1973-11-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES Fifth report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
HEALTH, WELFARE AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS Sixth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Isabelle.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table, in both official languages, the first report of Nutrition Canada national survey.


TABLING OF AUDITED STATEMENT OF WHEAT ON HAND AND DETAILS OF FINAL PAYMENTS ON WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY FOR 1972-73 CROP YEAR
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two items under Standing Order 41(2). The first is an audited statement for July 31, 1973, of wheat on hand as defined by the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The second is details of final payments on wheat, oats and barley to western grain producers for the 1972-73 crop year.
position which Canada was taking at the recent international conference on the elimination of pollution from ships. Now that this large, international gathering in London, England, has completed its work, I would like to report progress. I would like to describe the results of this conference of flag states and coastal states, the main objective of which was to prevent the further deterioration of the world's oceans, seas and shipping lanes.
Oil was the only pollutant mentioned in the 1954 and 1969 conventions. The latest convention, that of 1973, includes toxic and suffocating substances other than oil. It includes white oils as well as black oils. It includes refined petroleum products as well as crude oil and bunker oil.
The new convention also contains important stipulations with regard to vessel construction. Segregated ballast will be required on all new tankers of more than 70,000 tons. The size of individual tanks in oil tankers is also limited so as to reduce the loss of oil from collisions and groundings in the future.
The right of coastal states to take action against a ship in trouble whicn also posed the threat of pollution to their shores has been expanded. Not only does it now cover dangerous substances other than oil, but it also extends this right to any distance which might reasonably be said to involve a threat or hazard to the territory of the coastal state.
With respect to other jurisdictional aspects of the convention an attempt was made at the conference to limit the right of enforcement of a coastal state to its territorial sea. This attempt was resisted successfully by Canada. The new convention adopts the compromise approach along the lines of the one negotiated at the London Dumping Conference in 1972 and allows a coastal state to enforce the convention "within its jurisdiction" without attempting to define how far that jurisdiction may extend. The convention thus recognizes that the nature and extent of coastal state jurisdiction as well as flag state jurisdiction may be changed as a result of the Law of the Sea Conference. Meanwhile it is open to a state to interpret the convention as permitting it to enforce its provisions in waters under its jurisdiction which, like fisheries closing lines, extend beyond its territorial sea.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, on October 16 last I outlined in this House the
The new convention declares that the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, Baltic Sea, Red Sea and the gulfs area, including the Sea of Oman, are designated as special areas in which oil discharge is completely prohibited with the exception of very small ships. This is an indication of the world-wide concern about the preservation of water quality in landlocked areas or inland seas where the exchange of water with the outside ocean is restricted by narrow straits.
7562

November 6, 1973
Pollution from Ships
Mr. Speaker, we won some and lost some. We failed, for example, to get approval of special preventative measures in special areas. The special areas we had in mind were those of exceptional ecological sensitivity whether they be inside, or outside the jurisdiction of the coastal state. We had our Arctic problem in mind. We were encouraged by the fact that a number of important flag states supported us. But the Canadian resolution failed to get the necessary two-thirds majority in the final plenary session of the conference. Needless to say, we will try again, but our next opportunity to deal with special areas is, at least, a few years away.
We also put forward the "port state enforcement concept" for the first time. In this we were strongly supported by the United States. Had it been accepted, violators of the convention could have been prosecuted in the ports of any contracting party regardless of where the offence took place and for up to three years after it occurred.
One of the defects of the 1954 convention is that violations which occur outside of the waters of the coastal state can only be dealt with by the flag state in which the ship is registered. The new convention beefs up the penalties but that is all. As a coastal state, Canada must continue to oppose this flag state regime and will, therefore, continue to press for "port state enforcement" at the Law of the Sea Conference in 1974.
Canada supported a United States proposal for the building of double bottoms in new oil tankers. This requirement was rejected by the conference as was the "sheen" concept which would have made it easier to prosecute ships trailing a thin sheen of oil. Instead of accepting the word of an officer of a coastal state, quantitative measures of loss of oil will still be needed in order to prosecute the ship which is responsible for pollution on the high seas.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I can say that the standards adopted by the latest IMCO conference are good, not excellent. In concept, they apply all around the world. But the conference did not adopt all of the measures which are necessary if they are to be enforced effectively by flag states and coastal states alike. We did not manage to deal with our special Arctic problem either.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment our delegation to the IMCO conference and especially its deputy head, Mr. E. G. Lee. It was very active. Anyone who was there will agree that it was one of the most influential delegations which we have sent abroad in recent years.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the minister I think I should remind the House that in answer to the minister's statement on October 16 it was brought to the attention of the House that certain things which we should have been pursuing at this conference were neglected or omitted. This, of course, may have been because it was impossible to get them on the agenda. I refer to the fact that no matter what arrangements we make with respect to other nations we do need co-operation on international navigation standards. All the safeguards in the world are of no account if vessels are

operating under navigational standards that allow collisions.
There has been no mention by the minister today, nor was there on October 16, of international arrangements for co-operation in the clean-up of oil. Again I stress that compensation is no comfort to those on shores that are befouled by oil.
I again remind the government that, in order to achieve the other objectives the minister has stated still remain to be achieved, our own moral position must be first rate. I refer to the fact that we have had an inconsistent policy of complaining about oil tankers on the west coast and taking almost no action on the east coast.
On page two of the statement which the minister kindly delivered to me just before the House met he says:
The right of coastal states to take action against a ship in trouble which also posed the threat of pollution to its shores has been expanded. Not only does it now cover dangerous substances other than oil, but it also extends this right to any distance which might reasonably be said to involve a threat or hazard to the territory of the coastal state.
This is all very well but, as has been demonstrated by recent spills on the west coast, in this country we do not have the equipment nor the trained men to deal adequately with minor spills that are taking place in our own harbours. Acquiring the right to contain spills farther out to sea does us little good if we do not have the men and material to do so. The minister is aware of this problem as he comes from a riding bordering the very harbour that has recently been the subject of two spills. I would ask the minister and other members of the government to take this into account.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) referred to this matter on October 16. He said that we must be prepared to take unilateral action in cases where a convention or agreement is lacking. This party endorses the position taken by the hon. member for Skeena on October 16. We have already taken such action, as he pointed out, with respect to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, an area that is very special to us. The fact that we may not be able to get agreement at this time should not in any way detract from our determination to act unilaterally when our self-interest is at stake.
I notice with a great deal of gratification that the minister said in his statement:
The new convention declares that the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, Baltic Sea, Red Sea and the gulfs area including the Sea of Oman are designated as special areas-
Speaking as one who not many months ago had occasion to be swimming in the Mediterranean at Tel Aviv, I can assure hon. members that this prohibition of oil spills was long overdue. Anyone who swims in those waters will testify to the fact that as you swim you move globules of oil out of the way. That is no exaggeration.
We shall face these problems along our coasts unless we are prepared to take unilateral action if required and to see to it that our efforts in years to come to obtain international co-operation are made with the necessary thrust. I might add that I would have been pleased, as I know other members from the west coast would have been, if the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound had
November 6, 1973

been included along with the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea and the other waters mentioned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: That area is most important to us as a very special area. We are gratified, of course, when we are reminded that some months ago the government only began to fight to have this area designated as some kind of special area.
Lastly, may I say that the delegates, the government and the committee that worked on this convention deserve credit. They departed with our support and they return with our thanks. Having said that, I would say this to the government, and I do so most seriously. As the minister said, it will be some years before we can achieve, if we can, all that we are aiming at by way of world agreement. However, there are areas on both our coasts where, with the help of our American friends, we can achieve much of what the delegation set out to achieve on a world-wide basis. It will take sharp diplomacy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Bell:: We want Macdonald.


John Allen Fraser: It will require great effort on the part of the minister whose name was inadvertently mentioned. He must get out there and continue the fight he started some months ago.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, a practice has been followed fairly carefully by most ministers with respect to the presentation of statements on motions. That practice has been to make copies of such statements available to members of the opposition parties one hour or thereabouts before the House meets so that there may be an opportunity to examine what has been prepared carefully and respond to it. The difficulty in this instance arises from the fact that this statement came to my attention as I entered the chamber. It was delivered upstairs to the office of my leader some five minutes before the House met. I do not think that is an adequate way to deal with important matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: Even though I have been able to give the statement only cursory examination, I do not think the minister should be very proud of it, because it does not accomplish a great deal in terms of pollution control or with regard to the environmental concerns of the people of this land.
I want to say at the outset that I certainly welcome the position taken by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) in endorsing the concept of unilateral action which we have advocated as being most necessary for a long period of time. I would like to hear the leader of his party make that declaration so we would know where the party stands as well as the member for Vancouver South.
What we sought to do at the IMCO conference and what this statement indicates we did do was to subject the position of Canada to the decision of 90 other nations. By
Pollution from Ships
participating in this conference and giving up our position and rights we are in effect letting the other nations of the world decide what Canada is going to do to preserve its integrity and its environment and to control pollution. In the whole course of relationships between nations, changes have been made in international law by unilateral decision of one or a number of countries pushing and forcing an issue. Canada has moved away from that course and is willing to go along with what the flag states want to see accomplished, not what is of value to Canada.
In his statement the minister said Canada failed to get approval of special preventative measures in special areas. To clarify that, he said he was talking about the Arctic-area of this nation. This means that when the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act was presented to the House four or five years ago the government was just engaging in a windowdressing program and the act is nothing more than a bunch of words on paper. As the minister said, it means nothing. We attempted to get some consideration of the question of Arctic waters when we have laws on the statute books to deal with it and we failed. The minister went on to say that another opportunity to raise this matter is a few years away. I consider this to be another indication of a sellout of the interests of Canada by this government, especially with regard to the question of oil pollution.
It is regrettable that there was no reference in the statement to special waters of concern to us in British Columbia such as the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Gulf of Georgia. There is no indication of the government's intention with regard to the critical situation that has developed in one instance and may well develop again in connection with the Cherry Point refinery in the state of Washington. This omission indicates that the government does not have any measures to deal with that. The minister said in his statement:
Canada supported a United States proposal for the building of double bottoms in new oil tankers.
I was surprised to hear that. A week before the minister went to the IMCO conference in London he raked me over the coals because I said Canada was taking a neutral position by not saying anything about double hull vessels, and I draw a distinction between double hull and double bottom vessels. At that time the minister said in no way would he or the government have anything to do with supporting the concept of double hulls for tankers because that would only have value if the tanker ran aground on a soft and not a rocky bottom. A week before the conference the minister was arguing against the necessity of seeing that oil tankers plying the waters of the world were built with double hulls. Now he turns around and says he supported a United States proposal for the building ol' double bottoms in new oil tankers, indicating that it is probably not double bottoms he is concerned about but double talk.
It seems to me that, in conjunction with the paper which has been referred to the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence with respect to the territorial sea, offshore rights and the continental shelf, we should also refer the minister's statement and the convention which arose out of the IMCO conference recently concluded to that same committee which is currently considering one
26635-48}

November 6, 1973
National Harbours Board
related aspect of this continuing question, so that it may, hopefully, come up with recommendations that will make sense and be of some value to us, which is more than I can say for the statement we have just heard.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, that we should always be provided with copies of ministers' statements only some four minutes before two o'clock is regrettable. This is readily understandable. We must complete a thorough review or study of the last arguments within seconds if we want to make relevant observations on these statements.
However, the minister's statement shows one thing: we have tried mainly to be good diplomats instead of being statesmen who are able to represent truly the attitude of Canada towards other countries and to make suggestions which may be nationalistic but which would really protect the Canadian coastline.
On page 3, it is stated that seas like the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, the Baltic, the Red Sea and the areas around gulfs, including the Oman Sea, are special areas. And, the ridiculous thing is that the large ships are not allowed to dump or spill oil, but the small ships are allowed to do it. But the damage caused by two or three small ships to equivalent to that caused by one large ship. We then beat about the bush without taking any specific position. I suspect that there may be somewhat acrid discussions between the government of Quebec and that of Ottawa concerning the pollution possibility of the St. Lawrence, for example, especially when no clear position is taken on pollution and that any coastal state has merely the possibility of taking such positions and perhaps prosecuting a boat which will have damaged its coasts.
On the whole, we can surely congratulate those who have shown satisfactory diplomacy, but we cannot congratulate the government for a realistic national attitude about the protection of the environment as well as that of the Canadian coasts.

[ English]


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made by the Minister of Transport that a conflict of interest does exist between the private holdings of Mr. Bill Rathie and his position as a member of the National Harbours Board, I move, under the terms of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That the Minister of Transport immediately remove Mr. Rathie from his position as a member of the National Harbours Board in view of the conflict of interest between that office and his private holdings, namely, Vancouver Cold Storage Limited.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to move a motion on an urgent matter related to the statement made today by the Minister of the Environment with respect to the IMCO conference. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That the convention of 1973 relating to the international control of pollution from ships, together with the statement made this day by the Minister of the Environment be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for concurrent consideration along with the subject matter of the projected Law of the Sea Conference.
If the motion is accepted, I think there should be no debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena is also submitted under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that many shopcraft employees of the CPR and CNR across Canada who did not participate in the railroad strike were laid off by the railways in July and did not resume employment until the strike ended in early September, in view of the fact that these shopcraft workers were refused benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act and as a result were without income for a period of time, which resulted in great hardship to themselves and their families, and in view of the fact that some two months have elapsed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that a motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 should not be supported by argument. I do not think it is an answer to the difficulty to include the argument in the motion itself. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that he should submit the
November 6, 1973

motion for the attention of the House so that I may inquire whether there is unanimous consent.


Douglas Charles Neil: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Taylor):
That this House instruct the officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to take immediate steps to deal with the appeals of the workers who have suffered as a result of the inaction of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact the National Energy Board has received certain alternative proposals- not applications but proposals-relating to construction of an oil pipeline to Montreal and that any further action on these proposals by Interprovincial is contingent upon a clear statement of policy from the minister on the need for such pipeline as well as a statement of intent to assure an oil supply for the pipeline, would the minister inform the House whether he has made a clear statement as to the need for the pipeline and a clear statement of assurance regarding oil supply for such a pipeline, and if so, for what size of pipeline?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the basic question of whether or not there should be a pipeline, that was indeed determined in principle by the government in September. The critical questions at this point are the financial circumstances under which the pipeline would be constructed by Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, the extent to which for security purposes additional capacity would be built into the line and, therefore, who should bear the cost, and how the line would fit in with the special plans the province of Quebec has in this regard.
My understanding from the board and from my officials is that there have been discussions on these points with the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, as indeed there have been discussions with the Quebec authorities. I regret that I cannot announce anything more definitive regarding these terms, but my understanding is that negotiations are advancing.
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As one condition for consideration of a pipeline under the National Energy Board Act is availability of oil or gas for the pipeline, has the minister had a report from the National Energy Board regarding availability of oil for such a pipeline and, if so, as to what size, and is the minister prepared to give an assurance of a supply of oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, under the National Energy Board Act the board has responsibility with regard to gas and with regard to oil to make certain that no exports shall take place unless they are surplus to Canadian requirements. Obviously the decision with regard to construction of a pipeline into Montreal would add the Montreal market to Canadian requirements, and under those circumstances this would be at the expense of any exports that we might have under way. It is anticipated that over a period of time stretching up to ten years there would be a reduction in the export component, and this would be one of the aspects that would be involved in that consideration. The time span of approximately two years that would precede the actual operation of the pipeline would be notice to United States users that they should make other arrangements for supply once the decision is made to go ahead.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister indicated that one of the outstanding matters was the approval of such a pipeline by the government of Quebec. Can the minister indicate whether approval, not in principle but approval in fact, of this pipeline proceeding is contingent upon the approval of the government of the province of Quebec?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we certainly wish to meet the objectives of the government of Quebec in this regard. There have been official discussions held, but in light of recent electoral events in the province I have not yet had an opportunity to have further discussions with my Quebec counterpart. I look forward to doing so in the near future because I think this is a matter which should be pushed forward with dispatch.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for asking a further supplementary, but I do so in view of the importance of this subject. What is the policy of the government? Is it the policy of the government to proceed with the construction of the pipeline, or is it the policy of the government to proceed with the construction of the pipeline only if the province of Quebec approves?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, of course the ultimate responsibility for security of supply rests with the government of Canada. Very clearly, if it is necessary for the security of supply to any part of the eastern Canadian market, then ultimately the government of Canada will have to take the decision. But, of course, we would attempt to do so in a fashion that is consistent with the wishes of the Quebec government.

November 6, 1973
Oral Questions


POSITION OF VOLUNTARY RESTRAINT PROGRAM RESPECTING USE-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES- HOME HEATING OIL SUPPLIES PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have some supplementary questions for the minister arising out of his statement last night. In view of the fact that a voluntary restraint program for the use of energy requires the co-operation of the general public as well as provincial and municipal authorities, and in view of the fact that the implementation of such a program would necessarily take some time, I should like to ask the minister whether he is taking steps to initiate the program now so there will be time to educate the public and to prepare organizational needs instead of waiting until an interruption occurs, at which time it may be too late?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Planning in that direction is going ahead, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate exactly what steps are being taken to promote this program of voluntary restraint in energy use?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, aside from the remarks I made last night, at the moment there is no publicity program in this regard, but we anticipate that in the relatively early future we will be making recommendations along this line for guidance in respect of energy use in general.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the minister along the same line. Has he raised the issue with all the provinces of Canada or does he plan to deal with it at the energy ministers' conference on November 23? May I also ask him what supplies of home heating oil have already been purchased on government account, where such oil is now being stored, and what plans does the minister have for the distribution of this heating oil purchased on government account?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot refer to any specific contracts at the moment, but my officials and those of the Canadian Commercial Corporation are now involved in this process. I think most of the storage involved will be handled by the Department of National Defence. I regret that I did not catch the first part of the hon. gentleman's question.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I asked whether the provincial premiers are being consulted.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have had conversations with some of them and I hope to have conversations with the remainder in eastern Canada. I propose to write to the ministers responsible who will be participating in the November 23 meeting to suggest that this item be added to the agenda for that meeting.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Charlevoix on a supplementary question.


Gilles Caouette: It is not a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It would perhaps be advisable to allow the hon. member for Charlevoix to ask his question, thus completing the first series and then we will come to the questions relating to the first one asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Charlevoix.


ENVIRONMENT AFFAIRS
Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of the Environment related to his statement made today.
The new convention gives the list of the seas where oil spills are absolutely prohibited. Does this convention also provide for the Great Lakes area, or the area referred to a minute ago by the western representatives?
[ English]


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this convention essentially applies to foreign owned ships operating outside areas within the jurisdiction of coastal states. Certainly it does not include foreign ships operating in inland waters such as the Great Lakes where Canada, the United States or the two by agreement have absolute authority.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question?
Is the minister in a position to assure the House that the same provisions for ensuring better protection will be applied to internal waters of Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we already have higher standards in respect of waters inside our jurisdiction, and certainly ships operating within those waters are subject to any laws we wish to pass.


PROPOSED OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL- AVAILABILITY OF PIPE-POTENTIAL COST
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and arises from his answers regarding the pipeline extension. Has the minister's department made any examination of the supply of steel or pipe in view of the present steel shortage and the rapidly accelerating price, and what would be the potential cost of such a pipeline extension, if the government even knows where it is to start, at Toronto or some point farther west?
November 6, 1973


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on the latter point I think it is the view of Interprovincial, concurred in by my officials, that it should start at Sarnia at the end of the major pipeline from western Canada. As to the availability of steel and the question of the current and anticipated cost, these are questions of detail of which I should like to take notice. I will be glad to report to the hon. member in that regard.
[ Translation]


PROPOSED OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL- DISCUSSION BY PRIME MINISTER WITH QUEBEC PREMIER
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of his recent meeting with the Quebec premier, could the right hon. Prime Minister inform the House about the present state of the discussions on the extension of the pipeline to Montreal?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. It is not customary to disclose the content of those bilateral talks I have periodically with the provincial premiers. It is certainly not my intention to refer to those talks today.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary of the right hon. Prime Minister.
Because of oil shortage in the world, has the Quebec premier indicated the need to go on with federal-provincial consultations regarding the building of a superport in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be more proper to put this question to the Quebec premier.
I repeat, the federal policy is outlined each day by the federal ministers, but with regard to the Quebec policy, it is better to inquire from the Quebec premier.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi asked part of the question. Without asking the Prime Minister about the contents of the discussions he had with the premier of the province of Quebec, would he indicate to the House whether the pipeline to Montreal was discussed and whether an understanding was reached between himself and the premier in respect of the construction of that pipeline?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is a repetition of the question asked by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi in French.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps the Prime Minister did not understand my question. I heard the question put by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi in French and I understood it.


An hon. Member:: You are lucky.
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: I am asking the Prime Minister whether without going into the contents of the discussion between himself and the premier of Quebec, the pipeline extension was discussed and, if so, was there an understanding reached between himself and the premier?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it appears obvious to me that without going into the contents of this conversation I cannot reply to the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[ Translation]


OIL SUPPLY PROBLEM-PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH QUEBEC BEFORE DECISIONS TAKEN
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that concerning these oil problems the government of Canada will soon have to make important decisions, could the Prime Minister assure us at least that any decision taken by the federal government will be preceded by consultations with the Quebec government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Exactly as in the case of Alberta, as the hon. member points out-and I repeat that for the umpteenth time, Mr. Speaker-during the western provinces conference held in July 1973, the federal government requested that the problem of energy be put on the agenda and it was the western provinces that turned down the suggestion.
[ English]


ALLEGED INCREASE IN HOME HEATING OIL PRICE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA-ASSURANCE OF SUPPLY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources back to the problems of British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: Just take him.


Frank Oberle: In his statement last night he did not make reference to the apparent problem there. I should like to ask him now whether he is aware of any recent price increase in home heating oil resulting from his statement last week and his invitation to price increases?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have not been advised of any increase so far, but I would point out to the hon. member and the companies concerned that any increases are subject to proof on their part that additional costs are necessary in order to secure supplies and thus be passed on to the consumer. So far as I know we have had no application from any British Columbia company.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, does the minister consider that an increase in price will assure continuation of supply of these commodities from offshore sources, or does the minister contemplate any bilateral negotiations with the United States to assure the continuation of a supply of home heating oil to British Columbia?

November 6, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: One thing is clear, Mr. Speaker, that unless any increased cost can be passed on the independent companies particularly will not buy offshore supplies. As to whether bilateral negotiations will be necessary, I do not think we have reached that point yet but I would be prepared to consider that possibility.


PROPOSED OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL- REVISION OF INTERPROVINCIAL EXPANSION PLANS
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the recent permission granted by the cabinet for the extension by Interprovincial Pipe Line. Since there has been a change in government policy regarding the building of a pipeline to Montreal and the expansion that was authorized before will not make any sense if in fact there will be cutbacks in exports to the United States, can the minister say whether he is considering a revision of the decision regarding the expansion of Interprovincial in the United States or whether he intends to hold discussions with Interprovincial and ask them to modify their plans accordingly?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Sir. The throughput would be the same. Whether or not increased exports to the United States were being shipped all the way through to Montreal they would have to pass by the same route and the same volume would be available. So it is not a question of either, or; it would be necessary in either case.


Max Saltsman: Looking at the approval, it seems that the increase in the pipeline has been at the entrance to the pipeline rather than at its exist at Sarnia, although there has been an increase there as well. What I am asking is whether the government is reviewing that particular decision to make sure there will not be wastage or insufficient use of the capacity of the Interprovincial pipeline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My understanding is that the increased capacity would be needed in any event.


PROPOSED OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL- DATE OF GOVERNMENT DECISION AND ACCEPTANCE BY ENERGY BOARD OF APPLICATION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the tough and determined attitude the Prime Minister has demonstrated this afternoon with regard to discharging his responsibilities in this connection-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -can the minister tell us when we may expect a decision with regard to the pipeline, when we may expect that the National Energy Board will be in a position to accept an application?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Just as soon as negotiations on the financial aspects of the project are completed.


OIL-ENCOURAGEMENT BY GOVERNMENT OF EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWN RESOURCES
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister, in view of the rather general scope of the question.
Regarding the oil crisis, will the government encourage exploration of oil sources or the development of known oil resources in eastern Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In a general way, I will answer yes, Mr. Speaker. Some programs proposed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources can be applied as well in eastern as in western Canada.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Can the right hon. Prime Minister specify, if not today, in the following days, the projects which offer good chances of success whether in exploration of these resources or in their development?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member will specify if he is talking of energy in general or of hydrocarbon sources. There are many areas related to this question where we co-operate with the provinces.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS INQUIRY AS TO CHANGE IN ATTITUDE OF PREMIER BOURASSA REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether in his discussions with Premier Bourassa the latter had changed his views regarding the Victoria charter. I believe, and have said, that Mr. Bourassa was right in the stand that he took. I ask the Prime Minister whether or not there has been any change in the attitude of the premier of Quebec in this regard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at these bilateral meetings with the premiers of various provinces which I hold periodically we generally agree before their conclusion whether or not we will discuss the content of our conversations publicly. In this particular case we agreed that we would not discuss the content, as is usually the case after my meetings with provincial premiers. In view of the fact the right hon. gentleman supports the Quebec position on the constitution, if he will ask Premier Bourassa the question directly he will probably receive a very satisfactory answer.


John George Diefenbaker: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that in his highly emotional state today smelling salts ought to be made available to him.
November 6, 1973


DISTRIBUTION OF SPORT PATCHES COPYRIGHTED BY DEPARTMENT BY KELLOGG COMPANY-ALLEGED DECEPTION OF PUBLIC
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact the Department of National Health and Welfare has teamed up with the Kellogg Company of Canada Limited in the promotion of a product that has little or no nutritional value, will the minister tell the House why his department is allowing its name to be used to deceive the public in this way?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am told that the milk you have with your corn flakes has great nutritional value.


Winona Grace MacInnis: By what
authority is the Kellogg Company, in the name of the Department of National Health and Welfare-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway knows the rules and there are no special dispensations for her. Hon. members know that this is not a court of law and that they are not entitled to bring in exhibits in support of their arguments. I hope the hon. member will heed the advice I am giving to her at present and remember the well established rule in this regard.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I thought the rule had been relaxed a little because an apple was brought in here the other day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Winona Grace MacInnis: I should like to ask the minister what authority Kellogg's has in the name of the Department of National Health and Welfare to distribute these Grunion sport patches which are copyrighted by the minister's department?


Marc Lalonde: An agreement has been reached between Sports Canada and the Kellogg Company-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: -with regard to the distribution of these particular items. If they can entice Canadian youth and the Canadian public in general to exercise more, I will be all the more happy.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. May I ask the hon. gentleman whether or not in light of recent conversations he has had with representatives of federal government nurses and in an attempt to
Oral Questions
prevent what could develop into a fairly serious situation at some point in the not too distant future, he is not now prepared, under the authority given him within the existing statute, to reopen negotiations between the federal government nurses and the Treasury Board?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is aware that I met with representatives of the association last week following meetings with a number of my colleagues, including my deskmate. We did point out to the representatives of the nurses that the award of the arbitration tribunal was final and binding under the terms of the collective bargaining legislation.


Mr. Fairweather:: And grossly unfair.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I did indicate to the nurses, however, that the government would be prepared to undertake a study to be conducted jointly by the departments employing nurses, namely, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of National Defence, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Canadian Penitentiary Service. This study will, in recognition of the evolution of the nursing profession, review the utilization and professional development of nurses, examine the work environment and relationships between employees and management and other features and characteristics of the nursing group in the public service. The president of the association has expressed satisfaction.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the minister kindly resume his seat. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to remind the Chair of the rules of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J. Michael Forrestall: -but we have had here an example of a minister making a statement that should be made on motions on a serious matter without an opportunity to the opposition to reply.


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact the Ontario government is financing a trade mission to expand sales of Canadian products in South Africa, in view of the fact that three out of the eight companies represented on the mission deal in military products, and in view of the fact that Canada's policy in accordance with the United Nations resolution prohibits the sale of military products to South Africa,

November 6, 1973
Oral Questions
will the minister make the necessary inquiries from the Ontario government into this situation and use his good offices to ensure that Canada's policy is observed and, if it is not, see to it that the necessary export licences are refused?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first news I have heard of the proposed sale of military equipment to South Africa from Canada. I do not know whether it is true, but I can certainly assure the hon. member that even if they sold it they could not deliver it because all armaments to South Africa are under strict export control and all are prohibited.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OIL-EFFECT OF EXPORT TAX ON PRODUCTION IN FOSTERTON-DOLLARD FIELD AS WELL AS OTHER AREAS PRODUCING HIGH SULPHUR CRUDE
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister aware of the cutback in production at the Fosterton-Dollard oil fields in southwestern Saskatchewan, exceeding 10,000 barrels of high sulphur crude oil per day? Is it correct that the reason for the cutback is that the increased export tax has priced this oil out of the market?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to examine a detailed question like that.


James Balfour: Will the minister also investigate the possibility of other western Canadian production cutbacks of high sulphur crude whose access to market is particularly price sensitive, and advise the House what steps he contemplates to correct the situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. gentleman that we feel Canadian oil should get the best possible price in the American market, and under the circumstances the National Energy Board obviously felt that the price stipulated for the month of November was the best price.


POSSIBLE TOXICITY OF BLOOD IMPORTED FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that imports of blood from the United States, used in Canada for experimental purposes, may carry toxic bacteria leading to hepatitis in technicians and other personnel who handle this element?
[Mr. Brewin.)


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my department has taken cognizance of this news and an investigation is being carried out to ascertain whether contaminated blood has been imported. No definite conclusion has been made as yet but research is continuing.

[ English]


HOUSING
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It concerns the abrupt turndown of the $500,000 Trefann Court homes project in Toronto yesterday by CMHC president, William Teron. In view of Mr. Teron's comments that any CMHC commitment to this project would have to be conditional on the mortgage being guaranteed by the city of Toronto, a condition which the minister knows the city does not have the power to fulfil, would the minister indicate why CMHC has turned down the project and whether he suspects any pricing irregularities or staffing problems on the part of the Trefann group or city officials?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the premise of the question is correct.


Ronald George Atkey: Would the minister indicate whether he has now reversed his prior approval in principle of the Trefann Court homes project, particularly the mortgage approval in principle which he gave last July, and can he say whether his decision was based on the alleged departmental investigation into the financing of housing cooperatives in Ontario, which was started last February and the report on which was promised some time ago but is still being kept under wraps?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. In answer to the substantive part of the question, there were discussions between the corporation and the mayor of Toronto yesterday, and continuing today, with regard to the approval of a loan for this project. I have not been advised as to the outcome of those negotiations, nor has the corporation made a decision on that application.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we have reached the point where I should remind hon. members that we will soon be running out of time and we should try to limit the number of supplementaries.


CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING PROJECTS, TORONTO-DATE OF PRESENTATION OF REPORT ON INQUIRY
Ronald George Atkey: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, when can we expect the internal departmental report into co-operative housing in the Toronto area, which the minister promised some time ago?


Stanley Ronald Basford: That inquiry has reported to me and the report is being examined.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peel South.


Mr. Blenkarn:: My question is-


Mr. Hellyer:: As a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have recognized the hon. member for Peel South who has already started asking his question.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Is he aware that perhaps some 90 charges have been made by private individuals against members of the RCMP in connection with their work at Malton Airport, charging members of the force with assault, assault occasioning bodily harm, and grievous bodily harm, and will he investigate the matter?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of those charges but I will be pleased to investigate them.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Is the Minister of Transport aware that the charges mentioned arise as a result of the impossible situation in which the RCMP is placed in trying to enforce the regulations concerning taxis, parking rights, and the soliciting of taxi fares at Toronto International Airport, and will the minister revise those regulations so that the enforcement of regulations can be carried out without giving rise to the problems that have occurred?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Solicitor General should answer that part of the question relating to the RCMP. So far as the other part is concerned, I am going to investigate it.


HOUSING
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Will he undertake to table at the earliest possible opportunity the report to which he just referred?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. It was an internal report-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Stanley Ronald Basford: -something which I have made clear, and it was written as such. It would be grossly unfair to the people involved to publish a report not based on crossexaminable evidence. The report, however, has been referred to the appropriate authorities, including the law enforcement officers of this country, for whatever action they think is appropriate.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the minister mean to inform this House that he did in fact find irregularities, and that it is possible criminal prosecutions will be based on the report?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I think it would be improper and unfair for me to answer that in the positive. The report has been received. It has been referred to the law officers of the Crown for whatever action is deemed appropriate by them.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Calgary North rising on a point of order?


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to file a caveat so as to be able to raise a point of privilege at the end of the question period in reference to the answer the minister has just given.


Mr. Speaker:: The rules require that a question of privilege be brought up immediately if there is substance for a question of privilege. Perhaps the hon. member for Calgary North might place the matter before the House and I will take that into account before determining the end of the question period.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question of privilege is that the minister has now said the report from the internal inquiry is confidential. For months members on this side of the House pressed the minister for a judicial inquiry. His excuse for not granting a judicial inquiry was that he had already set up an internal inquiry into the matter. Now, he is misleading the House today by saying he has had an internal inquiry, the report on which is confidential. He is contradicting everything he said in reference to this project during the last two months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Further, Mr. Speaker, that kind of answer and that kind of minister is the reason the question period sometimes gets out of hand. If we could get honest, straightforward answers, we would not need so many supplementaries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to make a ruling on the matter raised by the hon. member for Calgary North. The hon. member may have a grievance or perhaps a point of order. Perhaps he does not agree with the reply given by the minister, but as is well established that cannot be the foundation for a question of privilege. I think this is a matter of debate. The hon. member may be right, the hon. minister may be right, but I do not think we should engage in debate on a question of privilege at this time.


Stanley Ronald Basford: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think I am entitled to react to the statement by the hon. member that I have been misleading the House. This is not

November 6, 1973
Oral Questions
correct and the record will show it. I have made it clear from February that I have asked for a report relating to five loans by the corporation. That was an internal report which was submitted to me and to members of the government in order that we might determine the appropriate course of action. That report has been received and the appropriate course of action has been followed, namely, it has been referred to the law officers of the Crown.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member seeks to speak on the question of privilege. I have already ruled that there is no question of privilege. If the hon. member has another question of privilege, the Chair has to hear him, but I would hope that hon. members would try to limit these points of order and questions of privilege which really do not help very much in the conduct of the business of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My comment, Mr. Speaker, is that perhaps either the minister or the Prime Minister could now clear up this matter to the satisfaction of all members of the House if they would agree to a public inquiry so that the House and the country would know the exact facts rather than being kept in the dark.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


Ronald George Atkey: With regard to a matter that was raised earlier, I should draw to Your Honour's attention a statement made by the Prime Minister on this issue on July 12 last when he said, as reported at page 5539 of Hansard:
The responsible minister asked as early as last February for a thorough inquiry into this matter. ... He has reported progress to the House. The position of the government is that if, following this inquiry, there is any reason for there to be a public inquiry, we will hold one. However, for the time being there is nothing of a nature which would incline me to believe we should order a public inquiry at this time.
That statement was made on July 12.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know what this has to do with either a point of order or a question of privilege. I would point out to hon. members that an attempt should be made to give other hon. members who have questions to ask an opportunity to do so. I really do not think that debates over the accuracy of statements should take place during the question period. I would hope hon. members would keep that in mind.


OILSEED AND GRAIN DEVELOPMENT CENTRE-STATUS OF PROJECT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE SITE WILL REMAIN IN SASKATOON
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister in charge of the Canadian

Wheat Board and concerns a statement by the minister at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in Calgary last July. Can the minister advise what the target date is for the opening of the Oilseed and Grain Product Development Centre?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, plans are going forward for the development of the centre. The government offer of $3.6 million and financing for part or all of the operating costs for the first five years was contingent upon the contribution of support by various segments of the industry. This is being sought and obtained, and the development of the centre looks very promising.


Douglas Charles Neil: Can the minister advise if discussions have taken place with a view to perhaps changing the site of the centre to eastern Canada, and will he assure the people of Saskatchewan that no change will be made in the location of the centre and that in fact it will be located in Saskatoon?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that certainly is the intention of the government. The offer was made in a firm way to the province of Saskatchewan for siting in Saskatoon if the necessary financing from the industry could be obtained. The initial reaction of the government of Saskatchewan was not totally enthusiastic but that has now changed and I believe there is co-operation. Certainly, I believe that the site will remain in Saskatoon.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the minister's recognition during the debate on the bill that sent railway employees back to work that the railway pension issue is much broader than the one question that was referred to Dr. Deutsch, is the minister now prepared either to enlarge the terms of reference given to Dr. Deutsch or to appoint another commissioner to go into the whole question of the inadequacy of railway pensions?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the appointment of another commissioner to be necessary or perhaps even desirable. I did indicate that the broader question in terms of setting the benefits, as opposed to the costing that Dr. Deutsch is looking into, might better come about as a result of management and labour coming together to discuss the matter. I have discussed that with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, and I hope to have more to announce later. I might say that this might be dependent upon, or at least related to the findings of Dr. Deutsch on the costing side, and I expect them very shortly.
[ Translation]


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
November 6, 1973

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the minister is so busy nowadays that I am prepared to accept the fact that he is absent from the House today. With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I shall ask him my question tomorrow.


ABORTION
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In consideration of the concern of many Canadians about the blatant abuse of the Criminal Code by many medical committees on the question of abortion, and in response to the extraordinary representation of the large numbers who came to Parliament Hill from all parts of Canada on the weekend, would the minister advise what the government contemplates doing to see that the interpretation of the law is tightened in order to lessen the inordinate killing of the unborn that has been taking place?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the enforcement of the criminal law is of serious concern to this parliament, even though the actual handling of law enforcement in the criminal field is for the Attorneys General of the provinces. In the case of the northern areas, where I have responsibility as Attorney General, I have taken steps to ensure that hospital committees are aware of the serious responsibility that parliament imposed upon them in the enactment of the specific provisions of the Criminal Code. I have drawn my approach in this matter to the attention of the provincial Attorneys General in the hope that they will take similar action to ensure that hospital committees undertake with a proper sense of responsibility the obligation imposed upon them by this parliament.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. I am sure he is aware, as is everyone else, that the legislation is not very clearcut on what the regulations are and where the responsibility lies. I wonder if the minister would take it upon himself to introduce in the House amendments to the Criminal Code which would make it clear and specific rather than putting the burden on the medical profession to interpret a very hazy law?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this problem was the subject of debate at the time parliament enacted the specific law that we now have. The problem is really one of finding adequate legal definitions that do not rely on a certain responsibility on the part of the hon. member and reasonable medical men. The law we now have places the reliance there. As I read the debate, I think the interpretation of the words in the Criminal Code is clear. The question now is really one of sense of responsibility on the part of medical committees to ensure that they do not rely simply on social or economic factors but only approve abortions where there is serious danger to the life or health of the mother.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members are seeking supplementaries on this subject. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta and then call orders of the day.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the minister has admitted there is a conflict of interest between the private holdings of Mr. Bill Rathie and his position as a member of the National Harbours Board, will the minister demand that Mr. Rathie give up his position in his private company in order to assure fair representation from him as a member of the National Harbours Board?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the newspaperman who interviewed me yesterday on this is not responsible for the title which appeared in the newspaper. I said exactly the contrary.


John Douglas Reynolds: In view of the minister's statement, will the minister conduct an inquiry into the number of applications presented to the National Harbours Board which have been rejected since Mr. Rathie became a member of the board?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in Vancouver-the National Harbours Board and Vancouver authorities-knew about Mr. Rathie owing these storage facilities in the harbour. If a decision were taken involving allocation to Mr. Rathie, it would have to be ratified by the National Harbours Board, by the Minister of Transport, by Treasury Board and by cabinet.


John Douglas Reynolds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister said that everybody knew about Mr. Rathie's position before he was appointed. The minister did not know when he was asked about it by the press; yet he is the one who appointed him.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think this is the appropriate time of the year, being the late part of this session, to wonder what happened to the recommendations we made respecting the question period. I know that work is being done and the committee is meeting. Yet today we saw that four members had to stand in their places and raise questions of privilege or points of order in an attempt to remind ministers of their responsibility to impart to the House information being sought by members of the opposition. I notice that the Minister of Finance smiles as I make that point. There have been cases in British parliamentary history where ministers have actually been forced to resign because they refused to give information to the House of Commons.

November 6, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act Ministers sit back and do not reply. The Prime Minister is a clear example of this. They are operating a closed shop. The attitude that ministers manifest in the question period is such that you have to dig, and unless you really dig at something frequently you will not get any information.
May I remind hon. members that today there were in excess of 30 members standing at the end of the 40-minute question period with questions on their minds. This is partly owing to the fact that the government is not willing to respond to the questions that are raised. I think this is a very serious matter as this is the only avenue by which we can hold the government accountable to the Canadian people. It is a very serious responsibility, and I think ministers should be reminded of that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: Second, I do not think it is necessary for us to indulge in months or even years of discussion in order to bring some minor changes to the question period. We must extend the time allocated to the question period; this can be done on a daily basis, once a week, or in some other way by which a small amount of time could be added to the question period per day. It is obvious that either the length of the question period will have to change or the attitude of ministers toward the question period.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Bawden:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as I approached the Parliament Buildings before lunch today I noticed that the centennial flame which has burned for many years was not burning. I was going to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Prime Minister or perhaps the Minister of Public Works, whether this is the result of the immediate reaction to the government's program to conserve energy, or the result of a breakdown with regard to gas supplies, and prices, from western Canada.


Mr. Dube:: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know it was just owing to the change in the weather.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 5, consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on

Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, according to my recollection, the issues agitating the voters during the last election, in my riding at any rate, were law and order, pollution controls, and foreign investment policy. These are all important issues and the voters were right to have them in the forefront of their minds.
The present government chose to disregard prevailing public opinion with respect to law and order when it introduced Bill C-2. It has done little to take effective measures with regard to pollution control, particularly with respect to tanker routes. Now, we have a foreign take-over bill, as it is called, which is an attempt to control and regulate certain aspects of foreign investment in Canada. What does this offer, Mr. Speaker? Further, in what manner should we accept this offer?
It has been clear to me for a long time that we, in Canada, must do something to secure for Canadians a greater share in the making of decisions which affect the economic activities of this country. Much has been made of the need to obtain a greater share of the equity capital of enterprises operating in this country. Like many other Canadians, it has been my policy to direct my investments along these lines. I have done what little I could, with the excess capital I had for investment, to make sure that what I had was going into the development of Canada through the development of Canadian business and enterprise. If you like, you can call me a nut for insisting on taking this sort of course and not investing in a way that would bring the best economic return. Perhaps I have not been seeking the best economic return. By the same token, you could call several hundred thousand fellow Canadians nuts because we did not calculate in terms of dollars and cents when we put on uniforms some 34 years ago.
By insisting on my investment policy, I have not always gained the maximum return; however, I have always felt, and I still feel, that my return was not really to be calculated in those terms, but, rather, in terms of my helping to promote Canadianism, whether economic or in our political life. The bill before us does nothing to encourage Canadians to follow this practice. Unfortunately, there are some who feel that we must convert economic patriotism, if you like, into a profitable attitude. This aspect of foreign investment deserves much more attention than it is now getting.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), for example, ought to provide financial inducements to Canadian investors, individual and corporate, by which they will invest more frequently and more heavily in Canadian enterprises. The bill before us makes no attempt to deal with this aspect of investment in Canadian enterprise, and I maintain that therein lies one of its major defects.
Having said that and judging from my own experience, I say that assurance of Canadian equity capital, particularly by individuals, in Canadian companies is not an absolute guarantee of effective Canadian control of those companies. How many of those, in this House owning voting shares in Canadian companies, exercise their voting privileges regularly? Let's be honest now. How many exercise
November 6, 1973

them regularly? And how many have ever exercised them? Is it not more often your experience that you proceed by proxy or perhaps even by default?
In saying this I do not belittle the value of the incentives for encouraging Canadians to invest in Canadian enterprise. The operations are Canadian; the proceeds come back to Canadians by way of dividends, share options and so on. It becomes more fully a Canadian operation to the extent that this process is carried on with the involvement of and to the benefit of Canadians.
I suggest, therefore, that one of the things Canadians are looking for at this moment is something this bill does not really provide. We are looking for something which, if my knowledge of parliamentary practice is correct, the opposition cannot supply when the government fails to do so, namely, changes in the income tax law which would encourage Canadians to invest in Canadian enterprises and to make it profitable for them to do so. This is a governmental prerogative. I would say, however, that if my party has any hand in the preparation of the next budget, and I have a sneaking hunch we may very well have, you can bet your bottom dollar that I will be arguing this course on my Minister'of Finance. I have some reason to believe he will heed that sort of advice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: This bill is defective in a lot of other ways. We have a number of amendments on the order paper, many of them directed toward ensuring greater federal-provincial consultation. The present government, I am sure, will protest violently when I come to my next sentence, but in anticipation of that protest I would just like to say that to organize meetings and enter into dialogue is not to be confused with consultation. It is my contention that, and here it comes, the present government has failed abominably in the area of federal-provincial consultation. It held a Western Economic Opportunities Conference, but what was achieved beyond the fact that federal and provincial ministers met face to face? How much provincial concern was absorbed by the federal government? How much of it was stored up for use when the need arose? What assessments were made of the areas of provincial requirements and the need, on occasion, to get on the phone and talk to the minister involved when crises blow up?
We saw an instance last week of a blatant disregard of a legitimate and understandable concern of a provincial government. This was to be found in the statement made here last Thursday on the energy question by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). The Alberta ministers directly responsible in the Alberta government for the provinces' resources, including supplies of energy-producing products, gas and oil, were in Ottawa on the Monday and spent nearly all day with the federal minister. I do not know what they talked about at that day long meeting. I was not there. These discussions were private. However, I would be greatly surprised if the federal minister did not get the following message communicated to him in one form or another, either directly which I think most likely, or indirectly. The message must
Foreign Investment Review Act have been put across. Why else, I feel bound to ask, did the Alberta ministers bother to come to Ottawa?
The message that must have been put across would probably read as follows: "Look, we are heading for trouble as a result of the Middle East oil crisis. For Pete's sake, if you have to do anything on the spur of the moment to deal with that situation as it affects Canada, give one or the other of us a call, talk to us; let us know what it is you have in mind to say or do. Let us consult about it. We have had some experience, after all, in producing and seeing to the distribution of hydrocarbons in the energy field, so don't do anything, we implore you, without first getting a reading from us. We have quite substantial supplies. Maybe between us we can get things worked out with the minimum of dislocation all around." That, I firmly believe, is one of the messages the federal minister ought to have received from the Albertans when they were here on Monday of last week. They may not have put it in those terms, but being reasonable men and staunch upholders of Canadianism, they are certain to have left an impression of that sort.
That meeting, let us remember, was on Monday, October 29. Ten days earlier, in the House, in reply to a question put to him by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and others relating to a federal pricing policy for oil, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had us all believing that his department was thinking in terms of letting the price of crude oil in Canada be determined on the basis of a formula having, as its principal ingredient, the price of offshore oil arriving in Montreal. That formula, we were given to understand, while not the best price available to Albertan oil producers, would meet their requirements and would satisfy Alberta and formed part of the government's energy policy. Within those limits it seemed possible that the Canadian product would be suitably priced, not to everyone's satisfaction, but as a result of the best option open.
This element, we might have thought, would have figured rather prominently in the statement on energy the minister felt obliged to make last Thursday. And what did we find? We had a bombshell dropped on us in the House in the form of an almost 400 per cent increase in the export tax on oil, without any attempt on the minister's part to mention domestic price levels and still less to have any real consultations with Alberta when the crunch came. Little surprise, then, that the Alberta government is aggrieved.
This is what I mean when I say this government refuses to consult the provinces on matters affecting provincial responsibilities. No one can have confidence in the undertakings which have been given during recent debates that the government would consult the province; those undertakings have to be written into the law. It is for this reason that this particular defect in the bill must be remedied by the passage of one of the various amendments put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay).
This government cannot be trusted to administer Bill C-132, as it now stands, should it be passed into law. We have cause for concern because of past experience, and I have gone to great lengths to explain that experience and our misgivings. This government seems determined to

November 6, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act antagonize the provinces rather than consult with them on matters over which they have a dominating interest and, in some instances, jurisdiction.
There is another grave defect in this bill. It deals with only two aspects of the investment of foreign capital, the take-over of an existing enterprise, which will be refused by the agency unless it can be shown that the take-over would be likely to result in a substantial benefit to Canada. The determination of "substantial benefit to Canada" is going to be difficult enough to define as the bill was originally drafted. Even taking into account the industrial and economic policies enunciated by the province in which the enterprise is to be carried on, and enlisting provincial collaboration in doing so as suggested in the amendment submitted by my colleague from Central Nova, there will still be no easy way to define "substantial benefit" to everyone's satisfaction, that is as far as take-overs and new investments are concerned.
The second feature of this bill is the attempt to subject new capital to controls like those imposed on take-over bids. Again, we have the problem of defining with any assurance of success "substantial benefit of Canada". There is, however, an additional area which the bill does not touch. It is the one which I think caused a great deal of concern, heartburn and misgiving during the past election. This is one which caused a great deal of heartburn and misgiving during the last election. It is a great oversight and a dangerous loophole which must be plugged, if not by this bill then by some other legislation. It relates to expansion or diversification of existing foreign-financed enterprises. These should be considered very carefully.
A foreign-financed enterprise which is already operating in Canada or which manages to get itself accepted as a new enterprise here may set its sights on a Canadian-owned and operated enterprise already in being. No names, no pack-drill, Mr. Speaker, but one can think of plenty of illustrations. The initial entry into Canada may, indeed, have been obtained for the express purpose of getting into a position to increase the power base in Canada, and not necessarily in the same field of activity; perhaps it is merely to diversify holdings, spread risks- oil into publishing, manufacturing into resource development or even into running a chain of retail stores.
The legislation before us makes no attempt to regulate or control such a form of activity. It is not, therefore, entirely satisfactory. It fails to respond to the increasingly vocal demands one hears in favour of regaining control of our own affairs. It is a start, and that is all-at least it is a start provided some of the defects to which I have referred can be remedied. Otherwise, it is not likely to be a very effective instrument. In fact, even with our amendments, it would be a clumsy one. I commend those amendments to all hon. members none the less, because without them we shall see another bureaucratic monster in our midst.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the House briefly today on the particular subject before us and on the needs of the Canadian people. I would like to put the matter in the context of our present

situation and the challenges which currently face us. Too often, perhaps, we look at these issues in terms of ideology; we consider legislation in terms of situations which existed a decade or even longer ago.
One of the starting points one might take is that of determining our position with respect to the control of energy in this country, more particularly in the field of oil products. One might ask oneself, what is the basic function of government in this area. Surely, the first charge upon any government of a community, whether it be a municipality, a province or a nation, is to see that the basic needs of the people who live in that community are served-to see that the people have shelter, food and a workable social relationship with each other so that they can live together. These are minimum requirements. A government must conduct its affairs so that this responsibility is discharged.
The energy question is one of the real challenges which face us today. We have left this field to foreign-owned concerns to the extent that some 90 per cent of our resources are controlled by people other than Canadians. The companies concerned are not charged with serving the needs of Canadians. It is true that a National Energy Board has been set up, and that it is charged with ensuring that certain guidelines are observed. But they are minimum guidelines. Other than this, we have left the field to private corporations-multinational corporations for the most part-in the assumption that Canada would be well served.
One watershed was reached, in my opinion, when we decided to build a trans-Canada pipeline. That was the occasion for one of the great debates in this chamber. It was so important that a book was written about it setting out what happened at the time of the debate-the position taken by various parties and individuals and the final outcome. The book set out the roles played. It dealt with the activities of the Murchisons, the great Texas promoters and other oil operators. It also included the role of the late C.D. Howe who was quite properly dubbed minister of everything in the Liberal government of the day. I say this was a watershed, a point of decision in the affairs of this country. Canada decided at that time to leave the oil component of its energy resources in the hands of independent ownership, or private enterprise. It was assumed that by so doing the community would be well served and that consumers would be comfortable and secure. Mr. Speaker, if there is any assumption which has been proven wrong, that one has been proven wrong and it has taken less than 25 years to do so.
The government across the way comes now to the House timidly and hesitantly with a bill which seeks to limit the free rein enjoyed by private enterprise and multinational corporations. It seeks timidly and hesitantly to ensure that the country may be able to protect its own interests and that some government, not necessarily this one but any Canadian government, may be able to take sufficient legislative action as to enable it to control effectively the affairs of the nation and protect the interests of its citizens. The bill before us will not do that. It will not enable the government to control the affairs of the nation effectively. We have reached a point at which we do not exercise effective control, a point at which we find our-
November 6, 1973

selves entirely without a policy which will meet the needs of the times. We are in a position where .one level of government quarrels with another over what to do about the resources which are necessary to provide the heat and power this country needs. The tragedy of it all is that neither we nor the province of Alberta any longer owns the essential resources. These resources have been alienated from our control, and this has happened with our consent. If this measure before the House proposes to do anything, its first objective should be no longer to tolerate the alienation of our resources and our power. Although this may be necessary at times in manufacturing, we should not tolerate the basic resources of this country being wrenched from the control of the Canadian people.
Let me give another example. A few years ago we wanted to ship some grain to the People's Republic of China, which since that time we have recognized. However, at the time the People's Republic of China was one of the bad boys of the world as far as the United States was concerned, so the United States declared that none of the United States companies would be allowed to ship Canadian grain to China. I recall that we needed certain equipment to unload the grain boats when they reached Chinese Ports and the U.S. government even sought to prevent us from using that equipment. But the reason we were able to proceed to export the grain we wanted to export was that the Canadian co-operatives happened to own the most important grain forwarding and grain storage company in Canada.
I suspect that the only reason we owned and controlled at that time, as we still do, 75 per cent to 90 per cent of the grain handling facilities in the prairie regions is that they were co-operative facilities. Had they been privately owned, the chances are they would have belonged to the United States corporations or some other foreign country. In this instance the people, through the co-operatives, owned the facilities. The Canadian Wheat Board, which was and is a Crown corporation, was then in operation. This grain was our product; we had the physical facilities to move and market the grain, and we did so. Had we not been in that position we would not have been able to decide our own destiny at that time.
If any member of this House wants to read a very interesting chapter in the history of grain, then I suggest he read about the U.S.S.R. buying over 400 million bushels of U.S. wheat, about one-third of the crop, from private corporations in the United States. This was a purchase subsidized by the U.S. government with the full complicity of the private grain companies in the U.S., a deal that cost the U.S. taxpayers some millions of dollars. The companies involved included Carghill, Dreyfus, Bunge; it reads like a list of the mighty corporations and makes for fascinating reading.
To complete each deal, the company or corporation concerned would contact the U.S. department of agriculture and ask whether the subsidy and guarantees were still in force. When they received confirmation that they were, they proceeded with the sale, committing the U.S. government and people to millions of dollars, to the benefit of a foreign government. If anyone wants an example of the operation, let them read the story of the amber fields of
Foreign Investment Review Act grain, a record of the consciences of the multinational corporations and the consciences of the rich.
This is a mighty nation that I refer to, Mr. Speaker. It is not Canada, a country of some 20 million people; this is the mightiest nation in the world with over 200 million people, sovereign in its own right; a country whose mighty navy roams the seas and whose army calls the shots. The U.S.S.R., with the help of the multinational corporations moved in and took that country to the cleaners. The result was an increase in the price of food and feed grain, and an increase in the cost of production and of food from which this whole continent still suffers. The principal reason for this was that the United States of America had no real control over the movement and sale of its primary foodstuffs; it had no co-ordinated surveillance over its primary sources of food.
In this country we have. Through the co-operative grain companies that we have built, and through the Canadian Wheat Board, we do have a very large measure of control. What I am saying is that the multinational companies which handle grain did the same thing to the United States food supply that they are now doing to our petroleum supply, and to the supply of heating oil that we in this country are going to need this coming winter. There are two developed countries in our world that have adequate supplies of energy. One is the U.S.S.R.; the other is Canada. The minister in charge of energy in this country stood in the House last night and told Canadian citizens they may be cold in the coming winter. He told them to turn down their thermostats and to switch off their lights. Is this a reflection of an organized community? I suggest it is a shame and disgrace to the Canadian people, and is a reflection on those who have controlled the destiny of this nation up to the present time.
What have we in the way of an agency that could go to sources of energy, even outside our own country, perhaps the Middle East or Venezuela, with the authority to say that we are ready to purchase "X" number of barrels of oil, asking for a firm contract? I suggest that we have no such agency. All we have is a joker associated with the refinery at Come By Chance who appears on television, and he did so last night, suggesting that the Canadian government wants us to sell the refinery products to the United States. That individual does nothing more than make suggestions, while men like Shaheen spend $400,000 chartering the Queen Elizabeth to move from a port in the United States to Canada for the purpose of putting on a big party. I should like to know at whose expense that party was thrown. I suggest that, eventually, the expense will be borne by the Canadian taxpayer. I suppose we will be asked to switch off a few lights in order to save energy.
I fully expected the minister across the aisle to rise in his place to say that we have a program which will assure supplies to meet the needs of Canadians. Certainly, we could expect the minister to say that if this program could not be put into effect within three months the government had positive plans to put it into effect within six months or a year. Surely, we should have some indication that the government plans to institute a program under the authority of those responsible for resources in Canada. These resources should be put at the disposal of a Crown

November 6, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act corporation or some agency in order to meet the needs of the Canadian people, but that is not the case. We stand in this Chamber debating this bill and talking about whether we will actually have control of our natural resources. We have talked for some time about the establishment of a Canadian policy which would ensure the future destiny and welfare of Canada.
It is time that we abandoned this wavering position, as illustrated by this bill, and got down to fundamentals. I suggest we must do so before it is too late. We must make a move in the direction of Canadian ownership of Canadian resources. We must do so very quickly in order that we obtain the confidence of Canadian people that we will be able to meet the needs of Canadians in the future.


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: I am mindful of the problem of foreign domination of Canadian industry and the problem of achieving economic independence for Canada. These problems deserve serious consideration and a wise and effective legislative response. Canada's economic growth and development has depended greatly on foreign investment and it is an essential element in the future growth of many parts of our country. A national policy defining and clarifying the role of foreign investment in Canada is needed if many important decisions relating to this country's economic life are not to be made outside of Canada by non-Canadians and, if in fact, such decisions are to be in our best interests. Fundamental to any such approach is a clearly stated national policy setting out a long-term economic development strategy designed to preserve the economic and political independence of Canada and which will have adequate regard for our very serious problems of regional disparity.
There is no question that Canadians look forward to playing a growing role in Canadian development and economic management. It is no wonder that Canadians view with concern the fact that over one-half of the corporations operating in our country are non-resident owned, and the extremely high percentage of foreign ownership reflected in manufacturing industries concerned with rubber products, petroleum, chemicals and chemical products, primary metals and electrical products. Of equal concern to Canadians is the fact that foreign investors receive a large portion of the grants under special and incentive programs and continue to use Canadian money to expand foreign ownership in the Canadian economy.
Bill C-132, the foreign investment review bill, now before us, seeking to rectify these problems, is essentially a negative document concerned with control of foreign investment in existing and new industries without at the same time dealing with positive measures to ensure the survival and expansion of Canadian companies. It fails to increase Canadian presence in existing subsidiaries within this country or to provide measures for making Canadian capital available to those individuals and enterprises willing and able to make constructive use of Canadian resources and manpower. Canadian risk capital has not been encouraged to match Canadian opportunities and entrepreneurial talent. It is unfortunate that the government has been unable to grasp this concept.
The bill also fails to establish clear standards of good corporate behaviour for the foreign-owned or controlled enterprise.

The government should act in co-operation with the provinces to establish and define key categories of business, and strategic sectors of the economy, which are to be considered reserved for Canadian ownership, for controlled minor foreign participation, or for Canadian development. Clearly, it is imperative that our federal and provincial governments should meet and discover areas in the structure of our natural resources that should be reserved for development in Canada by Canadians and for Canadians. The amount and degree of foreign investment, if any, in these areas should be determined.
There is, I believe, an area in which provincial governments might be encouraged to protect recreational lands around lakes and streams by holding them in the public domain for the use of all our people.
The government must move positively to provide incentives through the tax system to encourage increased investment by Canadians in Canadian firms. The government should move positively, and in concert with the provinces, to encourage and assist businessmen and schools of business administration to provide more extensive and appropriate programs in order to enlarge the pool of entrepreneurial and managerial talent in Canada. In developing the financial institutions required to match Canadian capital with Canadian opportunity and entrepreneurial talent the government should take positive measures to divert financial assistance to new firms in key sectors of the economy to help them import technology and management contracts.
The province of New Brunswick is still in need of external capital in large amounts to provide jobs and opportunities for Canadians living in that province. Indeed, Canadians in New Brunswick are entitled to the assurance that their capital needs will be met, and will not be unduly delayed or hindered by the operation of the foreign investment review agency set up by this bill. New Brunswick is dependent to a great degree on investment from outside to develop new projects and assist in the expansion of existing firms. New Brunswick agencies have tried to attract investment capital to New Brunswick and, since 1970, of 76 projects producing employment for 3,382 persons, about 50 per cent of the capital invested and 40 per cent of the total jobs created were a direct result of investment from outside the province.
In my opinion, this bill must be improved to ensure that provincial points of view will be adequately protected. Without adequate provincial input, the ponderous considerations of the bureaucrats in the foreign investment review agency may result in costly delays, uncertainty and a diminution in the badly needed investment in New Brunswick. There is little in this bill, or indeed in the government's total program, to illustrate positive programs that are put forward to assure that Canadians will be encouraged to save and invest, and that vehicles will be developed to divert adequate savings to the needs of New Brunswick and other slow growth areas, in a manner that will not be contradictory to the national interest.
In short, the government's foreign investment proposals contribute little to increased Canadian participation and/or Canadian ownership in the Canadian economy. We are faced with a relatively negative bill that has the
November 6, 1973

potential of aggravating the already serious disparities that exist between regions of this country.
Despite the factors set out in the bill which the foreign investment review agency must consider in determining what is in the national interest, the lack of a properly evaluated criterion leaves the agency with outrageously large areas of personal judgment. Some of my colleagues have indicated amendments to strengthen and correct these guidelines, and I am inclined to favour them.
In the administration of this measure, it is imperative that the government recognize that this is essentially a nation of five regions; that our national policies must be flexible enough to give maximum protection to one or two segments without exploiting the others. New Brunswick's bitter experience in monetary, fiscal, energy, transportation and tariff policies is a cause for concern. We in New Brunswick need a comprehensive program to increase Canadian participation in our economy, revisions to the Bank Act and the development of measures to encourage investment of risk capital. This bill alone, without amendments, will not do the job. Even the Canada Development Corporation, if given an expanded role with regional guidelines, can do much to make a positive contribution to the situation, and so too can a requirement that foreign firms make voting shares available to Canadians.
As for New Brunswick, I believe that massive investment is absolutely necessary if we are to progress. I believe that foreign investors should be sought and, provided they become good corporate citizens, be welcomed to our midst as Canadians. A comprehensive approach to national development indicating the acceptable role foreign capital can play is an essential element in the orderly development and growth of Canada. It is in search of this goal that I have attempted to set out some factors to be considered if we are to evoke an effective and comprehensive legislative response.
I have attempted to emphasize the benefits that can accrue to the slower growth regions of Canada with such a positive approach to the problems of economic and political independence while also indicating the hardship that will surely follow from the strictly administered negative approach which now exists in this bill, and which I hope will be expanded and improved by amendments contemplated by my colleagues. The minister can commence the positive approach by giving his assurance that New Brunswick in particular, and all slow growth regions of Canada, will not suffer for want of risk capital because of the provisions of this bill.


Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on the amendments proposed to this bill. It is a matter of record that for a long time our party has been concerned about the growing influence of foreign investment in Canada. It is equally a matter of record that the Canadian people are deeply concerned about the effect of that growing influence on their daily problems, such as the cost of living and problems of this nature. People are worried about where we are heading as a nation. It is the purpose of this bill to provide a screening agency to review, assess and control the extent and
Foreign Investment Review Act influence of foreign investment in Canada. In the words of the bill itself;
.. . the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment is a matter of national concern,
I stress the phrase "a matter of national concern". So far as the extent of foreign investment is concerned, that is a matter of record and I will not expend a great amount of time quoting statistics to indicate the extent of that foreign investment. What I would like to comment upon is the nature of the influence of foreign investment on our country, because it seems to me that an understanding of that influence is basic in considering the amendments that are before us today, and indeed for an understanding of the need for the control of foreign investment in Canada as is laid out in the bill.
The growing influence of multinational corporations is twofold in that it is both economic and political in its effect. It would be a grievous error to conclude that the over extension of foreign investment in Canada endangers our economy only because it deprives Canadians of the ownership of their own industries. It has this effect, of course, with the result that there is a steady drain of Canadian dollars to foreign countries, and in particular to the United States.
Some people are fond of extolling the benefits of foreign investment in our country. They say it brings us jobs, it brings us industries. But the figures tell us that between 1960 and 1969 we lost $2 billion more than we gained through foreign investment, and I cannot for the life of me see how this can be construed to be an advantage. Only last year, dividend interest in foreign owned businesses was exported to the tune of $2.35 billion. In nearly every paper you pick up, there is growing evidence of more and more take-overs of our industries. As early as 1969, which is not too long ago, the Financial Post began an editorial in this fashion:
Clearly, time is running out as far as Canada's independence is concerned. The sweep of foreign (particularly U S.) control of industry and resources in Canada is not matched in any other industrial country.
But we cannot separate the economic influence from the inevitable political influence of such corporate giants on the affairs of the nations which they invade. Corporate giants such as ITT are multinational only in the sense that they exist in various nations, but as Professor Papandreou pointed out in a recent article in the Canadian Forum, the term "multinational" obscures the fact that such corporations are basically ethnocentric, that is that they operate essentially from their country of origin and that their influence emanates essentially from their country of origin. An American corporation does not become Canadian by the mere device of tacking "Canadian" in front of its name, as in the case, for example, of Canadian General Electric.
Corporate systems, when they become large enough, become instruments of foreign policy of their base country just as in reverse, the base country uses its influence abroad to further the interests of the corporate system. The activities of ITT in Chile are an example of this mutual co-operation between corporation and state. We are concerned in Canada at this moment with a threatened

November 6, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act fuel shortage, and whether we freeze or not this winter lies largely in the hands of foreign-based oil corporations.
The point that I am trying to make, therefore, is that our consideration of the amendments before us should be directed toward strengthening the control of Canadians over the development of their economic resources and to strengthen at the same time their political independence which must, of necessity, be eroded as foreign domination of our economy increases. Make no mistake about it, political influence is the bed partner of economic influence.
The problem of politico-economic domination of our country is of national concern, and that national concern should override regional differences. For this reason, I would oppose any amendment that has the effect of hamstringing the work of the proposed foreign investment review agency. I am thinking in particular of an amendment such as amendment No. 5 in the name of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) which reads:
In any case where a review or assessment of a proposed or actual investment is likely to affect significantly a province or provinces, a recommendation to the minister thereon shall be submitted by a panel of officers of whom a majority shall be representative of such province or provinces.
If we accept the threat of foreign control, political or economic, of huge multinational corporations then we must rise above consideration of regional differences, and thing together as Canadians in order to regain this country for Canadians. Amendments such as the one I have just quoted place the concern of a particular area over the national concern. Such an amendment places a stumbling block in the way of effective action toward the end visualized by the bill itself, because every measure taken will be subject to agreement, in an area where history shows agreement is the exception rather than the rule.
If Bill C-132 is effectively legislated and administered, it may help protect the interests of the Canadian people as a whole. It is a responsibility of this parliament as a whole to ensure that the government does take effective action to give Canadians some measure of control over their own destinies.


Mr.  J. H. Homer@Crowfoot: Mr. Speaker, on rising to take part in this debate, I must first mention the title of the bill, which is an act to establish an agency for the control of foreign investment. Very few pieces of legislation come before this House that are more acceptable in concept. Today, everybody in Canada wants to do something about controlling foreign investment, and the power that foreign investment may have over Canadian lives.
I well remember the former bagman for the Liberal party in Alberta, now a member of the other place, Senator Hays, who also became a minister of agriculture, in a speech in Calgary saying that what we should have was economic union with the United States. I abhorred the thought. I wondered what kind of reasoning it was, but somehow it is the reasoning of some very wealthy people in Canada. They want economic union with the United States. I have never been one of them, but after looking at this bill I have some questions to put to the minister. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie)

is an obliging person. He is always willing to help. But sometimes in his eagerness to help he may harm, and I am a little worried about that in the present case. There may be harmful parts in this legislation. I can support the over-all concept but, as I say, the remarks of the Alberta senator in Calgary were very much against my general train of thought.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson) said we must put aside our regional beliefs, and rise above that plateau. Those are strange remarks for one coming from British Columbia. I always thought that the mountains created a natural barrier. Whenever I crossed that barrier I found that the people behind it engaged in individualistic thinking. I think the hon. member's dream is a little pious, a little bit hopeful. All of us are not perfect. All of us have been sent to Ottawa to represent our constituencies and regions. We want to make certain that our constituencies and regions develop, believing that, as they develop, so grows Canada.
I well remember during the last election the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, saying the government would do something about Vancouver, that it would spend some money there to develop the port. I only point this out to show how we are all determined to help our. own regions. Those in power have a record which shows they help their own regions rather than others. I will go on to prove that record, Mr. Speaker. That is why I support the amendment before us calling for regional representation when hearing the various applications.
I had placed a question on the order paper asking how much money had been spent by the government on the various ports throughout Canada during the last five years. I selected the period of five years because that covers the time since the government took office. In 1967, the federal government spent something like $17 million on the port of Vancouver. Each year from 1967 to 1972 this amount dropped off, until it reached $6 million or $7 million in 1972. I might add that Vancouver is the largest port in Canada. It handles 27 per cent of all tonnage entering and leaving Canada.
I thought it strange that the Minister of Justice should come out to Calgary during the election campaign and say the government would spend more money on the port of Vancouver. But on looking at the answer to my question I found a reason. The next largest port in Canada happens to be Montreal. It handles 17 per cent of the total tonnage entering and leaving Canada. Five years ago $19 million was spent on it, and in 1972 $20 million, showing that expenditures there held level. This indicated that some regional preference was shown.
One can point to different regional pressures that have been brought to bear on the government. Walter Stewart in his book "Divide and Con" has pointed out the regional pressures that develop. In case somebody has not read it, I would quote from page 160 as follows:
A $10.3 million park at Mont Sainte Anne, twenty-five miles north of Quebec City, in Liberal Montmorency riding.
A $16 million national historical park in the heart of Jean Marchand's Quebec City riding . . .
A $30 million eighty-six acre park on the Toronto lakefront. . .
November 6, 1973

Those are example of regional pressure. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) exercised some regional pressure with respect to the Toronto project.
A senior citizens' home for Port Hawkesbury, also in Allan MacEachen's riding ....
A $30 million dock for Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, which also just happens to be in Allan MacEachen's riding.
There was a little regional pressure there.
The author of this book is not a political person. In fact, I think he says in other books that he is a believer in the NDP philosophy. On page 61 he writes:
. .. my vote goes to Jean Marchand, the Minister, as he then was, of Regional Economic Expansion. Who else would put out a colour brochure listing the $270 million in federal grants pumped into his own area since 1967? Who else would put up a billboard to proclaim the coming of the "Jean Marchand Dam"?
I do not know if that dam has been built yet or not. I just point to these regional pressures that exert themselves in politics. We are all human. I suspect that if the government stays in power those same regional pressures will exert themselves with respect to the application of this bill.
What does the bill really do? Basically, it does three things. It gives the power to block or curtail new foreign money coming into Canada. It gives the power to limit the change of direction of foreign investment already in Canada. For example, I suppose Imperial Oil of Canada would be able to continue to operate in the oil industry here but would not get approval to go into any other line of business. Worst of all, the bill has the power to direct investment within Canada. Perhaps my suspicious mind is at work, but I think it might be said that if this agency is to deal with regional situations an application might be made to start a new factory in Alberta with German or Japanese or any foreign money and the agency might just say "Sorry, we cannot allow any more foreign investment in Alberta. It has too much already and we think it will significantly harm Canada, but you can invest it in some other area." That is where the regional pressures may be exerted.
I think the amendment offered by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), which states that a majority of the panel hearing the application must come from the region to which the application is applied is a sound one. I remember when DREE was established the minister told this House in good faith that he knew of the political pressures and of all the porkbarrelling accusations that could be made, but he said he would try his best to administer the act in a non-partisan way for the good of the country. He tried his best and as Walter Stewart has said, he was able to publish a colourful brochure listing the $270 million in federal grants that had been pumped into his own area since 1967. So, I do not believe his best is good enough, but it was human. I believe that the agency to be set up by this bill would be just as human and as subject to as many pressures. That is why I think the amendment should be supported.
Another area of the bill which gives me concern is the section containing the words "significant benefit to a part
Foreign Investment Review Act of Canada". What particular part, Mr. Speaker? In other words, if the agency questions an application, the applicant must prove that his investment is likely to create significant benefits for Canada. It might well be said that Michelin was a tremendous benefit to the province of Nova Scotia, but it could be argued, too, by another region of Canada that it destroyed the Dunlop Tire Company in the city of Toronto. The words "significant to the benefit of Canada" are not good enough unless there is some regional representation when hearing the application. The wording would make some sense then. There is no doubt in my mind that Michelin would be of significant benefit to the province of Nova Scotia, but they must know that they have to compete with the other industries in Canada. If they want to move into the markets in central Canada, they know that they have to compete. I believe that term denotes that the part of Canada affected will be all right if it has political clout. If it does not have political clout, however, it will have to go begging and it may be heard or it may not. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that as a member of parliament I should assist the passage of legislation that forces people to go begging. Some criteria should be established for equal treatment and a fair hearing. As the representative of my constituents I can ask no more, but I do ask that and I am sure it is no more than any other member of the House asks.
I would like to go into the question of cost, Mr. Speaker. We are told that the whole purpose of this bill was to stop the sale of Home Oil to Ashland in the United States. If that is so, why play around with the figure of $250,000? I think Home Oil sold for something in the neighbourhood of $30 million, so if the object was to stop the sale of Home Oil it is not necessary to also stop all the little enterprises that may come into this country. By that I mean little, individual investments.
Back in 1909 many of my constituents came to this country as American or Japanese citizens. Indeed, many Japanese citizens were forced to move from Vancouver to my area during the last war. But if they came from the United States or Japan or Holland or Germany, they all became first class Canadian citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: They made an investment here. I think the purpose of the foreign investment bill should be to give a board or an agency the right to examine large corporate investments in Canada, not individual investments. A lot of good automotive agencies would not be sold for less than $250,000. There are even a few farms in some of the choice areas of Alberta that could not be bought for $250,000. In my own area, where it is pretty dry, one might be able to get a toe hold for less than that.


Mr. Breau:: I do not think so.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member says he does not think so. Let us suppose for a moment that he is right Who are we saving the land for, and if it is the sale of land that we are trying to block, are we not being unconstitu tional? The hon. member shakes his head in a negative manner. I say that the federal government has no right to interfere with the sale of property within a province. Property belongs to the province. In no way would this

November 6, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act government interfere with the sale of property within the province of Quebec. Let us not fool ourselves about that.


Herb Breau: It says "business enterprise".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I keep telling my sons that the ranch I am attempting to run is a business enterprise. I sometimes refer to it as a blotter because it soaks up all the money I make. In any case, it is a business enterprise and many farms are business enterprises. If the bill excludes agricultural lands, then the minister should introduce an amendment to this effect or should say that this bill will not interfere with agricultural land in any way, shape or form. The minister steadfastly examines his papers and does not indicate yea or nay to that because he does not want to reach that conclusion. The minister wants this agency to have the power available if it wishes to use it.
I do not believe in the attitude of the province of Saskatchewan with regard to land, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a curse on the agriculture industry of that province. The idea that the government should be the only purchaser and that all lands would revert to the province means that the farmers and ranchers will become like the serfs of the feudal days-they will be serving the government master; the buildings will decay and the land will become non-productive. I do not believe in that. If the minister is headed in that direction, I think we should be told about it before the bill is passed. If he is, he has bought the NDP's concept of socialism, hook, line and sinker. I would not believe it of him, but we certainly have not been told otherwise.
I read the speech of the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom). He said that his party was not all that fussy about this bill, as it is not strong enough. He went on to say that the screening agency ought to be more powerful, but as the legislation did not say that it had to be more powerful, he rejected the legislation.


An hon. Member:: That's the point.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, that is the point. Now, you can see why so many people have been moving out of Saskatchewan and into Alberta. When I go back to my homeland, I am very disheartened. I see the potential there; but developing it takes capital. Considering the attitude of the government of the province, raising such capital will be difficult.
If this agency is set up, will it be instrumental in blocking deals such as the sale of Home Oil to Ashland in the United States? Or, would it block, for instance, the sale of Denison Mines to interests of the Hudson's Bay Company in the United States. Must it play around with every deal that is worth over $200,000?


An hon. Member:: Sure it must.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: An hon. member to my left says, "Sure it must."


An hon. Member:: What about Saskatchewan?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let me tell hon. members that Saskatchewan contains more mineral wealth than Alberta.

We do not have as much petroleum wealth but, certainly, we have more mineral wealth. You will not find copper, potash or uranium in Alberta. Those metals are not there, but they are in Saskatchewan. The province has great potential wealth, yet remains on the list of "have-not" areas of this country. Why? Because governments have not encouraged Canadians to invest a nickel in the development of that area. Actually, Canadians leave Saskatchewan and come to Alberta if they want to invest any money, because they enjoy living in the freer atmosphere of that province.
For the reasons I have outlined, I ask the House to accept the amendment standing in my name, which has been put forward in good faith and which asks the amount of $250,000 as provided for in the bill, be changed to $500,000. Surely, if inflation continues at present rates, $500,000 will not be worth much in a few years.


An hon. Member:: It will be enough to buy a garden.


An hon. Member:: Soon, that will be the price of a house.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One hon. member suggests that soon that amount will just about buy a garden and another hon. member suggests that it will only buy a house. According to some predictions, by the year 2000 a house in Toronto will cost $250,000, if present inflation rates continue. For that reason I submit that the amendment standing in my name ought to be accepted.
As well, the minister ought to consider a number of suggestions contained in the five motions to amend the bill which the House is now considering. The bill could operate very successfully for the whole of Canada if it took into account regional needs. As well as considering the amount of money which might be involved in any transaction, the government should say that the bill will not apply to agricultural property. I suppose the government will say that only businesses are to be affected. I suppose some members of the government think that the family farm is not a business. Well, if they do not consider it as a business, not many farms will survive under the present Liberal administration.
A financier went on television in Toronto and said that Canadians have all kinds of money to invest in Canada. Well, Torontonians have not been too generous in investing money north of Highway 401. They have not been too generous with northern Ontario, with the area west of the Lakehead in Ontario or, for that matter, with any area outside the province of Ontario. So, that financier, that Torontonian, who suggested that the people of Toronto and of Canada have lots of money to invest in this country, perhaps is thinking as the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville is thinking. That hon. member suggested that Canadians have lots of money for the development of Canada. That being so, how is it that so much money is leaving Canada? Too much Canadian money is being invested elsewhere. I see the hon. member nodding affirmatively. I would not wish to misrepresent his position. Why is so much money leaving Canada?


Mr. Nystrom:: It is foreign owned.
November 6, 1973


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If we tax Canadian companies more heavily than we tax internationally set up companies, will we not encourage Canadians to invest in international companies, or in internationally set up companies which operate in Canada? Look at the food industries; very few are not internationally set up. Why? They were forced into that arrangement because of our tax measures. Are they better able to operate that way?
Consider our farm machinery companies. Massey-Fer-gusson, once a Canadian firm, is now an international firm. A whole host of companies which started out as Canadian companies have now become international companies. During the last seven or eight years Massey-Fer-gusson periodically threatened to move its plants entirely out of Canada, down to Detroit. Why? The company blamed the tax laws of Canada. Last spring the company threatened to move its combine plant from Brantford, Ontario, to Detroit. Why? The reason, again has to do with the tax laws of Canada.
In considering foreign investment within Canada, we must not forget that we must also encourage Canadians to invest in Canada. Consider, as well, what has happened to the oil industry. What has happened in the past will continue to happen under the tyranny of the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). He is not interested so much in the long-term well being of Canada, and the encouragement of investment in the oil industry, as in dominating that significant industry.
Many have commented about wealthy Alberta and about how Alberta sold out its oil resources to the extent that it is now almost wholly foreign controlled. Alberta did not sell out. The federal government in Ottawa forced the Canadian-owned oil industry to leave the province. Why was Home Oil forced to sell out to Consumers Gas of Toronto. What were the considerations respecting the Ashland deal? I submit that the oil company was forced to sell out because of the operation of our Canadian tax laws. It had undertaken exploration for oil around the world and in Canada, and was in financial trouble. The company was badly in the hole. It was necessary to find a buyer who would bail the company out of its deficit position. If our tax laws had been adjusted, it would not have been in that deficit position. If our tax laws had not been designed to be of benefit, as they are, to international oil companies, it is possible that Home Oil would not have been forced to seek a buyer. Putting it simply, moral suasion on the part of the government-I say that because the government had not legal power in the matter-forced Home Oil to sell out to Consumers Gas of Toronto, that company being preferred to an American oil company.
One could argue, of course, as I have heard people from western Canada and other regions argue, that the profits of the Home Oil operation will be reaped in Toronto. They will not be readily reinvested in the oil industry, but will be reinvested in the construction industry of Toronto and southern Ontario. One could argue that if Home Oil had been sold to Ashland of Canada, Ashland of Canada would have ploughed some of its profits back into the oil industry of Alberta. Perhaps we might not be as short of oil as we are today. I do not know. It seems to me that there may be some merit in giving the government some power to
Foreign Investment Review Act control the sales of corporations. Earlier today someone mentioned Canadian General Electric, General Motors, Ford and the other big automotive manufacturers. Maybe we could include Home Oil and Denison Mines. Perhaps the government does need an agency to screen foreign take-overs of large concerns like that.
There are all kinds of small towns in my constituency that would love to have some investment in industry. I have put a few thousand dollars into small industries in my constituency over the past 25 years. I lost money on two of them. Invariably, the trouble was getting finances to cover the value of inventory the industry built up and was not able to sell readily. If the products could have been sold as fast as they were made, the company would have stayed in business. Anyone who knows anything about industry knows it is necessary to build up an inventory. If you make a product that sells in the summer, you must build up an inventory of that product in the winter. The value of inventory will eventually kill a small corporation if it does not receive some capital. The industries in the town to which I am referring went begging to the United States to try to get a little foreign investment. They were not able to and, as a result, the two companies went broke.
I have another concern. Recently one of the biggest industries in my constituency was purchased with Japanese money. The owner went hither and yon looking for Canadian money. He spent months in Toronto and Montreal. He visited the head offices of every major chartered bank in Canada. He came away with a sad reflection. I find it sad because it is becoming a more and more accepted reflection in Canada. The owner told me he was going to sell the controlling interest in his plant to the Japanese. I said that was bad. He told me that, in addition to spending months in Toronto and Montreal, he had received a DREE grant. It took a year or two, but he finally got the money. He had reached the conclusion that eastern Canada was not interested in western Canada. I found that terribly sad. I am not referring to the oil industry, but to what might be called an industrial side of the agricultural complex. He said he had to go to Japan to get the money because eastern Canada was not interested in the west.


Roch La Salle: That is not true.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you very much. I would rather have heard that from the minister, but I appreciate hearing it from my friend and former colleague, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). In any event, that is a widely held belief in western Canada today. I think it is a shame. That is why I urge the minister to accept the concept of some kind of regional representation on the panel hearing the application.
I read the briefs that came before the committee. The province of Saskatchewan, because of the NDP philosophy which originates in Toronto with the major unions, does whatever the NDP here wants them to do. That is obvious from their stand on the oil question and on this particular piece of legislation. When representatives of the province of Saskatchewan appeared before the committee, what did

November 6, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act they say? They said that this legislation needs a little more provincial input. They said they completely buy the concept of some agency controlling foreign investment, but would like to have a little more regional or provincial input. What did the premier of New Brunswick say? Speaking for the four Atlantic provinces, he said they, too, want some consideration.
This bill will probably pass, maybe tonight; I do not know. However, if it does pass, in spite of the extremities of Canada complaining and asking for a little regional representation, if the minister rides roughshod over them, he is not doing Canada a service. He is being arrogant, like the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), and is not paying attention. We are a confederation of regions, a federation of provinces. A few years ago in this House the common expression among all parties was federal co-operative.


An hon. Member:: Co-operative federalism.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is another way of saying exactly what I said. I am pleased to hear the hon. member express it. I wish he were a member of the cabinet. I wish some minister would use that expression every other day or at least once a week. It would be very pleasing to the regions of Canada that do not have a political clout if they could get a little more attention.


An hon. Member:: Does Lougheed believe in that?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The premier of Alberta has said time and again that Canada will not go short of oil if he has anything to do about it. He said Canada will not have to pay a price higher than the world price for oil. He said that Canadians will not necessarily have to pay what Americans will have to pay as a result of their foreign policy. Alberta wants fair and equal treatment with regard to its resources, just as New Brunswick wants for its resources and as Toronto wants for its resources and, I might say, has received.
The oil companies have no control over oil in the province of Alberta. The Alberta government controls the oil. It determines how much comes out of the ground, who takes it out and where it goes, whether it crosses provincial boundaries or stays within Alberta. That is the sole prerogative of the Alberta government. That is a jpoint that must be considered when talking about the oil industry.
While speaking about the oil industry, I wonder what political clout the 17 per cent of the Canadian people had who voted for the party on my left and socialism.


An hon. Member:: 20 per cent.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think it was 17.8 per cent, if my memory is correct. I did not look at the hon. member's figures. He can examine mine. Only 17.8 per cent voted for socialism, yet we are getting it in great gobs.


An hon. Member:: Not enough.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: After reading the speech of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, I wondered how much money he has ever tried to raise. I wondered how much money he has invested in some of the small companies

around Yorkton. I do not know whether or not he has graduated from university. The last time I asked him, he was still going.


An hon. Member:: He pays his taxes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He pays his taxes.


An hon. Member:: Yes, and you give them away.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I don't. Le us look at the Syncrude project. Let us look at the tar sands. The tar sands of northern Alberta were known 200 years ago, around 1775. The first government study of those tar sands was done in 1875. We are now getting close to 1975, and we are barely getting some of the oil out. The Premier of Alberta has gone to great lengths to encourage the development of this resource. Time and time again he has said the only thing which will bring the Arabs to the negotiating table in a proper frame of mind with regard to the price of oil is the presence of alternative oil resources. Well, there are 15,000 square miles of tar sands in northern Alberta.
The Syncrude project, which involves four oil companies, is to cover eight square miles. It will take them 25 years to complete their operations in this area, and to this end it will be necessary for them to raise $1,200 million in capital. We need another company alongside Syncrude. But taking into account the frame of, mind of the present government, dominated as it is by that small block to my left, people who say they want socialism up there to develop the tar sands-


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Might I continue?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: That can only be done by unanimous consent. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you. I appreciate the generosity of the House.


An hon. Member:: Socialist generosity.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have learned over the years that the only thing socialists are generous with is their time. They like to talk. They are very poor at producing anything, but they certainly like to talk. And it seems that at times they do not mind listening.
I was referring to the gigantic size of the tar sands- 15,000 square miles-and the huge capital investment needed to develop a mere eight square miles in 25 years. In developing this eight square miles, the companies hope to produce 125,000 barrels a day. Now, the Montreal market alone needs 500,000 barrels a day, so if we want to become self-sufficient in Canada more Canadian production is needed. Geologists who have studied the tar sands suggest
November 6, 1973

there- is enough oil there to supply Canada's needs for some 600 years. Production is only now getting started. In the absence of regional representation on the panel hearing an application, and allowing for the frame of mind of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), following the socialists and adhering to the socialist concept which they advance, I can easily envisage a confrontation taking place in the years ahead.
The premier of Alberta might go to Japan and say to businessmen there: We want another Syncrude development, another project. We will give you a lease on a further eight square miles. Come over with your millions; don't go into Siberia and develop oil for the Russians there, but help us develop our oil in the tar sands. This may well be the line taken. Of course, I do not know whether or not he is thinking along those lines. I am suggesting one situation which may be created by this agency. In the absence of regional representation on the board, the answer to the applicant might be "No", and then the Arabs would have things all their own way for another ten years when it comes to the pricing of world crude. The only thing that will bring the Arabs to the negotiating table in a sensible frame of mind with regard to the price of crude oil is the development of an alternate source of supply. If the co-operation of the federal government is forthcoming, the Province of Alberta has the ability to develop such a source. It is sad to reflect that we have not received such co-operation to date. However, we in Alberta believe in the future. We hope and believe that the Lord will hear, and that Macdonald will hear along with him. We hope, too, that other cabinet ministers will be a little more attentive, and a little more appreciative of regional considerations.
I shall end on this note. The government would be doing a terrible disservice to unity, a terrible disservice to cooperative federalism if it refused to pay heed to the wishes of the provinces on the eastern and western extremities of Canada. In western Canada, the government of Saskatchewan, in spite of the dominance exercised by people to my left, has asked that provision be made for more provincial input. The premiers of the four Atlantic Provinces have asked for regional consideration. The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) has placed an amendment before the House, and I ask all hon. members to give it most careful consideration. There is nothing in it which the government could find offensive. If the minister cannot accept the word "majority" let him put in the word "equal". Let him endorse the concept that the provinces have a view to express, and allow them a means of expressing it.
I shall deal briefly with another part of the amendment, which asks that as soon as an application is made it shall be the duty of the minister who speaks for the agency to notify forthwith the region or the province in which the applicant wishes to invest. This is only sensible. This is only courteous. But we know it has not happened under DREE. All kinds of industries have made application to DREE. Sometimes they have been told: Yes, we can give you so much money, but we are really not anxious to see it invested over there, because the unemployment rate is not high enough; if you invest it somewhere else, we can give you a little more. Pressure, as between regions and provinces, has been exerted under DREE. Under one of the
Foreign Investment Review Act amendments we are debating, the provinces concerned would be notified right away and would know what was happening. Provinces would know when a company was likely to leave their jurisdiction. They might say, as the people of Saskatchewan would say: "Good riddance". But they might, on the other hand, say, as Albertans would say: "Stick here with your investment".
I propose to end by returning to the subject of my own amendment, as seems only reasonable. I know that a large number of companies began with an investment of less than $200,000. Take the Claresholm Airport as an example. Little companies got started, with the help of United States money in two instances, and today the operation is completely owned by Canadians. There was no harm in these small companies getting started in this way. One of them, a huge company now, is completely owned by Canadians. This is an example of an enterprise capable of being started in a small way. I do not think the agency should concern itself with anything less than a million dollars. But I was modest when framing my amendment because I like the government to accept my ideas-and the government has accepted a good many of them. This government has accepted many of my ideas, but the minister has not accepted one. I should like him to accept the proposition that the sum of $250,000, with the terrible inflation that his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has allowed to arise in Canada, is not a large amount and that it should be increased to at least $500,000.
Having abused the House with this lengthy speech, the House having been generous in allowing me to speak at length, I might advise hon. members that I shall speak again on the other set of amendments. But I wish that the minister would answer the agriculture question, the enlargement question and the regional representation question. It might facilitate passage of the bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Veterans Affairs- Discontinuance of Veterans Land Act benefits-Request for Extension-Reason for action; the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth)-Public Service-Possibility of increase in wage offer to Northwest Territories nurses because of working conditions and cost of living- Danger pay; the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schel-lenberger)-Agriculture-Suggested increase in research into protein production-government position.
7586

November 6, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of 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 business in Canada by certain persons, as reported (with amendments), from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-132.
A lot has been written and a lot has been said in recent days on Parliament Hill about this bill. We have all known for quite some time, Mr. Speaker, that we are faced with great problems and those problems are complex.
We know also, Mr. Speaker, that there are ways of solving those problems, particularly in respect of foreign exports, foreign takeovers of our industries and natural resources.
If foreigners own 50 per cent or perhaps 80 per cent of industries and businesses in Canada they are not to blame; we should censure those Canadian leaders who failed to foresee it, who failed to pass the needed regulations and who failed to adjust the economy to facts and reality so all Canadians could own their own, and own and develop their natural resources.
Our resources, Mr. Speaker, are developed by foreigners and we must ask ourselves why. Do we lack technology in Canada? Do we lack labour?
If we do not lack technology, if we do not lack labour, what do we lack, Mr. Speaker? Surely if we lack technology we could import it. That is what one could call foreign capital. After using that technology and acquiring the required knowledge for the developments we want to bring about, then it would be up to us Canadians to either continue using it, keep it or reject it.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot even develop our technology without financing and if foreigners now own the major part of our resources, our developments, our industries, it is because they made the necessary capital available to those who wanted to develop them.
Here in Canada there was a failure to understand what capital is; there was a lack of readiness to use the organizations available that could create the required capital for developments we have to bring into being.
Foreigners availed themselves of that right and created capital on those same assets, those assets we owned, those assets to be developed. They created capital as the developments became possible. That is what we failed to do.
This is what even now few members tell the House; in this way they would find the mean to develop our natural resources and help our future industries. Mr. Speaker, the
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
government has devised a system to promote industrial development.
We find, Mr. Speaker, that a large number of industries are going bankrupt, in spite of the help they received from governments. Then, where is the problem? Capital is placed at the disposal of industries but they cannot operate; it only extends their lives by a few years and eventually they go under. Why? Because the means placed at the disposal of industries by governments are only a restraint, a way to deprive them even more.
Mr. Speaker, a small enterprise has to go deeper into debt in order to benefit from the advantages placed at its disposal. All members know that: a company that wants to receive a $20,000 government subsidy must invest itself $100,000 which amount it does not have because it has been overtaxed in every possible way by governments. The company does not have the capital required for the developments it would like to achieve. Then the Industrial Development Bank was created to loan money to businesses. In order to grant them a $20,000 subsidy we loan $100,000 at the present usurious interest rate of 10 or 12 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, this is not logical. This is taking an unfair advantage because interest rates are too high. So, a small manufacturer who owes $100,000, $200,000 or $1 million, according to the importance of his business, has to repay enormous amounts which are taxed at 40, 50 and even 60 per cent. The small manufacturers cannot afford those exhorbitant interest rates and the enormous taxes they have to pay. This is why nothing can be developped. Almost everything we try to develop is a failure. Such operation gives rise to the accumulation of enormous debts and those who succeed have to work perhaps 10 to 15 hours a day and through hard work they make profits, they increase prices. A few sometimes succeed in this system but at the expense of others. If one succeeds, it is because others have failed. Indeed, they are prevented from succeeding.
Mr. Speaker, we are seeking solutions to that problem. We blame foreigners because they invest here and control our resources. Now I am convinced that we will never regain the ownership of our resources and our institutions if we do not alter our financing procedure which is outmoded, obsolete and leads any industry or enterprise to ruin.
As long as we won't come to grips with this evil, we will get the same results. And the further we go, even if we pass legislation and regulations to side-step foreign investments, or if we tax part of these investments, the more we will paralyze the economy, the greater will be our disappointments. We will experience an increase in the level of unemployment, privations and strikes. But, where can we find a solution? Solutions are right there at hand. If we want to launch a new enterprise in a logical fashion, it will have to be financed through new credits free of interest. We could launch new enterprises in this manner. We will never achieve anything in a 100 years if we continue to pile up debts, otherwise we will continue to keep Canadians under the yoke, to increase taxes and the number of civil servants, thus bringing about an increase in the cost of living, as it happens at present.
November 6, 1973

Where are we going with all these gimmicks, all these outmoded wild dreams, Mr. Speaker? Where does it all lead us to? It leads us directly to ruin. We are on the brinkmanship of bankruptcy, we are nearing a revolution.
Mr. Speaker, if foreigners can find capital by coining money, we can do the same. If the United States find that developments are inadequate and they require them, and if these developments are obvious and profitable, they will create new capital and thus enable industry to operate. They will allow access to capital at a much more reasonable interest rate than that charged by the Industrial Development Bank which exploits industries to the extreme.
Mr. Speaker, we must think about this and stop moaning and blaming foreigners. We must confess our own sins because we are the ones who have jeopardized our own development. If development is not progressing as it should, again we are the culprits, not foreigners.
In fact, foreigners cannot benefit from the resources made available by our financial institutions. We are the ones who, within our government, can ask our organizations to issue such or such credit at a small rate of interest or at none whatsoever. No foreigners will come here to do it for us. And failing to do it, we will go on having the disappointments we are now suffering and realizing that we are no longer our masters at home, that everything belongs to foreigners. And if this is so, Mr. Speaker, it would be time to find a solution to such a problem.
This bill will not solve the problem. In spite of our intentions to restrict foreign investments, will we find Canadian capital to fill the gap?
Those are the problems the bill should solve, but it offers no serious remedy. According to the bill, some foreign investments must be controlled and reported. But how will it help the provinces in developing our country?
If there were fewer taxes, if we had a balanced economy, in accordance with facts, Canadians would have more purchasing power and make the industry work appropriately. It would not even need the Industrial Development Bank, nor the chartered banks.
If industry could sell its products to Canadians, we would not need all the agencies we have now. Industries could develop if governments would not saddle them with taxes, if they were not saddled with them all. We are driving all businesses and all industries into bankruptcy because of taxes, heavy taxes, and we will let the taxpayers pay for everything.
We are told that private industry has gone bankrupt. No wonder since it is cut off at source. If we do everything to keep people from getting what they want, it is hard for them to do anything.
We are building all sorts of barriers to stop the Canadians who would like to go further and do something. We shut them in and use all possible means to prevent them from going ahead. We find it sad that all our capital and institutions are in foreign hands.
Once again, we are to blame, Mr. Speaker, and we shall never be able to develop our country, our resources and our institutions if the required capital is not made avail-
Foreign Investment Review Act able to Canadians at reasonable interest rates and if we do not lower taxes. There is no other way that we can own something in Canada. We are now losing more and more ground, businesses and industries, and we are becoming less and less able to develop our natural resources because we do not have the required capital. The government is not trying to make this capital available to Canadian citizens. This is why we are in the hands of foreigners; the situation will worsen until they have a large enough share of Canadian business to take over the entire country. That time is perhaps not too far away.
[ English]


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate at this time. I welcome the fact that the House is now dealing with the amendments and the report stage of this serious measure, and I hope we are close to a final bill which will facilitate the enactment of a foreign investment review act. I waited to speak until those who wished to propose amendments on behalf of their party had spoken-


An hon. Member:: They have not all spoken yet.


Alastair William Gillespie: I waited until representatives of all parties had the opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker. The amendments before us refer to two specific areas, to which I intend to address myself this afternoon, namely provincial or regional concerns and thresholds.
Having regard to the amendments now before us, I should like to say a word or two about two other specific points, and I might indicate that we will have an opportunity on third reading to go into these matters in more detail. There were two specific points raised by speakers opposite, one raised specifically by Conservative members. It was suggested that this bill represented a negative approach to the whole matter of foreign ownership, foreign investment and foreign control in Canada. I would say to those hon. members that they should look at the safeguard, look at it clearly, and ask themselves: Is a safeguard a negative instrument or is it a positive instrument? I am talking about a safeguard to the health of and for the future significant benefit of Canada. I ask all hon. members: Is that a negative issue? Is a safeguard negative or is it positive? I think that a moment's reflection might persuade some hon. members that a safeguard-and this bill is a safeguard-is a positive measure.
The other argument that was raised by some of the speakers from the NDP was that the scope of the bill does not go far enough. This particular argument was reflected in an amendment which was ruled out of order-amendment No. 1. But it seems to me that it might be worth noting that the amendment itself clearly shows the difficulties when you come to this area of trying to screen the expansion of an investment or of a business which is already controlled and operating in Canada in a related area.
The reason I raise this matter is that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) referred in his remarks to this particular amendment. He has tried to suggest that in some way equity should be offered to the
7588

November 6, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act Canadian public as a business expands. But clearly it is not easy to define what an expansion of a business is. I think the hon. member had this difficulty and I think his amendment clearly shows his difficulty, because on the one ham he chose sales and on the other hand he chose assets-but it was not clear as to which of these criterion should be followed.
That is only one of the difficulties when you come to the whole question of screening the expansion of existing businesses in Canada which are foreign-controlled. I have not yet seen, heard or received a proposal which would stand up when it comes to that particular question. I asked on a number of occasions before the committee whether an hon. member would suggest an expansion of a business with the addition of a second shift and, if he was not prepared to accept that as clearly an expansion of a business, why would he not? It might well involve the doubling of the operations of that particular firm. Clearly, at this time, if this country, with the most rapidly growing labour force in the world, were to start interposing itself into the day to day business decisions which involve such things as putting on a second shift, increasing the floor space or replacing a machine with a more productive one because that would help the viability of the firm, it would be counterproductive in terms of the objectives of the people and of their representatives in the House to provide job opportunities for the fastest growing work force in the world.
I mentioned those matters only to indicate the difficulty behind the concept. The difficulty is enormous; and in my view, as I said before the committee, these are not suggestions which have really been thought out by those who identify with that particular way of thinking.
With regard to the specific areas with which we are dealing in these amendments, first is the question of regional interests. Some of the arguments of Progressive Conservative spokesmen sounded as if the provinces had no say at all. It seemed to me, as I listened to one or two, that they had not even read the bill and had not addressed themselves to the fact that when this bill was brought forward it carried a number of important changes from its predecessor. One of those important changes is to be found on page 2 under the criteria for determining significant benefits to Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As the minister understands it, not as the provinces understand it.


Alastair William Gillespie: I should like to read part of this clause because it is a new clause and clearly anticipates the interests, the importance and the concern of the provinces in this process. It provides:
(e) the compatibility of the acquisition or establishment with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives enunciated by the government or legislature of any province likely to be significantly affected by the acquisition or establishment.
Clearly, the bill before us recognizes the provincial interest in this area and provides that those objectives must be taken into consideration when judging the significant benefit of the proposal. It would seem to me that we have clearly built in a voice for the provinces-but we have not built in a veto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not even a voice.


Alastair William Gillespie: If we were to accept the amendments, particularly amendments Nos. 2, 5 and 6, each concerned with regions or provinces-and in some instances it is not entirely clear which it is that the proposer has in mind- the effect would be to seriously weaken the bill and to undermine and undercut its effectiveness in the application of the bill.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: In what way?


Alastair William Gillespie: This bill is concerned with a national policy, national objectives, but it also provides for the protection of the provincial interests, and particularly I should like to underline this-for the weaker provinces. The weaker the province, the more that province is exposed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: I think that perhaps Progressive Conservative members opposite have not yet understood or recognized the importance of that point.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) referred to regional pressures. He seemed to be suggesting that somehow or other the minister would reflect, whoever that minister might be at any particular time, his own perspective. I should like to assure him and all hon. members opposite that the process of the allowance or disallowance of a proposed takeover or the establishment of a new business is clearly laid out; that the minister will be advised by the officials in the foreign investment review agency, that he will make recommendations, and that the cabinet will decide. So, clearly, if there is concern that the regional interests of Canada will not be reflected at the decision-making point, I hope the hon. member will recognize that the cabinet is the ultimate decision-making body which reflects the regional interests of this great nation.
There was one other point that the hon. member for Crowfoot made. As I listened to him, he seemed to suggest that this bill would in some way provide the government, through the foreign investment review agency, with an instrument for directing investment within Canada. He suggested that this would be a bad thing. Let me assure him that this is simply not true, that the bill itself does not provide, nor does it give to the minister the power to direct investment within Canada. It gives the minister the power to recommend the allowance or disallowance of an investment. It gives the minister and the government the power to bargain for benefits if those benefits are not present in the proposal itself.
Mr. Speaker, I would like now to deal specifically with each of the three amending motions dealing in particular with the question of the provincial interest. I will start with motion No. 2. On first reading it sounds plausible because it restates, or appears to restate, the particular clause I quoted a moment ago, clause 2 (2) (e), with respect to the criterion of significant benefit to Canada. It appears to divide that clause into two paragraphs; in fact,
November 6, 1973

one has to look rather more carefully at it because it does more than that.
It is not just a question of form. It is very certainly an amendment with respect to substance, because this particular amendment talks about "the compatability of the acquisition or establishment with industrial and economic policies enunciated by the government or legislature of a province in which the enterprise is carried on or the new business is proposed to be carried on." That is new language; it is different language from that which appears in the bill itself. The bill now provides for the government to take into account "industrial and economic policy objectives ... of any province likely to be significantly affected by the acquisition or establishment."
The amendment focuses only on the province in which the enterprise is carried on or in which the new business is proposed to be carried on. Secondly, the amendment would make it appear that provincial industrial and economic policies would have slightly higher priority than they are accorded in the current bill. I would point out that in the current bill provincial policies are referred to in the same paragraph as national policies. In the amendment they are referred to in a separate paragraph, but the distinction here is not great.
In speaking to this proposed amendment, the following points might be made: by abandoning the words "by . .. any province likely to be significantly affected" the amendment can have a perverse effect in two distinct ways. Let us suppose a firm to be acquired has five plants, in five separate provinces in Canada, but has a substantial plant in only one of them and very small ones in the other four. The amendment would not, on the face of it, give government the authority to attach relatively greater weight to the policy of the province in which the large plant is located.
Conversely, it is quite conceivable that a province may be affected in a very substantial way by a takeover or a new investment, even if the firm to be acquired or the investment which is to be made is not within that province. The province may have a very large interest in a takeover or investment because of its position as a consuming province or because there are plants in the province which are competitive with the firm to be taken over or established. Thus, doing away with the words "by . .. any province likely to be significantly affected" is a step backward. It would remove an essential flexibility from the bill, and that would have the effect of seriously undercutting its effectiveness.
I would now like to turn to motions Nos. 5 and 6. Motion No. 5, also in this general area of provincial or regional interests, was moved by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). I would like to read it in order to put it in context. It is to delete subclause 7(3), lines 23 to 28, page 18, and substitute therefor the following:
The minister shall make available to the agency the services of officers who are representative of each region of Canada, including such officers from within the department of the Government of Canada over which he presides as he may designate for the purpose.
In any case where a review or assessment of a proposed or actual investment is likely to affect significantly a province or provinces, a recommendation to the minister thereon shall be
Foreign Investment Review Act
submitted by a panel of officers of whom a majority shall be representative of such province or provinces.
The proposal has two parts. The first is that the minister should supply the agency with the services of officers who are "representative of each region of Canada". This may include officers from within his own department. Secondly, whenever the agency makes a recommendation to the minister concerning a foreign investment, the recommendation shall be made "by a panel of officers of whom a majority shall be representative of such province or provinces" likely to be significantly affected.
The proposed amendment can be criticized from two points of view. It is technically weak, and the policy implications conflict with the intention of the bill. Let me deal first with the technical points. It is not clear what is meant by "region." This is a new concept. It does not enter into the bill, nor is it defined anywhere in the bill itself. So one wonders whether the drafter intended "region" or "province." It is not clear. Nor is it clear what a "representative" would be. This is clearly a new concept not to be found elsewhere in the bill. And the drafter does not suggest any definition of the term "representative" because neither "region" nor "representative" are defined. Similarly, it is not clear what would constitute a "panel of officers." In any event, a federal agency cannot be administered by "representatives" of provinces or regions. This, I suggest, is a naive concept when considered carefully. It can only be administered by people who are unequivocally employed by the federal government.
This is to be an act of parliament. The governor in council is responsible for the decisions, not some ill-defined group of officers who are employees, who are there to analyse and advise but not to decide. Those are technical points. Now I would like to deal with the policy points. The implication of the proposed amendment is that the legislation should be administered in a way which would reflect regional views almost exclusively. Such a view conflicts with a central purpose of the bill, which is to establish and apply a national foreign investment policy. When provinces compete to attract the investor, this has the effect of reducing the benefits which are potentially available to Canada and to the provinces.
Secondly, the interests of the provinces are already well protected. I have reference to the inclusion of two other areas in the bill, one dealing with the transference of information which provides the essential authority for forwarding information to the provinces. But, Mr. Speaker, we must surely avoid amendments which would bal-kanize the bill. Provincial interests are safeguarded by several provisions, particularly the requirement to take into account stated provincial policies in clause 2(2)(e), page 2; the requirement for the minister to take into account provincial representations in clause 9(d), page 21; and the fact that the minister has explicit authority in clause 14(2) (b), page 26, to make available to a minister or official of a provincial government information relating to a proposed takeover or new investment which has been submitted by the potential investor.
It cannot be stressed too often that the bill will not block foreign investment which is needed by any particu-

November 6, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act lar region. The purpose of the bill is to improve the net benefit to Canada, and the provisions of the bill will provide the government with the authority to negotiate with investors to obtain increased benefits for Canadians. For these reasons I would reject the amendment on both technical and policy grounds.
Let me turn to the other two amendments in this general area proposed by the hon. member for Central Nova. In one, amendment No. 6, he moves that clause 9 be amended by deleting line 32, at page 20, and substituting the following:
"a copy of the notice shall be sent by the agency forthwith by registered mail to the province or provinces likely to be significantly affected by the proposed or actual investment to which the notice relates and"
Mr. Speaker, the effect of accepting this amendment would be to quite drastically change the administration of this bill. I recall that the hon. member said he was concerned about the bureaucratic process involved in administering the bill. I am concerned about it too, Mr. Speaker, because it is a technical and sensitive area. However, the effect of this particular amendment would be to increase enormously the degree of bureaucratic input. It would require the agency to provide all the information with respect to any proposed transaction, and all the information with respect to any takeover or establishment of any new business in all provinces. I think it would be helpful if I were to indicate why I think that might happen. Under the bill, notice under clause 8(1), 8(2) or 8(3) is provided for as follows:
. . . notice in writing to the agency of such proposal in such form and manner and containing such information as is prescribed by the regulations.
It is not simply an indication in writing that a takeover or an investment has taken place. It is, in effect, all the information which the applicant provides. The amendment proposes that the notice and all the information which is part of it, much of which will be confidential to the business, be sent not only to the proposed province of location but it makes mandatory that it be sent to all provinces which are likely to be significantly affected. This could involve virtually all provinces; it would not be clear who would determine whether a province was significantly affected or not. For example, a new tire plant might be considered for an area of the Maritimes. The argument might be that the only other province to be affected would be Nova Scotia-if we think of the Miche-lin situation-but clearly several provinces might be significantly benefited or affected by such an investment.


Mr. Broadbent:: Explain.


Alastair William Gillespie: I am sure the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) would agree that, in order to avoid being placed on the defensive, the agency would have to provide the information to virtually all provinces in virtually all cases. This would have a serious effect upon the speed with which applications are handled, and I think it would also have a serious effect upon the confidentiality of the whole process. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the chance of leaks would be greater. It should be remembered that the federal government has the responsibility for this bill, not the provinces. I would say that there would be the problem of confidentiality and the problem of delay. I

think that particular amendment, plausible as it may seem at first glance, would seriously weaken the bill and retard its application in the public interest.
In the time remaining to me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the other two amendments dealing with thresholds, but perhaps in view of the hour I might call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, before we recessed for the dinner hour we had been dealing with a set of amendments. Three motions, in particular Nos. 2, 5 and 6, deal with an area of provincial or regional concern, although the purport of those amendments is not altogether clear.
I said that after the dinner-hour recess I would be dealing with the other set of amendments which have to do with thresholds with respect to the takeover of Canadian companies. In this regard we should consider two amendments, one of which has been brought forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot, and the other by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). They show that there is not any one magic figure which ought to apply to thresholds; that is to say, there is no magic figure at which the screening process should become operative.
On the one hand, the hon. member for Crowfoot feels that the thresholds in the bill are too low and should be raised. His amendment suggests that the threshold concerning the gross assets of a corporation should be raised from $250,000 to $500,000. On the other hand, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville feels that perhaps thresholds are too high and should be lowered. He suggests that in view of the second test-and there are two with respect to thresholds, one having to do with gross assets and the other with respect to revenues and sales-the figure should be lowered.
The hon. member for Crowfoot says that we should raise the threshold, that we should double the amount of assets which must be considered in connection with the threshold. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville says that we should cut in half the threshold which applies to revenues and sales and in that regard we should reduce it from $3 million to $1.5 million.
The issue we face is clearly this: Is there any right figure? I suggest to hon. members that the threshold, by its very nature, represents an arbitrary figure. It will never satisfy everybody. It will never satisfy all interests. However, we hope that it can be a practical working figure which will satisfy the great bulk of Canadian opinion. On the one hand there is an amendment suggesting that we should raise one of the tests, that we should double the figure, and on the other hand there is an amendment suggesting that we should cut one of the tests in half. The
November 6, 1973

bill clearly stakes out the middle ground which is acceptable to most Canadians.
The hon. member for Crowfoot felt that the threshold was too low, that perhaps too many smaller corporations might be considered under it. He felt that those smaller corporations, in the very nature of things, might not be important. I suggest to him that one of the important aspects of this bill is that it concerns itself with the "comers", the growth industries, the high-technology industries and those small companies that are of concern to the cultural development of Canada. Clearly, if we were to raise to $500,000 the threshold with respect to gross assets, we would remove from the screening process a large number of firms. In my view, and in the government's view, that would not be in the Canadian public interest.
Too often in our history Canadians have developed new and important technology only to find that it slips from our grasp and that other countries obtain the commercial advantages which flow from it. The amendment of the hon. member for Crowfoot is, in my view, such an invitation; it will allow more of this technology to slide across the border-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is pure nonsense, and you know it.


Alastair William Gillespie: -or elsewhere. It is apparent that Canadians are upset and anxious because a very high proportion of Canadian book publishing and similar culturally-oriented industries are owned by non-Canadians. We cannot afford to have further takeovers in these areas which are so vital to the development of a Canadian culture and Canadian identity. While the threshold in the bill is admittedly not a high one, there would be serious risks in going to the $500,000 proposal. Therefore, that amendment, in my view, should be defeated.
Turning to the amendment of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, I wish to deal with the two tests. One test concerns gross revenue. The bill speaks of $3 million; the hon. member wishes to reduce that figure to $1.5 million. The other test clearly concerns gross assets. I suggest to him and to his party that the gross assets test will pick up many of the smaller companies about which he is concerned if we leave the figure at the $250,000 level. After all, it is the gross assets that are important, that is to say, the addition of all the figures on the left-hand side of the balance sheet, not the net assets. Anyone who is familiar with balance sheets will know that although the figures on the left-hand side of the balance sheet may total $250,000, the shareholders' equity in the corporation may not be more than $20,000 or $25,000.
Admittedly, we are considering an arbitrary level. I suggest that the level in the bill is a balanced one which meets the test of practicality. It is important from the point of view of the operation of the bill; that is to say, it will assist those who are concerned with the administration of this legislation to administer the test in a sensible and operative way.
Clearly, you must consider many concerns when dealing with thresholds. There is the whole question of multiproducts-not just one, but many. We have to balance many things here. I suggest to hon. members that the numbers in the bill are as good as we can get at the
Foreign Investment Review Act moment. They are a balance between the views of the Progressive Conservative Party and those of the New Democratic Party. We should give them a fair test. We should put them to the test. If in the future we find they need to be amended, that will be the task of another parliament.
In conclusion, I think that amendments Nos. 3 and 4 which deal with the question of thresholds should be rejected. For the reasons I gave before the adjournment, the amendments dealing with the weakening of the bill- and that is what it would be if we were to extend the power and jurisdiction to the provinces; in some cases almost providing for administrative complexity, a veto power for the provinces-should be rejected as well.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-132 sets up a mechanism for the control and operation of foreign investment in Canada. We are entering a new phase and a new direction in our investment policy. I hope the minister will see fit to increase the input of the provinces to this investment tribunal. This is the only way there can be some input from the periphery of the country. In his attempt to throw out the amendments, the minister stated that provincial input is not needed, that this is only a tribunal of investment people and bureaucrats who will make recommendations to cabinet, which in turn will decide fairly and honestly whether the investments should be permitted.
The present experience with the Wheat Board is a good example. The Wheat Board is acting contrary to the interests of many provinces. The pricing of feed grains is considerably less per bushel for barley, wheat and oats than on the markets of the world. In other words, instead of an export tax on oil to the United States, the Wheat Board has instituted a selling policy that is a discounting of grain to feeders and a subsidy to the consumer. If the government wants to subsidize the consumer, this should be done in some other way.
I remind the minister that the Manitoba minister of Agriculture is prepared to seek an injunction in the Court of Queen's Bench because the Wheat Board is not selling grain at the maximum price. A feature story in the Gazette states as follows;
Mr. Uskiw hopes his lawyers will tell him that Manitoba can make a case that the Wheat Board Act instructs the board at all times to sell for a maximum price for the farmer . . .
If Mr. Uskiw cannot make his case stick in Court of Queen's Bench, he may go to the Supreme Court of Canada. On the other hand, if he is given advice not to proceed along these lines at all, he will try another tack that, again, involves constitutional questions covering trade and commerce.
The Canadian Wheat Board was established to pursue a course of action in the interest of the western farmer. I suggest this investment tribunal will be in the same category. After all, the Wheat Board is a selling mechanism for 200,000 permit holders or 800,000 men, women and children. If cabinet can order the Wheat Board to institute policies that are not in the interest of western farmers, they can certainly order any tribunal and direct any investment in a manner that is not conducive to the region affected. I suggest that the Wheat Board would not oper-

November 6, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act ate in the same way if it were dealing with the citizens of Ontario and Quebec because those provinces are large enough to have an effect on the actions of this government body.
Canadians, obviously, have ambivalent feelings about foreign investment. Many people now think it fashionable to regard foreign investment as a bad thing even though by any stretch of the imagination internal Canadian savings would not have been nearly enough to have generated the capital necessary to develop our resources to the stage they are now and give our people the high standard of living that we want and to which we are accustomed. It is fashionable to say that if we had not allowed foreign capital to be invested in our country, we would be better off. I remind those people that the standard of living attained in decades gone by would not have been possible without foreign investment. A classic example is the western oil industry. Until the advent of Leduc in 1954, Canada was totally dependent on offshore and American oil. With the discovery of oil in Alberta, the Canadian industrial capacity markedly increased.
Did Canadian money flow into the development of the western Canadian oil fields? Of course not. What money was available was concentrated in Montreal and Toronto in their own investment needs. They did not invest in western oil. One cannot blame them for that. In fact, most of the drilling for western oil was financed by people south of our border. This was not done by large companies but by individuals, the type of people who like to gamble in high-risk investments. I am referring to those people who like to put in $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 on an investment. If they lost, fine. If they won, the rewards were big. The American tax department favoured these people for losses incurred anywhere in the world. American taxpayers could deduct this from income. The result was that American individuals contributed a great deal to the finding of oil in western Canada, plus a limited amount as a result of the investment of western Canadian money.
At the present time, most of the drilling by Americans in Alberta is being carried out by independent drillers and is financed in much the same way. We in Canada have followed another tack. In the late forties, many people in western Canada invested in western oil. However, the government changed the tax regulations. The investment could not be deducted unless there was a find. The money dried up immediately. Those who would have contributed to the finding of oil in western Canada were pretty well left out. It took 20 years to have this changed whereby there would be some redress or incentive for those who wanted to invest in this high-risk venture.
It is fashionable to blame our oil prices on American companies. The export tax is justified on the basis that it is only taking from American companies, and that is just and honest. However, without American investment in oil it does not seem likely that the western Canadian industry, even at this stage, would be big enough to supply all of western Canada. Perhaps it should be this way, but it would have added immeasurably to our present problems.
Then again, in the October issue of the Labour Gazette, on page 643, we find a small news item stating that

Oakville, Ontario, was the city with the highest average income of any Canadian city in 1971. The report adds that Oakville is the site of the Ford Motor Company, a company with a substantial component of U.S. investment. Questions which have been raised in this House suggest that the auto pact is showing signs of not working in Canada's favour, and one gathers from a point made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) that these corporations are not investing enough money in new plant expansion in Canada.
The government of Manitoba made a great effort to entice a Japanese bicycle factory to establish in Rivers, offering it all sorts of grants and encouragement. I draw attention to the fact that this was an NDP government. Incidentally, the new review board which this bill proposes would likely have torpedoed that venture because it would have conflicted with the interests of bicycle manufacturers in the east.
Canadians have complained bitterly about DISC programs adopted by the United States, but DISC was designed to do the very thing this bill would do, that is, to keep American investment at home. The threat of DISC programs was sufficient to cause the government to allow hasty tax concessions to corporations and companies engaged in manufacturing and processing. This gave the central Canadian heartland a great advantage over the peripheral regions where there is little manufacturing and processing. The cut in corporation tax is a foretaste of what is likely to happen under the measure we are now considering; the central heartland of the country will be favoured by this agency to the detriment of the periphery.
Now, Mr. Speaker, foreign investment is necessary only to the extent that Canadians fail to generate enough capital to meet their own needs. There seems to be ample evidence that from the point of view of savings we are generating sufficient capital domestically to meet our requirements, though, of course, there is a good deal of imbalance in the situation. Canadians have obviously quit saving as individuals; they tend to put their money into large pools and there is considerable evidence that they now own a substantial portion of many large Canadian concerns.
The picture has changed considerably in a decade. It may be somewhat doubtful that Canadians will continue to save, since there is much less reason for them to save as individuals than in the past. The effect of old age security legislation, the Canada Pension Plan and the provision of health and welfare care for citizens over 65 means that people can live in reasonable comfort on relatively lower personal savings. The passage of savings from one generation to the next is very effectively discouraged by the capital gains tax and provincial estate taxes. These two taxes combined, especially when the capital gains tax matures, will effectively absorb a good percentage of personal savings. To the self-employed, savings are becoming progressively less valuable even when capital is required as a basis for a working income. So whether or not Canadian savings maintain their present level remains to be seen.
In any case, assuming that Canadian savings are, indeed, sufficient for capital formation requirements, the very size of this country and its regional divisions means
November 6, 1973

that certain areas have access to a high volume of savings, and others to too little. Nor is it easy to move capital from one area to another even if it should be desirable to do so. As our economy matures, I believe we will find it desirable to invest capital around the world, while capital other than Canadian is invested here. Unless we want to build a little Canada with a wall around it, we shall have to follow a policy of this kind. For example, a western Canadian farmer would not, likely, wish to invest in an iron mine in Labrador; but he might well wish to invest in a grain combine, starting his operations in Texas in midsummer and working north right through until the fall, harvesting crops in Canada. This would have obvious advantages as compared with an investment in a project of which he knows nothing and about which he could probably not care less.
The legislation before us has a further flaw inasmuch as it is almost certain to lead to the creation of a czar-like organization of bureaucrats in Ottawa directing the economy of the nation. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has pointed out that depending on the attitude of the minister or of the officials, the suggested board could become an extremely severe instrument with monopolistic powers or, alternatively, one which exercised scarcely any authority. My own feeling is that, like the tax department, this body will have a profound effect on Canadian business operations.
Mr. Speaker, there is always a danger attached to an Ottawa-based institution. Like imperial Rome, it tends to regard the distant parts of the country as its own preserve to be saved from the misguided ventures in which those who live out in the periphery will indulge in if left to themselves. Under the new policies, the whole executive level of the federal civil service will be drawn from within the Ottawa Valley and we can expect increasing misunderstanding and disinterest in the affairs of those parts of the country farthest removed from Ottawa.
Equally important, in my view, is the fact that pools of capital are now concentrated in very few hands. Perhaps not more than 50 people are really involved in the investment of these huge sums. The rise in the importance of corporate pension funds, mutual funds, insurance funds and registered retirement funds means that the pools of capital available for investment are very large and very concentrated and that their managers exercise enormous control. A brief presented by the Toronto stock exchange indicated that in 1970 corporate pension funds formed one of the largest pools of investment in Canada, totalling over $10 billion in that year; they ranked only behind life insurance as a pool of capital. Personally, I am concerned lest this grouping of capital in very large pools should in the end work to the detriment of Canadians.
The reason I urge the adoption of these amendments, Mr. Speaker, is that action along the lines they suggest would allow for provincial input into decisions affecting foreign takeover applications. The existence of a bureaucratic group in Ottawa, coupled with the concentration of the investment pools in the financial capitals of Montreal and Toronto, would mean, in effect, that people with little knowledge of conditions in the periphery, and indeed little concern for them, could control investment in those areas removed from the centre.
Foreign Investment Review Act
Many of the situations with which the proposed board would be dealing are likely to concern small Canadian companies, perhaps family-owned, faced with succession duties and the imposition of capital gains taxes. Others will involve rundown plants for which a Canadian buyer cannot be found. I do not see that the foreign investment tribunal will affect the provinces of Quebec and Ontario one iota. The tribunal is not likely to act against the interests of either of these provinces because they are too big and too powerful in their own right. But it would certainly be open season as far as the provinces in the west and in the Maritimes are concerned.
Indeed, the federal government has already declared war on the province of Alberta and is carrying on a feud with Manitoba and Saskatchewan in connection with feed grains and wheat. And it could easily become involved in the B.C. lumber question. The amendments go some way toward encouraging citizens who live in western Canada and in the Maritimes to feel that their views will have some effect on the action of the tribunal.
We might also remember that in the western provinces and the Maritimes are situated a great many of the resources whose development and ownership have aroused more controversy than has arisen in connection with developments elsewhere. Indeed, some Canadians seem to be of the opinion that they should not be developed at all, at least not until some time in the future. Ottawa might well take such a view.
I should like to support the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) in his endeavour to have the level raised from $250,000 to $500,000. In this age of inflation we shall hardly have time to turn around before this figure of $250,000 is obviously inapplicable. If, as is estimated, it is costing between $50,000 and $100,000 to provide employment for one worker, then this figure of $250,000 means we are looking at a firm with three or four employees. I think this is one area, if the bill is to find any acceptance in the country, that we should look at very carefully.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I sat here this afternoon not intending to speak until I listened to several members on my right-and I say "right" in more ways than one-getting to their feet to attack this measure as a proposal that, if it were not going to take us completely down the road to socialism, in a few years at least would move us much more substantially in the direction of Canadian control over our own future than they personally desired.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Now, now.


John Edward Broadbent: I hear a few "Now, nows". The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), who has just taken his seat, said that this bill went too far. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) spoke earlier this afternoon and he said the bill went too far. It seems to me to make sense for a party like our own to contend that the bill is a pittance, a small move in the right direction, so therefore we will support it although it does not go far enough. But what do you say, Mr. Speaker, of a political party that says it will vote for a bill that goes too far? The logic of that boggles
7594

November 6, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
the mind; however, I am sure a lot of Conservative members do not have that problem.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They do not have any mind.


John Edward Broadbent: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you are in a totally impartial position in this debate. I should like to deal specifically with two questions raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot.


An hon. Member:: Are you going to talk about the bill at all?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, I am coming to that. We have just heard another interesting aside from the wit of the Conservative Party, and I hope that he will be joining in the debate later. I want to deal with two matters which I think are of substance and which arise from the comments this afternoon of the hon. member for Crowfoot. In speaking of his own amendment and of other amendments presented by members of that Neanderthal party on my right, having said the bill goes too far but that they will support it he then introduced some amendments that, if anything, could completely vitiate any power that the federal government has to deal with foreign ownership. These amendments want to give the provinces much more control, and my guess is that such control would amount to a veto power over this legislation.
I ask the members of the Conservative Party to think very seriously about the problems particularly of the poorer provinces in this country. Those are among the problems that the federal government has to face in this legislation; not the problems of the big provinces, God forbid. Look at the record of the Tories in Ontario; they have a terrible record but I shall not dwell upon it. The big provinces do not face the same problem of foreign ownership in terms of their own economy, but the small provinces do. The reason is that they are economically weaker and have to generate economic growth and employment, which makes them dependent to a considerable extent on foreign capital. As a result, they tend to outbid each other in their attempts to lure the money of private investors in order to create jobs, and this does permanent harm to the country.
I see some Tories to my right shaking their heads, so let me provide them with a few facts, though I realize that normally facts do not cloud their judgment. Let me begin with the province of which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was once premier. What kind of deal did the people of that province get when the province entered into a deal to build a heavy water plant? That has to be one of the worst deals ever made in Canadian history in terms of benefit to the people of that province. A lot of pressure was put upon the premier at that time. I do not say this because he was a Conservative premier, but because he was premier of a province in this country which had economic problems. He entered into a bad deal that cost the taxpayers of his province a lot of money.
Let me move to another province-Manitoba. Again, the Conservative Party probably will not like this example, but the administration that preceded that of Premier Schreyer, a Conservative administration, entered into a deal with Churchill Forest Industries, a deal that should be an utter disgrace to politicians of any party. The deal

was cancelled within a matter of weeks or months after Premier Schreyer took office, yet it cost the province of Manitoba over $100 million.


An hon. Member:: What did Polymer cost?


John Edward Broadbent: It was a bad deal made by that province which was under economic pressure to create jobs and went to foreign money markets to wheel and deal.


An hon. Member:: Move to Polymer, now.


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member will have his chance. The people of Manitoba got a bad deal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you would contain the members to my right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a request which I think should be heeded. He is entitled to the consideration of the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I am making is that provinces with problems of growth and economic development have to face that issue, and one of the unfortunate facts of Canadian history is that the poorer provinces have had to outbid each other in their attempts to lure foreign investment. This sort of bill will go some way toward dealing with this question. But if too much authority is given to the provinces, as would be the case if the amendments proposed by the Conservative Party are accepted, we will be doing a serious disservice to the whole issue of foreign ownership in this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) is asking, I think, whether he may put a question to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). Is that agreed?


John Edward Broadbent: Certainly.


Paul Yewchuk: If Conservative governments are so terrible, would the hon. member explain why it is that the "have" provinces are the ones that have had philosophical Conservative governments for a long time?


John Edward Broadbent: That is a sad state of affairs which would take a fair bit of time to deal with, and on another occasion I would be glad to comply with the hon. member's request for an explanation. I want to go on to cite a couple of other illustrations in the hope that I might convince my friends in the Conservative Party to withdraw their amendments.


An hon. Member:: What about Saskatchewan?


John Edward Broadbent: I hear a member ask about Saskatchewan. I will give the House a nice example from Saskatchewan. There was a company by the name of Parsons and Whitmore from south of our border in the State of New York which had reached an agreement with a former premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Thatcher, in respect of the building of a pulp mill in that province. That project was to be overwhelmingly financed by the people of Saskatchewan. I ask, wo was to be in control of that project and
November 6, 1973

who was to get the profit? At the same time I ask, who was to take the risk? Let me assure hon. members that the profits and the equity in the company were to remain with the foreign concern and the risk was to be taken by the people of Saskatchewan. It has become recent Saskatchewan history, particularly as the result of an election campaign, that it was seen that this deal would not work to the advantage of the people of that province, and after Premier Blakeney formed an NDP government in that province the whole arrangement was cancelled.
1 might add that not all the people of Saskatchewan were too happy about the situation because, like other citizens of this country, they like jobs, and at the time of this proposed deal they did not think this was a wise decision. However, since then they have been pleased.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the box factory.


John Edward Broadbent: In answer to that hon. member and those people who come from that province, let me give one final example which occurred just a few weeks ago in Newfoundland. I refer to the Shaheen development in that province which has often been described as one of our economically poorer provinces. There has been an attempt by a misguided federal government to assist that province in economic development. This particular project was directed toward a federal-provincial port service development which would be to the benefit of one privately owned foreign corporation. I should like to ask, who was to receive the benefits of this development, and who was to provide the risk? I suggest the answer to that question is that the taxpayers of Canada and Newfoundland would put up the money. We do not know as yet who would benefit in the long run, but in terms of profits they will all go to the company.
Let me conclude this series of examples by pointing out one essential and logical point. It is important for the federal government to assume a national responsibility in respect of foreign ownership so that we do not leave the provinces of Canada, particularly the poorest, in a position where they have to go out in competition with each other for badly needed jobs, at the taxpayers' expense and to the benefit of private investors.
The conclusion, I would draw from the amendments proposed by those of the Conservative Party, particularly the hon. members from the Atlantic provinces and the west, that they have given very little thought to amendments Nos. 2, 5 and 6. Two of those proposed amendments in particular are bad because they would take away from the federal government the kind of authority required to deal with national interests. As the minister said just before the supper hour, there is ample provision in the proposed regulation for the federal government to consult with those provinces which are to be directly involved, and I suggest to those hon. members that they should read the proposed act.


An hon. Member:: You should read it.


John Edward Broadbent: Under the proposed measure, the government must give consideration to provincial concerns which are directly affected by any proposed takeover. I
Foreign Investment Review Act suggest that any further regulation would totally hamstring this legislation, and amendments along this line would lead one to the suspicion that the Conservative Party is not really interested in the passage of this measure. It seems hon. members of that party want merely to give the impression of getting on the nationalist bandwagon, but we will watch how members of that party vote at the appropriate time.
Let me now, in the second part of my remarks, deal with this question of public ownership. I should like to deal with this matter explicitly as it was raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot He accused the federal government of taking over the ideas expressed by members of the NDP. Those were not his exact words, but those certainly were the ideas he expressed and I hope that someone will correct me if I am wrong.
The hon. member for Crowfoot suggested, in respect of oil policy, that the federal Liberal Party was really being guided or influenced by the NDP and that this was something that everyone should consider seriously. I wish this suggestion was entirely true. I wish that the federal Liberal Party was moving in the direction of a socialist party. Had that been the case in the past few years, perhaps there would never have been reason for our party coming into existence. The suggestion was that in some socialistic way we have taken over and that in important areas of the petroleum policy, NDP programs had been adopted by this government. My suggestion is that there is no doubt that this government has followed some suggestions put forward by members of this party, but to say that this party has taken over is ridiculous.
I have listened to hon. members from both sides of the House, and it seems to me that the argument involves the whole issue of the role played by private foreign investors in the development of oil reserves in the province of Alberta. The hon. member for Crowfoot outdid his colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), in his defence of the oil industry and the provincial government. That hon. member seemed to advance the suggestion, if I understood his argument correctly-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I should like the opportunity to hear the contribution of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).


John Edward Broadbent: The essential point made by the hon. member for Crowfoot in respect of the problem of foreign ownership was that private development is providing fantastic benefits, and I hope that someone will correct me if I am wrong. His argument suggested that future development of our tar sands under the control of foreign international corporations would result in great benefits to the people of the province of Alberta and the people of Canada generally. He suggested that the present government's position in respect of the imposition of export taxes was an iniquitous decision of the worst kind. I think that is what he said. Let me reply briefly to that argument.
It seems to me that the hon. member could not have picked a worse industry in the history of this country to use as an example of one that was providing benefits to the people as the result of private investment. I would ask
26635-50}

Foreign Investment Review Act him what we actually have as a result of private investment in the petroleum industry. The answer is obvious- we have an industry that is 99 per cent foreign-owned. Hundreds of millions of dollars in profits are taken abroad every year as a result of this foreign ownership, and many jobs are not retained in this country for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Those who do not agree with my argument will have the opportunity to reply. Foreign ownership in this industry results in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in profits and the loss of many hundreds of thousands of jobs. Much of our petroleum industry has been owned for many years by investors in the United States, in England and in The Netherlands. Let me point out to hon. members that Supertest, which was one of the few Canadian-owned companies, was taken over by the British Petroleum Company which is owned by foreign investors and controlling interest is held by the government of Great Britain. I should like to ask hon. members who are those who receive the benefits of that operation in Canada?
Another point I should like to make is this. Because of the foreign ownership of these petroleum companies, the research and development done by young scientists is done by young Englishmen, Americans and Dutchmen rather than by young Canadians. I suggest this is a second negative consequence that results from foreign ownership.
A third point I should like to mention is the fact that because of interests owned by people abroad, the benefits of associated activities in the petrochemical and plastics industries are in effect exported from Canada, and particularly from Alberta. It is not the people of Alberta or the people of southern Ontario, where most of the manufacturing in this country takes place, that benefit from this research and development: the people who receive the benefits of secondary or associated industries are not the people of Alberta or the people of Canada, but the people of Great Britain, Holland and the United States.
Let me point out a third negative consequence of private development of the natural resources of Alberta. The hon. member for Crowfoot talked about doing the same thing in respect of the tar sands as we have done for the rest of petroleum development in the province of Alberta. I suggest to him that the time has come to stop future foreign development of our petroleum industry. We must take this development out of the hands of the private sector and we must take it out of the hands, particularly, of the foreign-owned private sector.
I conclude the point by saying that he could not have selected a better industry in this country to condemn his own case than the petroleum industry of Alberta. The policy of this party is that the future development of the tar sands must depend, not exclusively on the federal government-because the control of resources is within provincial jurisdiction-but on joint federal-provincial public control of the tar sands development so that in terms of future profits we will stop their export, we will keep the research in Canada and the secondary industry will then be built up in Canada and for Canadians, not for

people who live elsewhere, so that Canadians and not others will get the prime benefits of our natural heritage.
I conclude by saying that the Tory amendments, if accepted, would vitiate a reasonable proposal-not one that we think will be hallowed in the socialist heavens in the years hereafter, but a measure that goes some way in the right direction. Anyone who can conceivably take that Tory position must be someone who really does not care at all about the future of the economic independence of this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) wishes to ask a question. However, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has concluded just within his time limit. It would take the unanimous consent of the House for the hon. member to put his question. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I have just a short, simple question. I should like to quote the hon. member's question of Monday, October 29, directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) regarding the automotive pact and the shift in trade to the American side as against the deficit on the Canadian side. The hon. member said:
... in view of the statistics for the last three years which show that during that period more than 95 per cent of the investment in that industry occurred on the American side of the border and hence is likely the principal cause of this shift in trade, can the minister inform the House what he and his officials have done about getting commitments from the automotive industry to ensure that we get our share of investment on this side of the border?
I should like to ask the hon. member if he can point to one line in this bill which would help to induce the automotive industry to make that extended investment on this side of the border?


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to deal in a serious way with what I assume to be a serious question. The hon. member raised the important question about our party's attitude toward the automotive industry in Canada. If I may answer in the time I have, and I think that I have plenty of time in which to reply, and I intend to take it, it seems that in 1964, instead of entering into the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement it would have made more sense for the federal government of that day-I am not trying to evade the question but will try to deal with it from two or three aspects, because the answer is not a simple one-for us to have created an independently-owned Canadian automotive industry. This was the position of our party. The only way that could have been done would have been to rationalize the industry in Canada, to create, if you like-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I have a question from the hon. member and I wish he would listen to the answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: We would have to do in this country what the Germans did with Volkswagen. I am sure the
November 6, 1973

hon. member knows that until recently the controlling interest in Volkswagen was owned by the government of Germany, just as the government of France controls the Renault corporation. We would have had to do in Canada what was done elsewhere. At that time we would have had to nationalize the industry and, instead of having four or five companies, we would have had to put public capital together with private capital to create one automotive firm that would have been very efficient and that would have enabled us, in my judgment, to compete on the North American market.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Hon. members do not want to listen. We could have created one company on this side of the border that would have been competitive on the North American market and, indeed, competitive on a world basis. Instead, the government decided-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is that why you drive a Volkswagen, because you who live in Oshawa?


John Edward Broadbent: As usual, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has his facts wrong.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Do you drive a Toyota? Do you drive a Datsun?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I realize that the question might have presented some difficulty to the hon. member.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What car do you drive? You represent the auto workers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Maybe some hon. members would desire to take part in the general debate, but if the hon. member would try to come to the point as directly as possible, without drawing about 50 of the other hon. members into a discussion, we may be able to proceed to the next speaker who is the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn).


Some hon. Members:: Get on with it.


John Edward Broadbent: A question was put to me that I took seriously. I have plenty of time in my allotted time, and I intend to use it to answer the question. First of all, as usual, the hon. member for Crowfoot has his facts wrong. I do not drive a Toyota. As a matter of fact, I have a Pontiac which was made in the city of Oshawa.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When did you buy that? When did you sell the Volkswagen? Put the facts on the table. Was it after the 1972 election, or after the 1968 election, or when you ran for the leadership of your party?


John Edward Broadbent: With even greater consistency he continues to sing a series of misfacts. I have never had a Volkswagen or a Toyota.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Don't beat around the bush. Put the facts on the table.


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member is wrong.
Foreign Investment Review Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When did you sell your foreign car?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if hon. members would give Mr. Speaker the luxury of hearing at least some of the reply. I think I have to say that the time of the hon. member has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The extra time was given to him by consent. If I do not hear a reply very shortly, I will turn to the hon. member for Peel South.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a pretty serious threat.


John Edward Broadbent: May I say with respect, Mr. Speaker, that I am answering the question. If there could be less heckling, much less time would be taken. I want to finish my point about the auto industry. Instead of creating our own industry in 1964, the government decided to create the auto pact which set the minimum conditions so that in terms of foreign investment-as a matter of fact, like no other sector in the Canadian economy-for the first time we said to a foreign investor: In order to perform in Canada, you will have to provide a certain degree of production. We said to them that they would have to provide a certain number of jobs in this country-and that is what the auto pact does.
It seems to me that clearly this is what the bill is all about. It says that if we are going to have foreign investment, certain conditions must be met. The question I put to the minister the other day concerns the degree of benefit that we should be taking as Canadians from a foreign-owned industry. In fact, we have made substantial improvements in terms of jobs and in terms of exports since the auto pact. My party's policy is to improve those benefits. So once again the very question raised by the member of the Conservative Party can be turned around against him. He has picked the wrong industry at the wrong time.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, we heard an interesting diatribe from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). To some extent many of us agree that the government has been using DREE programs and other federal assistance programs for the benefit of foreign-owned corporations exploiting our resources. The truth of the matter is that instead of turning his fire on the new government of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -he should be turning his fire on the old government for selling out this country to foreign owners. I want to remind the members of the NDP to my left, and the members of the NDP opposite, that it was a Progressive Conservative government under George Drew who said, "No, you won't ship out pulp logs from the province of Ontario." And it was a Conservative government under Ross who said, "You won't ship out the pulp product. Instead you will make it into paper here." It is about time

Foreign Investment Review Act that we in this country processed our resources to the highest degree possible.


Alastair William Gillespie: Tell us what the Diefenbaker government did.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: This is the issue in this bill, and you know it. You haven't done anything about that. Sure, we could have the automobile companies and all the others turned into socialist companies. Sure, we could all go into wearing dark-blue jeans. Those blue jeans of socialism are all they have to offer, and that is all we would get if we had a Crown corporation wasting the taxpayers' money and engaging in ridiculous expense. That is what they talk about as a solution to foreign ownership. I say, let us have foreign ownership and also let us have Canada.
I do not see any reason to address my attention to the members to my left. After all, they are only the rump of the government. We have to address our remarks to the minister and his colleagues. The minister said that this bill will provide safeguards, and he asked: Is this going to be a negative bill or a positive bill? Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that we consider it is a negative bill. We consider it does nothing to promote Canadian ownership. It does nothing to develop Canadian ownership. This is a "thou shalt not" bill. It does not build up Canadians. It does not do anything to create something better. This is a little bill which says that some foreigners cannot come in here and engage in takeovers.
To the extent that it may be necessary that there should be some control over foreign corporations, taking over and grabbing up more and more of our economy, I agree that there should be some regulatory authority. But again let me make it clear that this is a "thou shalt not" bill. It is a negative bill.


Alastair William Gillespie: You are really going to leave your party behind you.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The minister addressed his remarks to the amendments presented by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). I will deal first with amending motions Nos. 2, 5 and 6. They represent the legitimate concerns of the provincial governments. Those legitimate concerns were expressed before the committee by all of the provinces that appeared, including the provinces that approved this bill.
I want to remind the minister of the representations made by the province of Ontario when presenting its views on the bill. In essence, the province of Ontario said, "Yes, we need some bill controlling foreign ownership, but there must be close consultation between the federal and provincial governments in the review process". That brief from the province of Ontario also stressed:
The federal government provide the province in which the foreign investment is proposed with a copy of the notification and any additional information submitted by the foreign investor.
The provinces be provided with full opportunity to submit their views on proposed investments.
The federal government inform the provinces of any additional details concerning the criteria which will be used in the review process...
It is also evident that the consideration of provincial viewpoints provides for a regional dimension to foreign investment policy in
[Mr. Blenkarn.)
Canada. Ontario recognizes that the administration of the proposed act must be sensitive to diverse provincial viewpoints. However, the wider interventionist role which will be available to the federal government should not be used as an instrument of regional development policy. In our view, the objective of reducing regional disparities should be pursued through programs which have been directly designed for this purpose ...
It is of serious concern to Ontario that there be clarification of the manner in which the federal government proposes to ascertain the nature and status of provincial policy objectives for the purposes of the review process.
The minister was present. The province of Ontario thoroughly approved a review process, but at the same time it expressed serious concern. I would point out that amendments Nos. 2, 5 and 6 are proposed by a member from another province, one that sometimes is said to be a depressed province that needs additional regional assistance. I wish to point out that we have had a number of speakers in support of the amendments, one being a member representing the province of Alberta, a province that certainly cannot be termed a depressed province.
The problem is that Canada is composed of regions. Canada is a vast nation. It has great scope, and these amendments will allow for recognition of that scope. They do not destroy the quality of the bill. They do not mean a provincial veto, not by any means. They really mean that the government must consult with the provinces on whether foreign investment is to be allowed or rejected or whether foreign takeover is to be allowed or rejected. They provide for consultation with the provinces directly affected. The minister knows that this is the position of his party.
From the experiences this House has witnessed over past weeks, the minister should know how much a province in this country can really trust the federal government. Members of the government of Alberta were in Ottawa a week ago yesterday. They thought they had a deal with the government. The government does not consult through the normal process. Its attitude towards consultation is demonstrated in the issuance of press releases and the making of speeches.
Members of the federal government do not want to talk. They do not want to consult. The course of events in connection with the oil issue over past weeks has demonstrated that the regions of this country really cannot rely on the Ottawa bureaucracy to protect the national interest of Canada. It is only in that vein that we proposed these amendments and in which I recommend them to this House.
This was a very serious issue before the committee, Mr. Speaker. The representatives of the province of Quebec who appeared were also concerned. I suggest to hon. members on the other side, who come from that province, that they should look seriously at these amendments and not be too bound by the whip, but be bound by their consciences for the good of Canada and the good of their regions.
I shall move on to the question of threshold limits at this point, but I may want to come back to the other issues. The hon. member for Crowfoot proposed a capital limit of half a million dollars instead of the $250,000
November 6, 1973

capital limit suggested in the bill. This House has been in receipt of two bills in this session dealing with increases in the old age pensions, which I suppose were totally brought about by inflation. We have recently dealt on second reading with amendments to the Canada Pension Plan. Some of the most expressed concerns in settling the railway strike this year arose because of the effect of inflation on railway workers.
When this bill was conceived some three years ago, $250,000 may have appeared to be quite realistic. But with the incidence of inflation, the incidence of growth and the fact that this government has increased the money supply in Canada by 50 per cent in the last three years, that cannot now be considered a realistic figure. To suggest a capital limit of $500,000 today is probably to say exactly what was intended by the authors of the bill when it was proposed to the government some years ago. I think the House should look at the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot because it makes sense.
I should like to draw to the attention of the minister the suggestions he made in committee when dealing with the bill. At that time he said he did not anticipate the creation of a new, enlarged bureaucracy but that we would make use of existing industrial expertise and administrative services. He also said that his guesstimate was that from 15 to 20 officers, and an equivalent number of support staff, is all that would be required. Fifteen or 20 people with equivalent support staff-possibly a total complement of 40 to 50 people, and possibly not even that number are expected to handle this bill?
Does the minister expect that a staff of that size could look after every takeover involving corporations having only $250,000 in gross assets? I would remind the House of the minister's statement this afternoon when he said that $250,000 in gross assets may mean $5,000, $10,000 or $20,000 in real capital, with the rest in debt capital. Mr. Speaker, it is a pretty small company that has gross assets of $250,000 in this age. Surely we cannot expect 15 or 20 officers and the equivalent number of support staff to review investments to the low threshold level of $250,000-especially in this age of liberal inflation.
Amendment No. 3 was proposed by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). The hon. member has not had much experience in business and he really does not understand that the gross turnover of $3 million proposed in the bill is not very high. His suggestion to reduce that amount to $1.5 million is totally ridiculous. As I have stated already in connection with the capital amount, if the bill were amended to limit gross turnover to $1.5 million, we would have to hire a veritable army to administer it.
Some hon. members who have already spoken tonight have suggested that this party is against the foreign takeover bill. I deny that categorically and would remind you, Sir, that this party has always been the national party of Canada. This party is the party of Macdonald who made this country. This party is the party of Borden who in 1911 held this country together. And in recent history this is the party that stood and laid a flag across a bench in this House and said something about a pipeline that those fellows gave away!


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


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time that the party to the left and the party opposite realized that this party is the party for Canada, and this party has always been concerned about Canadians and the development of Canada for Canadians.


Alastair William Gillespie: What did they do in 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We worked on it then, too.


Alastair William Gillespie: You had five years and you did nothing.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Let us talk about that. I know the minister wants to talk about these things. I thought it would be proper to get into our basic criticism of the bill at this point. Our basic criticism is that this bill does not provide any incentive to Canadians. When the minister was asked about incentives for Canadians to invest in Canada, he was hard pressed for a reply. I take you, Mr. Speaker, to the report at the committee stage of this bill where the minister made a statement and gave four incentives to Canadians to invest in Canada-the only four that are left. He said there is a tax credit for Canadians to invest in companies in Canada. I would remind the minister that before the amendments to the Income Tax Act tax credit did mean something to investors, but this government so emasculated the Income Tax Act in the supposed improvements to it that the tax credit is not worth as much to investors today as it was three or four years ago.
The minister then said that there are great programs like DREE to encourage Canadians to invest in Canada. The incentives that the government fed to Michelin Tire and Gulf Oil were great incentives, Mr. Speaker-but to whom? This is a giveaway government that does not concern itself with the ownership of Canada. It wants to make a big thing out of this bill and let the Toronto Daily Star know that it is doing something for Canadians. The minister says that DREE is a wonderful example of what the government has done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired. He may, however, continue if he is given unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) may continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members of the House for allowing me to continue. I will try not to bore them or the minister. Let me refer again to what he said in committee. The minister went on to say that for small Canadian companies there is a great big limit. They only need to pay 25 per cent, or half the corporate tax rate, until they earn $50,000 in one year. He neglected to say that under the old Income Tax Act small companies had to pay a low rate of tax on the first $35,000 of earnings. That rate would go on and on, and was designed to allow companies to build up their position. Under the current act, the reduced allowance for small businesses ceases after a

November 6, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act business has earned a gross of $400,000 or $50,000 each year for eight years. So when we get down to it, what encouragement has the government given for Canadians to invest?
The government introduced a capital gains tax. It applies to Canadians but does not apply to Americans. Americans can still invest in Canada; they do not pay the Canadian capital gains tax. What did it do about the withholding tax? It said that it would increase it to 25 per cent for foreigners, but it did not renegotiate tax treaties with most favoured nations. As a result, foreigners can come in, take their profits home and only pay 15 per cent.
The government did not follow the Carter commission's recommendations with respect to income tax. It had said that income tax would rise to a maximum of 50 per cent and never go beyond that. It said, as well, that corporate and personal income taxes should be integrated. Those to my left went on and on asking for that. But no, the government did not do that. It made sure that income taxes continued to rise to the 60 per cent level. There was no integration of corporate and personal taxes. Oh, yes, one can see that it is great at holding out incentives-but let us consider a few other things. My leader suggested in the last election, and perhaps the government will implement this, that people who want to buy shares in small businesses should be able to deduct the cost of those shares from income. The government did not support that proposal. Actually, it called the proposal ridiculous. After all, it does not want little people to own businesses in Canada.
There was a further suggestion for an arrangement under which interest on personal loans could be deducted, or applied against business expenses, or the cost of investing in a small business. But this government will not go for that-it will not help Canadians invest in Canada. It was also suggested that banks should be required to give preferred treatment to Canadian borrowers. What is the truth of the matter? How many Canadian corporations are given the prime rate? How many Canadian corporations must go to the government's own agency, the IDB, and pay 12 per cent or 13 per cent for money?
Really, Sir, we are governed by a government that is totally negative. The government does not want to give Canadians a break; it is not interested in building Canada. This government says "thou shalt not"-and that is the total concept behind this bill. We need a total program which will encourage Canadians to be masters of their own house. If Canada is to develop as a nation, it cannot be governed by a government whose only policy is "No."


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I had considered not taking part in this debate until I heard the speech, so-called, of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). In so far as I could follow the thread of his argument, if there was one, he seemed to say that the only government in Canada that can be trusted with respect to the question of foreign ownership or foreign takeover is the national government and that a province, or sovereign provincial government-


An hon. Member:: Sovereign?


Walter David Baker: -could not or should not act in this area. That is to say, it could not act with respect to the question of foreign takeover or foreign ownership within its own bailiwick. I thought he said that. It would be remarkable if he did not say that, and I would be greatly surprised. Why do I say that? The attitude of the party to my left has been for many years that only the government can decide what is best for the country, that the private sector has nothing to say. That party says that the more centralized power you can have, the better the country is. I do not accept that philosophy. Even if that were true, I would have to look at that philosophy with a jaundiced eye as it comes from the party which has become the lackey of Trudeau liberalism in this country.
If anything could describe the party to my left to a "T", it is this: they have become the stretcher-bearers of incompetence in this country. Further, if the argument put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is a constitutional argument, then I say his constitutional argument is as fraudulent as a $3 bill.


John Edward Broadbent: That was beautiful. Now speak about my real argument.


Walter David Baker: When I was first elected to this House, I must confess that I did not consider the question of foreign ownership and foreign takeover as being extremely serious. However, having listened to a number of hon. members for whom I have great respect-and that does not include the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie)-I have learned that there really is some difficulty in this country with respect to foreign ownership.
I can read statistics as well as the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, and I can see that there is a problem in Canada. The major industries of this country are to a great extent owned by foreigners. I am convinced that we must make an assault on that problem within the next few years. However, we will not make that assault if we use the tools of negativism. That assault will not be undertaken successfully if we merely say, as the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) suggested, "Thou shalt not do these things".
The government can do certain things. My party says that this is a negative bill because it only attacks one half of the problem. The bill does nothing with respect to the other half of the problem, which involves the question of incentives, the limiting of unemployment, the lessening of the rate of inflation which disturbs people, the creation of new financial institutions, and the implementation of policies which will assist us in our drive to create secondary industry in this country which is Canadian owned. All these things ought to be done. This bill does little to bring these things about. These improvements will not be brought about because the bill does not create the right atmosphere for them. That is our difficulty with this bill.


Mr. Gillies:: Tell us about your assault.


Walter David Baker: One matter to which this bill only pays lip service is the whole question of the provinces of this country within confederation. I listened to the hon.
November 6, 1973

member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) put their cases for their respective parts of this country. I said to myself at that time that we must recognize the fact of confederation. We must recognize that the provinces within confederation to have a certain jurisdiction and a responsibility to their people to meet their problems in their own way.
Speaking as a member from Ontario, if this bill were to pass in its present form, unamended, I do not believe it would give anything more than lip service or tokenism to the whole question of consultation which has been built up in this country. This country was not built because it had to be built. It came together because people in various regions agreed it would be good to build a nation here. That agreement has to be nurtured like a delicate flower. It cannot be tramped on. We cannot have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) going through it with a big hoe as he did a few days ago. We cannot have the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) denying, as he did in Edmonton, the discussion of revenue-sharing for municipalities. We cannot have that attitude if this country is to be strong. This country came together, and will stay together and grow because people of good will see some reason to agree there are varied jurisdictions and a necessity for consultation. I wager that if the oil had been in the province of Quebec, there would not have been the onslaught there was in the province of Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I listened to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) before the dinner break. I tried to find some validity for the reasons he put forward for turning away from the reasonable amendments which we hope the government will adopt in order to breathe some life into the process of consultation.


Alastair William Gillespie: Do you want a weak bill or a strong bill?


Walter David Baker: I listened, and I heard nothing-just as I did not hear that interjection. I expected more from the minister. What I heard were the workings of the mind of a technocrat rather than a Canadian public man. I heard the representative of a government that has forgotten everything about consultation except the use of a gunboat. When reviewing the question of foreign investment or co-operation between the federal government and municipalities and the federal government and provincial governments in urban affairs, agriculture and all those things which come under the jurisdiction of varying governments in Canada, the people of Canada will ask this government why there ought not to be that process of consultation, and why the minister said there cannot be any real consultation with respect to this bill. There is an answer to those people who ask that question about the government which they are beginning to doubt more and more.
This government has forgotten the true meaning of confederation. The remedies that should be applied to problems in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick are not the proper remedies to apply in Alberta and British Columbia.


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


Walter David Baker: Ontario and Quebec are different to a great degree from the other parts of Canada. There are peculiar remedies for their situations. That is the purpose of the amendments put forward with regard to consultation. It is to breathe some life into the process of consultation which is as old as this country. I regret the minister's statement that he has neglected to note that simple truth of Canadian federalism. It is to give an expression to that simple truth that these amendments were put forward.
With regard to the limits of the threshold, the minister said the figures are arbitrary. I am sure they are arbitrary. I am sure no study was made. Perhaps no study could have been made as to the acceptable level. If they are arbitrary, we ask the minister to consider, in view of the long period of time the figures have been in existence, changing them in view of what happened with regard to the time that has passed and the inflation that has occurred, as the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) said, largely because of the policies or failure of policies of this government. We believe it would make the bill more workable. The amendments to which this government will be pushed one way or another are with respect to the process of consultation and will continue to give some validity and recognition to the facts of confederation. That is the most important consideration with respect to this bill.
[ Translation]


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, the study of Bill C-132 has been very much delayed. Now that the harm has been done, that foreigners have strong control over our business in Canada, it is difficult to make them go back and any such law will never have much utility.
To prevent that the same harm will be done to our national economy in the future, this bill will perhaps stop small foreign firms from setting up in Canada, unless it is to our benefit that they be invited or accepted. However, the existing great corporations will always manage one way or the other to prosper at their normal rate among our Canadian firms.
Small fines of $10,000 will not deter them from continuing their activities.
Bill C-132 contains enough loopholes to let things go on as they are, while allowing us to tell everyone that we now have a legislation protecting Canadian capital and forbidding foreign capital to enter the country unless it is recognized and proven to be of benefit to us.
Mr. Speaker, no need to be very smart to realize that the $10,000 fine could discourage small businesses, but not large ones, from risking their coming here, so that we can consider the legislation to bring further protection to big capital already invested in the country, since it prevents new competition from taking root.
In the long run, the legislation is justifiable in the sense that it will stop foreigners from making new investments, but on the other hand, it will let the capital already invested here expand without any obstacle or penalty.
If we look quickly at the billions of dollars in foreign capital already invested in Canada, can we still state that the legislation brought about by Bill C-132 will stop General Motors from expanding and developing in Canada for

November 6, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act the benefit of the present shareholders who for the most part reside in the United States?
The same applies to Ford Motors, Imperial Oil, the Chrysler Corporation, Shell Canada, the International Nickel Company, Gulf Oil, Canadian General Electric and many other companies. They are also true in the case of the International Business Machines Co., IBM, Rothmans Pall Mall of Canada Ltd., Dupont Canada, Ciments Canada Lafarge Ltee, and so on. Again they apply to the following companies for which more than 50 per cent and even up to 100 per cent of the shares are in the hands of foreigners, most of them American citizens: United Carbide Canada Ltd., 75 per cent of which is in foreign hands; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd., 86 per cent, General Foods, 100 per cent, Weldwood of Canada Ltd., 74 per cent, and Continental Can Co. of Canada Ltd., 100 per cent.
As you see, the words "of Canada" added to the name of the mother-company do not make the Canadian branch any less foreign as regards ownership, management and profits. I could go on like that indefinitely but as one seldom has the opportunity to get something off one's chest, I should like to give at least a few more names of companies well known to all of us and whose products we use in our daily life: Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada, owned by foreigners; Standards Brands Limited; Canadian Johns-Manville Co. Ltd.; Lever Brothers Ltd.; Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Ltd., under the control of Standard Oil of Indiana; Sun Oil Co. Ltd., under the control of Sun Oil Co. Ltd. of Philadelphia; Kodak Canada Ltd.; The Proctor & Gamble Co. of Canada, Limited, etc.
So there you have about fifty of the great companies whose capital is wholly or partially foreign, and they are all taking advantage of our natural resources, of a mostly Canadian labour force, and especially of our customers, our purchasing power and our savings, whenever that suits them, when shares are sold on the market.
Mr. Speaker, those are facts we must accept. In the same way, we have to accept foreign capital, whether we like it or not. It is already done, no matter who was responsible for it. Is that what we want to change through the so-called legislation before us today, Bill C-132? Is it those companies we want to hurt? Do we really want those companies to pay $10,000 fines? Will those firms be affected by this minor legislation that we are throwing in their way? One can very well see that it is mere window dressing for the benefit of those who are yapping against the influx of foreign capital in our corporations. But, if we truly want foreign capital to work for Canadians we should not throw it out nor prevent it from coming to help us because if we really need capital and if we do not know how to produce it we must go right at the source of this capital so necessary for our industrial development and our national economy.
If ever we truly want foreign capital to work in this country for Canadians while ensuring reasonable profits to its owners, even a foreign owner, we shall have better things to do than raising small inconveniences as we are trying to do through Bill C-132.
We will not even need to pass new laws to this effect. We will just have to take a hard look at our tax system which, generally speaking, gives too much protection to

corporate capital to the prejudice of income earned through the work of Canadians and even to the prejudice of the purchasing power of Canadians who must pay too much for the goods and services required for their wellbeing so that corporate profits may be higher whether they stem from Canadian or foreign capital.
Once the government will have decided to render justice to all Canadians whether they be self-employed, unionized or in partnerships, whether they be organized as corporations of any kind, then it will be worthwhile to speak about national economic balance between people, families and corporations and then there will be no question of treating foreign capital differently from Canadian capital because it will always be welcome, will no longer be evil and will be profitable to all Canadians.
Generally speaking, Canadians do not complain about foreign capital which is the basis of our national economy. In fact, the issue is not where it is coming from. The issue is to have capital when you need it. We should not be scared when things go wrong somewhere. Foreign capital is not always to be blamed, neither is our international trade. But we are trying to say that if things are turning out badly it is not our fault. That is the trouble. Nobody wants to take his responsibilities. We refuse to admit that if things go wrong, we too could have contributed to such a state of affairs.
And if we are responsible, it becomes much easier to correct such a situation than to pretend that it is someone else's fault. Instead of always blaming others for our dissatisfaction, let us finally recognize that we have caused it and let us shoulder our responsibilities. Let us correct what is within our reach here, in Parliament. The whole taxation system was under consideration for a great many years and with what results? Under the pretence of levying heavier taxes on large companies, of taxing capital gains, these companies are realizing ever larger profits, accumulating more and more reserves each year; prices never cease to go up everywhere precisely in order to let the companies obtain higher profits and get in more reserves. This is why, despite improved production each year in Canada, our governments run deeper into debt, show ever increasing deficits. People are desparate because of rising prices, but companies are progressing, capitalizing and taking further advantage of the inertia of our government which cares little about the stability of the Canadian economy. It is not important if the capital is supplied by our people or by foreigners; the trouble is not there. But they do not want to see what is wrong. It is the unfair distribution of taxes among individuals and corporations that is wrong; individuals are always Canadian workers, but the capital of corporations may be Canadian or foreign but anyway, this capital is always protected, non-taxable, privileged, encouraged by all kinds of allowed and non taxable reserves.
It is not because the capital is foreign or Canadian that companies are not properly taxed as compared with individuals, but because they are not taxed. Therefore, it would be sufficient to tax them properly, not more than individuals, but equally, that is to say in proportion to their profits.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, are dividends paid on share capital of foreign-owned companies as important as that? Must
November 6, 1973

we really be alarmed about it? Must we think that the cause of our economic ills depends on the share capital of foreign-owned corporations? If we consider the facts, we will see that dividends paid on foreign capital are very small and that we must not hold them responsible for our economic troubles.
If we look at statistics in this country, we see that out of a production of $103 billion in 1972, the year that ended last March, only $874 million were paid to non-residents, whether from the United States or other countries. Therefore, $874 million out of $103 billion, in 1972, do not even represent 1 per cent of our whole production that goes to foreign countries in purchasing power, under the form of dividends paid on share capital of foreign-owned corporations. As you can see, there is nothing alarming about it. Even though we would prevent foreign capital from being invested as share capital in Canadian firms, we would invite foreigners to invest in Canada several millions of dollars in debenture capital at a fixed interest rate guaranteed by our governments.
There is the great source of foreign capital which profit from our natural resources, from manpower, taxation, thanks to a docile and peaceful people.
Here again we have a bill which says nothing about that channel which remains wide open to foreign capital, as debenture capital, through our governments, with a guarantee that all Canadians agree to work and pay taxes in order to meet the interest on this capital borrowed at a rate of 8 or 8 Vi per cent for 25 years, examples of which have been seen recently when a commitment was made to pay in interest more than twice the amount borrowed, while the principal will still have to be refunded some day if only we will stop paying an interest rate of 8 Vi per cent.
As we see, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-132 does not play a very effective role in our national economic balance which we are eager to restore among individuals and corporations, if we want to eradicate inflation, unemployment and poverty. It would be high time to take a comprehensive rather than partial view of the economy and its problems merely resorting to insignificant makeshifts which are wasteful and ineffective.
Here is further evidence of the power which we can exercise on Canadian and foreign companies to make them play their role in the national economy for the benefit of the people, whether it is with foreign or Canadian capital. Let me give you further evidence of our power along this line. I did not invent it. Again, all that is needed is to consult Statistics Canada figures to find the companies' important statements of profits which are ever increasing. Furthermore, the taxes they pay are growing less and less every year, which leaves them with a greater margin of undistributed profits.
On the other hand, personal income taxes are increasing six times faster than corporate taxes. This is extraordinary, but that is the way it is. Therefore, this is an opportunity for our responsible ministers to give a significant role to play to our corporations, whether Canadian-owned or foreign-owned, before the whole of our population. Here are the exact figures for the year 1972 compared with those of 1963. Corporate profits rose from $4.9 billion to $10.8 billion, an increase of $6 billion, but taxes only went up from $1.8 billion to $3.7 billion which leaves $5
Foreign Investment Review Act billion in undistributed profits for 1972 as compared with only $1.7 billion for 1963 after corporations increased their dividends by only $1,272 billion.
As one can see dividends increased by $550 million over a 10-year period but indistributed profits jumped by $3.4 billion over stated profits which shows that companies always serve themselves better than they do their shareholders and even governments on the profits made with workers, consumers and ever-increasing taxes. In that respect let us not go too far. One only has to look at page 1149 of the Canada Year Book for 1972 to see that individuals paid $2 billion in taxes in 1972 and $9 billion in 1973 whereas corporations paid $1 billion in 1962 and $2 billion in 1971. Corporations are always protected at the expense of individuals and it is the policy of this government in all areas.
There lies the cause of discontent of the people with their governments, federalism, the policy of corporate protection at the expense of the people who suffer from inflation, unemployment and poverty while corporations build up profits and capital through an unfair distribution of taxes. It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to conclude my remarks on more refreshing thoughts for those who participate in the business of this House. It is well known that everybody tries his best but those who make the decisions are caught in a system that they cannot move easily. This is why the status quo is maintained, in spite of the new acts that we adopt. Even these new acts aim at defending the prevailing system, with hardly any semblance of improvements.
But our people are paying more and more taxes and disbursing more money for goods and services which are often rare and ill secured. Yet, it is our function to counterbalance established behaviour patterns and this is what we are doing. Actually, we are doing our best. However, before long, we shall no longer be able to squeeze more juice out of the lemon. Having considered unfairly shared income, let us now turn our attention to equally unfairly shared taxes. We can readily see that all of this is taking place under a capitalistic system which produces well, capitalizes well, but which does not consume quite enough, even where the people complain of hard times, in spite of the increases in pensions and social welfare allowances which have been granted to them. All of this is too little too late, in comparison with the profits which are increasing still more rapidly within larger corporations, on the stock exchange, in large millionaire and billionaire companies while a good many citizens enjoy inflation, unemployment and poverty.
Our natural resources are inexhaustible, our manpower is abundant and our national production is superfluous but we consume only 60 per cent of it per year, for the benefit of companies that accumulate capital at the expense of the people and of the governments, which have deficits. This is a summary of our self made situation which we can correct and which is due to distribution methods that are false or have been made so in the course of our capitalist development.
Mr. Speaker, we are capitalists and we want our capitalistic system to continue to face the present difficulties but

November 6, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act something has to change, not in the system itself, but in ratios and percentages; the correction would be quite simple because it would consist only in having the same concern for human beings as for companies. The whole matter is one of distribution of income and taxes drawn from profits and reserves. Honest comfort and abundance in all households, that is what we must achieve.


Mr. Symes:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might call it ten o'clock.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lianiel):: Is the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton rising on a point of order?


Walter David Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I might get some confirmation from the acting government House leader, who I assume is the Secretary of State for External Affairs, what the business of the House will be for tomorrow and for the balance of the week.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that we will be continuing with the foreign investment review bill tomorrow. I understand that on Thursday it is planned to have an opposition day, continuing on Friday with the foreign investment review bill, depending on the progress that is made.


Walter David Baker: On the same point of order, might I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There has been some discussion about the statement that the minister might be making on the resolution with respect to the Middle East. Is he in a position to tell the House when we might expect that, and whether it might be a possibility for this week?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to attempt to answer that question, I have no objection to the resolution being called at any time. I did say to the House, and I still give the same advice, that I think it would be better to wait until the evaluation team that has gone to Cairo reports; I will then be in a better position to tell the extent of the commitment that Canada will be undertaking. I think it would be optimistic to expect that I would want to call it this week.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-222, an act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, without any amendment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was in second position tonight, but I guess I am first. I have had the chance of glancing up at the press, and since the question that I have put forward is about veterans affairs they can all have a ten-minute sleep.
I again make representation to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to try to impress upon him the need to reconsider the phasing out of the Veterans Land Act. In my question to him I mentioned the fact that there are 125,000 veterans who are certified at the present and must make application for loan before March, 1974. I understand that this figure is now approaching 140,000 veterans who qualify for certification and must apply before March, 1974.
It is my understanding, also, that the Veterans Land Act administration expects that only 5 per cent of these 140,000 will come forward. From what I can gather, the department's answer to the question as to why so many veterans have not come forward is that this is because many veterans merely made sure they obtained certification before October, 1968, in the event that they might want to apply for loans. This may be so in some cases, but to my mind, judging from the many letters and grievances arriving in my office-and I am sure this is true of other hon. members-the Veterans Land Act, even with the many amendments brought in over the years, has not kept pace with the changing conditions, particularly with the situation which exists at this time.
For example, under part II of the Veterans Land Act it is provided that veterans can borrow up to $18,000. Everyone who has remained here tonight knows it is impossible to build a home for that amount or, for that matter, even to build a basement. I contend that if the act had been amended to meet inflationary costs, many thousands of veterans would now be taking advantage of their qualification.
Furthermore, a more serious restriction is the lot requirement of one-half an acre. In some cases this can be reduced by 20 per cent. Everyone knows that not only veterans but every citizen in Canada who wants to build a house is burdened with the cost of land which denies him the opportunity of acquiring a home for himself and his family. In this respect the government has failed to meet changing conditions, to the detriment of the war veteran.
With regard to the deadline date for certification of October 1, 1968, it is difficult for me to understand the adamant position the department is taking in stating that
November 6, 1973

everyone has had an opportunity to apply before that date. The minister knows there are many veterans who, through circumstances beyond their control, were not knowledgeable of the deadline date and are being denied their rights under the charter. This is true even though the minister states that everyone was aware of the situation.
It is worth while mentioning the answer given by the minister in which he stated that we have no right to deviate from the legislation as it now stands. Nothing, to my mind, is farther from the fact. If I had the time I could relate the literally thousands of amendments brought forth since 1920 when the act was known as the Soldier Settlement Act. The amount of the loans has been amended time and time again because of the increase in costs, and lot requirements have been amended from time to time.
If ever there was a time when it would be sensible to lift the deadline for certification, it is now when the housing crisis which exists in Canada was never more acute. The National Housing Act as it exists, with all its improvements, cannot meet the needs of low-income Canadians. We have the machinery already existing under the Veterans Land Act to fill the needs of many thousands of veteran Canadian citizens to whom the government made a commitment many years ago when the then prime minister of the country said, in 1917, that no Canadian would ever be able to say that the government of the day would not fulfil its obligation to the veterans who served their country.
Now, the government of today is reneging on the commitments it made back in 1917. The government can remove the deadline dates, they can increase the amount of loans, and they can reduce the lot requirements by simple amendments; also, they can remove the restrictions on deadline dates. I am sure the minister would want to do this-but instead he is listening to his cabinet colleagues who are denying the veterans their right. Such action cannot be condoned under any circumstances. I hope the minister will tell me why this is being done.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in considering representations to extend the statutory deadline of March 31, 1974, for qualified veterans to submit loan applications under the Veterans Land Act, it is essential to look at the matter in the perspective of the purpose of the act and its alternative relationship to other rehabilitation measures.
As indicated in previous statements which I have made both in the House and to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, VLA was not designed as a program of urban housing nor as part of a retirement program for persons reaching the end of their productive careers. Its basic purpose was to provide loans for the purchase of agricultural land to be used on a full or part time farming basis by veterans who were interested in this form of rehabilitation program on their return to civilian life following wartime active force service.
It was recognized that many veterans would neither wish nor find it practical to settle under the Veterans Land Act. Two other programs were enacted: university training under the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, and reestablishment credits under the War Service Grants Act.
Adjournment Debate
The benefits under all three programs were alternative one to the other. Each veteran had the right to choose whichever plan he considered would best serve his needs and desires. The department's university training program was concluded in the 1950s, and October 31, 1968, was the final date for veterans to use re-establishment credit benefits. As I have mentioned previously in the House, virtually every veteran who writes to me about VLA has used either of the other two alternative benefits.
Having regard for the basic purpose of the Veterans Land Act and its alternative relationship to the other two measures, in 1965 parliament established deadlines to phase out VLA lending operations in a reasonable and orderly manner. By next March, almost 30 years will have elapsed since the end of World War II, and 20 years in the case of the Korean conflict. In the context of a rehabilitation measure to assist veterans to pick up the threads of civilian life following wartime active service, I suggest those genuinely interested in land settlement assistance will have had ample time to find properties suitable for this purpose.
Reference was made to the fact that some 125,000 veterans-I think the hon. member said 140,000-who hold VLA qualification certificates have not applied for VLA benefits. I am satisfied that the vast majority of these veterans simply took the precaution of obtaining such a certificate by the deadline of October 31, 1968. Those with a sincere interest in being established on the land have been settled in the intervening five years or are taking steps to do so before the end of March, 1974.
I have received some representations that March 31, 1974, is premature for qualified veterans still serving in the armed forces. I would like to mention that many such veterans are already established under the act and that others are in the process of doing so. The existing terms of the legislation are sufficiently flexible to accommodate these veterans.
In summary, I believe the terminal dates established by parliament more than eight years ago for the orderly phase out of VLA lending operations were reasonable and realistic at the time and remain so today. By next March approximately 140,000 veterans will have been settled, involving an investment of public funds of more than $1.25 billion. Those are impressive totals, and, I suggest, reflect full attainment of the purposes of this alternative rehabilitation measure as contemplated by the framers of the legislation.


PUBLIC SERVICE-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN WAGE OFFER TO NORTHWEST TERRITORIES NURSES BECAUSE OF WORKING CONDITIONS AND COST OF LIVING-DANGER PAY
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I again wish to raise the matter of pay awards to nurses in Canada's northern territories, which are inadequate almost any way you look at them. I hope the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) will not hesitate to reopen negotiations with this group of people who could have chosen the right to strike as a means of contract dispute settlement, but instead opted for arbitration. Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
November 6, 1973
Adjournment Debate
Speaker, the nurses are dissatisfied and insulted by the award of the arbitration tribunal.
Nurses at our northern hospitals and nursing stations have been offered a 6 per cent increase at a time when the national cost of living has increased by 8.2 per cent. The cost of living in Inuvik is 68 per cent higher than in the prairie provinces, where the basic wage rates for nurses are higher. In Norman Wells the cost of living is 98 per cent higher. I would like to point out to the President of the Treasury Board and those working under him that the isolation post allowance is ridiculously inadequate to cover this gap.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to outline some of the extra responsibilities facing northern nurses to which nurses in the south are generally not exposed. Nursing stations in remote northern areas have no physician nearby and the nurses must often assume responsibilities normally handled by doctors. Sometimes they must escort very ill patients from small settlements to hospitals in the larger communities, and sometimes on to Edmonton. These emergency flights are often hazardous, especially in the winter, and as a pilot I know about the fog and icing conditions that occur, the poor landing strips, and so on. Ten per cent danger pay would not seem an unreasonable demand.
A patient's condition has often been known to change in flight, again requiring special responsibility on the part of the nurse. Northern nurses have had to deliver babies and relieve haemorrhaging patients while in flight in a little Cessna 185. They have to put up with unruliness on the part of psychotics who are to be evacuated. These nurses work long hours. They are under 24-hour standby. They are often shortstaffed, and they must sometimes live in a confined environment. Surely increased sick leave and vacation leave are called for.
The nurses of the Canadian north are required to have two years training besides their high school diplomas. Their work requires heavy responsibility and high professional responsibility. They must work with human life. And what basic wage is the government offering them? Four dollars an hour-only 20 cents an hour more than full-time postal clerks. Their basic wage is to be raised 6 per cent to $7,800 per annum. At the same time, registered nurses in British Columbia receive over $8,000 a year. Auxiliary dental assistants, who require less schooling, get over $9,000.
For their 24-hour standby, nurses at the nursing stations get only 1V& days off per month. Hospital nurses are on 24-hour call for emergency cases, for which the compensation is $1.50 for eight hours, which works out to about 19 cents an hour. Nineteen cents an hour, Mr. Speaker! How can this be considered a responsible rate of compensation? Obviously it cannot.
Of course, under these conditions it is little surprise that the nurses, only a small number of whom are hired locally, do not see fit to stay on for any length of time in the north. Only four nurses currently on staff at the Inuvik hospital have more than one year's service there. It ends up costing the government more money to bring in new nurses than it would cost to give them some incentive to stay. This I consider to be a most deplorable situation.

Hon. Daniel <J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the minister is, of course, concerned to minimize the exposure to hazards of all public servants whether they are employed in the north or at the many locations where there are federal government installations across this country. The government, as employer, has issued many safety standards and guidelines in the last two or three years and the safety of public servants is under constant examination by staff at Treasury Board and, of course, by departments who in the final analysis have the responsiblity for the proper and safe deployment of their staffs.
A number of departments, including the Department of Transport, are jointly studying at this very time new policies affecting travel by public servants in chartered aircraft, particularly with regard to isolated areas. At least one department, which deploys its personnel in isolated areas, has already issued interim guidelines for field operations in the north. The government, as employer, puts its emphasis on the means of reducing to acceptable mini-mums the hazards to which public servants are exposed.


AGRICULTURE-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN RESEARCH INTO PROTEIN PRODUCTION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, on July 20, as recorded in Hansard at page 5833, I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) the following question:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the high cost of protein, and in view of the fact that Canada could rectify this problem and become self-sufficient in protein production, is the minister now prepared to authorize more money for research into high protein crops and the elimination of thiglucoside in rapeseed?
The minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, we have research programs in this respect. As I said before, I believe, to some hon. members of this House, I think we are doing more in this field than any other country and plan on doing even more.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the only part of the answer I am satisfied with is the part which states "and plan on doing even more". If Canadian agriculture is to go on feeding the millions of people in the world, improved agricultural research programs must be given more attention. The minister has consistently maintained that his department's research programs are second to none in comparison with what other countries are doing. I question the validity of this statement. However, whether or not it is true, what really matters is whether we are concentrating our efforts in the proper directions and making the optimum use of the talent and facilities available to us.
I maintain that the universities of this country have those talents and facilities available and can propel our research efforts in the proper direction. In recent years Canada's universities have been receiving a smaller and smaller percentage of the research funds available for agriculture. It has now reached the point of being ridiculous, for they are receiving only 1 per cent, that is, $600,000 of a $62 million budget, of those moneys allotted for agricultural research in Canada.
Where are all these funds going? Apparently they are being funnelled into that grey area known as the Depart-
November 6, 1973

ment of Agriculture research branch, there to be used for some unco-ordinated, nondescript activities, sometimes totally unrelated to the immediate needs of Canadian farmers.
A well known and respected Canadian scientist, Dr. P. D. MacTaggart-Cowan, has stated that it was the policy of the federal Department of Agriculture to monopolize millions of dollars and as a result starve research scientists at universities. It has long been my belief that a university professor can guide and direct as many as 35 research technicians or students toward a specific goal. At the moment most universities are lucky to have one technician for each professional on staff. University research departments are dependent on outside financing in the form of annual grants to maintain their programs. Because of this dependence on annual grants, permanent staff is very difficult to find and to keep. The best people just will not accept positions which offer small salaries and little personal security.
The biggest problem of university research today is permanent staff. As a result of this we have a definite problem of ineffective utilization of professional university people. There is, in spite of the budget, a lack of research funds in western Canada. This is evident not only at CDA research stations but universities as well. Take rapeseed for example: the project at Saskatoon is inadequately funded. In view of the protein shortage experienced this year, we should be pushing ahead at all costs to eliminate glucosinolate in rapeseed. However, I find that the research presently going on is concentrated on the Argentine variety and not the Polish variety which is best suited to the prairie region.
Besides this, I believe there are only six people working on such research. We should be encouraging universities to test new types of soil, climate, etc., for selection reasons. Even considering all this, I find that research in diseases of rapeseed has not yet got off the ground. To my astonishment, I find that the department is taking pride in building new buildings at Charlottetown, Fredericton and now at Lethbridge instead of using existing facilities or improving facilities at universities. I might add that the Alberta government is now stepping into the field in recognizing the problem and is at least guaranteeing the universities of Alberta some technical staff.
Now I shall address myself to protein self-sufficiency. Although I realize that research is being conducted in Ottawa and Winnipeg in regard to Hiproly barley, I suggest that it seems to take the initiative of western hog growers, of the Alberta Hog Marketing Board and of the province of Alberta in order to get research off the ground of any consequence with regard to high protein, high lysin barley. This is so particularly in the province of Alberta,
Adjournment Debate
the chief red-meat producing and barley producing province of Canada. And we probably have not begun any research into the use of high protein oats. Groat protein in concentrations of between 23 and 25 per cent has been tested at Iowa State University.
My contention, Sir, is that much more could be done by concentrating research on immediate needs and using university expertise, instead of wasting money on nice buildings and government research hierarchy.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the minister shares the concern of the hon. member for the cost of proteins and other agricultural inputs.
As regards proteins, I can reassure the House by saying that Canada produces more vegetable proteins than it needs for its livestock.
The hon. member has referred to the need for protein research, and it would be appropriate to mention a few aspects of the present studies. Among the most interesting developments, we can mention those relating to the reproduction of soya beans and of oats and feed wheat with a higher protein value, as well as the permanent research projects 'supported by the federal government at the University of Manitoba concerning the Faba bean (field-bean).
The department is achieving excellent genetic results concerning glucosilanates in rapeseed, and production of a variety of rapeseed with a low glucosilanate content is expected by 1975. This means simply that we then expect to get into commercial production a variety of rapeseed the oilcake from which will be used much more extensively and with a far greater flexibility than that of varieties now in use. The main restriction in all this research has to do, however, with the reproduction rate.
Through the use of hothouses and other technical means, it is possible to get two crops a year, thus reducing considerably the time required for the development of new varieties. This method has speeded up our discovery of some possibly useful varieties, and by combining these results with reproduction in warmer climates during winter, it was possible to get these useful varieties ready for commercial production in a much shorter period.
The hon. member will no doubt remember the establishment of a $1 million fund for the development of new crops, as well as the granting of an important subsidy for the pilot project concerning a plant for the processing of oil and protein in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having given me the opportunity of speaking briefly on research concerning feed with a high protein content at the Department of Agriculture.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, November 7, 1973