1973-11-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Transla t ion]

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent to move a motion.
In view of the fact that the funds allotted to local initiative projects are totally inadequate as a result of the many projects submitted in all constituencies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard):
That the minister in charge examine the possibility of granting $100 million in additional funds to meet adequately the needs of the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much whether the motion moved by the hon. member is in order since it calls for spending additional public funds. However, to prevent a debate on a point of procedure, I shall ask the House whether there is unanimous consent.
The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.

[ English]


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity relating to the delightful decision rendered today by the Quebec Superior Court in the injunction proceedings with respect to the James Bay project. I thought that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) would have been the first on his feet on this matter. In any event, I should like to move,
seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
This House looks upon the Quebec Superior Court decision in the proceedings relating to the James Bay project as being a landmark in the fight to recognize and respect aboriginal rights of the native people both in Quebec and the rest of Canada from which there must be no retreat and urges upon the government of Canada the necessity of now taking immediate and deliberative action to advance the interests of the native peoples in the James Bay area.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.

[ Translation]


AIRPORTS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent matter.
Seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), I move:
That a parliamentary committee be set up to consider the Sainte-Scholastique expropriation problem as a whole, such as criteria underlying expropriation payments made under the old 1906 expropriation legislation, but following the spirit of the new legislation according to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand), while expropriations at Pickering are carried out under the new 1970 legislation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent; the hon. member's motion cannot be put.

November 15, 1973
Pollution


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of importance relating to the transportation, handling and care of large numbers of animals and pets by airlines every year. Having regard to the many abuses to which these animals are exposed and the high mortality rate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the matter of animals and pets in transit be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications with a specific order to investigate the lack of adequate facilities at our airports for these animals.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43,1 request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the present energy crisis and the fact that following a special study of the situation, American specialists have advised the American government to return to Daylight Saving Time to save their energy resources as much as possible, and that a bill aimed at saving thousands of oil and fuel barrels will be introduced before Congress shortly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the Canadian government discuss the possibility of developing or implementing within a month some regulations or a bill aimed at using Daylight Saving Time throughout the year.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


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



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House under Standing Order 43 to move a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the possibility of Canada leasing or otherwise acquiring oil tankers to move crude oil out of the port of Vancouver through the Strait of Juan de Fuca to eastern Canada. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That the government should immediately take steps to have the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act apply to the Pacific coast especially so that oil tankers which may be needed to carry Canadian oil from the port of Vancouver to eastern Canada be required to meet the stringent standards set out in that act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



HOUSING


Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43.
In view of the increase in construction costs and of the present 11 per cent tax on building materials, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House consider the possibility of imposing a ceiling on the interest rates on loans of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity; the motion cannot be put.
November 15, 1973



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of the decision by Mr. Justice Malouf upholding the rights of the native people of the James Bay area, will the government now assume its constitutional authority and itself institute thorough and detailed negotiations with the Indians of the area about settlement of their rights so that never again can the way of life of these people be endangered by a third party?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. member was rising to congratulate the government because we financed the Indians in that case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would like the hon. member to recognize also that our judgment was very good when we said that the Indians were able to defend themselves. I would not substitute myself for them and be paternalistic, as she would have been.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Now that the minister has had his licks, I wonder whether he would return to the question period and answer the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but after five years, four months and ten days in this job I thought I could have a few moments of satisfaction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In reply to the question may I say that I have said many times in the last year and a half that this problem could not be solved in the courts, that it can be solved through negotiation. I have discussed it with the Quebec government about a dozen times and also with the Indians. I hope that the decision of the court will bring the parties back to the table. I will be there to help in reaching a final solution any time they want me there, and I hope the solution will be acceptable to both parties.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am not
quite sure, Mr. Speaker, how the minister can accuse me of being paternalistic.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Touche.
Oral Questions


Mr. Hees:: Withdraw.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Will the minister give an assurance to the House that the government will not take any action in relation to its powers over fisheries, navigable waters, the environment, migratory birds and, most important, its powers over Indians and the lands reserved for Indians, without full discussion and with the consent of the native people whose lives are so vitally affected?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have proven our action in that regard. I had the pleasure this week of discussing the whole situation with the Indians of Quebec who came to my office. We discussed the two possibilities, either they win or they lose, and in both cases I told them that I want to be with them as I have been all the time. On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I used the term "paternalistic" because I did not want to be accused by the hon. member of being a male chauvinist.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the minister please now answer the question whether or not he will give an assurance to the House under the acts I mentioned?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The position of the federal government on all those aspects is well known to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Mr. Oberle:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River rises on a point of order.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just informed the House that on many occasions he has said in the House of Commons and in committee that he wants to negotiate with the natives of Quebec and the Quebec government. What he has said in fact in the House of Commons and in committee many times is that the matter is in court, that he will abide by the decision of the court, and that there is no need for negotiations now.


Mr. Speaker:: That may be a very interesting point of debate. The minister wishes to reply and there may be others who will want to reply. I am sure hon. members do not want to get into a debate at this point. The minister rises on the point of order, and of course I will hear him.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, if hon. members will check the record they will see that the hon. member is wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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

November 15, 1973
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INITIATE NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROVINCE OF QUEBEC ON BEHALF OF JAMES BAY INDIANS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. By way of introduction may I say that if one checks the record of the minister's statements one will find him on both sides of everything all the time. I now ask him a very clear question to which he has not replied yet anywhere that I know of. Will he take the initiative on behalf of the Indians of the province of Quebec and negotiate on their behalf with the Quebec government in accordance with his constitutional responsibility?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to talk to the Indians and if they want me to be paternalistic I will be, but I will take their advice. The Indians of Quebec have proven today, and over recent months, that they themselves can do good work and negotiate for themselves. However, I will be available any time they want me to be with them to advise them. I have very good relationships with them and I will be with them any time they ask for me, but I do not intend to impose myself upon them because I do not consider them to be kids, as the hon. member does.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Skeena in a moment, but the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands rises on a point of order.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that the Indians have asked him to be paternalistic.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: They have never asked him to be paternalistic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: They have asked him to assume his constitutional responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all possible respect to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, I suggest that again this is debate. Perhaps we might try to continue with questions and answers.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, we all know the minister has to grasp at almost anything to make a point because his case is not good. I ask the hon. gentleman, why did he reject the pleas for help earlier?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have never refused to help the Indian people on this matter. I have discussed it with the Quebec government before the trial and during the trial, trying to get them-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the hon. member was debate. It is based on an allegation which the minister attempts to refute. In any event, all this is debate and we should now try to continue with the question period.


Frank Howard: On a point of order, and with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, it was not a point of debate; it was a point of fact.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising out of the latest report of the Economic Council of Canada. In view of the report's corroboration of the fact that our present income tax structure forces middle and lower income Canadians to finance the great bulk of social security and other transfer payments, and since I am sure the minister will agree that these valuable schemes should not be discouraged, can he indicate what steps the government is contemplating to redistribute the tax burden in a significant way through the tax structure?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that question, of course, has budgetary implications which could only be met on the proper occasion.


Terrence Wyly Grier: In view of the evidence adduced from corporate profit reports in recent months, is consideration being given to the removal of corporate tax concessions granted earlier this year, and is the minister contemplating an increase in tax rates for corporations and upper income Canadians?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would direct the same type of answer to that question except to say that, as a result of the additional cash flow given to manufacturers and processors this year, capital investment intentions expanding productive capacity and providing more jobs are running 20 per cent over those of last year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a last supplementary, followed by the hon. member for Compton.


POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO ROLL BACK PRICE INCREASES
Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Finance for that reply which is precisely the same as the one he gave to a question I asked two weeks ago. May I direct a final supplementary to the Prime Minister and ask whether in view of the assurances-I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I seem to be having some difficulty in engaging the attention of the front
November 15, 1973

benches. I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the assurances he has given in the House that the government would intervene to protect Canadian consumers, is the government currently considering legislation to enable it to intervene on a selective basis to roll back price increases where they are, in the opinion of the government, unjustified?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government is still the same as I indicated earlier in October-in September, sorry.


An hon. Member:: A sitting position.


DEVELOPMENT OF QUEBEC OIL RESOURCES IN LIGHT OF PRICE INCREASES
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Considering the unprecedented oil price increase and the trouble caused to the eastern provinces, is the minister considering tapping Quebec oil resources?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there are at present exploration programs undertaken in Quebec by private enterprises as well as by SOQUIP. For the time being, I think the results are not very encouraging but we wish success to the participants, we hope their efforts will be successful and that they will find a source of crude oil in Quebec, over and above those of the maritime coast.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, will the minister take the necessary steps to determine the potentialities and help find new resources and make possible the tapping of those that already exist in Quebec?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, through the officials of my department, we informed the Quebec government and all those who are involved in geological potentialities in Quebec. It is up to the province of Quebec to promote these programs.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Does he accept the recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada in its report that the annual rate of increase in government transfer payments between 1973 and 1976, including unemployment insurance, should be limited to 11 per cent? I hope the minister does not tell me he has not read the report yet.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I just received the report yesterday as did every other member.


An hon. Member:: What is your answer?


John Napier Turner: My answer is that I would want to read the report carefully and analyse the question.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL REPORT-CONCERN EXPRESSED ABOUT GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES RESULTING IN HIGHER PERSONAL TAXATION-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the concern the Economic Council of Canada has expressed that the trend of increases in government expenditures that they have foreseen will result in higher personal taxation of the middle and lower income groups, may I ask the Minister of Finance what measures he proposes to take to meet that concern?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the conclusion of the Economic Council of Canada necessarily follows from its premise. As to what budgetary results might follow, that action would be announced by the government at the appropriate time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the minister not feel that he should concern himself seriously about some of these concerns of the Economic Council of Canada? Does he accept the view of the council that an increase in personal income tax is in fact inflationary under current conditions because it tends to encourage individuals to maintain the same take-home pay after taxation? What measures does the minister intend to take in the highly inflationary era in which we are now living in Canada to ensure that the inflation resulting from the increases in taxation which the Economic Council says the minister's policies will bring about will not erode the value of the transfer payments that are being made?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of sense in what the council says, if it is directing itself to governments, federal, provincial and municipal, about reconciling priorities and exercising some restraint on the expenditure side. As to what budgetary consequences follow, I agree with the hon. gentleman to a certain extent and with the council that a tax increase has an inflationary component, I suppose, in strict economic theory and also takes money out of the demand stream and would have the opposite effect. It depends on whether you are looking at the psychological effect of taxation or at the strict economic viewpoint.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell the House on which side of that question he is?
7818

November 15, 1973
Oral Questions


ECONOMIC COUNCIL REPORT-POSSIBILITY OF REPLACEMENT OF INCOME TAX INDEXING BY TAX CREDIT SYSTEM
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the concern raised in the Economic Council report yesterday about inflation and the fact that the minister's tax indexing policy is both inflationary and regressive, can the minister say whether he is considering scrapping the income tax indexing system in order to replace it with a tax credit system which would provide low and middle income earners with a much greater tax break?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, relatively, the greatest beneficiaries of the indexing system are the middle class income earners.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will note that there are perhaps ten members, without exaggeration, seeking supplementaries on this subject. I am not sure whether we should have that many. For the moment I will recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, and then the hon. member for Central Nova.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL REPORT-PERFORMANCE GOALS- INFLATION RATE-MINISTER'S ASSESSMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one final supplementary. I would ask the minister for his assessment of some of the recommendations about performance goals in the council's report and, specifically, whether he is abandoning 3 per cent inflation as a rate in this country? Can he tell the people what rate of inflation they can expect in the years to come?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that target was the target of the Economic Council of Canada and I think the report indicates that its targets are targets and not forecasts. They are targets that are subject to revision. Indeed, the Economic Council itself revised several of those targets. As for the latter part of the question, I would not want the hon. gentleman to confuse my target with a forecast.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact the government paid some $638 million in 1972 and 1973 for outside consultants, will the Prime Minister instruct his ministers to use their staffs more efficiently and reduce the inflationary effects? Perhaps we could do without some of these luxuries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question was more in the nature of a representation.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct to the Minister of Finance a supplementary question arising out of the report of the Economic Council of Canada. In view of the fact that recipients of transfer payments and various social benefits are the victims rather the creators of inflation, will the government make it clear that it rejects any suggestion that there should not be further improvements in social benefits?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I said when I proposed the indexing of old age pensions to begin with, and this has since been followed in other areas of transfer payments, that I did not intend to fight inflation on the backs of those on fixed incomes or on lower income scale.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION THAT COMMITTEE OF HOUSE BE ESTABLISHED TO CONSIDER POLICY

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared to implement recommendation No. 4 on page 73 of the Economic Council's report wherein the council, recognizing the failure of the government to develop new initiatives with respect to economic policy, recommends that a committee of the House of Commons be set up for that purpose?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there are already standing committees of the House of Commons, and the Minister of Finance is before one or other of them frequently.



FEED GRAIN-ASSURANCE OF SUFFICIENT SUPPLY OF BARLEY AND OATS TO PRODUCERS

Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board?
Can he assure this House and, especially the producers in the east and in British Columbia that there is a sufficient stock of grain available more specifically barley and oats for the winter months?
[ English]


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure hon. members that the Canadian Wheat Board is making every effort to put the necessary feed grains for domestic use into place. Specifically, in the case of oats a great deal has been and is being moved into Thunder Bay and is being moved from there to the domestic market. At the same time, the current domestic price situation will mean that a certain amount of corn will be purchased and
November 15, 1973

7819 moved for eastern feeding purposes. If the total movement during the season while the lakes are open is not adequate for domestic purposes, consideration is being given to adding to the movement by rail in order that domestic needs are met.



PURCHASES OF OIL DISTILLATES BY CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Can the minister tell the House what specific spot purchases of middle distillates the Canadian Commercial Corporation has made to date on the international market, and what other purchases it is negotiating?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, we have bought some 40 million gallons of heating fuel and we are continuing to explore the market to see if we could make new purchases.



INQUIRY AS TO PRICE OF HEATING OIL PURCHASED BY CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION AND PAYMENT OF COMMISSION

Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What price is the government paying for this oil through the Canadian Commercial Corporation, is it paying a commission, what commission is being paid, and to whom?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, we have negotiated some terms for establishing the price. It will be set up on delivery and I am therefore unable to say exactly what it will be. I do not want to impede eventual negotiations with other companies for the purchase of fuel by disclosing the price today. As for the commission, it was paid to Toronto dealers and once again, I am not in position to disclose its amount in order also not to interfere with eventual negotiations.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary South, followed by the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the minister is in a position to say to whom he has given this blank cheque?
Oral Questions



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He stated earlier that he was right in the imbroglio now existing between the Quebec government and James Bay Indians. Does the minister know why Mr. Justice Arthur Malouf gave his ruling 15 days after the Quebec provincial elections instead of 15 days before, so as not to play politics as he is doing now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that it is out of order and against parliamentary traditions to criticize as he just did a judge of one of the Canadian courts. [English]
I believe that a few members wish to ask supplementar-ies to previous questions. I will start with the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North, and then another hon. member.



FUNDY TIDAL POWER-STATUS OF RE-EXAMINATION OF REPORT

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, may I follow up the question I put yesterday to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister provide us with any information on the longer term possibilities for tidal energy in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Sir. I find that the joint study group and the programming board which has been restudying the possibility of tidal power in the Bay of Fundy had commissioned a number of expert reports on certain relevant questions. It is anticipated these reports will be received by January, 1974, and that recommendations will then be going forward to the board on whether further work should be done on the project and whether further studies are required. The preliminary indication is, as the hon. member may have anticipated, that while fossil fuels have become less competitive with the project, nuclear power has become more so.



PROVISION OF SUFFICIENT RAILWAY CARS TO ENSURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I have a question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, Mr. Speaker. It arises from a statement by a commissioner of the Wheat Board that lake ships were diverted from Thunder Bay to Duluth on Lake Superior to pick up grain
26635-64.1

November 15, 1973
Oral Questions
because grain was not available at Thunder Bay, and his further statement that if they could get the boxcars they could do the job. Has the minister yet received any firm assurance from the major railways that they will make sufficient boxcars available to ensure that Thunder Bay will work at capacity for the remainder of the season?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the assurances were not in those terms. The railways indicated the number of cars they would be dedicating to the movement of grain between the present time and the close of the navigation season. We are watching very closely to see whether they are in fact making that number of cars available.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the very serious situation which affects not only feed supplies for eastern Canada but also our export markets, is the minister prepared to take the House into his confidence and tell us what commitment the railways actually made?


Otto Emil Lang: I would be glad to give the House the figures as to the precise number of cars each railroad has agreed to put into grain movement. I am sure I can have those figures available almost immediately.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The hon. gentleman said on Friday last, as reported in Hansard, page 7701, that he hoped one of the provinces would ask about details of railway rate structures. Since the minister himself received such a request from ministers of the four western provinces on October 1, and since he himself transmitted that request to the Canadian Transport Commission, may I ask when those provinces may expect to receive the information concerning freight rates on western coal which might serve Ontario markets?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: At the
western economic opportunities conference the commitment we made was to have the Canadian Transport Commission and the railway companies give the information at the request of the provinces. The provinces have made a number of specific requests and information with respect to them will be forwarded. There is nothing I know of which concerns coal. These are not general requests. They are specific requests for specific types of information.


Charles Joseph Clark: I would ask the minister to check his recollection to determine whether in fact two of those specific requests did not relate directly to coal. Are his officials presently making inquiries into the suggestion made by Ontario that the proposed freight rates on Alberta coal are inflated far above actual costs and, if so, will he advise the House as to the results of that inquiry since they may have important implications in the area of fuel use in Ontario?


Jean Marchand: I think the hon. member has mixed all kinds of problems together. On October 1, no increase was asked by either the CPR or the CNR with respect to the transportation of coal. This came later, and this is why the request of October 1 could not relate to the request made later. As far as the latest request is concerned, I think we shall have to wait until the provinces ask specifically for this kind of information before we get an answer.



REQUEST THAT NATIONAL DEFENCE AIRCRAFT BE MADE


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Defence. Bearing in mind that this is National Apple Week and in view of the serious situation in which Okanagan apple growers find themselves because of the inability of the railway companies to supply cars to move their fruit to eastern Canada, will the minister make available a Hercules or other suitable aircraft to move this fruit into eastern Canada.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: I explained to the House yesterday the heavy task that our Hercules and Boeings are engaged in at the present time, flying our personnel to the Middle East, and I do not think we would accede to that request.

[ Translation]



AIRPORTS


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works.
Despite other offers made recently by the government and because of the dissatisfaction expressed by the people expropriated from Ste Scholastique, does the minister intend to implement the suggestion I made over a month ago to the leader of the government that a parliamentary committee be given the task of considering and solving the Ste Scholastique issue?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Publics Works):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday we announced to the expropriated people in Ste Scholastique five very generous and non-compulsory measures which were not provided in the law. We hope that those people will have an opportunity to consider our proposals in coolness and serenity and I believe that this should definitely solve the problem.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, will the minister agree that a standing committee should sit to consider that issue?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, it is not up to me to decide what the standing committees should study or who should establish them. I have no objection but I think it is important to satisfy the people concerned and that is what we are trying to do.
November 15, 1973



PROVISION OF SUFFICIENT RAILWAY CARS-REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE FOR FREIGHT CONTROLLER

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and concerns the freight car situation to which allusion has been made by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. There is an apparent disregard by the railway companies of the reasonable demand of western farmers that a reasonable provision of freight cars be made available to them. This has been denied them because of the kinds of freight that pay the railway companies higher and faster returns. Bearing in mind the serious situation that has developed in consequence of the railway companies treating requests for cars with supercilious contempt, will the minister consider bringing in legislation immediately to provide for a freight controller with mandatory power to direct the railway companies to supply what in his opinion, after consultation with the Wheat Board, is the necessary number of cars, so that the present situation on the Prairies may thereby be remedied?


Otto Emil Lang: We are not
considering that, Mr. Speaker. The government has held discussions with the railroads so that we could be satisfied that everything is being done to move the maximum amount of grain. The right hon. gentleman will appreciate that colleagues of his from other parts of the country understand the need for additional cars for the movement of lumber and of apples, for the movement of potash, which is very important, and the movement of fruit. I can assure the right hon. gentleman that the railways are not acting in a supercilious way but are attempting to move the maximum amount of traffic. While not as much grain is moving to Thunder Bay and Vancouver as we would like, the amount in store at Thunder Bay has been gradually creeping up and the volume on hand in Vancouver has risen from very low levels to some 10 or 11 million bushels, which does indicate that some progress is being made.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister expresses, apparently, qualified satisfaction with the way in which the railway companies are acting. He does not represent the view of western Canada in taking this stand. I am asking him whether he will give consideration to providing for the appointment of a freight controller to make the necessary allotments which should be made to ensure a fair deal for western agriculture, something it is not receiving today?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question, which the right hon. gentleman has repeated, by saying no. However, let me make it even more clear to the right hon. gentleman that if there were any indication that the railways were not being fair as between products and, in particular, that they were being unfair to grain, I would urge that some such step be taken. However, as long as it would mean taking boxcars away from the fruit and lumber movement, and since there would not necessarily be any net advantage in that, the question really is wheth-
Oral Questions
er the railways are doing the best possible job they can in moving-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Otto Emil Lang: -the maximum amount of product, and are they being fair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MANPOWER


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question and possibly a supplementary for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since the minister is not here perhaps I can direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Since it is virtually impossible for a member of parliament to reconcile the LIP grant allocations with the job vacancy figures published by Canada Manpower Centres, is the minister prepared to reveal, when he appears before the miscellaneous estimates committee later this month, a detailed riding by riding analysis and the formula upon which these allocations are based?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that as usual the minister will be prepared to answer as fully as possible all questions asked him by the committee.


Mark Willson Rose: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may ask a supplementary, following which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how it would be possible for the minister to give us details for ridings that do not have a Canada Manpower Centre, but in view of the unexplainable anomalies, and the dark suspicions arising therefrom, in the allocation of the 1973-74 LIP grants, are the minister and his officials now considering an improved formula for next year; and what can the minister tell the House now about this matter, or what is he prepared to tell us about it?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice for the appropriate time.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, in asking my question of the Minister of State for

November 15, 1973
Oral Questions
Urban Affairs who is in charge of housing I should like to make reference to a commitment that a former Prime Minister made to the civil service and official agents of the government, namely, the commitment that a procedure would be followed that would allow for an appeal in the event of dismissal of a senior official of the government or its agencies. Would the minister tell the House today why this procedure that was established in 1963 by the then Prime Minister, the late Lester Pearson, was not followed during the firing of Walter Rudnicki, a senior official of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Because the circumstances to which Mr. Pearson's statement and those procedures referred were not the circumstances of the subject case.



DISMISSAL OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POLICY PLANNING DIVISION-ORIGIN OF DECISION-REQUEST FOR REVIEW

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the president of CMHC is new to his position and therefore unfamiliar with the mysteries of government procedures, would the minister inform the House whether the order to fire Mr. Rudnicki came from the Clerk of the Privy Council or from the minister himself?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear to the House that decisions on personnel matters within CMHC are made by the president.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have just about come to the end of the question period. I will allow a supplementary from the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, and then the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I take it from the minister's remarks he is saying that the firing was undertaken entirely on the initiative of Mr. Teron. If so, in view of the inexperience of the CMHC president and the vital importance of Mr. Rudnicki's experience to the success of the housing program for Canada's native people, would the minister now review the dismissal with a view to reinstating Mr. Rudnicki?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered that question two or three times already.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the question that still remains with respect to the propriety of the Rudnicki matter, would the minister be prepared to undertake to the House to consult with the chairman of the miscellaneous estimates committee so that when the minister appears before the committee, as he will in a week or so, he will bring with him Mr. Teron, Mr. Belcourt, Mr. Rudnicki and the Clerk of the Privy Council in order that this matter can be looked into fully by the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister answered that question the other day by saying that there are procedures within the House for such an examination.



MANPOWER


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that a survey by the association representing Canada Manpower employees indicates that a majority of these employees feel that the new systems introduced during the past two years do not help the members in the discharge of their duties, what steps has the minister taken in response to these disturbing revelations?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

[ Translation]



AIRPORTS


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Will the right hon. Prime Minister be announcing very soon, as mentioned in the motion introduced today under Standing Order 43, the creation of a parliamentary committee to look into the settlement of claims by those expropriated at Ste Scholastique and the difference in allowances with those paid at Pickering, as requested by the people expropriated at Ste Scholastique for a long time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not get the first part of the question but I think it should rather be put to the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Transport.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, since the right hon. Prime Minister did not understand the first part of my question and that it does not come under the jurisdiction of the other two ministers can he say, to set the record straight for the people expropriated at Ste Scholastique and Pickering, if he is in favour of creating a parliamentary committee to deal with that imbroglio?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the point of the question and the alleged discrimination. As far as I can see that is certainly the wish of this government and I think the parties in both cases were treated on an equal basis.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that at the end of the question period yesterday the Chair indicated to the hon. member
November 15, 1973

for High Park-Humber Valley that he would have an opportunity today to rephrase the question he asked yesterday. He will be recognized for that purpose since I have noticed that he has been seeking the floor. Then the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster before calling orders of the day.



PARTICIPACTION ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN-FAMILY PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAMS

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Notwithstanding the fact that Participaction is a private organization set up financially by the minister's department as a non-profit organization receiving federal subsidies for its operations, can the minister advise the House why his department has failed to follow up the massive and, I might add, very effective campaign with any family physical fitness programs for the Canadian people?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the hon. member made the effort to verify the facts and to correct the allegation he made yesterday in this House. I am also glad to see that Sport Participaction made an excellent job in getting from the private sector a contribution of more than $8 for each dollar in subsidies obtained from the public sector. If the hon. member wants to make the effort to examine all the activities of my department in the area of sport and physical fitness, he will realize that we made enormous progress during the last few years.



INQUIRY AS TO STATEMENT ON GUIDELINES FOR CONSERVATION THIS WINTER

Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when we can expect his statement on the guidelines regarding conservation of energy for the coming winter from both the Ottawa and the national standpoint, since most other countries have already taken action?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there is a meeting with the provinces today to discuss this program in general terms. After I have received a report of that meeting I shall be in a better position to report to the House.
Middle East Peacekeeping Force



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader about the business for the coming week, keeping in mind that there may be an option for tomorrow?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the debate on the Middle East resolution this afternoon, to be followed by the foreign review investment bill, followed by second reading of the National Parks Act and then the report stage of the privacy or wiretapping bill. My hon. friend suggested we might vary that order, and I will be happy to discuss that with my colleagues later in the day or early tomorrow morning.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader whether it is the intention of the government to proceed with the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act and, if so, when?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is not my present intention to call second reading of that bill during this session with the expectation that the session might conclude by Christmastime. If it is extended beyond that I may change that intention.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: On the same matter, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government House leader is doing this intentionally, but I should like to bring to his attention that this is the second time he has called this bill "the foreign review investment act", and it should be the Foreign Investment Review Act.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 14, consideration of the motion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp):
That it be resolved by the.House of Commons:
That it is expedient that the Houses of Parliament do approve the Government's decision that Canadian Forces participate in the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East, and that this House do approve the same.
And that a Message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this House has adopted a resolution approving of the participation of Canadian Forces in the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East, and requesting Their Honours to unite with this House in the approval of the same by filling up the blanks in the resolution with the words "Senate and".
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House makes it possible for hon. members to examine the projected employment of Canadian troops in the area of the Arab-Israeli war. It also gives us a chance to assess Canadian participation in other

November 15, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force peacekeeping operations in which Canadians have been and are taking part, so that we may learn and benefit from these past and present experiences, and thus make sure our troops are used in the most effective manner.
First of all, I believe that the proposal to send Canadian troops to the Middle East to take part in this present operation is a sound one, and that the experiences we have gained by taking part in other such operations will make it possible for our troops to do a good job in this important assignment. I and other members of the House have just recently returned from a visit to Cyprus where the Canadian delegation enroute to the NATO conference at Ankara were able to inspect the peacekeeping operations being carried out on that island. I think all of us who were there, and who had a chance to look over these operations, were very much impressed by the way our personnel in that force are carrying out their duties. I think we were all very proud to be associated with them.
I also formed the very definite opinion that Colonel Beattie, the deputy-commander of the United Nations operations in Cyprus, has a very great knowledge of what is needed to carry out a peacekeeping operation. He has been to Egypt several times to give advice on peacekeeping operations, and I think he is fully qualified to be in charge of this operation carried out by Canada.
The kind of operation which is being carried out at the present time in the area of the Arab-Israeli war, like the one in Cyprus, is that of keeping two combatants apart after a ceasefire has been arranged following bitter fighting. Important though this kind of work is, I believe, and I think we would all agree, that it is not nearly as important as keeping potential combatants from beginning hostilities in the first place. In order that we may study how we might be able to do more of this kind of important work in the future, I suggest we take a look at the operation which has been going on for a number of years to see whether improvements can be made.
As we all know, 25 years ago 14 nations of the western world joined together in a collective security pact known as NATO, which is by far the largest and most important peacekeeping operation the world has ever known. Each country pledged forces in keeping with their population and national income. Canada's contribution was a combined air and armoured unit comprised of 10,000 men. This was our contribution toward keeping the world free from devastation by a third world war. The purpose of this alliance was to convince the members of the Warsaw Pact that aggressive action would be more costly than rewarding. Largely because of the nuclear capability of the United States, a major conflict has been avoided so far.
However, at the recently concluded NATO conference in Ankara two very disturbing facts were brought to light. The first was that at the present rate of progress the Russians are expected to equal the United States capability in producing nuclear weapons in from two to three years. This projected standoff in nuclear armament will, of course, increase the importance of the conventional weapons being used by the two opposing forces in Europe.
The second bit of knowledge that came to light was that the capability of the conventional weapons used by the communist forces is being improved at a considerably faster pace than that of the weapons being used by NATO

forces. Outstanding examples of this are the SAM missiles, which are unequalled by anything on the NATO side. The second example is the Russian T 62 tank, which is the standard equipment of the communist armoured forces, and is unequalled in performance by anything except the West German Leopard, a tank which has very great speed, manoeuverability, and rate of fire. This tank can move at a rate of speed of 45 miles per hour, it is very manoeuverable and can fire at full speed. It has a rate of fire somewhat similar to that of a machine gun. It is a really remarkable piece of mechanism.
When talking with delegates from other NATO countries at this conference, and with the Secretary General, it became obvious that the Russians have used the Arab-Israeli war as a testing ground for their new weapons in exactly the same manner as the Russians and Germans used the Spanish civil war to test their new weapons in the 1930's. I think it is a well-known fact today that if the Arab fighting men and generalship had been even close or equal to that of the Israelis, with the superior equipment supplied to the Arabs by the Russians, they would have been able to win a quick victory, within two or three days at the most. In light of these facts I think we should take a look at our own country's performance in NATO forces.
Five years ago, the Canadian government unilaterally cut the strength of our contribution in half. Since then the government has allowed our tanks, which are used by our armoured force, to become worn out and obsolete. I visited the force last spring. I saw our equipment. The men who operate the equipment are absolutely first class. The equipment they have, to use, especially the tanks, is worn out, obsolete and literally held together by baling wire simply because they cannot get spare parts. It is obvious that the Russian T 62 tanks would destroy our tanks in very short order, with the obvious disastrous effects this would bring about and the high and unnecessary loss of Canadian lives.
It is obvious also that if our allies had followed the example of Canada in carrying out their NATO obligations, the greatly weakened NATO force would a long time ago have invited the Russians to engage, in some other area, in the kind of action which they promoted against Israel, and probably on a far larger scale. If there is any doubt in our minds concerning the intentions of the Russians these days, let us not forget how they moved their tanks into Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Such action undoubtedly would involve Canada and the rest of the world in a third world war.
In case there are any members in the House who have any misconceptions about the attitude of the Russians toward us, and if any of us think their attitude has softened toward the west and that they want peacefully to co-exist with us in a world of order and progress, I would ask members to listen for a few minutes to what Dr. J. M. Luns, the Secretary General of NATO, a man whose job it is to be in close touch with communist attitudes and actions, had to say at the recent NATO conference at Ankara about the situation brought about by the Arab-Israeli war. Dr. Luns said the following:
November 15, 1973

Statesmen had been speaking of a movement from a period of confrontation to a period of negotiation. There was an increasing tendency to refer to detente, not as something which we were hoping and working to bring about, but as something which was already with us; or if not actually with us, only just around the corner.
But Soviet behaviour when war broke out once more in the Middle East, raised all over again the old doubts and uncertainties about Soviet intentions, and about the genuineness of Soviet interest in a policy of detente.
I am reminded of the situation at the time that Soviet forces invaded Czechoslovakia. That, too, came as a shock at a time when East/West relations were showing signs of improvement. It seems a long time ago now. But, in fact, it was only five years. In our wishing and our hoping for a more secure and stable and peaceful world, how quickly we put aside and forget disappointments and shocking events! How ready we are to believe that things have changed for the better! Psychologists tell us that we are all inclined to remember what is agreeable and to forget what is disagreeable. This seems to go for nations as much as for individuals.
It was this behaviour, this fuelling and stoking of the flames of war, which caused us such deep concern; which provoked people into asking whether improved East/West relations could survive or had any meaning. Since then there have been some encouraging signs. There have been Dr. Kissinger's discussions with Mr. Brezhnev which led to agreement on the text of a ceasefire resolution.
Nevertheless you may well argue that the Soviet response was unduly slow in coming; that there may have been in it a certain opportunism in the light of events on the battlefield, and one could maintain that Soviet behaviour lends force to the argument that for the Soviet leadership detente is a tactic and no more. Those who hold this view argue that the purpose of detente, in Soviet eyes, is to provide the time and means needed for the Soviet Union to solve its immediate internal problems and remedy its weaknesses, for example in the management of the economy, in agriculture, in the field of technology. And once this is done, the Soviet leadership will set out once again, from a position of yet greater strength, on an old course aimed at widening Soviet influence and domination throughout the world but especially throughout Western Europe.
Mr. Speaker, those words of Dr. Luns outline the situation which exists in Europe which has been very much sharpened and brought to light by Soviet activity in promoting and supplying the Arab forces in this latest conflict. This analysis was made by a man of tremendous intelligence and respect in Europe, a man whose job it is to analyze communist intentions very accurately indeed. That is the situation in Europe which was described to those of us who were delegates to the latest NATO conference at Ankara by our fellow delegates from the other countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This is the opinion of men from countries whose borders join the Warsaw Pact countries who daily can see the armed might of the communist forces across their frontier and watch them grow steadily in numbers and in combat ability.
So, in conclusion, I think it is obvious that if this country is to play its full part in by far the most important peacekeeping operation in the world today we must not forget this point. We talk very proudly of the peacekeeping operations in which we are involved, but we must not forget this operation, by far the most important, in which we are engaged today and which is aimed at preventing the beginning of a third world war. If we are to play our full part in this important operation we must immediately do two things. First, we must restore our NATO force to the numbers which we as a country solemnly and willing-
Middle East Peacekeeping Force ly pledged to NATO some 25 years ago, pledges that have been maintained by allies but not by us. Second, we must arm that force with the most modern armament that is available. To do less would be to do a disservice to our country, and would be an act of criminal negligence against the men that we ask to fight for us on the front line of Europe if a conflict should ever occur.
If we continue to act as we have, we will be acting in a way to invite aggressive action that, in my view and in the view of those attending the NATO conference in Ankara and I believe all thinking people in the world today, will eventually involve this country and the rest of the world in a third world war.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in this discussion of the resolution concerning Canadian participation in the United Nations Emergency Force for the Middle East it is essential that we maintain our perspective on events. The pure tempo of events, the intensity of the conflict and the rapid escalation in the levels of confrontation experienced following the resumption of warfare in the Middle East on October 6, can destroy that perspective.
The warning signals for a potential conflict that would spill out of the Middle East into a possibly larger arena were becoming increasingly evident. It was essential that a mechanism be brought into play that could immediately diminish the developing confrontation and, at the same time, assist in halting the fighting on the battlefield. The United Nations Organization, with the Security Council, provided the required mechanism.
One does not have to be a historian to have a practical perspective on the events of this century. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) drew our attention to events in the Balkan states which eventually culminated in world war I. He also implied a possible parallel with the events of the past few weeks in the Middle East and the potential for a third world conflict. I share his concern and could not agree more with his theme.
Following world war I, an effort was made through the League of Nations to establish an organization through which future conflicts could be avoided. It did not prove to be successful. Why? The League of Nations foundered through lack of support of member nations in periods of crisis. It did not have any peacekeeping mechanisms within its structure, and I think these are two very important factors that should be considered when comparing the League of Nations and the United Nations.
Individual nations pursued isolationist policies in whole or in part during the unsettled history of the League of Nations. Isolationist policies have not contributed to world peace in past history. As a matter of fact, I believe that such policies contribute, either directly or indirectly, to world conflict. Negligence, in the assumption of responsibilities by member nations resulted in the effective collapse of the League of Nations. At this time I would like to quote a paragraph from "The Geneva Racket, 1920-1939" by Robert Dell which reads as follows;

November 15, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force
From the first the League was inevitably dominated by England and France, and was predominantly a European institution, although ten of its thirty-one original members and seven of the thirteen States invited to accede to the covenant were European States. Of the four great powers with permanent seats on the Council three were European and, in the absence of the United States, Japan was the only power outside Europe that could be called a great power. China has the largest population of any country in the world and the population of Brazil is just about the same as those of France and Italy but a great power in the diplomatic sense of the term is a power with great military strength and this will continue to be the case so long as the world is ruled by power-politics.
I think it is important to point out at this time that Canada, as a middle power in the world, has shown leadership and therefore has made the peacekeeping purposes and the multipurposes leading to peace, as the role given to it by the United Nations, practical and workable in modern day history. I think that is something of which this parliament can well be proud.
World war II followed in wake of the collapse of the League of Nations. Between 1931 and 1936 Japan invaded Manchuria. In spite of the efforts by the League of Nations and its members, Japan rejected any efforts on the part of the League to settle the war. This, in itself, weakened the League. Then, between 1936 and the outbreak of world war II the following events took place as outlined in the Encyclopedia Britannica. After 1936:
... Hitler has denounced the Locarno pact (March 1936). A few months later Italy and Germany formed what was known as the Rome-Berlin axis, soon joined by Japan. All three were violently hostile to the League; among its members, only those which, like France, the U.S.S.R. or Czechoslovakia, were looking everywhere for possible support against German aggression continued to affirm their belief in collective security. While in Washington congress was passing the successive Neutrality acts, the majority of League members were declaring that they no longer considered themselves bound by the obligations of the covenant.
Although in this last period of its history the organs of the League continued to meet as before and performed some useful tasks, the main international problems were, as in the first period, dealt with outside Geneva. In the swift succession of crises-the Spanish civil war, Japan's invasion of China, the annexations of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Albania-reference to the League was either a mere formality or else omitted. When World War II broke out in Sept. 1939, no appeal of any sort was made to Geneva. Yet, in Dec. 1939 Finland did appeal for help against Soviet aggression, and the assembly decided to organize such help for Finland as it could, while the council declared the exclusion of the U.S.S.R. from the League.
No further meetings of the council or assembly took place during the war. Thanks to U.S. and Canadian hospitality, the economic and social work of the League was continued on a limited scale; but its political activity was at an end.
I use that quotation to demonstrate the fact that Canada, within the ambit of its power, at no time let down the League of Nations. Therefore, Canada is one nation that cannot be accused of causing the demise of the League of Nations. In our modern day, using the present instance in the Middle East as yet another example, Canada since the founding of the United Nations cannot be accused of letting down that organization at any stage in its history.
World War II followed in the wake of the collapse of the League of Nations. The toll in human lives, the human suffering and misery, the physical destruction that result-

ed could not continue to be tolerated by mankind. It was this realization that led to the creation of the United Nations. In the interval between the collapse of the League of Nations and the creation of the United Nations, mankind had learned that there was a requirement for a peacekeeping mechanism to be built into this new structure. What has been the result?
Many times the United Nations has been called upon to perform a peacekeeping or peace supervisory function of one form or another. Some critics say that these have not always been successful. How does one measure success? Previous explosive situations have either been defused or the level of resultant conflict contained. The potentials for world conflict have been nullified. This, to me, is success. As a Canadian I am proud that Canada has met its responsibilities as a member of the United Nations. This we have done by responding to the requests of the United Nations to make our contribution to peacekeeping activities.
Since 1948 Canadian military personnel have seen United Nations duty in Palestine, Kashmir, Korea, Egypt, the Congo, Cyprus, Lebanon, West Irian, Yemen, India and Pakistan, as well as similar but non-UN duty in Laos, Cambodia and of course, Viet Nam. They have acted in many roles; in combat, as observers, as peacekeepers, policemen, arbitrators, investigators, to name a few, and from time to time they have acted as the support element for international forces. Hon. members will agree that all these roles have been carried out with distinction. They have brought credit to Canada, but more importantly in the present context they have brought a depth of experience to the Canadian forces that cannot be matched.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members will be interested in some comparisons between the eighth report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence respecting United Nations peacekeeping and the current activities. The report was tabled in this House on June 5, 1970.
In respect to numbers of support troops in relation to active ground forces the report, in its recommendation concerning a stand-by military force, recommended that such a force could be made up in groups of 5,000-3,000 to be active ground forces and 2,000 men in transportation and logistic support. The figures we have been working with lately suggest a lower ratio of support troops, and this indicates that our contingent will have its work cut out for it.
Under its recommendation concerning Canadian policy the report says in part:
Since the demand for Canadian troops may not be as active infantry, continued emphasis should be placed on the development of transportation, communications and military movement expertise. While special instruction and information on the UN and the problems of peacekeeping would be useful for reserve forces, the sub-committee has concluded that the normal professional training and discipline of Canada's regular forces account for the effectiveness they have shown in past operations. It is our special administrative and technical skills, our linguistic capability and our peacekeeping experience which will be most called for in future peacekeeping situations.
These words would seem to have particular significance today.
Finally, with respect to that report, in the same section dealing with Canadian policy we find this paragraph:
November 15, 1973

The work of peacekeeping is not glamourous. It is costly. It is frustrating. It does not inspire gratitude. It does not directly assist narrow Canadian national interests. But is is an essential service-and one for which Canada has special qualification, because of her experience, because of her reputation for fairness, and because of her technical skills.
Those words speak for themselves.
A short extract from a recent editorial in the Ottawa Journal states the problem in a very realistic way:
There is much more to fielding a multinational force than the relatively simple part of providing so many soldiers and their arms to stand guard. The mechanics of command, control and support are specialized and complex. They demand a capability which Canada, perhaps more than any of the lesser powers, is able to provide. Since speed is of the essence, Canadian professionalism and experience might well be considered essential-at least at the start.
While all peacekeeping roles demand hard work, tolerance and understanding, those who have studied the subject usually agree that the logistics support of UN peacekeeping forces presents the most difficult and complex problems. While the scope of the problems differs with the area, it is always more difficult to operate away from home. Compound this with the problems of providing food, water, air and ground transport, communications, maintenance facilities and administration for a multinational group with greatly differing equipment, weapons, vehicles, clothing and even differing national diets, many speaking different languages and all demanding the best of support. Place this force in a hostile climate away from existing logistics systems, and away from normal base facilities, and one begins to appreciate the problem.
The Secretary General has asked Canada, along with Poland, to share in the logistic support of the UNEF. Canada specifically has been asked to provide the communications element, and may be requested to provide an airlift capability. Poland has been requested to provide engineering support and possibly medical support. Still to be determined by the United Nations is who will be requested to provide transport, movement control, supply and maintenance support.
Canada joins with Sweden, Ireland, Austria, Finland, Poland, Panama, Peru, Indonesia, Nepal, Ghana and two other nations yet to be named for the purpose of meeting, at the request of the United Nations, their responsibilities in contributing to the cessation of hostilities in the Middle East. We can do no less.


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, no responsible Canadian could really oppose Canada's participation in UNEF at this point of time. Once again, the hopes and aspirations of many Canadians have been raised to a high level of expectation that we may perform the military role for which by temperament, modern tradition and size we are well suited. That is the role of peacekeeping.
I can remember as a teenager just entering high school in 1956, and beginning to read about and follow international politics, how proud I was as a young Canadian when our troops went off to the Middle East as part of the plan of the late Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson which he had placed before and had accepted by the United Nations. I can remember vividly the following summer
Middle East Peacekeeping Force attending a boy scout world jamboree in England and meeting young Israeli and Egyptian boy scouts who spoke glowingly of the efforts of Canadian soldiers who were playing a major role in preserving what they hoped would be a permanent peace in their part of the world. Little did I think then that this peace would be brutally shattered by the cruel events of June 1967 or of October 1973. Little did I foresee that our troops would be so unceremoniously expelled by Egypt on 24 hours notice in 1967, or that in 1973 we should have to beg for the right to participate again on a peacekeeping force and be accepted only as the quid pro quo for the involvement of Poland-a representative of the Warsaw Pact whose participation is clearly inimical to Israel.
As the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) pointed out yesterday, we on this side of the House have a particular and important role to play as members of the official opposition. While we all want to achieve a just, strong and permanent settlement in the Middle East and wish to provide every ounce of support we can for our Canadian troops who have been or will be dispatched, it is our responsibility, indeed our duty, to comment on the political activities of this government. We have an obligation to comment particularly on the means which were utilized to get us into the present peacekeeping framework, and the implications of that framework as it affects Canada's future in the international community and as it affects the delicate balance and maintenance of peace between the main protagonists in the dispute.
First, let me commend the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) for clearly setting forth yesterday the criteria that Canada seeks to apply when considering participation in a peacekeeping operation. I note that one of the criteria stipulates that "the parties to the conflict must accept the peacekeeping force and Canadian participation in it must be acceptable to all concerned." The minister went on yesterday to assure the House that Canada did not accept its present task until the Secretary General had given formal assurance that the presence of a Canadian contingent would be acceptable to all parties, and especially to Egypt since UNEF will be deployed on Egyptian territory. The minister yesterday stated further that he had confirmed the Egyptian agreement personally with the foreign minister of Egypt when he met him in Washington.
To all this I can only say that I hope he is right. The bitter memories of 1967 still loom large. We remember when General Nasser brought down the whole operation like a crumbling deck of cards, expelled our troops and closed the Gulf of Aqaba, all within 24 hours. I had occasion last December to visit Sharem-el-Sheick and some of the neighbouring areas where Canadian troops were deployed, and to see the remains of some of the large guns used to close the gulf, which are left today as grim reminders of the speed with which a peacekeeping operation can be closed down and booted out.
Are the assurances that we have from the Egyptians today any more valid or complete than those given in 1956? In practical terms, is the mandate of UNEF today any more sound than the mandate given 17 years ago? Indeed, is it legitimate for Canadians to ask whether the creation of the protective umbrella of UNEF in the Middle

November 15, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force East is really worth all the trouble if, the moment it starts to rain, one of the parties makes us take it away?
Quite apart from all this, Mr. Speaker, let us look at some of the implied conditions under which we came to be part of the current UNEF force. We allowed our participation to be bargained by the Soviets like a wild card in a poker game. Having unashamedly sought out, and then been granted, the right to participate in this UNEF, we suddenly found ourselves cast in the role of an advocate of NATO and the U.S., to be traded-off against the participation of Poland representing the Warsaw Pact.
Consider the implications of that, being traded-off against Poland in the context of a peacekeeping force in the Middle East. Poland, a country that does not even have diplomatic relations with Isreal; a country that has openly supported the blatantly pro-Arab policies of the Soviet Union almost to the extent of being even more bellicose than the Soviets; a country in which a wave of anti-Semitism following the six-day war saw most Jews purged from all senior positions in government and industry, and eventually driven out of the country; a country where the human ovens of the concentration camps during the holocaust of World War II may have burned the brightest, even brighter than in Germany.
Consider the implications of Polish peacekeeping troops which may be deployed on Israeli soil. This is the country against which Canada was traded-off in UNEF. Does this allow us to continue calling ourselves neutral peacekeepers? Can we maintain the integrity of our supposedly neutral stance and our history of fairmindedness or have we been thrust into the role of advocate for one of the big power blocs, a counter balancing surrogate to satisfy the diplomatic manoeuvring of Egypt, the very country which kicked us out in 1967?
Is this the price that Canada must pay merely for saying that Israel has the right to exist behind secure and recognized boundaries, a fundamental provision of UN Resolution 242?
Mr. Speaker, we must never lose sight of the main goals of a peacekeeper in today's world. It is not to be part of a peacekeeping force within an assigned role to say who is right or wrong. Surely, the only role is to say what is right or wrong. I know that our well-trained and disciplined forces being sent to the Middle East will recognize the distinction, but I fear that the government may have allowed Canada, in the eyes of the world community, to be pushed into an advocate's role which blurs the distinction. In short, our position may have been compromised.
Of course, the Egyptians have not hesitated to thrust us into the advocate's position. One only need recall the story of Patrick Scott, the Toronto Star correspondent, who two weeks ago reported that an Egyptian government spokesman had said that Egypt would veto the inclusion of Canadian troops in UNEF because Canada was "pro-Zionist". Scott was later invited to leave Egypt and his press accreditation was revoked for "diplomatically embarrassing" the Egyptian government. But clearly there was sufficient evidence and subsequent stories in the Egyptian Gazette to substantiate the statement. Indeed, the Egyptian Gazette which rigidly echoes every nuance of Egyptian government policy, made it clear that Cairo had regarded the Canadian government as pro-Israeli. Again,

this indicates the surrogate position in which the Egyptians would have us serve in the Middle East, a position to which our government has succumbed.
Mr. Speaker, I am not as optimistic about the possible success of this UNEF force as I was in 1956. Perhaps I am older now and less idealistic. It is more likely, however, that conditions have changed. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke yesterday of the dangers of the unprecedented military build-up by the U.S.S.R. in the Middle East and he was right. Of course, Egypt is a client state of the Soviet now, more than it has ever been.
The right hon. gentleman was also right yesterday when he asserted that oil and the economic power that goes with it were what prompted, in the main, Soviet moves. Fortunately for Canada, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been more unyielding in the face of Arab attempts to use oil to threaten Canada and its supplying of oil to the United States. The Secretary of State for External Affairs rightly said on Tuesday in this House that oil supplies to the United States would not be reduced in order to appease the Arabs.
I was also pleased to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) taking the same line on Tuesday, as did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) yesterday in New York. One can only hope that their colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) might by now have got the message and abandoned his earlier position which, potentially, was an unwarranted capitulation to Arab demands. We wish the Secretary of State for External Affairs had been a little more astute when he went down to the United Nations almost two weeks ago and allowed our position in UNEF to be compromised by virtue of our trade-off with Poland.
The recent war in the Middle East has been a terrible war. Thousands of lives have been lost. Israel lost 1,800 of her citizens out of a population of just over 3 million. This was a terrible price for any small, isolated nation to pay. We hope that, either through the assistance of UNEF or through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties themselves, a just, lasting and permanent peace will come about, so that the residents of that part of the world may live the full kind of life to which they and others in the world are entitled.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Lefebvre:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with the other parties and I think there will be general agreement to have three more members speak in this debate, one from the NDP, one from the Liberal Party and one from the Conservative Party. Each speech is to last not more than 20 minutes. After that, we shall go to private members' hour at five o'clock, at which time the current debate will be finalized.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, we agree to that
arrangement.
November 15, 1973

[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Pontiac. The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) was not in the House when his colleagues agreed that there should be only three other participants in this debate: one from the New Democratic Party, one from the Liberal Party and one from the Progressive Conservative Party. Perhaps the hon. member for Temiscamingue has a comment on this subject?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would allow me, I should say that I had discussed this with the hon. members of his party but unfortunately he was not in the House at that moment and his colleagues did not know that their leader wanted to speak. I apologize for this.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like my name to be added to the list of those who want to speak. I will not abuse the time of the House, however, I would simply like to say a few words.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, in that case, possibly we could arrange for the hon. member for Temiscamingue to be added to those who are to speak, and for each member to speak for 15 instead of 20 minutes.


Thomas Lefebvre: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Do hon. members agree that this debate will conclude after one speaker from each party has spoken for not more than 15 minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, my party has not agreed to limit itself to any particular length of time. So far as I am concerned, I can probably bring myself within the desired limit. Perhaps if I need an extra minute or two I can ask for the indulgence of the House.


Thomas Lefebvre: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: There is no difficulty about that arrangement.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) has set out very clearly the views of New Democratic Party members on the resolution we are discussing, and I entirely accept his statement. There are three or four points which I wish to underline. One is that I share with the hon. member for Selkirk the view that it would have been much better to have had this resolution passed before troops were actually committed to the operation. To ask us to approve at this stage, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) said in this debate yesterday, is asking us to approve a fait accompli. I do not believe this is a matter of form; it is a matter of substance.
In my view it is of the utmost importance for the health and survival of parliamentary democracy that major decisions in international affairs should be submitted to Par-
Middle East Peacekeeping Force liament for its approval before they have been decided upon by the government or, at least, before they are put into execution by the government. However, there may be circumstances in which that is impossible. Yet I cannot see any good reason why that could not have been done in the present case. The failure to do so has robbed this debate of any particular significance.
It is true that, when speaking for my party earlier, I indicated support for the proposal to send a Canadian contingent to the peacekeeping forces in the Middle East at the request of the Secretary General of the United Nations, as did spokesmen for the Conservative Party. I must say that I feel the government has taken parliamentary supremacy far too lightly in this instance and, indeed, in other instances.
The second point I want to make is this: we are approving the contribution which Canada is called upon to make, not because of any pressure from any of the great powers, least of all as the cat's paw of any particular great power. The request for Canadian participation has come from the Secretary General of the United Nations, acting in compliance with the almost unanimous resolution of the Security Council. My recollection is that the last relevant resolution dealing with the composition of the new international force was initiated by the so-called non-aligned nations of the Security Council. In these circumstances, I suggest it is ridiculous to say we are trying to please any one or other of the great powers. It would also be stupid to suggest that without the concurrence of the great powers such a force could achieve its purpose. If that concurrence involves some sort of geographic or ideological balance, that fact must be taken into account by the Secretary General. That is one of the facts of life which, indeed, have to be considered if the force is to be able to do the job hoped of it.
I do not think Canada should accept this role in any spirit of lightheartedness or vain glory. It is indeed a strenuous obligation. Although we acknowledge, as, indeed, it is widely acknowledged by people who know about these things, that Canada's experience and expertise in these fields are unrivaled, we cannot put forward any exclusive claim to participation in peacekeeping operations. I am fully satisfied, however, that in the present case the Secretary General of the United Nations, acting on behalf of the world community, is the person who has in fact requested, and indeed urged, our assistance. For this reason, I believe we cannot decline.
The last point I want to make is that it is in the essential interests of Canada that we do take part. A day or two ago I heard a sneering academic on the radio saying that Canada's self-interest should be our only guide and that Canada has no real interest in the Middle East. I entirely disagree. Canada is in a peculiar position as far as defence is concerned. We are part of the North American continent, which we share with a superpower. The likelihood of direct attack on Canada is almost nil. But we have been involved in the past and will be involved again if there is any world war. Our major interest in international affairs therefore is to maintain stability, which prevents the outbreak of any war and halts the spread of wars, if they do break out, before they escalate into world conflict.

November 15, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force
There is no part of the world where the danger of a local conflict expanding into a world conflict is more apparent than in the Middle East where the great powers have confronted each other for many years and where their prestige is at stake. The answer to the Middle East conflict, as has been said in this debate and elsewhere, is negotiation between the parties, preferably under the auspices of the United Nations. Negotiations, however, are not possible without a ceasefire. They cannot take place while the conflict rages. For this reason, a ceasefire is essential to negotiations for a lasting peace.
On the other hand, a ceasefire requires the interposition of a neutral force to supervise the ceasefire. No one can guarantee that the UN force in this case will be able to maintain a ceasefire. There are innumerable difficulties, and impassioned fears have been aroused on both sides, but it is clear that without a peacekeeping force the probability of successful negotiation is virtually nil.
The contribution that Canada is asked to make along with the other participating nations is therefore a contribution to world stability and a direct contribution to the security and welfare of Canada. Even if one accepts the proposition that national self-interest is the basic motive for international policies, a proposition about which I confess some doubt, then that self-interest must be enlightened, and the enlightened self-interest of Canada dictates that we do our best to contribute to the stabilization of existing conflicts particularly one such as has arisen in the Middle East.
As far as I am concerned, I do not wish my support of Canada's participation in this peacekeeping force at the request of the United Nations to be negative, half-hearted or conditional. If the UN is seen to be indispensable, if peacekeeping forces are shown to be useful, I am willing to confess that I am enough of an idealist that I would rejoice in this. It seems to me the cynics have had their day and I do not question that they have had plenty of material to be cynical about both in connection with the UN and in connection with its peacekeeping operations. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the development of the UN and peacekeeping is essential to world survival.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I was born in that part of the world which has been torn apart by war and sufferings for the last 20 years, more precisely in Haifa, Palestinia, I am obviously even more afflicted than many of my fellow Canadians by the extremely distressing situation which prevails in that part of the world.
Today I will only reply to certain accusations made yesterday by the spokesman for the Official Opposition about the government's behaviour over the last few days. First, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) blames the government for its delay in consulting Parliament and, in other words, for suggesting that this was a fait accompli. He also blamed the government for showing untimely eagerness to participate in the UN forces and, to use his own terms, "Canada has no business begging to serve".

I think that those criticisms are obviously contradictory. How can anyone believe in our eagerness to participate when the debate during which the House is to approve a resolution on this question has been differed? On the contrary, if this debate has been postponed it is obviously because the government was not prepared to send troops at a time when it still could see uncertainty prevailing in the UN about the nature and amount of Canadian troops to be dispatched to the Near East. It is not so much the government's eagerness as the understandable haste of the Secretary General of the United Nations to send emergency forces which urged the Canadian government to reach a quick decision. It is not Canada's inacceptability but rather difficulties raised by other suggestions which have delayed by a week the dispatching of Canadian troops.
Even today we have no notion as to how many troops this task will require as it has not been completely defined yet. That is why the government should wisely wait and see exactly what Canada wants before asking for the opinion of Parliament. In a certain sense the opposite reproach could still be accepted; it could be said that the debate is somewhat premature since it is not yet known exactly what duties the Canadian contingent will have.
If discussion is still initiated in Parliament it is precisely because the government wanted to take the first opportunity, namely the sending of the Signal Corps, and surely it cannot be said that the government showed contempt for Parliament. On the contrary, it can be said that it is the lot of those who wanted to disregard the facts in their charges.
Of course, there are many precedents of government management, and I could quote several to refresh the memory of those who forgot about them. For example, in 1950, the Right Hon. Louis St-Laurent stated, as reported at page 494 of Hansard for 1950, and I quote:
The intention of the government is that if any other service should be required of this special force, which of course is not being created solely because of the Korean incident, if any police action, for instance, that has a warlike character should be required of it, elsewhere than Korea, the government of course would have to make its decision, but it would immediately call parliament, make that decision known and leave it to parliament to approve or disapprove of it.
The Hon. Howard Charles Green, who later became Secretary of State for External Affairs, asked him:
May I ask the Prime Minister whether there will be a resolution authorizing the sending of troops to Korea?
And the Prime Minister replied:
No, sir; that would be something which has never been done. The government announces to parliament what its policy is, and asks parliament for the ways and means to carry it out... If parliament does not authorize the ways and means to carry out the policy, it cannot be carried out. If parliament, on the other hand, on any motion of non-confidence, expresses its disapproval of the conduct of the government, of course the government resigns and some other group forms a government to carry out the will of the Canadian people as expressed by their representatives in parliament.
And in 1956 the first peacekeeping intervention in the Middle East took place. Parliament was not sitting at that time and it was called to discuss that matter on November 26, 1956. The order in council had already been made by the government on November 20. Prime Minister St. Laurent then restated the view expressed during the Korean
November 15, 1973

conflict and I would like to quote comments he added to explain the position of the government.

"That has always been the constitutional requirement and the constitutional practice that the government has to take the responsibility of making a decision and then put itself in the hands of parliament so that parliament may determine whether it will provide the funds to implement that decision or whether it will refuse to provide the funds and get another government to carry out the policies that parliament wants to have carried out. This has always been the position and this will always be the position so long as this party has the responsibility for public affairs in this country.
[ Translation]
I would like to refer now to the Congo, in 1960, when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was Prime Minister. In inviting Parliament to debate two draft resolutions, he referred first of all to the 1956 precedent, that I already mentioned, as recorded on page 7328 of Hansard of the same year.
Those are the two resolutions upon which action is now invited and the approval of parliament asked. The constitutional position in this regard was set forth by the former prime minister, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, on November 20, 1956, when an order in council was passed which authorized the maintenance on active service of not more than 2,500 officers and men as part or in immediate support of the United Nations emergency forces in the Middle East.
Asserting his support since 1946 to the idea of Canada's contribution, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, insisted on paying tribute to Canadian officers who had already gone to the Congo. This means that Parliament was discussing this matter while the decision was already under development. I quote from the former Prime Minister speech:
What have we done? What has been Canada's contribution? I simply outline it for the record without going into particulars. Following the initial request the government authorized the secondment of five Canadian officers who volunteered from the United Nations truce supervisory organization in Palestine. Three of the five are now in Leopoldville. When it was reported that there was the risk of a food shortage the government decided to provide pork and dried powdered milk to which reference has already been made. Then there was request for signals and logistic support for the United Nations Congo force. On receiving that request, Canadian and United Nations authorities consulted as to the precise needs to be met in the Congo.
On July 28 Canada authorized provision for the United Nations force in the Congo of up to 500 Canadian armed force personnel including a signals detachment numbering some 200, as well as a small Canadian headquarters detachment. Arrangements for sending the selected personnel to the Congo are going forward, and parliament is now being asked to approve the action in this regard.
It is to be noted that they already talked about logistic and signals support. The then Prime Minister did not consider that it was all about water carriers and wood hewers! Let me quote finally the conclusion that he was expecting-quite rightly, I suggest-from Parliament on such an occasion:
I trust that the house will give unanimous acceptance to the course we have followed, for it represents a major step forward to that day when, wherever difficulties may arise anywhere in the world, as I stated in March, 1945, the nations comprising the United Nations will all make available to an international force whatever is requisite to assure peace.
Middle East Peacekeeping Force
These were precedents and I might also quote that of Cyprus, in 1964, which is not different.
As regards the "precendent" of Indochina, I suggest that it would be quite ridiculous to refer to it since it was not the same thing from the point of view of authority, function, or nature; they were only observers and not regular forces; the decision taking process was quite different. As a matter of fact, when observers are sent away, the government simply informs Parliament of its decision and does not put forward any resolution. Therefore, this does not constitute a precendent. It is easy to accuse others when one does not know what he is talking about.
The second reproach of hon. member for Saint-Hyacin-the (Mr. Wagner) was to blame this government for their indecent hurry to contribute to the United Nations forces.
In the first place, how could one imagine that the government which had withdrawn its observers from Indochina, because it found their role ineffective in spite of their merits, was going to rush into another adventure? How could one believe that the minister, who reaffirmed on September 25 last at the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York that Canada hoped that from now on its contribution to peacekeeping operations would be governed by some criteria would suddenly alter his course? Finally, how can it be suggested that this government needs the stimulus of these operations to back up its foreign policy when it is explicitly based on strictly Canadian objectives since 1970?
However, Mr. Speaker, one thing should be specified: Canada did not ask to contribute to that UN force, but the Secretary General of the United Nations did. Documents are available to prove it. I tabled them myself in the House of Commons around November 2.
The invitation letter of the Secretary General is dated October 27. Indeed, the request was made on October 26, but Canada waited for the letter. The government even waited for another letter confirming that Canada was acceptable to all parties before taking a decision and announcing a debate on the resolution.
If the Secretary of State for External Affairs had to go to New York later, it was not to make sure of Canada's acceptability, as the hon. member suggested quite wrongly, but for other reasons. Canada had already been accepted. What are these reasons? First of all, the Secretary General has, for the first time since the United Nations have been created, the tremendous task of organizing an emergency force with the agreement of the Security Council. Previous forces were constituted like the first one, in 1956, by the General Assembly with the active support of some countries.
All those who feel strongly about the support of the United Nations and the action of the Secretary General in this very difficult task will surely avoid making fun of the Canadian government's assistance which is meant to help this emergency force to be in a position to work steadily. Moreover, other governments are perhaps less willing than ours to contribute to peacekeeping. Among the major powers, some seek above all to get well out of it. To a certain extent, this is what happened in New York, as the composition of the force has been reconsidered while this

November 15, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force
is perhaps a matter or regional representation but without any political ground.
Who then has insisted on the urgency of sending just the same some vanguard elements? Obviously, the Secretary General since he was bent on having this emergency force prepared quickly before any resumption of hostilities due to the absence of any mediator. After all, an emergency force, as indicated by the words, is not a parade troop, they are, like the firemen that have been given as an example, a complement that is sent immediately before the fire can even start again.


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


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I notice that they have no doubt started to save energy, because two clocks indicate that it is now 6.20.


Thomas Lefebvre: This one is working.


David Réal Caouette: Indeed it shows the exact time.
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) regarding the resolution under study. In fact, the hon. member knows the history of Middle East since he is one of its sons and became Canadian. He answered the comments made yesterday by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner).
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us reads as follows:
That it is expedient that the Houses of Parliament do approve the Government's decision that Canadian Forces participate in the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East, and that this House do approve the same.
I think that such a resolution should have been submitted ten days ago after we had asked ourselves if we were ready to send Canadian forces to maintain peace in the Middle East. In doing so we should have recognized the existence of Parliament. We are asked to approve this decision when our troops are already on the spot. We are told: It was urgent to send our troops to the Middle East. And the hon. member just told us that the part our troops will play there is not known yet. Will they act as supervisors? Will they act as police officers? What part will they play? We do not know. Nothing would have prevented us from studying a resolution giving to the government the right to send troops to maintain peace on request by the United Nations. In those circumstances, there would have been no need for the government to ask us to approve its actions after the event. Our soldiers are already on the spot. Every day more of them are leaving for the Middle East while we are trying to decide whether or not the government should be allowed to send the troops.
Mr. Speaker, this is taking the bull not by the horns but by the tail and it goes against common sense. According to me, the government should not any more submit resolutions after the event.
I do not think that one single member here objects to Canada playing a peacekeeping role in any conflict whatsoever, not the role of motivator but that of a true peace-

maker. In such circumstances, we cannot deny approval of the resolution because the Canadian Armed Forces are participating in the emergency force to maintain peace in the Middle East. We could have discussed this 15 days ago. If we had not been asked to take part, we would not have done so and the government would have been free and would have had the authority to do so, with the approval of Parliament, and it would have sent these peacekeeping forces if the need had arisen, at the request of the United Nations.
Will peace be restored there? We do not know, but we certainly wish it. The parties are still there, with the Arabs on one side and the Jews on the other. Each one defends his own position. The Arabs have a history, traditions, they require that their rights be respected. On the other side, the Jews are in the same situation. I feel that the most serious problems have come about since the United Nations started interfering in the affairs of these countries. Before that, the two nations managed more or less to get along together at least better than now. With the years, the problem becomes greater and more complex. On one hand, we are assaulted from all sides, as Members of Parliament, by Arab or Egyptian organizations and on the other, by Israeli organizations which are urging us to take side.
Mr. Speaker, they are those who should make up their minds, try to compromise and understand one another since there are human beings involved and there is room for understanding and agreement between human beings of good will whose sole preoccupation is not the domination of others. In this respect, it is the Canadian Armed Forces or diplomatic corps which can intervene to encourage these nations" to understand one another and dialogue with one another, for there are people of good will on both sides. I should not like to see either Arabs or Israelis being trampled on. However, the other countries involved should stop fostering differences.
At the present time, oil is being used as a means to exert pressure on the nations which are in need of it. It has become an economic war. People are trying to make profits, but at what cost? At the cost of human lives. This is unacceptable and this is where I think Canada can play a significant role. It is useless to watch each side and wait for attacks.
Canada could invite both parties involved to do everything possible to try and dialogue in order to find grounds for agreement. Thus, Canada would gain the respect of all nations while giving people in the Middle East a chance to live comfortably in peace, and not in the type of bloody violence which we witnessed a few days ago.
Mr. Speaker, we shall support the action taken by the government, but we suggest that in future it give notice of its intention to the Parliament of Canada and ask for the authority to take part in peacekeeping operations, not only in the Middle East, but throughout the world.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Liberal government's policies, both diplomatic and military.
Before considering the area of defence policy, let us examine the actions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). Unless one believes that the summum bonum of Canadian foreign policy is to have Canadian participation in UN forces on every occasion, the minister's actions appear ill-considered. His statements trumpeting, or perhaps pleading, Canada's availability even before the decision to form a UN force had been taken belie his assertions that we were not preaching for a call. Perhaps the call which the Secretary of State for External Affairs longed for was one not from New York or the mid-east, but rather from Oslo. Unfortunately, the Cabinet no longer possesses a man with the unique abilities of the Secretary of State for External Affairs' illustrious predecessor.
The present situation reminds one of the quotation that when history repeats itself, the first time it is as heroics, the second time it is as comedy. I am sure the quotation is familiar to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In his determination to have Canada included in the peacekeeping force the minister seems to have accepted, without any objection, the implicit Russian identification of Canada as a surrogate of the United States, a surrogate which had to be balanced by the inclusion of a Warsaw Pact country.
In past operations which began by being structured from the assumption that Canada was some sort of an American stand-in whose lack of objectivity was to be taken for granted, and who had to be balanced by another country with the opposite bias, our experiences have been highly unproductive. The truth is that Canadian troops are not American lackies; when they have participated in peacekeeping operations it has been with impartiality and judiciousness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Sharp:: It will always be that way, too.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: However, in operations such as the two Viet Nam control commissions, where major power politics were structured into the commission from the outset, the unvarying experience has been of frustration. This frustration has had two sources: First, the politicking within the commission has hamstrung the Canadians from carrying out the task which they were placed there to complete; second, the government's seeming acceptance of the view that Canada's forces are not objective is insulting to the men who have proved under many conditions that they are, in fact, objective and that they can be among the most effective troops upon which the UN can call.
Being equated with troops from Poland, whose bias and selective blindness the Canadian troops have seen, is demeaning, not only for the troops but for Canada as a whole. In his meek acquiescence to the Russian charges that Canada's presence needed to be balanced by a Polish presence, the Secretary of State not only lends credence to false suggestions that Canadian troops cannot be neutral observers and denigrates Canadian independence in the
Middle East Peacekeeping Force world's eyes, he also confirms any suspicions which the Arabs might have about our supposed lack of neutrality. At the precise time when Canada is beginning to feel the icy fingers of the energy crisis, and at the moment when the Arab states are beginning to use their new-found power to withhold oil from their enemies, we are presented with the spectacle of a member of the cabinet implicitly confirming that Canada is so pro-Israeli that her troops cannot be neutral in the peacekeeping force and that they have to be balanced with communist pro-Arab troops. I wonder if the minister believes that this is the way to safeguard Canada's supply of oil from the mid-East.


Mitchell William Sharp: A speech like this will not help.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: While on the subject of oil supplies, let us look at what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) was doing during this time. While one half of our dynamic duo was busy confirming Arab suspicions about Canada, the other half was, without consultation, slapping a large excise tax on exports of crude oil to the United States, hardly an action to draw favourable responses from the country upon which eastern Canada relies for a large part of her oil needs. All we need now is to have some other minister of the Crown infuriate the Venezuelans and the picture will be complete. The government seems to be doing its level best to anger the countries upon which we depend for oil. The Secretary of State has placed us as the pro-Israel, ergo anti-Arab, component of the UN force, while the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has done his best to convince the Americans that we are a lot of blue-eyed Arabs gouging them on oil prices.
Let us now consider the part being played by National Defence-


Mitchell William Sharp: Let us get down to some facts now.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: -and try to solve the riddle of why Canada is not sending a service battalion to give logistical support, its explicitly defined role, but instead is sending other troops. The following, from a Canadian military pamphlet convinces me that the troops to be sent should have been based upon a service battalion.
In each service battalion there is a logistics operations centre which is the nerve centre of the battalion through which is exercised many of the functions of command, of control and co-ordination of administrative support for the brigade group-a group I might add, somewhat comparable to the UN force to be deployed. It must be prepared to operate continuously and to perform the following functions:
A)	Control of radio, teletype and voice nets;
B)	Consolidation of all units' demands;
C)	Organization of pick-up and delivery of all supplies and
services
D)	Planning and co-ordination of all administration support.
If these roles sound familiar it is because they are exactly what is needed in the present situation. Reading further about the role of the service battalion, we encounter this:
They-

November 15, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force
The service battalions.
-are to provide:
1)	Transportation
2)	Supply of stores and equipment
3)	Technical maintenance and repairs
4)	Military police
5)	Comptroller and finance
6)	Postal
10)	Bath and Laundry facilities, and
11)	Recovery and backloading of salvage
The truth of the matter is, I suspect, that none of our service battalions are available. They are not available because they have, like almost all of our forces, been over-committed and under-manned. They are in mobile command but are not mobile because of their having been committed to camp and base administrative support.
I suspect that, due to government penny-pinching over the years, these service units are required for static roles and it is deceit to imply that they are combat ready land forces, as claimed in "Defence 1971" or that they are highly mobile, as claimed in "Defence 1972". To support this thesis, I wish now to review the actions that brought our forces to this state.
Canadian troops are very capable peacekeepers: whatever tasks they are given they perform well. This is because they are capable, technically knowledgeable, well-trained and well-led. They carry out the very high tradition which has been established throughout two world wars plus their numerous peacekeeping roles. I am sure that as our Signal Regiment has been ordered to carry out the roles of a service battalion, it will do its very best to do so. I am particularly pleased to pay these compliments because their high performance has been achieved under the most execrable governmental leadership imaginable.
The armed forces of this country have been reduced and reduced. Their strength in troops has dwindled in ten years of Liberal government from 123,000 to 81,000. At the same time their civilian strength dropped from 43,000 to 32,000. I prepared a graph to show this diminution over the ten years of Liberal rule, and then extrapolated the graph to show what our forces will be in the future. If the ten-year trend continues, by 1990 there will be more civilians than troops in the department and three years later, in 1993, the last serviceman will be released. For what comfort the Canadian public may draw from it, the projection shows that there will still be 10,000 civilians administering the then non-existent forces.
The low esteem in which the present government holds the Department of National Defence is clearly demonstrated by the rapid changes in ministers. From September 23, 1970 to December 1, 1972, the department suffered under five different ministers-five ministers in 27 months. New math has an expression for zero, it is called a place-holder and this is what the defence portfolio has become, a place-holder.
Now, while these ministers were each spending their brief sojourn in defence, their policies were as one might expect, almost non-existent. I have searched diligently, Mr. Speaker, trying to find any coherent defence policy enunciated by any of these five hon. gentlemen. Regrettably, I found it particularly unfruitful to search in Han-

sard. Defence ministers appear to wait with great patience for Parliament to recess or adjourn before making any kind of statement. The present minister is carrying on this unworthy tradition, as witness his press release of October 10-I suppose it should be called an off-white paper.
In the press releases that the ministers use to delineate their non-policies, two promises appear to be constant over the years. First, there will be a reduction of troops and, second, new equipment will be bought with the money saved. They have always fulfilled the first promise, and always broken the second. Shortly after the minister issued his recent off-white paper, the Financial Post of October 20 summed up the current situation rather well:
The truth is, of course, that the defence spending freezes of recent years have all but wrecked Canada's aspirations to military efficiency. By scraping around, and laying off people, defence officials have somehow managed to pay their bills every year. But the capital budget has dried up to the point where Canadian troops are having to use obsolete equipment and face nightmare maintenance problems with such basic items as trucks. This made mockery of the Canadian armed forces and the men and women serving in them.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the decrease in the forces' strength is never accompanied by a proportional decrease in their commitments. The roles and tasks of the forces have become so numerous that "Defence 1972" has finally given up trying to list them in priority for units and has instead prepared a two-page graph with tasks across the top, units along the sides and you simply note how many X's there are. Indeed, one gets the impression that the roles were chosen by the public relations men to include every possible demand which Canada might make on a military establishment-each one, however, expressed in sufficiently vague terms as to confound any attempt at analysis-and that all the squares were X'd save only those where no possible connection could even be imagined.
Nowhere is there evidence that a logical progression was ever made from Canada's military priorities, through the organization of the troops required to satisfy these needs, to the equipment and training necessary. Instead there appears to be a grab-bag of vague objectives crossed with a military establishment to which the present government has given no clear direction. An air of fuzziness and even futility is the inevitable result.
Speaking of "Defence 72", I hope all hon. members have managed to skim through it; that is what it is designed for, to be skimmed through. It has 76 pictures which makes it particularly interesting for people who cannot read. The following comment by a learned military critic, who is able to read, best describes it:
The reports are excellent, but their excellence is in the most skillful avoidance of giving precise or specific information when it does not suit the intended image to do so. It is not that the reports are inaccurate in the strictest sense of the word, but that the inferences and omission of facts creates a very effective screen of the basic equipment deficiencies.
To get back to the forces, and the bad faith which they have been subjected to, perhaps a few examples by services might best illustrate my general thesis. In the sea element, euphemistically referred to as the navy everywhere else in the English-speaking world, we have the following situation: Ten years ago the seaborne complement was 60 per cent of the total navy force; now it is 50.5
November 15, 1973

per cent. From 1963-64 to 1973-74 the reduction in the shore complement was 1,000; the reduction in the seaborne complement was 4,750.
In comparing the Canadian Navy with other navies of the middle powers, one is immediately struck by the very large concentration on anti-submarine operations. Our ships have been designed almost exclusively for this role, and I do not wish for a minute to denigrate their capability in that role. However, I am somewhat concerned that new submarine launched missiles designed to bring down helicopters may, to some extent, nullify our efforts in this area. That, of course, is not the only concern that may be expressed. We have arrived at a very sophisticated and expensive anti-submarine destroyer group just when our role or priorities for the navy may well be changing. The Minister of the Environment and Fisheries (Mr. Davis) is hoping to obtain fishing and mineral rights for us to at least 200 miles out from our shores. This will occasion a tremendous need for armed patrol vessels, and a 4,500 ton DDH 280 would probably qualify as the least suitable vessel imaginable for the job. This is the situation coupled with the opinion that Canadian anti-submarine warfare capability has been overtaken by technology-new submarines can fire their missiles long before they can be found and sunk.
There is one final point which I would like to make before I leave the DDH 280. It is not easy to determine their cost. I hope to have an answer soon to my question on the order paper on that subject. I estimate that it is over $75 million, and I note that the United Kingdom commissioned a type 82 cruiser on March 31 last at an over-all cost of 27 million pounds, which is less than each of our destroyers cost.
Looking through Janes, I kept coming back to page 38 where Australia's fast transport ex-aircraft carrier is illustrated. It is of the Majestic class, the same as the ill fated Bonaventure. The Australian carrier was converted to a fast military transport in 1962 and can operate Wessex anti-submarine helicopters as well. Frankly, it seems to be an ideal ship to transport and provide a base for peacekeeping forces, which is our main role it seems to me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has now expired.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there is general agreement on this side to let the hon. member continue, in accordance with the previous agreement that he would in fact be the last speaker. If there are a few minutes left before five o'clock, perhaps the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) could be allowed a few minutes to make some comments. Perhaps the hon. member would leave him some time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to this suggestion?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I did not hear the first part of that suggestion, Mr. Speaker. Do I have a few more minutes?
Middle East Peacekeeping Force


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House has agreed to let the hon. member complete his remarks, and if there is some time left before five o'clock, the hon. member for Sudbury would like to have a few minutes at his disposal.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the suggestion of the hon. member.
I should like now to say a few words regarding the air element of the armed forces which seems to have been given the wrong plane or the wrong role rather consistently. The CF-5 is a plane much better suited for the distances involved in Europe and third world countries than for North American roles and ranges. As stated by Colin Gray the plane:
. . . has been given a range of missions of varying degrees of implausibility.
The next plane to come along was the much more expensive CF-104. The following was reported in "The Round Table" of July 1972:
CF-104 tactical aircraft are now being refitted from a strike-reconnaissance to a conventional attack role. It should be added that the CF-104 is singularly unsuited for this new role. The aircraft is very difficult to maintain in the field, it cannot carry much conventional payload and it lacks defensive capability. The $1 billion spent by Canada on its 238 CF-104s, a programme designed solely to provide a nuclear strike capability stands as a monument to cost-ineffectiveness.
I will skip over some of the comments which I wished to make, in keeping with your generosity in letting me have a few extra minutes, but I would like to say a few words about the land forces, or the army to the uninitiated. One hardly knows whether to start with the age of their trucks, the age of their tanks, or the fact that at present they have no anti-aircraft weapons at all. It is very difficult to get reliable or sensible information from the department. A most intriguing example of this difficulty can be found in Hansard of January 21, 1970 at page 2647 when the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) is reported to have put the following question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson):
His department announced yesterday that it had authorized the mass production of MBT-70 supertanks, each of which will cost about $600,000. Would the minister tell the House how Canada will use these tanks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question could be put on the order paper.
But it was not, and it disappeared from sight.
Another example is to be found in a Reuter's release which reads as follows:
Canadian defence minister E. J. Benson-
You know how long it has been since he has been around;
-announced last night that Canada expects to sign a $40 million contract with Britain in the next week or two for more than 100 Scorpion light tanks.
These mythical tanks are to replace the Centurion, a venerable tank introduced into the British army in 1945, 28 years ago. We have vehicles in the Classic Car Museum in Victoria that are younger than those tanks, and many of the troops now serving in them were not even born when these tanks were given to the Canadian army.

November 15, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force
There has been a succession of short-term ministers, each cutting the strength of the forces, increasing the tasks-multitasking is the "in" phrase-and promising, always promising, capital expenditures on equipment. Now, our present minister has issued his proclamation of a new era. There is to be an increase of 7 per cent per annum for each year of the next five years. The deception, of course, is that the defence budget is divided between capital and operating costs. The ratio between capital and operating determines whether the force is avoiding obsolescence or not. To avoid obsolescence requires an annual share of the budget for capital costs that should be in the neighbourhood of 30 per cent of the budget. In fact, the last time that Canada spent over 16 per cent of the defence budget on capital expenditures was in 1963-64.
Now, with the operating expenditure usually taking 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the budget-remembering that operating costs rose by 11.2 per cent last year and that the inflation rate is now 8.2 per cent per annum-a raise of 7 per cent in the total budget means a decrease, not an increase in capital expenditures. It is simply more of the same fraud that has been perpetuated each year, first on the personnel in the forces, and second, on the Canadian people.
I support the idea of Canada doing what it can do to bring peace to the Middle East. I know that our troops, as always, will conduct their affairs in a highly competent and professional manner. I hope that my remarks today may in some small way move the government to change its ways and give these troops the support they have so richly earned.


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity, brief as it is, to get a few remarks on the record, and I am delighted as well to conclude this debate with something on the positive side. I was surprised at the negative tone of the last speech from the opposite side of the House. I think that that kind of speech does more harm, about which the hon. member was worried in his speech, than it does good. It is precisely the problem that we face. There is too much of the negative attitude.
I am anxious to get a few remarks on the record because, recently, I had the honour of being a member of the delegation which visited Cyprus and Turkey for the general assembly of NATO. It was an all party delegation. In the course of my remarks, had I more time, I would have liked to spend some time on the NATO conference and our role in NATO in a peacekeeping effort, but more appropriate to this debate is the role that our forces have been playing on the island of Cyprus in the UN contingent there. This is exactly related to the possibility of our doing something meaningful in the Middle East.
The population of Cyprus numbers about 600,000 people, about 120,000 Turkish Cypriots and about 480,000 Greek Cypriots, who are literally in armed confrontation with one another all over the island. There are enclaves where the Turks live in walled cities, separated from the Greek Cypriots by walls that were built centuries ago. Let me give you a more graphic picture. There is a green line that separates the Turks from the Greeks on this island of 600,000 people. This line goes the length of the island, and right through the city of Nicosia, where a few feet apart

armed patrols of each side face each other ready to fire. For every ten of these posts the United Nations force has one of its own, and still manages to keep the peace. Canadian forces have been there since the United Nations first undertook that job. Our contingent plays a key role and commands tremendous respect, so much so that it has been estimated, by persons involved in the work undertaken by other countries contributing to the UN force, that if the Canadian contingent had to be replaced, other countries would be required to supply several times their number simply because of the high degree of training and dedication of the members of the Canadian force.
This is an incredibly difficult job, yet it is being done. It is difficult in one respect because there is a temptation to say that, during the years the United Nations contingent has been there, there has been no progress, no hope of progress, and that it has incurred a tremendously high cost. There is the temptation to say that it is not our business to be there, that we should depart and let the parties go to it themselves. On the other hand, we must realize from the experiment in Cyprus, which is a living laboratory of peacekeeping operations, that its success can be measured in the avoidance of open war and savage conflict. In those terms we have made tremendous progress. And there is hope for the future, because it may be possible for future generations of those people, who hate each other so deeply, who have deep seated prejudices, to find a more enlightened approach to living with one another. That is our investment in Cyprus.
When the cost is mentioned, Mr. Speaker, in actual fact the cost may be zero because the forces we are contributing would have to be trained anyway. If we had them in our own country they would probably be doing something much less meaningful. Our contribution demonstrates above all that we do have a commitment to peace, and that we believe in peace. When we learn, in addition, that our forces are not only playing a leading role but command respect throughout the world, then we know we have learned our lessons in Cyprus well, and are willing to continue to learn. We rotate our contingent there every six months.
As a result, when we send a team of logistics experts to the Middle East, we know that we are really sending experts. When our forces are able to move for Cyprus to Egypt at 24 hours notice we can conclude, with some considerable pride, that no matter how hopeless the situation may seem in the Middle East, no matter how great and technical are the logistics problems, no matter how deep seated the prejudices and the hatred, and no matter how difficult external influences may make the situation, the fact is that we in Canada can demonstrate to the rest of the world, from our experience in Cyprus, that we do believe the peace can be kept there as well as in other parts of the world.
Our reputation as one of the most ably trained and dedicated peacekeeping forces in the world, is a reputation Canadians should prize. When we are explaining to the Canadian people the rationale for having armed forces at all, I cannot think of a rationale I would be more proud to place before the Canadian people than the fact that we are in this business not to make war but to prevent it. For that
November 15, 1973

reason I welcome the role we are asked to undertake, and I commend our forces for the role they are undertaking in Cyprus. I welcome the opportunity to go from there to another corner of the world where we can make our experience available. Mr. Speaker, we really are ready to go to any corner of the world to help keep the peace.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is the understanding of the Chair that the speech by the hon. member who has just taken his seat concludes this debate. I will now put the motion.
Motion (Mr. Sharp) agreed to.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before we proceed to private members' business at five o'clock 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 Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie)-Transport-Prevention of Abridgement of Prince Edward Islands' right to ferry link with mainland-Possibility of government operation of service; the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Criminal Code-Request that abortion be removed; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Air Canada-Construction of new computer centre at Dor-val-Effect on Winnipeg centre.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Industrial Design Assistance Program (IDAP).
He said: Mr. Speaker, for the past five years a number of us have been trying to obtain evaluation studies from the government concerning the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars of the public's money, and in fully consistent fashion for the past five years the government has been denying members of parliament, and therefore the
Industrial Design Assistance
people of the country, access to serious and relevant information that has been accumulated in evaluating a variety of programs that provide assistance to the private sector. For example, since 1965 the alphabet soup programs, PAIT, IRDIA, IDAP, PEP and GAAP have received from the public treasury, that is to say, from the taxpayers of Canada, $1,315,600,000. This has been paid in outright grants, in the main to the private sector.


An hon. Member:: A very active government.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, very active in giving away the people's money to the corporations. That is exactly the issue, and I want to state the problem as clearly as I can.
The NDP has not taken the position that under no circumstances should grants be made to the private sector for research and development. It is normally held that where financial assistance is provided there should be some direct return if a successful commercial product results, or if other benefit occurs to the company concerned. We believe that when programs like IDAP, the Industrial Design Assistance Program, provide money to corporations, the least that could be done is to provide members of parliament with an evaluation of the progress made, on an annual basis. I do not know of any other legislature that is so systematic in keeping from its members the opportunity to pass judgment on spending programs.
The United States, for all its faults, is a governmental system. We are seeing some of those faults right now of course, but its system has left Canadian members of parliament in the dark ages. No member of the House of Representatives or member of the United States Senate would tolerate the restrictions imposed on members of parliament when they try to find out the efficacy of government spending. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have virtually unlimited access to studies that have been done to evaluate government spending programs, whether they be programs of the kind under discussion now of providing assistance to the corporate sector or other programs. They have set up all kinds of investigative committees that enable them to conduct their own inquiries independent of the executive branch. In this country we are totally dependent on whether the government of the day deems it politically expedient to reveal such information.
Each year we are called upon to vote in the estimates hundreds of millions of dollars, in a state of total ignorance. We just do not know if the programs are working. We do not know if PAIT, IRDIA, or IDAP are providing the benefits that they are supposed to provide to the Canadian Public. Each year since I have been a member of this House, I have asked in a committee of the House of Commons for a systematic evaluation of the various programs. I asked the former minister of industry, trade and commerce, Mr. Pepin, and I have asked the present minister, but I have never received them. Last spring, I raised these questions again and the minister followed the bad example of his predecessor by not providing any information at all.

November 15, 1973
Industrial Design Assistance
I would refer hon. members to the reports of the Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs particularly issues No. 9 and No. 14, respectively dated April 10, 1973, and May 8, 1973. Anyone who wants to take pride in the democratic political procedures in Canada would be ashamed of the testimony. It discloses a total attempt to obscure rather than make clear the results of those spending programs.
The question at stake is what guarantee we have that the moneys provided to IDAP, IRDIA or PAIT are used to the benefit of the public. How do we know that the companies getting the benefits had not already planned to undertake the particular research and development without government assistance? That is the crucial question, Mr. Speaker, and there are a number of ways of studying it. It has been done elsewhere but this government either does not want to do it or, having done it, does not want to reveal the results.
The problem can be put in a more concrete way. For example, if I own a company and, because of internal studies, am planning to expand a certain product during the next three years because my own studies show a growing market for it, then if I have any entrepreneurial talent I will go ahead. Now, if I were aware that the federal government would provide $1 million or $2 million or several hundred thousand dollars for research and development of that product, I would be mad if I did not take advantage of that benefit at the expense of the taxpayer. The point is that the moneys in this instance would not be spent in the way that was intended. It is intended that the money should be used as an incentive for a company to expand in a direction that it would not have done otherwise.
There are a lot of economists now who say that such government spending is a total waste precisely because competent businessmen in the private sector would have already made plans to expand in a certain direction even without financial assistance from the government, but they will obviously take advantage of this welfare assistance now provided by the state. It is that kind of study that we need. We have to be shown that there is a direct causal relationship between the federal government and businessmen in this area. The onus of proof is on the government to show that there is a specific action and not just express the pious hope that there is. If it cannot be established, then the program should be cancelled.


Mr. Breau:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Edward Broadbent: At the conclusion of my remarks. One aspect of the question that has come up, not only from this minister but other ministers who have refused to reveal such studies, is that confidentiality would be a problem; that somehow some companies would gain at the expense of the particular companies that have received assistance or made known that they received the assistance and under what circumstances. That is a red herring, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no need, in the kind of study I am asking for, to give the names of the companies involved in it. It can be shown that X, Y or Z companies engage in certain activities and received grants. They do not have to be named. It is a well known practice in social science to conceal names if some relevant information

would be revealed in a public study that could be of direct benefit to competitors. An essential point is that a study of the firms receiving hundreds of millions of dollars could be presented with the names left out so that nothing would be lost to them as individual companies.
Similarly it has been suggested that in some cases military security is involved. That is a red herring, too. It is interesting that one of the few studies that has been released to the public was done on military industrial research and development. If there was a concern for security, one would have thought it would not have been made available.
In summing up, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have no expectation of moving this docile, secretive government on this issue but I repeat, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent-$150 million last year and the same the year before-well over $1 billion has been spent in this area since 1965. I think the government has a fundamental obligation to the people of Canada, and to members of parliament, to reveal studies such as those we are concerned about at present, so that we may have some idea of the facts when we are called to vote, year in, year out, the money that is to be spent on these programs.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) with great interest, particularly when he referred to alphabet soup programs and suggested we are probably spending too much on them. I suggest we are not spending enough. I think these programs are excellent. They are not fully appreciated. I do not expect the NDP to appreciate them, as much of this money goes to the private sector. On the other hand, if NDP suggestions were adopted, what is now the private sector would become the public sector and, oh boy, you would really see money going down the drain.
The program known as IDAP is rather interesting, although not too well known. It has to do with industrial design assistance.


John Edward Broadbent: Why is the government afraid to disclose certain information about it?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The government provides incentives for those who are interested in research, development and engineering. Not enough incentives are put into design. Most of the money spent in programs such as these goes to corporations, who happen to be the people who conduct business in this country. In some cases, corporations must contribute as well; in the present case, they contribute 50 per cent. That is, the corporations must contribute 50 per cent towards any design and construction process, and IDAP provides the other 50 per cent.
The question of secrecy disturbs many of us. I agree that there should be as much disclosure as possible. Of course, some caution must be exercised in dealings involving commercial agreements and intelligence. Certainly, we are entitled to any information which would not infringe on these areas.
The matter being discussed concerns me, inasmuch as design in this country simply is not good enough. I do not
November 15, 1973

think government or business has paid enough attention to design. This becomes evident when one compares our situation with that of countries of comparable economic size, such as the Scandinavian countries. The Scandinavian countries have always been very conscious of design. Their designs have always been imaginative. I have seen their products and have not seen anything superior to the way they design and manufacture various products.
Also, good design helps those countries to sell. I have had some experience in this regard, having dealt with the National Design Council in the private sector and seen the work which can be done with rather limited resources to encourage industry to think more in terms of good design. Good design involves basically engineering and better manufacturing methods. I had one experience in this regard many years ago when I was sales manager of a plastics manufacturing company.
A man came to me with a magic lantern. I had not seen one since I was a little boy. It was made of tin. I was fascinated by it. This thing was selling for around $4 at that time; then you could still get something for $4. I took it back to my office and examined it. The man wanted to duplicate it in the conventional material being used at that time, which was polystyrene. I took it to another designer friend of mine, who felt he could do many things with the lantern. The result was a product which was exceptionally well designed and which could be manufactured for much less cost than the original products. Sufficient research had been done into the material which was to be used, in this case one of the phenols, known as Bakelite. The lantern sold very well-I am going back 20 years-and sold in large volumes around the world. It could be manufactured for less than half the price of the old tin product. It was of much better design, much more functional, much less expensive and of much higher quality. That shows what you can do with good design.
Canadian manufacturers do not give design sufficient priority. We are prone to copy. Perhaps that is the difference between the Scandinavians and ourselves. We tend to go to the United States and do our design by shopping at Macy's, so to speak. In other words, a manufacturer goes down to the States, picks up a variety of things, and produces them in Canada. This is regrettable because that does not develop our export markets. I agree with the hon. member; our private sector should be developing designs. We should be doing everything in our power to encourage this.
I think that the alphabet soup programs to which the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby referred offer great opportunities for developing industry in this country. They can lead to good design and innovation. The government of Canada is responsible for many such programs. During the life of the last Parliament we tried to put these programs together in one package. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was responsible for many of them; other departments were responsible for others. The department developed what is known as the businessman's guide to government. Several thousand copies were circulated across this country. When business associations want to meet, they sometimes ask for copies of the publication. It is a pity that more people do not know about it. It refers to good government programs.
Industrial Design Assistance
I have before me a copy of what might be termed as the businessman's guide to the federal government. I will be pleased to table it and, if there is unanimous consent, to have it appended to Hansard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member cannot table anything. He is speaking only as a private member.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Well, I can try.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This particular period, the private members' hour, is always a time of great stress for the Chair. I said on a previous occasion that I wondered whether the hon. member presenting a motion was really having his day in court in arguing as to why a certain order of the House should issue for certain information. It seems that hon. members talk about almost anything vaguely associated with the subject matter of the motion but do not talk about the main issue itself. I think I should be a little more stern.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has asked the House to decide whether or not an order of the House shall issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Industrial Design Assistance Programme (IDAP). Speaking on that topic, the hon. member certainly presented his case. He did it clearly within the rules of the House. He was relevant. With great respect to the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson), I suggest he is talking about a variety of things which sometimes come reasonably close, but never close enough to enable the Chair to relax, to the main matter. That has made the Chair uneasy, rather than easy. I ask the hon. member to look at the motion and to deal with the point at issue.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I take your admonition to heart but assume you will allow me the same latitude you allowed the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby who spoke of a whole range of programs. He wondered about their value. I was only responding, I thought, to the hon. member and was dealing, I thought, with questions raised in connection with the report to which he referred.
The hon. member suggested that this was a sort of corporate welfare program. I do not think it is. I do not suggest for a moment that there are not such cases. Having had experience with the department, before and after entering Parliament, I can say that there are strict criteria and that these programs are carefully monitored and handled. I should like to see a proper approach taken to them. At present we are concerned particularly about industrial design. I should like to see the government show greater leadership in this regard than it has done in the past.
I wrote a paper on design when I first came here. I was so incensed at bad design. I said that there ought to be minimum standards of design. I do not like the prospect of some sort of jury monitoring the creative crafts, but I am appalled at the shabbiness of the designs we have had to tolerate around here right from architecture to letterheads, and I should like to see something done about it.

November 15, 1973
Industrial Design Assistance
This program, as far as I can see it, is an excellent one and one which should be expanded. The point the hon. member is making is a good one. Programs such as these must be evaluated and reported upon and then given adequate publicity because the publicity resulting from an intelligent evaluation can spur others on to using them intelligently. I am delighted at this opportunity, which the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has provided, because I have never had an opportunity to speak in this House about the inadequacy of attention paid to design by the government itself. For example, when we changed the PA system in this chamber, little attention was paid to the design. We have these little metal boxes in front of us, efficient, no doubt, but really quite ugly. I feel something equally efficient but something more attractive could have been installed.
Canadian industry, too, has been deficient in this respect with some notable exceptions. The motion has merit and should be taken seriously by the government. The greater the publicity given to these programs the better, because the growth of our exports is related to this type of activity. I believe this is the subject which deserves far more attention than it has so far received, because not only would an advance in this direction make the economy more prosperous but it would lead to our becoming far more conscious with living with ugliness; it would also make us appreciate how much more pleasant it is to live in surroundings that are harmoniously and aesthetically pleasing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? It is a simple one. Is he for or against the motion?


Barnett Jerome Danson: That is a very good question. I do not make up my mind until I have heard the debate. I am sure that is the object of the debate. I understand there are some worthwhile interventions forthcoming which will help me reach a final opinion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member not find it uncomfortable sitting on the fence?


Thomas Miller Bell: He has been doing it for years.


An hon. Member:: He is a Liberal, isn't he?


Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of the opportunity to say something on this motion.


An hon. Member:: Are you for it?


Harold Thomas Herbert: In principle I shall be for it. Maybe, first of all, we should review the machinery we already have to see whether we need to look any further. I am happy to speak on industrial design assistance program-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not what is before us.


Harold Thomas Herbert: -and recall what it has done in order that we may better estimate the need for any improvement.
This program has received an enthusiastic response since its inception. It evolved in response to requests from

industry, and the primary object is to improve the competitive position of Canadian secondary industry and to expand sales in foreign markets by upgrading the design quality of Canadian products. The second objective of the program is to create in Canada an environment which will attract and retain skilled industrial design talent, initiate new Canadian designs and develop product ideas. IDAP provides assistance on a cost shared basis in support of 50 per cent of the approved cost of a design product, excluding capital costs. Projects cover the design of such diverse items as an X-ray unit, a tea kettle, a relocatable school, an automatic skate sharpener, a tent trailer and office furniture.
The first comprehensive report and evaluation of the program covers the period from its inauguration on August 17, 1970, to March 31, 1973. Over this period, 64 projects were approved for support involving an estimated total cost of $2.87 million. The IDAP commitment amounts to $1,439 million, of which $885,000 was actually paid out. The program was recommended by the National Design Council and developed by the office of design in consultation with others in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The IDAP program received treasury board approval on December 18,	1969. Departmental news
releases about the program were issued on February 17 and August 17, 1970.
The first application under the program was received by the department on August 20, 1970, and the first meeting of the IDAP Advisory Committee was held on December 17, 1970. The specific aims of the program are to improve the design quality of Canadian products and to create an economic environment in Canada which will advance the level of industrial design capability in the nation.
Projects approved for support conform to the program's selection criteria and are the subject of a formal agreement between the department and the company which ensures that if the project is successful exploitation of the results will be pursued and will contribute in an optimum way toward achievement of the objectives I have mentioned.
Assistance under the program is available to companies incorporated in Canada, to groups of companies organized as consortia, and to trade associations to the extent that they can satisfy the requirements of the program. The fundamental requirements for IDAP support are that a new or improved product will result from the IDAP project, that the project carries with it good prospects for profitable follow-on production and sales from a Canadian manufacturing base, and that the applicant company is prepared to make a substantial contribution to the development cost. The department's contribution to a project is normally 50 per cent of the approved cost.
The program's project selection criteria require objective appraisal of the merits of the development proposal and of the capabilities of the applicant company. Development proposals are appraised for innovation and for technical feasibility within time and cost constraints. The commercial aspects are appraised with respect to the needs, characteristics and size of the market, the growth of the market, tariff and non-tariff barriers to market access,
November 15, 1973

the nature of competition in the market and realistic market penetration. The capabilities of applicant companies are evaluated as to organization, facilities for follow-on exploitation and financial resources. With regard to organization, the technical, marketing and management capabilities and the corporate characteristics are of special interest.
Title to patents, designs, technical data and materials resulting from a project vests in, and remains the property of, the applicants. However, applicants must undertake not to transfer technical data or inventions, methods or processes resulting from the project to anyone for the purpose of producing or manufacturing outside Canada products identical to, or substantially the same as, the products resulting from the project without the consent of the minister. In addition to these general requirements, the following specific requirements must be met by every IDAP application. Financial support by IDAP is limited to projects concerned with the design of durable products- not throw-aways-which are produced in quantity by industrial processes and which have significant sensitivity to the physical and psychological needs of the user.
The following is a guide to the types of projects that are eligible for support by IDAP. They include office, institutional and home furniture; medical and scientific instruments; recreational and industrial vehicles; toys, games, sports equipments; craft items which are functional, such as dinnerware, ashtrays, etc.; farm and industrial machinery and implements; boats and marine products; functional clothing for sports and industry, such as fire protection suits, life jackets, etc.; household appliances and data processing and communications equipment.
IDAP does not support the design of items which are materials, such as upholstery fabrics, wall-panelling, hardwood flooring, etc.; items generally identified as components, such as gears, axles, relays, casters, etc.; items generally associated with engineering, such as submersible pumps, distribution transformers, etc.; items generally associated with architecture, such as girders, buildings, structural assemblies, etc.; items predominantly graphic, such as record-jackets, point-of-purchase packaging, books, etc.; fashion items, such as clothing, costume jewellery, etc.; or individual traditional handcrafted items of a decorative, non-functional nature such as paintings, sculptures, etc.
The product or products to be designed must be innovative. This is defined for IDAP as the practical implementation of industrial design to provide new or improved products, offering a significant advancement in form and/or function, from the user's point of view. Because design innovation is relative, its significance must be evaluated with respect to the design of similar products currently in development or already available on the market. Projects which propose design innovations based only on cost reduction or ease of manufacture are not eligible, although these factors have important additive value. Projects related to annual model changeovers, without substantial design innovation, are not eligible.
The costs for industrial designer services, whether supplied by staff or consultant designers, must be not less than 25 per cent of the total eligible costs for the project. An IDAP project must be an expansion of the design
Industrial Design Assistance
program of the company or companies making the application. The design expansion may be measured in either of two ways: as an increase in the applicant's normal budget affecting industrial design manpower, or as an expansion by the applicant into a new or highly innovative product area. Thus, an applicant company planning little or no expansion in industrial design manpower can qualify if it proposes to enter into manufacture of a totally new product line, or if it proposes to develop an exceptionally innovative product in an existing product line.
The industrial design services required for an IDAP project must be directed by a person qualified in the field of industrial design who is included in the record of designers maintained by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, or who has the qualifications that would permit his registration in the record of designers. To qualify for work on an IDAP project, an industrial designer must either have graduated in a course of industrial design from an accredited university and have had not less than two years' practical and applicable industrial design experience, which experience must be documented in a professional portfolio covering products which have actually been designed and marketed, or he must have graduated from an accredited university in a related design discipline, such as architecture or engineering, and have had not less than two years' practical and applicable industrial design experience.
This experience must have been sufficient to provide an ability to solve the types of problems normally encountered in industrial design and which relate to environmental and human factors, the integration of aesthetics with function and form, a knowledge of materials and manufacturing processes for a wide variety of markets; and this experience must be documented. Or in lieu of formal design training at the university level, an industrial designer must have had substantial practical and applicable industrial design experience of not less than five years which will have been sufficient to provide an ability to solve the types of problems normally encountered in industrial design, as I have enumerated.
Up to March 31, 1973, 64 projects had been approved. Up to that same date, 33 projects had been completed. In the year 1970-71, 11 projects were approved for a total IDAP commitment of some $226,000. In the year 1971-72, 27 projects were approved for a total commitment of $629,000; and in the year 1972-73, 26 projects were approved for a total commitment of $571,000 in that fiscal year.
One measure of the success of the IDAP program is the increase in industrial design expertise in Canada and the participation of that discipline in the program. An industrial designer was used for the first time by the applicant company in the great majority of the approved projects. Indications are that many of these companies will continue to utilize this new-found technology, and already there are proposals in hand for companies who want to obtain a second IDAP grant. Some industrial design houses have been particularly skilful in promoting the value of the program and have used it to good advantage. While most design houses have been involved in only one project to date, others have managed as many as eight.
The largest grant to date is $55,300, the smallest is $4,000, and the average grant to date is about $22,000. Allowable
7842

November 15, 1973
Industrial Design Assistance
costs under the program include salary, wages and other operational and administrative costs for staff industrial design and associated technical personnel. Also included-[DOT]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is rising on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to disturb the peace that you seem to be enjoying up on your plateau, but I am wondering whether Your Honour sees any relationship between the speech now being made and the motion before us which asks that an order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report on the industrial design assistance program, IDAP.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am among the most trusting of human beings and I was hoping and anticipating; but I really have not seen very much relationship between the speech being made and the motion that has been presented.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Breau) on the point of order.


Herb Breau: I respect your position and your decision, Mr. Speaker, but I submit it is very difficult, after one has put forward his motion and stated his position, to respond without in some way giving information about the program. This is particularly so when the hon. member asking for the information has suggested that we have not divulged it. In order to justify our position, I suggest we must explain the nature of the program.


An hon. Member:: In no way.


John Edward Broadbent: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I entirely agree with and respect your earlier intervention in the discussion, suggesting that members of this House have to relate their remarks to the subject before us. It is abundantly clear that government members use this hour to talk-out a serious motion without giving reasons for or against disclosure. I attempted deliberately to relate my comments to the subject matter of my motion. Now we have various government members simply getting to their feet and blabbering about the program, when the issue is, should the government or should it not reveal the study on the efficacy of this program.


An hon. Member:: That's right on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I said during a debate that took place a month or so ago on a similar motion when the same type of problem was encountered, it is helpful to have some understanding of what the document itself is concerned with. However, I think it is going a bit far for the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), who is making

a very good presentation in respect of the work carried out under this program, to do so without referring to the merits of the issue, namely, whether the evaluation report should be presented to the House. I think that is the sole issue.
Since hon. members are getting a great deal of information now from research staffs and the like, I would hope those staffs would bear in mind that what is being asked for is not an over-all debate on the program but whether, members having become aware of certain facts, the report should be presented to the House or whether in the wisdom of the government it should not. I am as interested as other members in the industrial design assistance program. However, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has come before us and asked that a specific order of the House do issue, and I think that is the point to which the hon. member should address himself.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, with due deference to the Chair, I do not see how we can make an assessment on whether we should have what is called for in the motion unless we have an appreciation of what is already in existence. I have been trying to explain what we already have, in order that we might make a just assessment as to whether we require further information. I have spoken about the size of grants, the number of grants, and so on, with the object of pointing out that possibly we already have enough information in our hands and that any more is unnecessary. I am not suggesting that is necessarily so, but I am pointing out that we do have a tremendous amount of information available to us at this time. I have come to some conclusions concerning this program.


An hon. Member:: We don't want conclusions.


Mr. Gilbert:: Stay with the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This Is out of order.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I have reached some conclusions, based on the information we have today, about whether we need further information.


John Gilbert: Stay with the motion.


Walter David Baker: There is nothing like a conclusion to make a member speechless.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I am giving it deep thought.


An hon. Member:: Time is going down the drain while a lot of clocks are ticking.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I have come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that IDAP provides an excellent incentive to industry to develop new and better products in sectors where industrial design is a prime consideration. There is a need for increased attention to the monitoring of approved projects. This is possibly the point referred to by the hon. member in presenting his motion. There is also a certain need for better marketing knowledge on the part of all persons concerned with the program, including industry management, departmental officers and industrial designers.
November 15, 1973

The impact and success of the program could be improved possibly in two ways. It could be improved with an increase in liaison activity between the office of design and the line branches, and by an increase in promotional activity by the various provincial governments, regional offices of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and professional and business associations. From the information available to me and, I assume, therefore available to the hon. member who moved the motion, I have no real problem at the moment in assessing the success of the program. It is fine in principle to talk about evaluation reports, but at the moment I do not know whether such are produced on a periodic basis by the department. However, perhaps the parliamentary secretary could enlighten us on that point.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the motion of the hon. member is very simple in that it asks that an order of this House do issue for the production of an evaluation report with regard to IDAP. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) was very clear, cogent, precise and persuasive in his argument about the necessity to produce the evaluation report in order that members of this House, and perhaps members of a committee, could study it and decide whether the program should be continued, dropped or cut back. So far we have heard members of the Liberal Party speaking in great detail about the virtues of the program without discussing whether the evaluation report should be produced. The hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson), who is a businessman of some success, spent a great deal of time speaking about the program and how great it was. Can you imagine the situation where that hon. member, having decided his factory should do some research and development on a product, having called in his comptroller and other executives to assess the desirability of developing the product and having set aside the money to do so, finding out three months later that no evaluation study had been carried out in regard to the efficacy of the product? We have here a government program, and in order to assess its efficacy we should have access to the evaluation study. It would be nonsense and a sheer waste of money not to evaluate the research done on a particular project. As members of parliament, we have a responsibility to see how moneys are spent in respect of IDAP.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby says the government has an evaluation report. We should like to study it in order to decide whether the program is effective. If it is not, we would propose measures to end it. For the hon. member for York North to suggest that members of the NDP would stop grants to private firms is sheer nonsense. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby said we would gladly give this money, but we feel we have a responsibility in this regard.


An hon. Member:: He said it was a waste.


John Gilbert: He said we have a responsibility to see that this money is properly spent. It would certainly be a waste if members could not study the evaluation report. The question arises as to why the government should attempt to hide the report. Is it disappointed with the results of the program? I recall that when I was a member of the committee on finance, the president of Electrohome appeared
Industrial Design Assistance
on behalf of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and spoke about television sets in Canada. He said there were nine companies which manufactured television sets- seven United States companies and two Canadian companies.
The Canadian companies are Clairtone and Electrohome. Here we have Canadian firms competing with Unites States firms in the production of television sets. Where is the research and development conducted in respect of the seven United States firms? Is it in Canada? No. All the Canadian firms do is assemble the television sets. We have two Canadian firms competing with seven United States firms in the television industry.
We have here a program under which we could make use of the research and development programs of these various companies and thereby give an opportunity to young Canadian research men and engineers to develop Canadian products. We have IDAP which accommodates such research and development. Surely we should be able to evaluate any study that results from any moneys we give. For the government to shelter behind some of the excuses it has given, to the effect that confidentiality or secrecy may be affected, is pure nonsense. This is really demeaning to members of this House who would like to know the effects of this program.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Breau) will get up and say he supports this program and sees the necessity of all members of parliament studying the evaluation report so we might determine whether the program should be continued. I hope that hon. member will not shelter behind the weak excuse he will probably give, because that would not be worthy of him. There are only five minutes remaining in this discussion, and I shall sit down in order to give the parliamentary secretary an opportunity to say he supports the program and supports the issuance of the evaluation report.
My colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, said that our United States friends can look in depth in and full detail into the programs they sponsor; this makes me feel ashamed that we in Canada should deny such information not only to members of parliament but to Canadians at large. I would hope that at one minute to six when the vote is taken, the vote will be favourable.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate because I believe it is an important subject. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) have argued that there should be an order of the House for the issuance of an evaluation report so we may evaluate the usefulness of these programs. In support of their argument they say the government has refused

I believe "denied" was the word used by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby-members of parliament access to information with regard to these programs.

November 15, 1973
Industrial Design Assistance
If that is the only reason, there is absolutely no reason to have these reports, because on May 8, 1973, before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) when defending the estimates of his department for the year gave quite an elaborate report on the estimates as well as of the programs.
It is very difficult to understand the attitude of members of the New Democratic Party. So far as I can see, they really do not want the evaluation report published in order to evaluate the program or to find out whether it is working. I say this because when listening to the hon. member it was obvious that he believes this program is a waste of money. The problem in respect of the NDP is that because of their political philosophy they believe anything the government does in the private sector is bad.


John Edward Broadbent: Did you listen to the argument?


Herb Breau: Let me continue.


John Edward Broadbent: It is obvious that you were not listening.


Herb Breau: I was. I also listened to the hon. member as the time the departmental estimates were before the committee. It seems to me they are looking for information to further their political aims and bring in distortions. They say the matter of commercial confidentiality is not important. The minister tabled before the committee and explained in detail as objectively as he could, not on a selective basis because it was difficult without divulging confidential matters, the sales to actual expenditure ratio and the projected sales to projected expenditure ratio.
What else could the hon. member want, unless it is information to be used in an election campaign in order to show there is a corporate rip-off? The hon. member wants the evaluation, but on a subjective basis. He does not want to make a study on an objective basis. What that party wants is information as to the names of the companies in order to pursue a political debate. If they wish to do that, I think they should do so without these evaluation reports.
Evaluation is carried on within the government on an ongoing basis. It is done constantly, for the benefit of the government and of particular departments. I am directly opposed to this motion. I do not believe it is necessary. The minister gave all the information he could without divulging commercially confidential matters. If this information were divulged publicly, the validity of the program would be denied. If the members of the NDP do not believe in research or doing anything in the private sector, I disagree with that position and think we should continue to help the private sector in respect of research and development.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 13, 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. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue some of the remarks I was making last Tuesday evening at ten o'clock when the adjournment debate was called. As an hon. member has said in this debate, the bill which we are discussing is a negative piece of legislation. It accomplishes three things: it gives Ottawa, by means of a screening agency, the right to restrict the influx of foreign capital to establish a new industry; it gives the same agency the power to restrict the use of foreign capital already in Canada; and it restricts the foreign takeover of an already existing industry.
This government has once again failed to get to the root of the problem. It has submitted a piece of ad hoc legislation. It has failed to come up with a positive long-term policy to encourage Canadian participation in new and existing industries. Until such time as we can encourage large-scale Canadian investment, we will require foreign capital, and a great deal of it, unless we are content to stand still and mark time.
What kind of long-term policy should we have? In this respect I can do no better than quote from the statement made by Mr. Darcy McKeough, parliamentary assistant to the Premier of Ontario, when he appeared before the Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on Tuesday, June 19, 1973. He said:
The government of Canada must approach foreign investment positively. Its actions must be co-ordinated with and supported by federal action in tariffs, trade, taxation, competition, energy and resources policy. Each of these actions should be strongly directed toward Canadian industrial development needs, recognizing not only our basic economic goals of employment and income growth, but also the kind of lifestyle we as Canadians seek to achieve.
He also stated, and here I am paraphrasing, that Canadians should be more prominent on boards of directors of subsidiary firms in Canada; there should be increased Canadian equity participation in all Canadian-based enterprises; we should encourage portfolio rather than equity investment, and clear guidelines should be applied to the performance of foreign industry and unions in Canada.
I agree with these statements in their entirety. I believe that the present bill, because of its uncertainty and negative approach, has driven away or delayed the investment
November 15, 1973

of foreign capital in certain areas following its introduction in this House.
I was interested to read an article which appeared in the October 8 issue of the Financial Times of Canada, at page 11, about a new recycling plant being built by MacMillan Bloedel in the Oakland, California, area. It will be owned 15 per cent by the workers employed there. Under the plan, and I will not go into in detail, not only do the employees become shareholders but the corporation is provided with capital that is paid off with pre-tax dollars. Of course, United States tax laws are different from ours.
I would suggest that we must examine our tax laws and perhaps redraft them in such a manner that they will encourage Canadian corporations to utilize such a scheme and allow the workers to receive a portion of the profits. Schemes such as these, and tax laws which will allow tax credits to individuals who purchase shares in certain designated corporations, will go a long way toward substituting Canadian ownership for foreign ownership.
It is up to the government to develop a positive policy and present it to parliament as expeditiously as possible. Until such time as it does, we can only look forward to a continued feeling of foreign domination and further regional disparity.
[ Transla tion]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) asked to be recognized. I recognize the hon. member.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the hon. member who was ready to speak on Bill C-132 and the related amendments. I thank you for recognizing me at this time.
Bill C-132 deals with foreign investment in Canada, a question which has for a number of years interested the whole population, especially economists, whether they are partial or not to these investments. I will mention only one of them, Jacques Parizeau, from Montreal. According to him, foreign investments are not helping Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we have known for many years that our neighbours to the south have contributed significantly to the development of our natural resources, when we could have dealt with it ourselves. Today, Quebec Superior Court Justice Malouf ordered that work in the James Bay area be suspended because the provincial government has supposedly encroached upon the rights of Quebec Indians.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the James Bay development is essential, not for political reasons, but to develop-


Roch La Salle: To produce electricity!


David Réal Caouette: -yes, to produce electricity, but mostly to develop the province and consequently the natural resources of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, up to now the James Bay development projet has been financed by loans from the United States. I am not in agreement on this with the present Quebec premier, Mr. Bourassa. Recently, he borrowed $100 million from the United States at an interest rate of 10 per cent repayable within 25 years. This means that during that 25
Foreign Investment Review Act year-period, we will have paid $250 million in interest alone and we will still be owing the $100 million.
Mr. Speaker, when the Quebec premier came back from the United States he did not return with wheelbarrows full of American dollars. No. He came back with a promissory note under which the Quebec government undertakes to pay to American financiers $100 million bearing interest at 10 per cent for 25 years. The note is signed by Mr. Robert Bourassa and endorsed by the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, should the James Bay project not have proved profitable, Mr. Bourassa would have failed to get even two bits from the Americans. But because they saw there an electrical energy potential that might perhaps be useful to them in five or ten years from now, they said: Robert, go ahead, we are going to finance you. How? With figures we call bank credits, borrowed most of the time here in Canada, from our Canadian bankers. But to whose advantage? To the advantage of the American lenders who finance the James Bay project.
Mr. Speaker, I said and I repeated it for the last five years at least that those figures could easily have been written by the governor of the Bank of Canada, in Ottawa, if only the Quebec premier had taken the trouble to apply to that bank, which is our chief financial institution. We could thus have said: We are the owners of the James Bay development. Today, we have to say: We are the servants of some American financiers who now control 100 per cent of the James Bay development. The first contracts for building roads to that area were awarded to Americans from Cleveland and everything else is in keeping with that.
Mr. Speaker, why would Canada, the province of Quebec or some other province have to ask the American people permission to develop our natural ressources? So long as we keep on saying: Let us go get American, German, French, Spanish or Soviet capital to develop our natural resources, how can ws say that we are masters in our own house? We could so easily say it with the control of the Bank of Canadas' operations.
Even though some may think that the Creditists are dreaming in colour those who are dreaming about the United States are making even sillier dreams than the Creditists who are suggesting a logical solution to the problems currently facing us.
Bill C-132, whose purpose is to ensure our control over foreign investment in Canada, contains nothing new. We can control them without this bill. I wish to state that I am not opposed to the Americans, Germans, Hungarians or Bulgarians investing in Canada and establishing manufacturing industries or developing our resources. We are not opposed to it. However, standards should exist. We should have some regulations which would permit us to tell foreign companies: Reinvest your profits in Canada where you are doing business. Do not run away with our resources. Do not run away with the product of Canadian economic growth. Stay here to develop still further our country and provinces.
Shortly we shall be confronting our neighbours to the South about oil. The Alberta people are saying: We want to control our resources and not to be told by Ottawa what

November 15, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act we should do with the Americans. In this connection, I support the government of Alberta which says: Listen. Our natural resources belong to us. I supported premier Bennett during the discussion and fight over the Columbia River in British Columbia. This fight lasted for seven years under a Progressive Conservative Prime Minister as well as under a Liberal Prime Minister. The premier of British Columbia won his point after seven years of work.
Today, Alberta says and rightly so: We are owners of our natural resources. In the Maritime as well as the western provinces, they say: We are the owners of our fisheries. Quebec says: We are the owners of our hydroelectric resources inasmuch as we do not borrow from the Americans nor sell them these resources.
Mr. Speaker, I am far from thinking of telling the Americans to stay home, not to invest in Canada, in either Quebec or Ontario. It is important, however, that these people who are now using credit generated by our Canadian banks at least leave their profits in Canada in order to achieve the economic development of this country, to control unemployment, to fill in present economic, social and political gaps.
Mr. Speaker, the Creditists cannot work miracles and neither can Bill C-132. This legislation merely aims at letting foreigners know that they may invest here but without taking over our economy and companies, nor the operation of our natural resources. We are saying to these companies: Come to this country, but the control over our natural resources is ours, the Bank of Canada is ours. We are using it and you, from the outside, will have to abide by our laws, standards, and logical criteria in this country so that Canada remains the property of its people.
[ English]


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious to put my thoughts on record on the question of foreign investment in Canada and Bill C-132, the government's answer to the problem. I say "problem," Mr. Speaker, because we have been told over and over again that there is a serious problem with respect to foreign investment in Canada.
Before I get into the matter of the bill itself I should like to dwell for a moment or two on this "problem." I feel there must be one because so many people have said so much about it for so long a time. But just what is that problem? I had hoped the government would identify it when they set out to offer a cure. Before I decide whether to accept the cure or reject it, I want to know what the problem is-and, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean that catch phrase of the NDP, "economic nationalism". As recently as last Sunday night, on CBC television the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) made another call for his version of democratic socialism in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Duncan M. Beattie: I am reminded that many of the countries behind the iron curtain label themselves as democratic socialists. When I hear these two words from the mouth of the leader of the NDP I worry about the implications of economic nationalism in the Canadian way of life. I cannot help feeling that if there is

a problem with respect to foreign investment in Canada, the true nature of it is quite different from what the average Canadian is led to believe.
If there is some danger that Canada is to be taken over by some group of foreigners, or if there is some danger that our Canadian identity is being threatened by outsiders, I want to know about it. I want to know just where the danger lies and I want to know the extent of the danger. I want it expressed in terms that the average citizen of our country can understand, because it is their interest that we are discussing here.
In the past, Mr. Speaker, I have heard people say that their Canadian identity was being threatened by foreign takeovers of business and industry in our country. I do not know just how this threat will materialize, but I cannot become too worried about it. I know what I am, and I am not about to let the investment of any amount of foreign capital in Alberta or Nova Scotia affect my identity. To those who complain that their identity is in any kind of jeopardy from foreign investment, I say their Canadian identity must be very fragile indeed.
My concern goes much deeper than that, Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned about the plight of the individual who is drawing a weekly salary and benefits from a firm that was established with foreign capital. I reserve my concern for the individual in this country who is not drawing salary at all and who has little or no hope of drawing one. I venture to say that the majority of the half-million unemployed in this country would not give a thought to who built the factory if they were offered a job in it. I would also suggest that those employed in the so-called foreign-owned industries would fight to keep their jobs.
One aspect of this bill which concerns me most, apart from the fact that the problem of foreign investment has not been clearly defined, is the manner in which the bill has been presented. On March 30 of this year, as recorded in Hansard the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) made the point that the federal government had not consulted the provincial governments on the question of foreign investment.


Mr. Alexander:: Or on anything else.


Duncan M. Beattie: In my view, there is no other way that a federal government could draft legislation to deal with a problem that has different implications for different regions of the country. As recorded on page 2783 of Hansard for March 30, the hon. member for Trinity said:
-it is a matter of regret to the Conservative Party that a bill of this importance to various regions of Canada should be introduced without prior consultation with the provinces.
It does not surprise me that the federal government should attempt to push legislation through this House in this manner, Mr. Speaker. I do not think anyone in this House is surprised that the government would try to push through a bill that has such far-reaching implications to the various provinces without consulting the provincial governments. It is fairly obvious that the federal government has deliberately avoided consultation and that it is not just an oversight. There must be some good reason
November 15, 1973

why the government neglected to seek the views and advice of provincial leaders in this matter. This leads me to believe that this bill is designed to satisfy the NDP economic nationalists: it is a ploy to reward the NDF for past favours and to ensure that those favours will continue for as long as the government chooses to hang on.
When I say that, I would like someone to identify the problem of foreign investment for me and to make some kind of assessment of what the probable effect is on our country. This does not indicate lack of concern, Mr. Speaker-quite the contrary. I am interested enough to want to know whether it is in fact good or bad for our country. I want to know why it is bad, as so many people have maintained, and I want to know what the alternatives are to foreign investment.
I am puzzled by the lack of hard information as to the actual effects and I am puzzled by the fact that the per capita investment in the U.S. by Canadians is greater than the per capita investment in Canada by Americans. My figures are not completely up to date, Mr. Speaker, but a year or so ago it was estimated that total U.S. investment in Canada amounted to about $50 billion. Canadian investment in the U.S. was estimated to be about half that figure, or $25 billion. This works out to a per capita investment in Canada of $161 per American. The per capita investment in the U.S. by Canadians is something like $581. There has been some talk about trying to repatriate most, if not all, of that hefty Canadian investment in U.S. securities, but in my view this is a pipe dream. There is no way that an investor can be lured away from a blue chip investment to the uncertainty of investing in Canadian industry, resources or anything else, without a great deal more security than exists today.
In fairness to ourselves and in fairness to the Canadians we are representing in this debate, if we are to recognize what the real problems are it must be recognized that Canadians invested heavily in the United States because the investment climate in that country was better. Investments which have attracted Canadian funds across the border have been secure investments which at the same time offered a good return and have not been placed in jeopardy from time to time by erratic and unreasonable tax laws. It must be admitted that whexe a person has a choice, no one is going to put his or her money in a risk venture when high yield, secure investment opportunities are offered elsewhere.
This does not mean that Canadians who invested in the U.S. and elsewhere were not good Canadians. It means, simply, that they were good business people. It means they were concerned about their investments and were not prepared to invest their savings in high-risk ventures involving resource exploration and development. Nor were they prepared to risk their capital in industry, knowing that the money market tended to be erratic and uncertain.
There is even less incentive for Canadians to invest in Canadian-based industries or ventures, Mr. Speaker. The so-called tax reforms of a year or two ago have frightened even the hardiest investors and sent many of them scurrying abroad again looking for investment opportunities. If it were so easy to get Canadians to invest in Canada, we would not be debating this bill, or at least it would be a far different bill from the one we are debating. I think it is
Foreign Investment Review Act obvious to anyone here or elsewhere that you do not just say to a person, "Be a good Canadian and invest your money in this Canadian industry or Canadian resource exploration venture." You have to talk about security of investment, you have to talk about yield, and you have to satisfy investors that their investment is not going to be eroded or wiped out by irresponsible government action.
Let us look at the other side of the coin-American investors looking for investment possibilities in Canada. First of all, it was they who took on the uncertain, high-risk ventures which opened up our north and gave impetus to our heavy industry, especially our resource industries. However, they had something going for them besides an adventuresome spirit and lots of capital. They had a government behind them which encouraged them to find minerals and to build industries to process and market them. They were allowed to keep a reasonable share for themselves-and in addition to tax incentives there were other incentives.
Let us not delude ourselves by ignoring the truths in the matter we are trying to resolve. A false premise will produce a false solution, and it is for that reason that I want to keep the government completely honest while we discuss the matter of foreign investment. Is there a real problem? If there is, what is it? Why is it a problem? Who is being adversely affected?
I believe we have to go back to the statement of the hon. member for Trinity earlier this year to find the answer to those questions, Mr. Speaker. We must go back to square one, consult the provinces and determine which, if any, of the provinces feel there is a serious problem with respect to foreign investment. I cannot accept the view that we are going to lose our identity if we do not throw a few investors out of our country. So I am not satisfied that what we are discussing is purely a federal matter which can be settled by isolating the question and excluding all of those who are really concerned, in a dollars and cents way, about the question of investment both foreign and domestic.
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would give a far different answer to such a question than would British Columbia or Alberta. If we do not ask them, we are never likely to know for sure what they want. If domestic investment capital and domestic investors were readily available to the have-not provinces, I do not think they would care what we do about foreign investment. But we know all too well that there has not been a rush, on the part of domestic investors, to the Maritimes or to the prairies. Why should there be, Mr. Speaker, when they can find opportunities for investment in other countries where the investments are more secure and where governments are more understanding?
I was appalled at the thinking of the government when the question of foreign investment was capturing the public imagination a couple of years ago, thanks to the economic nationalists, hon. members to my left in the NDP and assorted other personal interest groups. Someone must have thought this talk would result in a great rush on the part of Canadians to buy up everything in sight and that we would suddenly find new millionaires springing

November 15, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act up overnight all over Canada. The government could not wait to introduce a capital gains tax. In my view, if Canadians had felt the urge to invest in Canada, then this move frightened most, if not all of them, out of the market.
I am sure some hon. members may wonder why I have not set out to debate this bill clause by clause, Mr. Speaker. But I just cannot see the wisdom of trying to leave the impression that I can improve on a bill that I disagree with so completely. As I said before, this is not a federal problem. What we should be doing is finding an answer at the highest level to a regional problem; and I ask my colleagues, how can we hope to find a solution when we don't know the problem, if indeed there is one? Why can we not ask the provinces what they want, what they need, and seek their suggestions as to what we might do at this level? I believe they would also tell us what they do not need, and at the top of the list would be federal legislation which ignores the regional character of the Canadian economy.
I am not an expert and I would go a long way to avoid leaving that impression with anyone. But I am convinced that we are able to deal with foreign investors in the same way as we deal with Canadians, through existing Canadian laws. If there are loopholes, let us by all means plug them; but let us not chase will-o'-the-wisps in the name of Canadian nationalism or in any other name. Everyone in Canada, whether Canadian born, foreign born, or even a visitor, is subject to the same laws and I cannot bring myself to support new laws unless there is a demonstrated need for them. We may, in fact, need foreign investment controls and regulations, but let us not rush them into being until they have been proven to be required.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity of making a few comments on Bill C-132 which still is very important. I must say I have had the possibility of giving some opinions a few months ago on what is termed a legislation on foreign investment.
Having heard all the statements, it is obvious that we are looking for mechanisms or a legislation aiming at a take-over by Canadians of their industry and economy. I also feel that it is important to stress all the services that foreign investments or investors have brought into the country. I think that it is important not to reject these investments lightly. On the contrary, I think that we have the responsibility of establishing some mechanisms and to find a certain motivation for Canadians as regards the necessary investments for the expansion of our industries.
I think that this would be a much more positive way than throwing out or blaming foreigners for coming here to finance or invest in projects which are definitely interesting. Of course, foreigners do not come here simply to please Canadians. On the contrary, there is interesting business to be done in Canada, and these businessmen are always interested in greater profit. Therefore I think that we have the responsibility of attempting to motivate Canadians to invest more in our Canadian businesses.
I would also like to mention that I have already hoped for the sales promotion of our Canadian products. I think that this speaks to the pride of Canadians and that is something that many of us lack. We should think more

often about the necessity to encourage Canadian firms and their products, so that they may attain a more competitive position on world markets.
When we talk about foreign investments, we are seeking economic independence for Canada. And then, we take for granted that it is probably through very strong incentives given to Canadians eager to invest in our industry that we may acquire this economic independence. So, whether we like it or not, if we want to be independent as Canadians, we shall have to pay the price sooner or later. We must therefore adopt measures which may mean sacrifices for us, but if we are really sincere when we say that we want to put our economy back into the hands of Canadians, we must also accept a number of sacrifices.
For a number of years, we have heard of a revolution in industrial development. It would be desirable that the development and all related investments be made by Canadians. Again, there might be a lack of incentive and inducement so that Canadians would prefer foreign investors.
There is always the same question of incentive. Even though we introduce new legislation or changes in legislation, if we do not succeed in stimulating and interesting Canadians I feel we are in the wrong direction. It is clear that the foreign investor as well as the Canadian businessman will not care about investing money in a Canadian corporation. I think that in order to motivate Canadians and interest them we have to offer them some advantages. So, during the few minutes left to me, I would like to urge hon. members to think about this possibility.
It is very easy to talk about these nice principles and I think it is an example which could interest Canadians in investing more in Canadian companies. We would simply have to consider the possibility of giving a deduction of up to $500 on the dividends for every investment made by Canadians in Canadian companies. I think that the fact of having a deduction of $500 on dividends would prompt any Canadian to invest in Canadian companies. If this Canadian benefited from such an advantage it would mean that at current interest rates he would have invested about $6,000 in a company.
We are well aware of the interesting effects that it could bring to the Canadian who, being interested in a company, holding an equity and having been motivated to invest his money, would become a better citizen, a Canadian more interested in his country's affairs. Therefore, he would become much more interested in his country's businesses; it might be surprising to find out how many Canadians could invest small amounts which would build up into a sizeable fund to help the economic development of Canada.
I imagine that the minister or the appropriate department will find other proposals as interesting and efficient as my own. I think that would be a way of creating motivation for Canadians.
Once more, as I said, all that motivation and pride we must have as Canadians demands sacrifices. So, through an interest we could awaken in individuals we would manage to help considerably industry and curb foreign influence on the Canadian economy. A step such as the
November 15, 1973

one I suggest could have very interesting effects in various respects.
I would also like to take this occasion to express my views on an amendment now before the House, namely the right of veto for the provinces. Personally, I would be tempted to support that amendment since I always regarded highly the right to speak, the right to act for the provinces in co-operation with the federal government; however, I feel that considering our system we have an obligation to give the provinces the right to express themselves on foreign investment that in some cases may not have the influence hoped for but in other cases may often bring the province new possibilities. That is true but as members of this House we have a responsibility to give the provinces the right to speak, negotiate, consult, and finally the right of veto on foreign investment.
I think it is perfectly normal in the present system for the provinces to have a say in and be consulted on foreign investment.
I would also like to remind the government, on the occasion of the study of this very important bill, that the present situation related to oil is particular and must make us think twice about what may be the result on our economic future of an overly heavy influence by companies whose majority of shares are not held by Canadians.
It seems to me entirely justified to talk about the establishment of a national corporation to mitigate a little that influence which the oil companies seem to have on the government.
In my opinion, a national corporation would likely give Canada some control. I believe the present situation is a perfect illustration of the absolute power of those companies. Of course, we have every reason to ask for the creation of such a corporation which could give the government, therefore the people, some control again.
Those were the remarks I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, because I think that as members of Parliament we have suggestions and opinions to offer. I hope the government will take them into consideration and I insist that Canadians will find a greater Canadian identity and be more interested in investing in their economy inasmuch as they will be motivated by legislation introduced in the House of Commons. Thus we will succeed in reducing the influence of foreign investors on our future.
We naturally seek a degree of economic independence in Canada and I think that making Canadians consider their future with pride, concern and responsibility and introducing very practical and interesting measures is the way to achieve the aim that every member of the House is pursuing.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I have already addressed myself to the amendment and I want to speak very briefly to the subamendment which seeks to include the words "territorial council". Clearly, this amendment has no real merit since it tries to make fun of the prime amendment moved by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). The prime amendments moved by the hon. member for Central Nova make a great
Foreign Investment Review Act deal of sense to many members of this House who are very much in favour of legislation that somehow will control the spread of foreign investment in Canada and the control by foreign investment of the resources of our country.
Some day the territories may become provinces. At the present time they are not provinces, for the simple reason that these vast areas of land are populated by very few people. Indeed, more people voted for me during the last election than voted for all of the parties in both territories-and I received less than 40 per cent of the votes cast in my constituency. Therefore, to suggest that we include the words "or a territorial council" in the amendment is ridiculous, though it is promoted by a party that is capable of making ridiculous suggestions.


Mr. Peters:: Don't underrate the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. There is only one member on your side from the Yukon, but don't downgrade his position.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I would not want to downgrade the territories, but we must remember that the resources of the territories are held in trust for all the people of Canada and are different from the resources which, in accordance with the interpretation of our constitution, are held in ownership by the people who reside in the provinces. As I say, one of these days our two territories may be added to another province, or they may form a province of their own in much the same way as the provinces today were carved out of the previous Northwest Territories limits, as hon. members know.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) should understand that we are a growing nation, and with a free enterprise economy we will continue to grow. But we will never grow under the philosophy that his party represents.


William Arnold Peters: Time will tell.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and now Ontario have either passed legislation controlling the ownership of the land both by persons within the province and without, or they are considering it. Indeed, one province has even stated that Canadians who are not Prince Edward Islanders are not allowed to own significant pieces of land within that province. Clearly, the ownership of land is within the ambit of provincial control. When this matter came before the committee, many of us asked, "Where does land begin and business end, or vice versa? When is a company in business, or when is the business of a company involved in the ownership of land?" The same applies to natural resources, such as mining, timber limits and oil. It is virtually impossible for any of us clearly to define what is control over the land and land-oriented resources of a province and what is control over business within a province. This is the kind of problem that continually besets this House.
Our constitution was drafted in 1867 or thereabouts, long before we had high-speed transportation and started to worry about foreign control or the ownership of business. I submit that our constitution is not clear or specific enough and it is really impossible for this parliament to control foreign ownership without the co-operation of the provinces. May I say through you, Sir, to the minister that
7850

November 15, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act it is not with any intention of holding up this bill or of preventing its passage, but strictly with the intention of telling the government that the bill will not work without complete consultation with the provinces, that these amendments have been presented. To include the territories would make it a laughing stock. The territorial councils do not have control over the resources or over the land within the territories. But the provinces are in an entirely different position; this is one of the prime reasons why the minister must accept the amendments presented in honesty and in faith by the hon. member for Central Nova. These amendments could well unify Canada.
One of our major problems is confrontation between the federal government in Ottawa and the provincial legislatures and the hopes and aspirations of various parts of the country, such as we have seen in the recent oil issue between this government and the government of Alberta. The people in these parts of Canada feel they are being pushed around. They say they are being pushed around because they have only 19 members in the House of Commons and that the big bloc of Ontario and Quebec, central Canada, will destroy the future as they are trying to control their natural resources.
This legislation, in terms of growth of natural resource development in this country, of development of this nation's land resources, water resources, timber resources, and so on, will only work if it is implemented in consultation with the provinces. This party understands that, as should the minister. He should not be so bullheaded and just say that it will work. He should realize that the briefs received from the provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan both refer to the fact that their input must be felt in terms of what is of significant benefit to Canada.
This is not a filibuster and my speech is not designed to prolong this debate. I am speaking tonight simply because it is essential that the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Central Nova carry.


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-132 I have the thought and feeling that few issues of Canadian economic policy in the past ten years have aroused as much interest, yet as little resolution, as those surrounding foreign investment and particularly the changes proposed in this bill. The approach to the problems of direct foreign investment has to date involved the development of a collection of policies in the form of laws and agreements of a unilateral, bilateral and multilateral nature. In general, this approach has been one of ad hoc reaction often associated with a particular individual who has shown an interest in the topic and the problems as they have arisen. This approach has obviously not been successful.
Other members on this side of the House have pointed out that this bill is so strongly biased against foreign investment that it would damage the Canadian economy. This is a possibility. Quite obviously, the extent to which this is true will depend largely upon the willingness and ability of Canadians to fill any void that may be created. Large new capital investments are required in Canada on a scale well in excess of previous experience. If Canadians and the Canadian government are unable to meet this

challenge, then of course our economic prospects will be affected and our present standard of living will be greatly eroded.
There are a number of small and medium sized private businesses in this country-indeed, a number of them are in my riding of Elgin. I have frequently been told that this bill places a particularly heavy burden on small businesses whose resources are already strained to the limit in reporting to the government. I share their concern. The government can go a long way toward alleviating these fears by simply issuing guidelines which would let small businesses know exactly where they stand. This government has shown it has a total lack of vision and courage in projecting even five years ahead. In fact, it would be a great feat if we could manage to get the government to think past the next crisis which we as a nation will have to face, instead of edging along day by day on this ad hoc, crisis-to-crisis basis.
On an over-all Canadian basis, some acceptable alternative to the present trend must be found. When we reach the point, as we did five years ago when over 46 per cent of our metal fabricating industry, over 86 per cent of our transportation equipment industry, over 71 per cent of our machinery industry and over 99 per cent of our petroleum and coal products industry-as measured by total assets- was owned by people outside Canada, then we reach a rather sobering situation. Since then, the level of foreign ownership has continued to increase. Something must be done, and we must reassess our position.
I believe it is extremely important that my party's position on this matter and on the amendments we have put forth should be considered very seriously. The honorable member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), the party spokesman for industry, trade and commerce, has pointed out many times that the real problems facing Canada have not been dealt with in this bill. More importantly, however, he has pointed out a sound and positive approach to help Canada in its present position. First, the Progressive Conservative Party's full employment proposals would include a more expansionary budget. Our second point is that we believe our tax laws must be changed so as to encourage greater savings, greater investment and risktaking by our fellow Canadians. At the present time, taxwise an American in many cases is in a more opportune position to invest in Canada, in many fields, than is a Canadian. This situation must be changed to ensure that a Canadian has an advantage if he or she wishes to invest in such fields in their own country. This thought is basic and any other suggestion is certainly ridiculous.
Third, we say that Canadian business in general has fallen behind the world in the last few years in research and development. Federal leadership is required to allow us to regain our momentum in this important field. We intend to outline certain proposals to allow our businesses, especially those which are Canadian-controlled, to regain their position in the world. Let me underline our party's position. Research and development are the forerunners of business development. During the past ten years Canada, with all its resources and with all its potential, has fallen into the bottom third of the world's first 25 countries in terms of rate of growth per capita. For a country with the
November 15, 1973

potential Canada has, this is an extremely sad situation. It is time this trend was changed.
Fourth, our party believes our financial institutions should be redirected and restructured to ensure that Canadian business can be properly financed within Canada, including proper financing of regional activities of companies in our five main regions. Fifth, we believe that through a more aggressive export policy, a positive trade balance in current account can be achieved exclusive of whatever resources are sold. Such a positive balance would create a cash pool which could then be directed toward acquiring substantial or controlling interest in Canadian institutions now foreign-controlled. There are many fields in which we believe Canadians could buy sufficient equity to ensure our control of many of the multinational corporations. In this regard we are suggesting it is high time Canada started to live as part of the economic world.
To summarize, most Canadians are in favour of economic nationalism. But the question is: What is economic nationalism? To some, it is the taking of positive economic steps to strengthen Canada's position at home and abroad. To others, it is the welcoming of foreign or Canadian investment and technology to achieve these ends, with proper safeguards to protect Canadian industry. To this end, greater co-operation between the provinces and the federal government is required.
Several provincial premiers have spoken out against the bill, stating that the federal government would not fully take into account the special needs, aspirations and interests of a particular province. This is a real and very dangerous problem that must be faced and resolved by consultation rather than confrontation.
In a world of economic change, where Canada has much to gain and even more to lose, it would be unfortunate if we embraced a form of negative nationalism wherein the exponents were anti-foreign and, in particular, antiAmerican. In rather emotional arguments, these negative nationalists take statistics on foreign ownership and use them out of context in an alarming way. They allege that various types of ownership are harmful, without meaningful proof. They fail to appreciate Canada's involvement in today's multinational world economy and they put forth no creditable alternatives to replace what they would destroy.
The positive Progressive Conservative policy that has been outlined many times on this subject is far more important than anything the government has offered. In fact, the only thing the government has done is to show the country that it does not understand the economic world of today. We have tried to show that it is possible not to just keep a situation from further deterioration but to do something about it and move in the direction of a real solution involving greater Canadian participation and incentives for Canadians to invest more heavily and actively in this great country-Canada.


Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this very important debate on foreign ownership I wish to deal generally with the bill,
Foreign Investment Review Act and especially with some of the amendments. We in Saskatchewan view with suspicion what appears to be a desire by the federal government for more control over the provinces. We look at the DREE programs, the LIP program and some of the other programs which do not seem to be designed having us in mind.
Today such cliches as "Buy Canada back", "Canada for Canadians", and so on, are very popular. Foreign capital has been necessary in the past. It is here and we can live with it. The challenge really is how to maintain control when using foreign investment, and not how to stumble along without it. In fact, it is difficult to get Canadians to invest in high-risk ventures such as oil exploration. There seems to be a correlation between the distance from Ottawa and the confidence in the government. This might explain why people from other countries more readily invest in high-risk ventures in Canada than do Canadians. A good deal of investment capital will be required, for example, in oil exploration alone. It is estimated that $30 billion will be needed during the next ten years for exploration if we are to maintain and ensure security of supply. It is doubtful that this amount of money could be raised in Canada; therefore, we will have to look to foreign investment.
I should like to deal specifically with the amendment of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). I believe this amendment to be of particular interest to the people of Saskatchewan who have always viewed with a great deal of suspicion the motives of eastern bankers and eastern businessmen. In a recent publication by Norman Bromberger, entitled "Conflict and co-operation", there is an outline of the problems of credit in Saskatchewan, particularly farm credit. In his opening remarks Mr. Bromberger states that the settlement and development of western Canada was promoted to develop eastern commerce and industry. Further, he makes the statement- this is following confederation-that westward expansion served the interests of two sections of Canadian business, that is, the railroad interests and the growing commercial and industrial interests. He also states that although western settlement did not come with confederation as anticipated, it was a deliberate policy decision by eastern business and commerce to set up a hinterland for commercial and industrial exploitation. So the people in western Canada-which includes Saskatchewan-have for a long time had a deep-rooted suspicion that central and eastern Canada are not out to do them much good in terms of investment.
The finding of investment capital in Saskatchewan has always been a problem. In recent years, provincial governments have been involved with new enterprises entering their provinces. I would mention examples such as the Interprovincial Steel Company and the Prince Albert Pulp Company. The premiers of all provincial governments went south to the United States, where they found the required money. Then they came back and started the businesses. In the case of Interprovincial Steel Company, I believe this has been quite a valuable acquisition for the city of Regina and the province of Saskatchewan. I am wondering whether that business would have been established under this proposed legislation.
26635-66 J

November 15, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
For many years the NDP received most of its capital from the United States. The provincial minister of finance would sojourn to New York every year to obtain money for rural Saskatchewan farms. A strange thing about the NDP is that it does not particularly favour United States capital. In fact, most countries outside of Canada are referred to by that party as "foreign"-but with the NDP some countries are more foreign than others. There were recent plans to bring in a Romanian tractor company. The NDP government of Saskatchewan had no objection to their retaining 51 per cent control. It would throw in 49 per cent of the capital and forfeit any control. However, last Saturday was a rather eventful day for the NDP Premier of Saskatchewan. The Canadian Press carried a half-page cover story. Over the picture of the premier the headline of the story was "Sask. economy to go boom-boom soon: Blakeney".
While that appeared in the eastern papers and in some Saskatchewan papers, the headline stories in the Saskatchewan papers on the same day did not indicate a boom-boom for Saskatchewan. In fact, the Romanian tractor deal, after two or three years of discussion, folded completely. The Romanians will not be setting up the tractor plant, so that big election promise goes down the drain.
Also, the Burns company in Regina not only does not intend to expand as previously announced and provide 300 or 400 new jobs, but is to close down its plant in Regina leaving 340 people to look for new work. Of course, the Burns' decision resulted from Liberal policies which emptied the feedlots in Saskatchewan so that the packing plants would have nothing to do the following year. It also resulted from the policy which raised interest rates. I think I hear the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) say that I agreed with the policy.


Mr. Knight:: That is what the Star-Phoenix says.


Norval Alic Horner: It comes from "you know who". I think he looks after the Department of Justice. Certainly Burns' reason for closing their plant and not expanding was the high interest rates. On the same day, to top off the picture, John Richards, secretary to one of the ministers, announced he was leaving the government and would sit as an independent until the new Waffle party was formed. I do not know on which side of the fence the federal NDP members are, whether they are Waffle, or NDP members, or just NDP wafflers. That is a decision they will have to make. Certainly, John Richards is a strong nationalist and will form what he terms the real socialist party in Saskatchewan.
Saskatchewan is a tremendously wealthy province in terms of mineral wealth. All it needs is the money to develop it. Capital, whether it is Canadian or foreign, is limited and the available money goes to areas where there is a safe political climate, where the ground-rules are such that investors can operate or where the people investing have confidence in the government's administration. A good example is the difference between the province of Alberta and the province of Saskatchewan. The new rape-seed processing plant in Lloydminster is being set up on

the Alberta side. One could give an endless number of examples of new industry being set up in Alberta which could as easily, except for the difference in government philosophy, be set up in the province of Saskatchewan.
After many years of CCF and Liberal governments in Saskatchewan, we are not setting any records in that province so far as the manufacturing industry is concerned. We are not doing too badly there now-and if all goes well, by the end of 1974 the population of Saskatchewan should increase to the point where it was in 1931!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norval Alic Horner: We are quite a few years behind the rest of Canada in that regard. In the 1973 Saskatchewan economic review it is stated that the production of agricultural commodities accounted for 46.4 per cent of the total value of all goods-producing industries. So you can see that agriculture is still the mainstay of Saskatchewan. In the non-agricultural section, mining accounted for 37.5 per cent, a quarter of which is potash, manufacturing accounted for 24.7 per cent, and construction for 27.6 per cent. Most of the goods that leave Saskatchewan do so in the raw form, to be processed elsewhere. This might be one of the reasons for the low population growth. Surely the problem is lack of investment capital in the province. In that review, increased capital spent on farm machinery and housing is predicted, but no mention is made of any increase in expenditures in industry or manufacturing. Mining investment in 1968 amounted to $225 million, and in 1972 it was $100 million.
Obtaining capital for investment and the control by the province of who invests in Saskatchewan and who controls the investment are very important. Provincial political parties always seek support on the basis that they can attract the most capital if they are elected. The late Ross Thatcher worked hard to meet an election promise and managed to attract funds for a pulp miill in Prince Albert. It was not easy. As the late Woodrow Lloyd said, the province assumed 80 per cent of the risk in return for 30 per cent of the equity. A New York firm, Parsons and Whitmore, ended up with 70 per cent of the equity. Most of the money for the mill came from the United States. The pulp mill employs about 1,00 people and has been a boon for the city of Prince Albert and the northern area. The argument as to whether it was a good deal for Saskatchewan will probably go on indefinitely between the provincial NDP and Liberals until such time as they have amalgamated, I suppose.


William George Knight: Impossible.


Norval Alic Horner: My point here is that if Mr. Thatcher had been forced to use Canadian funds to build a pulp mill at Prince Albert, he would have completely exhausted the funds in those areas. Were it not for the Americans taking a chance at Prince Albert when Canadians would not, there would not be a pulp mill there today. A similar arrangement for a mill at Meadow Lake was entered into by the Liberals. They spent about $6 million. They were defeated in the June, 1971, election. Along came the new NDP government which said, "We will give you $5 million or $6 million to get out of it". So
November 15, 1973

the province was out $10 million and all they had left to show for it was a pretty good education.


William George Knight: The best thing they ever did.


Norval Alic Horner: I never studied the problem one way or the other. I was not involved in provincial politics then, and had no reason to be. Perhaps the hon. member would like to repeat the statement in Meadow Lake.
Lack of investment is not the only reason for the slow growth of industry in Saskatchewan. Another reason is our young people's mobility and desire not to draw unemployment insurance, that is, not to be unemployed. Millions of dollars on DREE programs and LIP are spent in areas of high unemployment. In Saskatchewan, people simply move to the jobs: this is an example which people in other parts of Canada could follow. For years DREE grants in Saskatchewan went only to Saskatoon and Regina and the rest of the province was industry-starved. The fact that the only Liberal member from Saskatchewan came from Saskatoon may have been part of the reason money was restricted to the large cities. A town could be 50 per cent unemployed, but if it did not have an Unemployment Insurance Commission office it was assumed by DREE to have 100 per cent employment.
Since this bill is directed at foreign investment, perhaps one should look at the Canadian money flowing into American-dominated international unions-something which I thought the NDP would clear up because they are specialists in unions.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Unions own their party.


Norval Alic Horner: In a six-year period from 1962 to 1967, international unions made a net profit of $68 million, according to Kent Rowley, secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Council of Unions. It appears that it is all right if union money flows into international unions which are controlled by the Americans-but the NDP do not appreciate foreign control here. What about Canadians who invest in other countries? According to the Watkins report, in 1964 foreigners owned $33 billion of assets in Canada, while Canadians owned $13 billion abroad. The per capita investment of Canadians in the U.S. is probably higher than that of Americans in Canada. The figures may differ in 1973, but the proportions are probably similar.
In closing, I want to warn hon. members that Canada is still going to require a great deal of foreign capital. In the oil industry alone, as I mentioned, to assure a long-term supply would require five times the available investment capital that Canada possesses today. We had better be certain that in a nationalistic fever we do not establish ground rules that will discourage foreign investment and destroy the confidence of the world in Canada as a good place in which to invest.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) who I think left the House with some erroneous impressions. The suba-
Foreign Investment Review Act mendment obviously takes care of an oversight. We in this party are very conscious of possible developments in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. We have in our midst the very able hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who is forever reminding us that his area will soon become Canada's eleventh province. I am sure the NDP member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) has similar views. I would like to hear him speak on the subamendment.


Mr. Watson:: Does your leader agree with that?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would think so. It is a question you had better put to him.


Ian Watson: All those resources for 20,000 people?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: All those resources for Canada, the same as all resources are for Canada. The Premier of Alberta has been the first to admit that Canada comes first. Representatives of the oil industry came down here in 1969 and said, "Let us build a pipeline to Montreal." But the cabinet said no. The present minister wasn't in the cabinet: he is a Johnny-come-lately; his talents have just been recognized. In 1969 the oil industry was told, "Peddle your oil elsewhere. We don't need it. We would rather buy oil from the Middle East." Now the cabinet is attempting to treat Alberta like some kind of blue-eyed Arab. Nothing is further from the truth.
As recently as last week, the minister of intergovernmental affairs for the province of Alberta said, "We will give you all the oil it is possible to deliver by the present means to the Montreal market." He estimated that deliveries could total something like 100,000 or 150,000 barrels a day.


Herb Breau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member with great interest for an hour the other day, but I do not think he is now speaking to the substance of the subamendment and he should be called to order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point raised by the hon. member is obviously well taken. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has already spoken for the full time allocated to him under the Standing Orders on the motion before the House. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has moved a subamendment, and if hon. members are going to speak a second time on a motion to amend the bill they should restrict their contributions to the subamendment before the House. I am sure this is what the hon. member intends to do.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that I was replying to some heckling from the other side, and the answers I gave were not the ones they wanted. I think somebody should put two or three Brownie marks beside the parliamentary secretary's name because he has done yoeman service; he found that my answers were ridiculing the arguments the government is trying to sell across Canada and he immediately acted to stop me.
When I rose to speak I had a copy of the subamendment in my hand. Then I was rudely interrupted by hon. members opposite. As I was saying, the subamendment fills an oversight in the amendment moved by the hon. member

November 15, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act for Central Nova (Mr. Mackay). It is a worthy subamendment and one with which the hon. member for Yukon would certainly agree.
The hon. member for Timiskaming said some interesting things when he moved his subamendment. There is a great deal of oil in the Yukon. Oil was discovered over 100 years ago in the Norman Wells area of the Yukon. We would like to think that the Canadian market would be made available for that oil-but that will not happen unless we have foreign capital. It will take $5 billion or $6 billion to build a gas line down the Mackenzie Valley. If the gas line is built, you will see extensive drilling taking place along the route. Of course, it would be even more costly to build an oil pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley.
Some members of the NDP have a mistaken belief that the oil in Alberta does not belong to Alberta, does not belong to Canada but belongs to somebody in a foreign country. The oil now being found and developed in the province of Alberta belongs to the people of Alberta. The oil companies don't own it; they could not extract one barrel of oil without the permission of the provincial energy board. How much they extract from each well is determined by that energy board. There is no ownership of the oil itself. There is ownership of the drilling rights; they buy the drilling rights, and pay a very steep premium for them, but it cannot be said that they own the oil in the ground. Albertans own the oil in the ground, and they limit the amount that comes out. As I was saying, there is room for great potential development in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
The minister's speech in support of this legislation was rather weak. In an earlier energy debate in this House the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) said that we are being strangled by private enterprise. I thought that was a rather strange statement, but perhaps coming from him it is not strange. He has got himself hired on as a two-bit professor at some university and now he has become an academic and a long-haired theorist on socialism.
At one time we sat in this House and wondered if the Waffles would take over the NDP. But they did not have to do that, Mr. Speaker; they were swallowed up. No Waffle member could say more in support of state control than the statement uttered by that hon. member, that we are being strangled by private enterprise. We need private enterprise to move into the territories and help develop their resources so that Canadians will have continuous reserves of oil and gas. There is absolutely no need for Canada to be short of oil or gas this winter. But because we have not encouraged enough money to come in and develop our resources, we may well remain at the mercy of the Middle East and its pricing system.
An editorial in the Financial Post of November 10 contained the following:
Our major expansion money is going into the U.S. Our Canadian growth will level out, while our U.S. growth will really take off.
That is a quotation from a statement made by a company president. That is certainly what will happen if this bill goes ahead. The minister piloting this legislation is from Toronto. A few wealthy Torontonians have told him there is enough money in the country to develop it-


Herb Breau: On a point of order-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Another two Brownie points.


Herb Breau: With all respect, the subamendment is very simple. It adds the words "Northwest Territories and Yukon territory" to the amendment presented by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), and I would suggest that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is not speaking to that at all. It is obvious that these hon. members want to filibuster.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure what the hon. member is speaking about, but I think it is the responsibility of all hon. members who take part in debate in parliament to respect the rules. If there is any rule that members should attempt to take into account, it is the rule of relevancy. That rule means that we should discuss what is before the House. If members are moved to move subamendments or amendments to the motions, we will be here for a long time and they are attracting, of course, this additional debate. I am not sure whether the hon. member is taking advantage of the fact that this subamendment is before us. He has 20 minutes in which to make a speech. Perhaps the easiest thing is to allow him to make his speech until another subamendment is moved. But for the moment I will hear him out.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would it not be in order for Your Honour, in the circumstances related to this amendment, to rule that one would be able to discuss the question of financing oil and gas development in the territories?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's approach to such matters is very liberal, obviously. I am not prepared to go as far as him in a liberal interpretation of the rules.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your counsel. I always pay close attention to it and will attempt to adhere to the amendment. Apparently some hon. members are not aware of what the subamendment would do. It does not deal with the Yukon, but just says; -following the words "a province" the words "or a territorial council".
There are two territorial councils, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Provinces are not necessarily named in the amendment. I just point that out so that next time the "Brownie" seeker jumps up he will use the right word. There is certainly great potential for gas and oil recovery in the Northwest Territories-but that is not all that is there. There is a tremendous amount of mineral wealth there, and it needs to be developed. I remember when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Die-fenbaker) was prime minister he introduced the roads to resources program. Many roads were built up to those resources so that the mining and development necessary to get the metals to market could begin. That was a very worth-while project, and it took capital which the government of the day advanced to the provinces and the territories. The roads moved the minerals out and the Pine Point railroad also moved the minerals out. However, despite what some people might think, we cannot move the oil and gas very efficiently because if any means other than a pipeline is employed, huge amounts of foreign investment
November 15, 1973

will be necessary. If we do get the pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley, this will require further foreign investment.
I read a moment ago a newspaper article which says that foreign investment will be curtailed. It says that our major expansion money is going to the U.S., that Canadian growth will level out while U.S. growth will really take off, and that this kind of loss hurts. Another headline in the same paper says that every major cost and tax will be higher in Canada. That is interesting, Mr. Speaker. We are not keeping up with our major competitor for money, the United States.
This afternoon the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) said that few people live in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and that more people in his constituency voted for him than live up there altogether. This will continue to be the case as long as we keep out the foreign investment that is necessary to develop that area. It is all well and good for the lost souls from Saskatchewan in the New Democratic Party to say they have to manage their economy and curtail their growth. Saskatchewan is a very rich province in minerals, but it is very afraid to develop and it has frightened off foreign investment. Some of that investment has come to Alberta, where we have confidence in ourselves and in the province. We are not afraid of managing foreign money and I think we have done a relatively good job of it under the present and former governments.
The federal government could do it, too. Foreign investment could not go into the Northwest Territories without full consultation with the federal government, because that area does not yet have provincial status. I suppose the NDP would like to think they would curtail the growth there so that their power over the people living in the area would remain in Ottawa and they would never be given provincial status. I do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker. Canada is a vast country, a very regional country, a confederation of areas-and those areas should be encouraged to grow and develop.
I notice that no one in this House speaks out strongly against development in the north at James Bay. That is a similar region and huge amounts of foreign capital are going into it. Why do we say that we must control the foreign investment going into the Yukon and the Northwest Territories? Is it because they are undeveloped areas and we want to keep them undeveloped so that control will remain here; so that the population will always be small and will never bother Ottawa very much?
I should like to pose a question to the minister in charge of this bill. When he sets up his agency, will there be somebody on it from the territorial Councils, because of the rich mineral wealth that is there?


An hon. Member:: Of course there will.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone says, "Of course there will". I would like to think so, but the minister steadfastly studies his papers when the question is posed because he does not know who will be on the agency. He will not have the authority to appoint them; that will be done by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The minister cannot say that there will be people from the Northwest Territories or the Yukon on the agei.cy; but certainly those areas should
Foreign Investment Review Act be represented as well as the other major provinces in Canada.
A great deal of care must be used in setting up the agency so that none of the bitter, cantankerous feelings that have been apparent recently, and best exemplified by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), become dominant factors in it. There should be complete regional representation on the agency so that this sort of feeling could be suppressed and controlled at all times and there would be no particular hatred against any region, certainly not against a region with so much development yet to take place and with so much room for growth in population as in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
We are dealing with a very important subject today, Mr. Speaker. Someone on the other side suggested this is a filibuster. If you make two speeches on a matter, you are filibustering around here.


Herb Breau: What about 25 speeches?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Perhaps it will take another 25 speeches to put the government into a receptive frame of mind for suggested amendments.


Herb Breau: We are very receptive.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the government remains steadfast and will not perceive the usefulness of worthwhile suggestions from this side of the House, let me say to the parliamentary secretary who is continually interrupting me that a minority government should always have its ears open for good ideas-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -because it does not have the support of the House of Commons. The vocal group to my left are pounding their desks. They had 17.8 per cent of the popular vote last time; they know how much support there is for socialism in Canada. Even so, they had to hid their true colours. They had to push the Waffle, the real socialists, out; yet they are still Wafflers. Their leader is out-waffling Mr. Laxer by a long shot. They could not be tarnished when going to the people in the 1972 election; they had to hide their true feelings. But even so they got only 17.8 per cent of the vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret very much to interrupt the hon. member. Of course, he may continue if he has the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent. The hon. member, I am afraid, will have to wait for another amendment.


William George Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be permitted to ask the hon. member a question?

November 15, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair thought it heard the hon. member refusing, a moment ago, consent to extend the hon. member's time. If the hon. member has changed his mind and wants to allow the hon. member additional time, if he has the consent of the House he can ask his question. Is there unanimous consent to extend the time of the hon. member for Crowfoot?


Stanley Howard Knowles: For one
question.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a very qualified acceptance-for one question.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) the following question. As the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) expressed a view exactly opposite to that which the hon. member for Crowfoot expressed about the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), I wonder if the hon. member for Crowfoot in this instance, especially in view of his record as an individualist within the party's ranks, would inform the House whether he or the hon. member for Peel South is speaking for the Conservative Party.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very good question. I particularly like it because we, in the Conservative Party, are very broad minded. We are not sterile. We do not believe that only one person should speak and that we should not listen to anybody else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yet that is how the NDP group operates. Those members think they must follow.
I have looked at the subamendment. I think it is very worth while. I think it was slipped in by oversight or by error. I personally thanked the honorable member for Timiskaming for suggesting this subamendment. I know the hon. member would never do anything without consulting the whole caucus of his party. I know the whip of the NDP group will certainly support the frontbencher of that party who has brought forward this subamendment.
Further, I know that the hon. member for Northwest Territories of the NDP will certainly support the subamendment. I can assume that the whole group to my left will wholeheartedly support the subamendment and I wish to thank that group for supporting it. I think it is worth while. Between now and the time when we vote, they can rest assured that I will have lengthy conversations with the hon. member for Peel South and will attempt to persuade him to support this subamendment also.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any further questions?


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I too am strongly in favour of strong provincial input into these matters we are discussing-and I think the territories were not included in the legislation because of an oversight. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), moved an amendment which may

correct this glaring oversight. I am sure the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) is entirely in agreement with it.
The territories, even more than the provinces, are concerned about representation with respect to decisions affecting investments. Some suggest that as there are only a few thousand people in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, we do not really need to bother about them. Some say there are too few people up there to affect the resources of the region. I ask, what about the neighboring state of Alaska? Compared with the population of New York state, California or other states in the U.S.A., the population of Alaska is very small indeed. Yet that state is important. It is equally important for the people in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon to have a say in decisions affecting investments in their area. Why, Mr. Speaker? The reason has to do with discoveries of oil and gas and with the building of pipelines in those areas.
The courts have pointed out that jurisdiction and ownership with respect to thousands of square miles of land in the Yukon and Northwest Territories will need to be examined if we are to build pipelines from those areas. It is important for native peoples and others affected to have some input into decisions respecting investment in areas in which they live. This investment, in the foreseeable future, will take the form of gas and oil pipelines and things like that. In the previous parliament we discussed the Yukon minerals legislation. It was found that a group of civil servants in Ottawa had designed the minerals legislation for the Yukon. It was an autocratic piece of legislation which did not take into account certain needs and was detrimental to the development of the Yukon.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on September 18 I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) if he was actively seeking means whereby P.E.I.'s constitutional right to transportation links with the rest of Canada should not again be abridged. I further inquired whether he was giving consideration to having the ferries operated by the Department of Transport. For some reason, the minister in his reply talked about the right to strike and asked whether hon. members wished to remove the right to strike. My question was not one dealing with labour relations. Rather, it was concerned with transportation and the right of Prince Edward Island
November 15, 1973

to be connected with the rest of the Dominion by reliable and adequate transportation links.
This chamber, and the one which existed before the great fire of 1916, echoed with the complaints of Prince Edward Island members of parliament troubled about their province's lack of transportation facilities. A vital question when we entered confederation a century ago was transportation. We entered because we were promised continuous and efficient communication with the mainland. This hundred-year old promise was never fully implemented. It certainly was very much in abeyance during the last railway strike and two preceding ones.
It is a strange thing that Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, the two provinces from which the CNR has made a most thorough withdrawal, should suffer most when the CNR and its employees have a row which brings on a strike. The vast number of people crossing on the Island ferries are not railway passengers at all. Yet the ferries are operated by the CNR. My belief is that that corporation should be removed from the picture and the ferries operated directly by the Department of Transport. Premier Campbell has suggested a provincial Crown corporation to operate the service. I cannot see this as a realistic notion. The province of Prince Edward Island could not afford to operate the ferry service, nor should it. Interprovincial transport is purely and simply, clearly and definitely, the responsibility of the government of the Dominion of Canada.
But what troubles me most about the whole matter is the lack of action and communication between the government of Prince Edward Island and the government of Canada on this vital link. Surely the break-off of service should have shocked both governments into action. But on October 29, in reply to an order paper question, I learned there had been no formal communication from the government of Prince Edward Island or suggestions for the avoidance of any future cessation of service on the Bord-en-Tormentine run. No formal word from the Prince Edward Island government, and from the federal department the reply, "The continuance of alternate routes should guarantee that Prince Edward Island is not completely isolated in the event of future work stoppages."
In other words we are back to where we were last summer, six years ago, and in 1951. Leave it to the Northumberland ferries! They did a good job and I am surprised they have not been paid for their great work. I am surprised, too, that the P.E.I. government has not presented a bill for what it had to do to relieve some of the strain of the shutdown of the main ferry service.
However, the status quo is not good enough and I think the minister should do something. I do not think our island province deserves to be cut off as it was three times in recent years. Now is the time to move. Now is the time to learn the lessons of the strike. Montesque said that to govern is to foresee. Let us see some foresight, some action, some concern on this vital issue.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 1972 a team of CN and MOT officials began examining the
Adjournment Debate
organizational structures of the east coast ferry services to Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island and considering alternates. Many alternatives were considered, among which were: creating a separate entity for ferry services that would report to the CN vice-president responsible for the Atlantic region; creating a separate CN subsidiary with its own board of directors; creating a Crown corporation; bringing east coast ferry service activities into the public service.
On October 12, 1973, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) jointly announced with the president of CN a new east coast ferry operating administration to be based at Moncton, New Brunswick, with operating units in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, responsible for all ferry and coastal services managed by CN for the Ministry of Transport. Featured in the reorganization was the creation of a directing committee for the new administration, composed of senior Transport and CN officials. CN president J. MacMillan announced that Rupert J. Tingley, formerly CN area manager in Newfoundland, had been appointed as general manager. The major objectives for the new administration are the co-ordination, improvement and expansion of the present ferry and coastal services to meet expected increased traffic demands.
It should be noted that in regard to all of the alternatives employees would either have by law the right to strike or be able to choose the right to strike as a means of dispute settlement. Even if by some means the services could be declared essential and prohibited from striking, there is no guarantee that the employees under certain conditions might not find it necessary or desirable to initiate a work stoppage. One way of avoiding shutdown of the ferry services would be to have the services run by the military, but this has never been considered a viable alternative. The government is not considering abolishing the right to strike.


CRIMINAL CODE-REQUEST THAT ABORTION BE REMOVED
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, this morning, two days after the acquittal of Dr. Henry Morgentaler on a charge of performing an illegal abortion, the Montreal Gazette spoke out strongly in favour of a change in the present abortion law. Editorially, it congratulated Dr. Morgentaler on having the courage of his convictions, adding that he had "done more than a full parliament of MP's to bring the abortion issue squarely before the public". The Gazette is quite right. The government of Prime Minister Trudeau, and indeed most members of parliament, have been remiss in their duty to respond to human need by repealing Canada's outmoded and unworkable abortion law. Instead, like the ostrich this House has buried its head in the sand and hoped that the whole matter would go away. It will not!
In Canada there are 1,422 hospitals. Only 247 have established abortion boards. The result is that these hospitals are overloaded and that women in places where there are no hospital boards are compelled to attempt ghastly "do it yourself" ways to find relief or to look about desperately

November 15, 1973
Adjournment Debate
for someone, far too often an incompetent practitioner, to save them. Meanwhile, women with money can get safe abortions in New York. No wonder Dr. Morgentaler commented on his acquittal in these words:
Even if I lose the appeal the point will have been made. Public opinion will pressure the government to establish clinics so that women who want them can have them safely and with dignity instead of going to butchers . . .
"It's not just helping these people that interested me, but helping get the law changed across Canada".
In face of this tragic and absurd situation, what is the response of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang)? Clothed in rectitude and rigidity, he warns hospitals to narrow their interpretation of the abortion law so that social and economic factors will have little or no weight in permitting an abortion. He turns a blind eye, a deaf ear and a cold heart to the misery of those who need help.
The Toronto Globe and Mail of this morning comments editorially:
Almost from the day Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau brought in the present abortion rules he has been under attack for not liberalizing them further. He has kept doggedly to his stand that the government would not consider further reforms so soon after the 1969 changes. The existing system works and there is no need for further relaxing the rules, he says. He's wrong. The present system works but it works badly. Therapeutic committees are cumbersome. Some hospitals will not establish committees. Others interpret the abortion section of the Criminal Code so strictly that whole communities are denied the right to abortions. Hospitals vary so widely in their approval to abortion that it's true to say the law on abortion varies from community to community, which is an intolerable situation.
Of course, we cannot materially reduce the great numbers of abortions, legal or illegal, until we have birth control knowledge and access to contraceptives fully available. Contraception is the first line of defence against unwanted pregnancy. We are far from that state of affairs today. Meanwhile we must get rid of our present abortion legislation which gives rise to such absurdity and injustice all across this country.
When is this government going to permit freedom of conscience to the people of this country by taking abortion from the Criminal Code and allowing the decision to be made in each individual case by the woman involved and her doctor?
[ Translation]


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Montreal case will probably be appealed but we cannot make comments on the future development of events concerning possible amendments to the Criminal Code.
The general position of the minister inside and outside the House is as follows: He objects to any amendment to the abortion legislation as it now stands.
The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) has insisted that abortion legislation should be liberalized and amended according to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has also been stated that in several areas, hospitals refuse to set up abortion committees thus overburdening other hospitals and compelling women who wish to obtain an abortion to travel to other provinces or abroad or still to rely on those who practise illegal abortions.

On August 25, 1970, in the 10 provinces and Yukon Territory, it was reported that 143 hospitals had appointed therapeutic abortion committees. Their distribution is as follows: Newfoundland, 4; Prince Edward Island, 2; Nova Scotia, 6; New Brunswick, 7; Quebec, 16; Ontario, 48; Manitoba, 4; Saskatchewan, 8; Alberta, 18; British Columbia, 29; Yukon, 1.
It appears that the abortion rates vary considerably among the provinces and are in no way connected with the availability of chartered or approved hospitals which have appointed therapeutic abortion committees. The statistics for the first six months of 1972 are also available. The therepeutic abortion rate, compared with the total number of births, had been 7.6 per cent for the first semester of
1971.	In 1972, for the same period, the rate was 10.1 per cent. Here again the rates varied according to the provinces. For the first six months of 1971, the statistics varied from 19.3 in British Columbia to 0.5 in Newfoundland. For the same period in 1972, these rates were 22.4 in British Columbia and 1.2 in Newfoundland. For the period of January to June 1972, the total of therapeutic abortions was 18,817. For the same period in 1971, the total was 14,168.
The number of abortions for women from elsewhere or residing in the province, other than those reported in the province, was negligible. In 1971, foreign residents accounted for 0.1 per cent. During the same year, patients residing in a province other than that concerned in the report represented 0.7 per cent of the total. For the first six months of 1972, the figures are the same. Here are publications of Statistics Canada in support of what has been said.
1.	Special publication on therapeutic abortions in Canada, from August 26, 1969, to August 25, 1970, dated November 20, 1970.
2.	Therapeutic abortions in Canada in 1971, dated May 3,
1972.
3.	Therapeutic abortions in Canada, from January to June 1972, dated December 11, 1972.
The minister has also been asked from time to time about the publicity in Canadian publications offering abortions in locations where they are legal, in New York for instance. The minister simply replied that he was studying this publicity and that his department would soon complete its research in this matter.


AIR CANADA-CONSTRUCTION OF NEW COMPUTER CENTRE AT DORVAL-EFFECT ON WINNIPEG CENTRE
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, over the past few months I have spoken several times on the subject of Air Canada and for the most part my remarks have concerned the transfer of the Air Canada overhaul and maintenance base to Dorval in 1969. This House is quite familiar with the circumstances surrounding that transfer and the destructive effect the move has had on the aerospace industry of Manitoba. I believe that part of the base should be returned to Winnipeg.
Tonight I intend to discuss a situation which in many ways bears an ominous resemblance to the transfer fiasco.
November 15, 1973

I refer to the construction by Air Canada of a new computer and systems service centre at Dorval. In spite of assurances to the contrary from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), I fear that this new facility might render the computer operation in Winnipeg obsolete. Such a move would force many employees to move to Dorval.
I am skeptical of the minister's assurances because they resemble those false assurances about the maintenance base given to the people of Manitoba during the 1950s and 1960s. Successive Liberal governments repeatedly denied that the base was to be moved-but it was. One thousand Manitobans were forced to move to Dorval. Today, employee morale is incredibly low, especially among transplanted Manitobans. The people of Winnipeg do not want a repeat of the air base debacle. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) termed the transfer "one of the worst mistakes ever made in Canadian history". We do not want to be the victims of another government mistake.
The new computer building is scheduled for occupancy in January. But who exactly is going to occupy the 25,000 square feet of floor space? Air Canada maintains that the building will house employees and equipment presently located in various other areas of the base. However, there appears to be some doubt whether a building of this size is necessary if in fact it is to be occupied only by those currently working in Dorval.
A letter sent last spring by Air Canada to Winnipeg's civic executive policy committee stated that the airline was moving the Winnipeg accounting department to Montreal. Air Canada, however, claimed that this information was erroneous and have since continued to assert that no facilities will be moved. But for obvious reasons I am skeptical, and so are employees at the Winnipeg branch. History has made it hard for us to be confident of government assurances.
Even with the guarantee that the computer centre will remain in Winnipeg, the Manitoba aviation industry will continue to flounder. The government has failed to live up to past commitments. I suggest that rather than moving the Winnipeg branch to Dorval, Air Canada should centralize its computer facilities in Winnipeg. It is functionally possible to locate a central computer for all Air Canada requirements outside central Canada, with no loss of efficiency. Both the TransCanada Telephone Company and CN-CP Telecommunications are technically able to provide data transmission at reasonable cost because rates are rapidly becoming distance-insensitive.
Most airlines in the United States have decentralized their operations. United Airlines has its headquarters in Chicago and its main computer in the western city of Denver. Eastern Airlines has its head offices in New York but has computer centres in North Carolina and Florida. However, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay) this is not what the government means when it speaks of decentralization. The hon. member stated in a recent letter to me that centralization "does not apply directly to such Crown corporations as Air Canada". I quote further from his letter:
Air Canada is, of course, expected, as a Crown corporation, to recognize the government's social and economic policy. However, any decision regarding the actual operation of Air Canada must be
Adjournment Debate
left to its management which is responsible for the performance of the airline.
This is without doubt one of the most incredible statements I have read since becoming a member of parliament. I suggest that as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport the hon. member should read the Air Canada Act. Crown corporations are clearly subject to the people through parliament and are dependent upon parliament, especially the cabinet, for policy orientation. To imply, as the hon. member does, that Air Canada runs its own affairs independent of the cabinet is an insult to hon. members' intelligence.
An example of just how much direct influence the cabinet does have in formulating Air Canada policy can be found in a decision by the airline last spring to extend a contract to CAE aircraft in Winnipeg. CAE was awarded a contract to build galley equipment for Air Canada's New Lockheed jets without even having entered a bid. Furthermore, CAE had no experience in this type of work. Noor-duyn Norseman Limited of Montreal had won the contract with a $200,000 bid, but was later informed by Air Canada that the contract was to be assigned to CAE.
CAE is Air Canada's replacement at the Winnipeg base and has been plagued with difficulties. Former Air Canada president, John Baldwin, frankly admitted "it will cost us more, substantially more, to have the galley equipment, and so on, built by CAE". He also said the airline had an obligation to Winnipeg. It is obvious that Air Canada was advised by the government to give the contract to CAE, yet the parliamentary secretary asserts that Air Canada makes all its own decisions. Even Mr. Baldwin admits this is not so.
Thus, the government does control Air Canada policy and is in a position to steer that corporation on a road to decentralization. This it must do. Not only must the computer office remain in Winnipeg but the government should consider centralizing all computer facilities in that city. This, combined with the return of portions of the air base, would not only alleviate the deteriorating situations in Dorval and Winnipeg but would prove to the people of Manitoba and western Canada that this government is sincere when it talks about decentralization.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) was already on the air on this subject on station CJOB yesterday morning, making the same statement as he made here a moment ago and making many allegations which he cannot substantiate. If he has a real problem, let him spell it out here, instead of all this literary writing that he is doing in the House.
In fact, Peter Ward, the investigating reporter for CJOB, said on that station recently that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was known to exaggerate. I think that I myself would not want this said about me. Speaking about CAE, this is another thing. He should read in the House the letter which he received from the manager of CAE in Winnipeg contradicting what the hon. member said on the air, in the House and elsewhere.

November 15, 1973
Adjournment Debate
After taking this into consideration, I would now like to return to the matter of the computer. On June 6, the day after the hon. member asked his question in the House, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) sent him a letter in reply. The situation, contrary to the allegations made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and also by another member of the opposition, has not changed since then.
Air Canada is changing computer equipment at both Winnipeg and Montreal and some computer operators are regularly transferred in these operations. Those transferred from Winnipeg are replaced, and the total staff size in Winnipeg is being maintained at last year's level. Beyond this I can really only repeat the substance of the minister's June 9 letter, that Air Canada's plans are to result in a significant upgrading in technological resources at Winnipeg. Through a new, flexible terminal
computer, Winnipeg is being interlinked with Toronto and Dorval real-time computer capabilities and the technology available at both these locations is thus becoming available to the Winnipeg group. That is contrary to what the hon. member keeps saying. The Winnipeg group is having its knowledge updated accordingly.
Air Canada regards it of prime importance that the same relative levels of advanced technology be achieved, regardless of geographical location, to provide uniformly up to date and efficient service to all Air Canada users of computer services at any of their prime three locations and to ensure equal opportunity for promotion to all their employees across their system.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, November 16, 1973