen maritimo que fije con equidad y precision los derechos de los Estados riberenos, considerando las necesidades contemporaneas y la naturaleza de los con-flictos que suscita la potencialidad de algunas naciones para explotar sus propias riquezas y las ajenas.
Deseo subrayar, ante esta asamblea el beneplacito con que ve mi gobierno la creciente afinidad de nuestros dos paises sobre estos temas. Asimismo, el interes con que Mexico contempla el valioso precedente sentado por Canada al determinar un sistema de proteccion y preservacion de las especies maritimas que habitan la region artica.
Las normas generales y universalmente obligatorias que regirian, tanto el derecho del mar como el de la proteccion del medio ambiente, deberan contenerse en la Carta de los Deberes y Derechos Economicos de los Estados que ahora se formula por un grupo de cuarenta paises por encomienda de las Naciones Unidas.
Al proponer en la III Conferencia sobre Comercio y Desarrollo la adoption de este documento por la comuni-dad internacional, Mexico delineo aquellos principios de equidad derivados de la lucha emprendida por los pueblos del Tercer Mundo y que constituyen requisitos basicos para una convivencia armonica entre los Estados.
En un mundo interdependiente, el problema estrategico para los paises en vias de desarrollo consiste en reorientar el sentido de sus crecientes intercambios economicos.
[Stage Direction]
March 30, 1973
eral system of preferences, approved by UNCTAD, after painful negotiations, to be fully enforced.
Advantages in trade proportional to the varying degrees of development, are not only a valuable stimulus for the participation of our countries in the large markets, but also a means to accelerate industrialization throughout vast regions of the world and to promote domestic changes in countries that have lagged behind. That will lead to a fairer international division of labor.
The control of the State over the main economic processes is a necessary condition to maintain the autonomy of its political decisions. That is why there is a general concern to study and regulate the characteristics of foreign investment and of ways to absorb technological resources.
Given the stage of evolution of Canada and Mexico, this subject is of decisive importance. Almost simultaneously, both countries have begun systematic research on the effects of an excessive concentration of foreign capital and technology and have adopted or are about to adopt measures to reorganize the participation of these factors in their economic life.
My country's Congress has recently approved a law that promotes national investment and regulates foreign investment. This legislation reflects the different stages of our nationalistic effort. It retains old provisions under which we do not allow foreign investment in strategic spheres of the national economy. Moreover, it defines the economic activities in which foreign capital must be in the minority. It establishes the technical instruments and powers that permit the restriction, orientation or, if necessary, encouragement of capital flow to adjust it to our own objectives of development. Finally, it prevents the acquisition of Mexican enterprises that are functioning efficiently.
Another law for the registration of the transference of technology and the use and exploitation of patents and trade-marks complements our policy on this subject. Within a framework of independence we shall accept and use technology insofar as it adjusts to the aims of our economic policy. We shall try to eliminate practices or stipulations that limit our exports, prevent the development of our own technology, make production more expensive or hinder our autonomous development. In short, we want technology to be an instrument of progress, not of subjection.
There are numerous corporations in the world market that have accumulated a substantial amount of experience. The importance of the changes and scientific advances that these corporations have brought with them can find no objection. Their size is greater than that of many countries and their intervention in domestic matters is a matter of concern even to the large industrialized nations.
However, we cannot accept their actions when they are not bound by the sovereignty of the nation or when they are harmful to the real needs and' aspirations of countries. We want to take advantage of their positive contributions for their own benefit and that of our popu-
Insistimos en que el sistema general de preferencias, aprobado tras penosas negociaciones por la UNCTAD, alcance pleno vigor.
Las ventajas proporcionales en el comercio segun los grados de desarrollo no solo representan un valioso estimulo para la participacion de nuestros paises en los grandes mercados. Lo es tambien para acelerar la industrializacion en vastas regiones del planeta y para auspiciar cambios internos en los paises rezagados que conduzcan a una mas justa division internacional del trabajo.
El control del Estado sobre los principales procesos economicos es eondicion necesaria para mantener la autonomia de sus decisiones politicas. A ello se debe la preocupacion generalizada por estudiar y regular las modalidades de la inversion extranjera y de la absorcion de conocimientos tecnologicos.
En el grado de evolucion de Canada y Mexico este tema tiene una importancia decisiva. De modo casi simultaneo, ambos paises han iniciado investigaciones sistematicas sobre los efectos de una excesiva concentracion de capital y tecnologia foranea, y adoptaron o est$n en vias de adoptar, medidas para reordenar la participacion de estos factores en la vida economica.
El Congreso de la Union de mi pais ha aprobado, en dias pasados, la Ley que promueve la inversion domestica y regula las extranjeras. Esta legislation, refleja las distintas etapas de nuestro esfuerzo nacionalista. Recoge antiguas disposiciones, segun las cuales no admitimos la participacion extranjera en renglones estrategicos de nuestra economia. Define, ademas, las actividades economicas en que el capital foraneo tiene que ser minoritario. Establece los instrumentos tecnicos y las facultades que permitiran restringir, orientar, o en su caso alentar, los fluj os financieros para ajustarlos a nuestros propios objetivos de desarrollo. Evita, en fin, que se adquieran empresas mexicanas que esten funcionando eficiente-mente.
Otra ley para el registro de la transferencia de tecnologia y el uso y explotacion de patentes y marcas, com-plementa nuestra politica en esta materia. Con un criterio de independencia, utilizaremos y aceptaremos la tecnologia en la medida en que se ajuste a las finalidades de nuestra politica economica. Procuramos eliminar prac-ticas o estipulaciones que limiten la exportation, impidan el desenvolvimiento de metodos propios, encarezcan la production o signifiquen obstdculos a nuestro desarrollo autonomo. Queremos, en suma, que la tecnologia sea ins-trumento de progreso, nd metodo de sujecion.
Existen numerosas corporaciones en el mercado mun-dial que han acumulado una cuantiosa experiencia. Es inobjetable la importancia de los cambios y avances cientificos que su aparicion ha llevado consigo. Sus dimensiones superan las de muchos paises y su intro-mision en asuntos internos preocupa incluso a las grandes naciones industrializadas.
No aceptamos que su actuation quede al margen de la soberania o vaya en detrimento de las necesidades y aspiraciones de los pueblos. Queremos aprovechar sus aportaciones positivas, en beneficio de ellas mismas y de nuestra poblacion. No nos interesa fomentar un progreso
March 30, 1973
[Stage Direction]
lation. We are not interested in fostering an apparent industrial progress that only benefits large consortiums that are not bound to our national goals.
As a country without sufficient capital resources and technological knowledge, we want foreign companies to cooperate in a process of development that has a social content and to propitiate our dynamic incorporation in world markets.
We struggle to make our progress more than a mere reflection of a metropolitan influence. Decision-making centers must remain within the nation, since to proceed otherwise would be to deny our independence and' to deviate from the objectives of development. There are very few countries as well qualified as Canada to comprehend this principle which is so simple and yet so complicated for many to understand.
Mexico will give full support to any initiative that is taken to draw up an obligatory Code of conduct that will regulate the actions of the multinational corporations and establish guidelines for the domestic legislation of the nations concerned. This is a necessary and constructive task in which our two countries might well coordinate their efforts.
In our era a vigorous economic nationalism with characteristics that are different from those of previous stages has been reborn. Then, it was a matter of conquering the effective use of the fundamental rights of soveignty; of recovering ownership of land and of basic resources; of carrying out essential structural reforms that would cancel out our feudal past and open the way to the advent of an industrial society.
The changes I refer to came from popular movements, which were sometimes violent, or from the establishment of domestic policies that caused deep divisions. On implementing these, countries like ours became isolated from the community of nations and had to struggle alone.
Nationalism today, differently from yesterday, is also an internationalism. It means strengthening the bonds among peoples that have similar needs and aspirations. It represents an effort to make the interests of different and heterogeneous countries coincide and to defend them in solidarity on a world scale.
However, we know that a nationalistic stand held only abroad has no real basis. True nationalism, the nationalism that Mexico and Canada practice, is an effort to achieve social integration and coordination. This nationalism can be measured by the internal cohesion of a community, and by the degree of understanding which prevails among its people, the equality of their living conditions and their effective participation in their common tasks.
Honourable Members of Parliament,
Mr. Prime  Minister@: The military and economic power of nations is not the only factor that influences the course of history. Moral authority, creative intelligence, the capacity for change, and the political ability of small and mediumsized countries are the source of some of the great transformations of humanity.
industrial aparente que solo favorezca a grandes con-sorcios desvinculados de nuestras metas nacionales.
Como pais con insuficientes recursos de capital y conocimientos tecnologicos, deseamos que las empresas extranjeras cooperen en un proceso de desarrollo con sentido social y que propicien nuestra incorporacion din&mica a los mercados mundiales.
Pugnamos porque nuestro progreso no sea mero reflejo de una influencia metropolitana. Los centros de decision deben permanecer en el ambito nacional. Lo opuesto conduce a la negacion de la independencia y a la desvia-cion de los objetivos del desarrollo. Pocos paises estar&n tan capacitados como Canada para entender este prin-cipio tan simple y que, al propio tiempo, resulta tan complicado para muchos.
Mexico apoyaria, resueltamente, cualquier iniciativa para la elaboracion de un Codigo de observancia obli-gatoria que regule la actuacion de las empresas trans-nacionales y que sirva como pauta a las legislaciones internas de los Estados. He aqui una tarea necesaria y constructiva en la que nuestros dos paises podrian cola-borar de manera coordinada.
Renace en nuestra epoca un vigoroso nacionalismo economico con caracteres distintos al de etapas anteriores. Se trataba, entonces, de conquistar el uso efectivo de los derechos fundamentales que derivan de la soberania; de reivindicar la propiedad de la tierra y de los recursos basicos; de efectuar reformas indispensables de estructura que cancelaran un pasado feudal y abrieran el camino a la sociedad industrial.
Los cambios a que me refiero surgieron de movimientos populares, a menudo violentos, o de definiciones pollticas internas que causaron hondas divisiones. Al ejecutarlas, paises como el nuestro, se vieron aislados de la comuni-dad de naciones y hubieron de luchar en la soledad.
El nacionalismo de hoy, a diferencia del de ayer, es tambien un internacionalismo. Supone un fortalecimiento de vinculos entre pueblos que tienen semej antes necesi-dades y aspiraciones. Representa un esfuerzo por hacer coincidentes los intereses de diversos y heterog6neos paises y por defender los solidariamente a escala mundial.
Sabemos, ademas, que una afirmacion nacionalista formulada exclusivamente hacia el exterior, carece de sustento real. El verdadero nacionalismo; el que Mexico y Canada practican, es un esfuerzo de integration y de coordination social. Su medida es el grado de cohesion interna de una comunidad, el entendimiento entre sus integrantes, las condiciones de igualdad en que viven y su incorporacion efectiva en las tareas comunes.
Honorables Miembros del Parlamento:
El poderio militar y economico de las naciones no son los unicos factores que influyen en el curso de la historia. La autoridad moral, la inteligencia creadora, la capacided revolucionaria y la determination polltica de pequenos y medianos paises estan en el origen de algunas de las grandes transformaciones de la humanidad.

March 30, 1973
Traditional structures give way under the impact of new ideas and new realities. The duty of all nations, but especially of young nations like Canada and Mexico, is to be aware of the direction of the change and fight for the creation of a society that satisfies the universal aspirations of a peace that is the expression of social justice, harmony and cooperation among all the peoples of the world.
In thanking you in the name of Mexico for the hospitality I am enjoying, I express my wishes for the continuation of the friendship that unites our nations and for the preservation of the proud Canadian spirit which served to conquer this enormous territory and allows your country to advance today along the road of democracy and shared well-being.
[Translation from French]


Hon. Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons):: I invite Madam Speaker of the Senate to thank the President of Mexico.


Hon. Muriel  McQueen Fergusson@Speaker of the Senate: moting contacts at ^11 levels between Mexico and Canada and toward developing our mutual understanding and interests.
[Translation from Spanish]
Mr. President, your presence and that of Her Excellency has been a great honor for us.

We are also honoured on this important occasion by the presence in this chamber of the distinguished members of your official party. May I say to you, Mr. President, and to all members of your party that we are very pleased to have you with us today.
Mr. President, my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Commons also would like to express to you our most sincere thanks for the outstanding address you have just given to us. You have deeply impressed us with the eloquence with which you have spoken of longstanding ties and things that might happen in the future. It is clear to all of us here that, even with diversity of languages, our two countries and peoples have many things in common.
[Translation from French]
Your visit and your words are drawing closer the bonds between our two countries.

The enthusiastic acclaim with which my colleagues received your message of friendship and good will must surely convince you of the respect and affection we have for you and for your great country. We extend to you our warmest wishes for the continued success of your visit in Canada and for the balance of the extended tour you are taking. When you return home, Mr. President, we would ask you to convey to the members of your Congress the most sincere good wishes from my colleagues in both Houses of the Canadian parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Members of the House and Senators, l'assemblee est levee. We shall now adjourn.
ciones a todos los niveles entre Mexico y Canada, asi como un mejor entendimiento de nuestros intereses mutuos.

Senor Presidente, la presencia de Su Excelencia y de la Senora de Echeverria nos hizo un gran honor.
[Traduccion del ingles]
En este acontecimiento tan importante nos honra, asimismo, la presencia en esta camara de los distinguidos miembros de su comitiva oficial. Sr. Presidente, permi-tame decir a Ud. y a todos los miembros de su comitiva que nos es un gran placer tenerles con nosotros en el dia de hoy.
Sr. Presidente, mis colegas en el Senado y en la Camara de los Comunes quisieran igualmente expresarle a Ud. nuestras gracias m&s sinceras por el discurso tan sobre-saliente que nos acaba de pronunciar. Nos ha impresio-nado sumamente con la elocuencia con que ha hablado de los vinculos de muchos anos y de cosas que pudieran ocurrir en el futuro. Nos es muy claro a todos nosotros que aun con la diferencia de idiomas, nuestros dos paises y pueblos tienen muchas cosas en comun.
[Traduccion del frances]
Su visita y sus palabras sirven para hacer mas estre-chos los vinculos que existen entre nuestros dos paises.
[Traduccion del ingles]
El aplauso tan caluroso con el que mis colegas han recibido su mensaje de amistad y buena voluntad, debe seguramente convencerle del aprecio y afecto que sentimos por Ud. y su gran pais. Le hacemos llegar nuestros mas sinceros votos por el exito continuo de su visita a Canada y el resto de su largo viaje. A su regreso a su pais, Sr. Presidente, le rogamos extienda a los miembros del Congreso los saludos mas sinceros de mis colegas de ambas Camaras del Parlamento Canadiense.
Sr. Presidente: Miembros de la Camara y Senadores, se levanta la sesion.

Monday, April 2, 1973