1973-11-20

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

['I am not sure whether any further ruling is required on the part of the Chair. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding in the interpretation of the words to which the hon. President of the Privy Council has referred. When I spoke those words I had reference to the suggestion that had been made during the long and numerous exchanges that took place yesterday afternoon that the matter might be revived today by an hon. member who had indicated that perhaps it would be revived. That is what I had alluded to, that if it were revived then at that point another ruling would have to be made. But it was my intention and my hope that the matter had been resolved and that, as the hon. minister suggested, the rules of the House had been preserved. Whether the practice had been fully preserved is a matter of interpretation. I am not sure that the rules of the House and our practices are always fully observed and respected. Perhaps yesterday we did not attain this measure of perfection. I would have liked personally that the matter be resolved more clearly.\nI hope that this incident will help the Chair and hon. members, if another occasion such as this arises, to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the whole House.']
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed a resolution approving the government's decision that Canadian forces participate in the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East and has filled up the blanks in the resolution with the words "Senate and".



Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of personal privilege. I should like, through you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) whether he is prepared today to make a full and unequivocal withdrawal of the charge he made yesterday in the House to the effect that I deliberately misled the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Fisheries gave the Chair notice earlier today, as required by the Standing Orders, of his intention to raise this matter again today by way of question of privilege. Since receiving the minister's notice I have looked closely at what was said in debate yesterday when the Chair took exception to a charge made by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.
After suggestions made by the Chair to the hon. member and to the House in general that a charge that another member deliberately misled the House is unparliamentary, the hon. member, perhaps not to the extent that the Chair would have liked, did say twice or three times that the statement he was making was that the minister had misled the House. It is, of course, well established that in debate a member can say at any time that another member is uttering a misleading statement. That has never been deemed to be unparliamentary.
The question I had to resolve yesterday was whether the withdrawal by the hon. member was satisfactory in view of the precedents and practice of the House. I had urged the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate to make a clear withdrawal. He made a statement which at the time I felt was satisfactory from the point of view of the Chair. I had invited hon. members who felt that perhaps they would like to contribute and give some guidance to the Chair on the matter to do so. I particularly at the time addressed
myself to the Minister of Fisheries, and this did not evoke a response.
Hon. members know the rule to the effect that when a member has a question of privilege to raise it should be done immediately. When the matter in question was first brought up for consideration I had hoped that hon. members who felt they had a question of privilege or wanted to take part in that question of privilege, or who felt they were aggrieved in some way, would have assisted the Chair yesterday, and I doubt very much whether 24 hours later it is possible to revive a question of privilege which has been, in the opinion of the Chair at least, resolved.
The notice I received from the minister includes the suggestion that the matter was left unresolved by the Chair. That was not my impression.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope hon. members would refrain from either cheering or objecting to what the Chair is attempting to do at the present time. My thought was that, although the amendment or modification which had been made by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate was not entirely satisfactory, I was willing to accept it. Certainly I believe, in reading the record, I did indicate that so far as I was concerned this was closing the matter, and I did not expect that on a question of privilege the matter would be revived today. I would hope that under the circumstances we could allow the House to go on with its business.
I would like to reiterate what I said yesterday, that the House can operate efficiently only if members are prepared to respect the rules, traditions and practices of the House and to use parliamentary language. It seems to me we can have useful debates, for the benefit of the institution, by limiting ourselves to what are parliamentary expressions. When unparliamentary expressions are used I will consider it my duty to intervene and seek the co-operation of hon. members in using expressions that are accepted as parliamentary. I caution hon. members against excesses in language, and I am sure I will be able to count on their co-operation in the days, weeks or months ahead.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I think it is an important matter that is before the House and was before the House yesterday. It is not my intention to make the situation more difficult, either for the Chair or for the House itself, but I do believe there is a basis for-


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the President of the Privy Council is speaking on a point of order. Perhaps he might be heard out, and then we can hear the hon. member for St. John's East.


James Aloysius McGrath: My point-

November 20, 1973
Privilege, Mr. Davis


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is on a point of order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was a basis for some misunderstanding about whether the question that had been raised yesterday had been finally resolved, and it is important because it does relate to the conduct of an hon. member of the House. I believe it is important that a few moments be given in order to have the situation stated as seen through the eyes of his colleagues in the House.
When the question was raised yesterday there were two suggestions made that final resolution of the problem be deferred until today, and it is my understanding that the matter did result in that decision. I draw to your attention, Sir, the final words of your own ruling to the effect-


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with all respect, it seems to me that the government House leader, for whom I have the greatest respect, is questioning the ruling you have just made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With all respect to him, Sir, I do not think the House should hear him.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. House leader will see the difficulty of the Chair. The hon. Minister of Fisheries rose on a question of privilege, and there could have been the possibility of another person involved in the matter making a reply. I indicated that I had received notice, had given the matter serious thought and was prepared to make a ruling. I appreciate the importance of the matter, but I wonder whether it is possible at this point to revive the question after a ruling has been made. The President of the Privy Council rose on a point of order. In fairness to him I wanted to hear him out as I did yesterday hon. members who spoke on the question of privilege when it was raised on the initiative of the Chair. Perhaps the President of the Privy Council might indicate as quickly as possible what the point of order is on which he rises now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, relates strictly to the understanding with regard to whether the question of privilege had been finally resolved yesterday.


An hon. Member:: The Speaker has ruled.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not in any way contesting the ruling of the Chair. I would draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that I hope the respectful attitude he enjoins upon me toward the Speaker will be observed by his followers on the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am saying that yesterday we had the impression, Sir, and this is the point of order, that the matter had been left in abeyance. I base that misunderstanding on the final words of your judgment, namely:

... perhaps I should be prepared to see what the hon. member will want to do tomorrow and accept for today the hon. member's half withdrawal.
I regret that I have placed the wrong interpretation on that sentence, Sir, and I do drop the matter out of respect for the Chair on the understanding that in the words used yesterday by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate he fully withdrew the allegation against the minister and that the rules of the House in your opinion have been fully satisfied. With that assurance, I will not pursue the matter further.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether any further ruling is required on the part of the Chair. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding in the interpretation of the words to which the hon. President of the Privy Council has referred. When I spoke those words I had reference to the suggestion that had been made during the long and numerous exchanges that took place yesterday afternoon that the matter might be revived today by an hon. member who had indicated that perhaps it would be revived. That is what I had alluded to, that if it were revived then at that point another ruling would have to be made. But it was my intention and my hope that the matter had been resolved and that, as the hon. minister suggested, the rules of the House had been preserved. Whether the practice had been fully preserved is a matter of interpretation. I am not sure that the rules of the House and our practices are always fully observed and respected. Perhaps yesterday we did not attain this measure of perfection. I would have liked personally that the matter be resolved more clearly.
I hope that this incident will help the Chair and hon. members, if another occasion such as this arises, to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the whole House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which concerns jobs for our unemployed.
In view of the large number of serious and highly valuable projects submitted under the local initiatives program and in view of the insufficiency of the funds at the disposal of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House ask the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates to study this problem and that the President of the Treasury Board be called before this committee as a witness, following which the committee be requested to report to the House by November 30, 1973.
November 20, 1973

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert) moved: for leave to introduce a bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Indian Act".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Albanie Morin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to correct to a certain extent the injustice and the discrimination towards Indian women, resulting from the implementation of section 12 (1) (b) of the Indian Act.

With the repeal of paragraph (b) of section 12(1) and the introduction of the amendment contained in this bill, a woman who is entitled to be registered as an Indian and who marries a non-Indian may elect to file with the minister an abandonment of entitlement to register as an Indian, and this may be filed at any time during her marriage. It ensues, therefore, that an Indian woman who has chosen to retain her Indian status may return to the reserve in the event of a divorce or judicial separation.
[ Translation]
However, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not remove completely the discrimination towards the Indian woman who marries a white man, since paragraph 12 (1) (a) -


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I tried to give the hon. member for Louis-Hebert all possible freedom. She could now try to complete her comment as briefly as possible. She knows that under Standing Order 68(2), she must confine her comment to a succinct explanation.


Albanie Morin: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief.

If all Canadians are equal before the law, and if there is really no discrimination because of sex, it should ensue that the Indian woman, who is also a Canadian, should not be discriminated against because of her sex.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I would ask him whether the government has undertaken a detailed analysis of the present energy situation and how it is going to affect economic growth and particularly employment this winter and next year? If the government has undertaken such a study, when it will be available and will it be made available to the House?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this question is being studied. There are many aspects of it, including the possible regional impact of even voluntary restraint on the use of some forms of energy. Whatever action is required as a result of that study will be announced in due course.


STUDY OF EFFECT OF INCREASED PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICES ON INDUSTRIES IN QUEBEC AND ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. What study has he undertaken to ascertain the economic effect of the increased price of petroleum products upon industries in areas suffering from regional disparity? I am referring particularly to the Atlantic provinces and Quebec where there has been a substantial increase in energy prices.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, a number of initiatives have been undertaken. I have discussed the matter internally with my officials and have ordered an assessment of the matters the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned. Two weeks ago I met with officials of Shaheen Natural Resources which has a new refinery at Come-By-Chance, with a view to seeing how much, if any of their product might be diverted for use in eastern Canada. In addition, I am in constant consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, on a general co-ordination of activity. On a fourth point to which I replied, I believe, to the hon. member for Saint John a few days ago, we have been negotiating and discussing with the province of New Brunswick the question of expanding nuclear power generating capability, not only for New Brunswick but for the Atlantic provinces generally.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister directed his response to the question of adequacy of supply of petroleum. My question was directed to the additional cost. Has the minister made a study to ascertain the effect upon industries in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces where prices have gone up substantially and further price increases are said to be following? Has the minister canvassed the situation, and can he assure the House that there are in fact no substantial industries of importance in those areas whose future

November 20, 1973
Oral Questions
will be seriously affected this winter and next year by the substantial increase in the cost of petroleum?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize that my reply was incomplete. I did indicate that such a study is under way. I would be less than honest if I said it was complete at this moment. However, in the case of Newfoundland representations have been made to us primarily on the matter of supply and the same, I think it would be fair to say, for the province of Nova Scotia. It was to this I directed my initial efforts, but to this moment at least I have not heard of any serious industrial or economic slowdown as a result of price. I was seeking to contact the premier of New Brunswick half an hour ago but was unsuccessful. When I have a more detailed report I will be glad to make it available to the Leader of the Opposition and the House.


PETROLEUM-INTENTION OF GOVERNMENT RESPECTING LIFTING OF VOLUNTARY PRICE FREEZE ON JANUARY 31 NEXT-REQUEST FOR DEBATE BEFORE REMOVAL
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether it is still the intention and policy of the government that the voluntary price freeze be lifted on January 31 and that the domestic price for petroleum products be at the imported price at Montreal? Is that still the policy and intention of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In general terms, Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. I would refer the hon. member and the House to the statement I made on September 4 to the effect that we had obtained agreement from the major petroleum companies to accept a voluntary freeze until January 31. This is the undertaking I gave and this is the undertaking which I believe they intend to respect.


David Lewis: In view of the changes that have taken place since September 4 and in view of the very serious likelihood of massive increases in the price of petroleum products if the freeze is lifted on January 31, can the Prime Minister undertake that parliament will be informed before the lifting of the price freeze and parliament will have an opportunity to debate and decide that issue instead of leaving it entirely to the government, in view of the very serious consequences to all consumers in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that parliament would want to debate this subject. I would hope they would want to debate it after the effects of the lifting of the freeze are evident and the government policy attendant thereto is known to the House. Whether that can be done in the next few days or later will depend very much on two things, first, House time and, second, the time at which the government announces the rest of its energy policy.


David Lewis: Following the Prime Minister's reply which suggests that parliament is to close the door after the serious consequences of an increase in the price of petroleum products hits the Canadian people, if that is what he has in mind will he undertake that the government and parliament will take the power to roll those

prices back? Or are the Canadian people to be stuck with higher prices no matter what parliament may say?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not intend to convey the impression-I am sorry if I did-that this matter could only be debated after February 1. What I intended to indicate was that members should be in a position to know government policy related thereto in some detail and to assess for themselves, perhaps in advance of February 1, what the effect might be.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South may ask a supplementary, but the Chair is attempting to complete the first round of questioning, following which we can return to the other supplementaries being sought by a number of hon. members.


David Lewis: Does the last answer of the Prime Minister mean he is undertaking that a statement will be made within the next week or two by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Prime Minister himself on energy policy before we rise for the Christmas recess?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That might not necessarily be the case. What I indicated was that it could be the case.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
As the adult retraining program limits the courses to 52 weeks and that in many cases this restriction does not allow the students to complete their training, could the minister tell the House if he is considering immediate measures to lengthen the time of these courses?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I believe I should like to take that question under examination and as notice. I will try to get a reply for the hon. member shortly.


PETROLEUM PRODUCTS-VOLUNTARY PRICE FREEZE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for York South. Since there will obviously be a very sharp increase in the cost of gasoline, heating oil and other petroleum products when the government lifts the freeze on January 31, what was the objective in putting on the freeze and then suddenly lifting it, with a resulting sharp impact on the economy instead of allowing prices to increase in a series of stages?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is debate.
November 20, 1973


IMPACT OF CRISIS ON FOOD PRICES-STUDY BY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister caused an investigation or examination to take place into the impact of the energy crisis on food prices? I ask this question especially in light of the statement by the Minister of Agriculture who is reported to have said that food prices will increase as a result of the energy crisis.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is being looked into within the department.


DEVELOPMENT OF COAL LEASES IN CUMBERLAND
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion based on his statement regarding conversations he has had with provincial premiers. Did any discussion take place with the premier of Nova Scotia with regard to leases on coal in Cumberland County now held by Devco as a result of its takeover of Dosco?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Not specifically, although this morning I did make contact with the president of Devco who will be here in Ottawa for meetings with me on December 3 and 4 at which time this matter, among others, will be explored.
He *	*


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the conclusion reached by the Economic Council of Canada that the inflation rate in this country is out of line with that of six other countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, is the Prime Minister planning any new measures which would tend to increase supply in order to ameliorate the rising price situation in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In
response to the preamble to the question I must point out that it is only correct if it refers to a very short period. If the hon. member would look at the total period over which this comparison has been made he would find that the Canadian government has done considerably better than most other countries.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Prime Minister's selectivity in the use of figures is very good; the
Oral Questions
situation is getting worse instead of better. Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether the government has taken any decision respecting a national power grid or whether he intends to leave the situation as it is at present so that Manitoba will feel obliged to sell additional energy south of the border?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that this question will have to be referred to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who has made statements previously on the government's position on an energy grid. It would probably call for a longer statement than either he or I could give in the question period.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would describe the present policy of the Minister of Finance, and presumably that of the government, which has resulted in lower real output in the third quarter of 1973, in turn resulting obviously in higher prices, as a policy of moderated expansion or induced contraction?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member is not suggesting chat kind of question is in order. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


POSITION OF SAUDI ARABIA ON SUPPLYING OIL TO CANADA THROUGH PORTLAND-MONTREAL PIPELINE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister arising from the question put to him by the hon. member for York South. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has been informed by Saudi Arabia that they do not intend to permit the shipment of oil that will go through the pipeline from Portland, Maine, to Montreal? Has the government had that information from the government of Saudi Arabia? If so, what steps is the government taking to meet this situation since it involves close to half a million barrels of oil per day for the Montreal market?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to refer the question to the minister. I know there has been some contradictory information on what some of the Arab states are doing with shipments of oil and I would not like to answer that particular question without checking.


STEPS TO CONTROL EXPORT OF HOME HEATING OIL FROM ATLANTIC PROVINCES AND CENTRAL CANADA
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the export of home heating fuel which for the first nine months of this year exceeded the amount shipped for all of last year, but more particularly the fact that since October 15 shipments have been in excess of the amount we shipped for the first six months of this year. Is the government taking any

November 20, 1973
Oral Questions
steps to control the export of home heating fuel from the Atlantic provinces and from central Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I have had some discussion, specifically with the owners of the new Sha-heen refinery at Come-By-Chance which will be coming on stream during December. The basis of my questioning of them was whether or not a technique could be found through which the products of that particular refinery could be diverted for use in eastern Canada. I can say that they were most co-operative in their initial responses and undertook to advise me as soon as possible. I assume I will be getting a reply from them next week.
So far as other refineries in Atlantic Canada are concerned, the information I have is that the vast majority of their production is in fact now sold in eastern Canada and only relatively small amounts are exported. In so far as those small amounts are concerned, I believe that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has the matter under examination in regard to the export permit system, as he indicated some time ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized for a last supplementary, and after that I will recognize the hon. member for Peel South.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What I was asking the minister, Mr. Speaker, was this. In view of the fact our exports of home heating fuel for the first nine months were about five million barrels and since October 15, when export controls were supposed to have gone on, we have exported 360 million barrels in that short period, what is the government doing to ensure that sufficient home heating fuel is being held in the area east of the Ottawa Valley to meet domestic demands?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered that question, at least to some extent. In my own case, the conversations I have had have been limited primarily to officials of refineries in the Atlantic provinces, but I know the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been doing the same in the case of other refineries. I think he has made the public statement, which I understand to be government policy, that heating fuel or any other kind of energy source will not be exported from Canada at the expense of Canadian consumers.


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


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order. I will recognize the hon. member for Peel South in a moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently said 360 million barrels. I meant 3,640,000 barrels.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DETAILS OF OIL EXPORT TAX AND COLLECTION
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that yesterday in committee the Minister of Finance said that he did not know which oil companies were reserving funds to pay the oil export tax, and in fact did not even know whether or not the tax was being collected, would the Prime Minister advise the House or have one of his ministers advise the House on motions as to the details of the tax and its collection?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think this will certainly come to light when the House debates the ways and means motion on the tax itself, which will be put before the House in the normal course of events.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Prime Minister is in connection with the oil export tax. In view of the great concern this tax has caused in regard to national unity in Canada, and in view of the fact the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have made contradictory statements about this tax, will the Prime Minister show some leadership and tell the House just what is going on?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

[Transla tion]


MANPOWER
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can he tell the House if his department has signed agreements with some forest companies concerning the import of manpower of Portuguese origin and does the minister intend to make public the government's policy on this matter?
[English\


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge at this moment no such agreements have been made. It is not impossible that some companies have approached officials of my department in various locations and discussed the possibility of offshore seasonal workers. As to the latter part of the question, I have stated the policy in the past. Under certain circumstances, where Canadians are not available for a particular job, we have considered, as in the case of southern Ontario farmers, the importation of seasonal workers for fixed periods of time and under strict contractual arrangements.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister.
I would like to tell him that this concerns forestry manpower and in the case I am concerned with, the import
November 20, 1973

of Portuguese manpower. Could the minister ensure the House that serious measures are being taken to avoid the exploitation of these foreign workers, as was the case for Mexican and Portuguese workers imported for the tobacco and fruit harvest in Ontario?


Robert Knight Andras: As a matter of federal jurisdiction we would only have a say where they come into Canada under contracts as offshore seasonal workers; in the past they have come mainly from the Caribbean. If that is the arrangement that the forest industry is seeking, then certainly we would have an influence over their working conditions; otherwise it would be a matter of provincial jurisdiction and provincial legislation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. It is based on a recent news report contrasting the sorry plight of the members of the Canadian contingent with the living conditions enjoyed by the Polish contingent in the Middle East peacekeeping force. What arrangements were made prior to the dispatch of the Canadian contingent to the Middle East, and what steps have been taken to remedy the situation as it relates to the living conditions of our servicemen in that area?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, our Canadian personnel are able to be self-sufficient in the field. They have 30 days' rations; they have their own water purification system, their own generators, their own batteries and their own tents. My reports are that they are settling in very well.


STUDY OF ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF CONSERVATION MEASURES TO BE ANNOUNCED
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Having regard to the fact the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be making a statement on energy conservation measures next Monday, has the Prime Minister given any specific instructions to his cabinet ministers to study the effects on the economy these energy conservation measures will have?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe this is another way of putting the question that was asked earlier by the Leader of the Opposition. My answer is yes, we are looking at the effects of these conservation measures, and I indicated that we were particularly doing so having regard to the regional impact.
Oral Questions


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of reports that the Prime Minister has expressed an interest in the presidency of Simon Fraser University, and in view of reports that a faculty official of Simon Fraser has been in touch with the Prime Minister with regard to this appointment, will he inform the House whether he has had any discussions about becoming-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will, of course, appreciate that a question of that type is entirely out of order. The hon. member cannot ask a question in those terms. The hon. member can ask questions of a minister on matters within his ministerial responsibility, but I am sure that on reflection he will agree his question is entirely out of order.


George Harris Hees: Tell us when you take over. It will be nice out there for you with Jimmy and the whole family.


MANPOWER
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact the application of the Family Planning Association of British Columbia for a local initiatives grant has been refused, will the minister give the reason for such refusal?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I must admit to the hon. member that I am not aware of the specific details of this matter. I will have to look into it, just as I would in the case of a question about any individual project. I will do so and communicate with the hon. member.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that during the past year British Columbia has suffered more than 8,000 abortions, more than 11 per cent illegitimate births, an increase of 11 per cent in gonorrhea and 5,000 cases of children-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure these statistics are very interesting, but the hon. member knows that she should ask a question and not convey information for the benefit of the House.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I was not able to hear you.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is simply suggesting to the hon. member that a question should be asked rather than information being conveyed to the House.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was laying the groundwork for the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 20, 1973
Oral Questions


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, before I ask the question I should like to raise a point of order. There seems in this House to be some idea that these subjects I raise are not of interest to Canadians across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: A schoolboy type of tittering goes on when these questions are raised.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Winona Grace MacInnis: I want to say that the people in my riding are interested in these matters. As a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it would behoove members of this House to give a respectful hearing even if they do not believe their people are interested, and I suggest they are wrong in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: In view of the facts I have just cited, would the minister undertake to review this decision to reject a preventive service, the cost benefits of which would be at least 20 to one?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly congizant of the very interesting and distressing information the hon. member has conveyed. I will look at the project again, although, with regret, it may involve a program that should be conducted under other measures than the Local Initiatives Program. These projects have as a basic criterion and prime objective the provision of employment.


AIR TRANSPORT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport who indicated the other day that he saw no indication of an early shortage of fuel for aircraft in Canada. Has he had occasion to re-examine the situation in view of claims by responsible people connected with the aviation industry that there is in fact the prospect of a shortage and that there is a large leakage toward the United States?
[Transla tion]


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, no gas is carried to the United States. At the present time, airlines are bound by annual contracts with oil companies in Montreal to deliver a certain supply of gas. Some companies have already taken delivery of all the fuel provided in their contract, in order not to buy gas in the United States or to save their quota there. Those companies are experiencing a shortage of gas, but neither Air Canada nor CP Air have yet cancelled a flight. The problem does not affect companies which have already obtained the quantity of fuel provided in their contract with Canadian companies.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the minister certain of the fact that there will be no fuel shortage for planes?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure. No more than the Leader of the Official Opposition, the government and the Canadian people do I know whether there will be a shortage of fuel or oil this year.

[English)


TRANSPORT
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question along the same lines. Has the Minister of Transport given any thought to asking the motor transport companies to reduce speed in order to save fuel?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the problem of highway traffic speed comes under provincial jurisdiction and I hope that the provinces will seek to restrict-

You have to read the constitution.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the fact that the funds allocated to the Local Initiatives Program are clearly inadequate, and that the project evaluation is nearly completed, can the minister advise the House, before it is too late, whether he is considering the possibility of doubling the funds presently available in order to be able to subsidize most of the projects submitted?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the question of additional funding for local initiatives projects is under consideration, as I indicated earlier. This will be judged in light of current employment figures. If there is an announcement to be made I will make it in the House.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the minister's statement that the question of additional funding is under consideration, and in view of the very short time remaining for carrying out these projects, can he tell the House when he will decide whether or not to grant additional funds and on what date he will make his announcement?
November 20, 1973


Robert Knight Andras: Just as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker. I am quite aware of the urgency of this decision.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-POSITION OF APPLICATIONS BY NATIVE PEOPLE FOR GRANTS
Mr. S. J. Korchirvski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of a recent directive sent to the chairmen of the constituency advisory groups indicating that projects proposed by native people should be given preference over all others, may I ask whether this has become part of the Local Initiatives Program? In other words, is an advantage to be given to projects proposed by native people?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I did send a telegram to the hon. members involved and to the constituency advisory groups. It was not a directive; it was an expression of a request to give at least equal consideration to requests from native people for access to funds to fund projects in those constituencies where native projects were being submitted. I repeat, it was not a directive; it was a request for equal attention so they would not be bypassed, which was the indication in some cases.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the moment has come to remind hon. members that we will soon be running out of time. There are three, four or five hon. members wanting to ask supplementary questions on this subject, which would eliminate other hon. members who are still waiting to ask questions. For the moment I will recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact it would appear that on the administrative level these projects have been given priority, why were the amounts available reduced by 25 per cent with the result that all other communities are not given an equal opportunity to participate under LIP?


Mr. Speaker:: Over, please. That is debate.
5(C	-ft


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration regarding his announcement of a 40 per cent increase in the premium rate for unemployment insurance. Is the minister aware that the recent increase in the applicable allowable earnings ceiling, on which he did not comment in his statement, in fact means that a large percentage of working Canadians will pay an increase of 48.7 per cent?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I did not announce the increase in the eligible earnings, and therefore the
Oral Questions
increase in the maximum eligible benefits, simply because even the statement I made was criticized for its length. However, I did comment on that afterwards.


QUEBEC-ALLEGED DELAY IN PROCESSING CLAIMS FOR BENEFITS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of recent reports that indicate delays in paying legitimate claims to unemployed persons in the province of Quebec are far greater than in the rest of the country, can the minister explain the reason for this and indicate what immediate corrective action we can expect?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise, but again I would plead with the hon. member to give me specific instances of cases and I will be glad to step in and correct whatever administrative errors there may be.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns a PAIT grant of $750,000 to a company called Collins Radio Canada which is 99 per cent owned by the Collins Radio Company of Dallas, Texas. In view of the fact this company, with the use of the PAIT grant, was able to bid successfully on a Canadian Coastguard contract, and in view of the fact that Triton Industries, a wholly owned Canadian company, has manufactured for some time exactly the same kind of equipment and the federal government failed to advise that company of the opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, Will the hon. member kindly ask his question.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am getting to my question. In view of the failure of the federal government to advise Triton Industries of the opportunity to bid on that contract, placing the company in financial difficulty now-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: -will the minister seek, through the Canada Development Corporation, some assistance to investigate this wholly owned Canadian company which is now under bid-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to rule that is a representation. The hon. member has to assume that the representation he has made to the minister will be taken into account.

November 20, 1973
Oral Questions PUBLIC BUILDINGS


SUGGESTED LOWERING OF TEMPERATURE TO SAVE FUEL
Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the complications in turning out the lights in federal buildings at night, would the minister, in an effort to regain his lost prestige, start a campaign to reduce the energy consumed in heating federal government buildings, starting with this building which at present is an energy wasting and unhealthy 76 degrees?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the complications are only in the mind of the hon. member. If and when the government decides to announce a full program of conservation of energy and light, it will be done in the proper fashion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since the decision rendered in Dr. Morgentaler's case runs counter to the Criminal Code and that it somewhat puts the stamp of approval on the abortion on request principle, what position will the government take in this respect?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the question has already been asked. If, nevertheless, the right hon. Prime Minister is willing to reply, I have no objection; I feel however that the question has already been asked a number of times in exactly the same terms which the hon. member has just used.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister tell the House whether the final composition of the Canadian component in the United Nations truce force in the Suez has yet been completed? If so, have the personnel been designated and do they include any component of the Canadian Airborne Regiment?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, discussions are still taking place with the United Nations in New York. There has been no formal invitation for additional Canadian personnel at this time but we expect, as these discussions develop, that

there will be a role in the logistics area for additional Canadian troops.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. So that the port of Halifax does not contribute beyond its capability to energy conserving measures over the next few weeks, can the minister indicate what progress has been made between the two parties through the mediator appointed by him?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give too many details other than to indicate to the hon. member that Mr. Gibbons is meeting with the parties. I do not know whether he will be able to resolve the difficulty. Of course we are optimistic and hope he will be able to be of assistance in getting the parties together.


J. Michael Forrestall: Can the Minister of Labour indicate whether or not the mediator, in reporting to him, gave any indication of how long the mediation process might continue?


John Carr Munro: No, he did not, Mr. Speaker, but in conversation with me he did indicate that the dispute has boiled down to two principal issues, and that could be regarded optimistically, I believe.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Have he or his officials completed the survey of the crop damage in northern Alberta caused by an early and abnormal snowfall, and is he in a position to announce to the House whether the federal government will be announcing any form of financial assistance to the farmers who have suffered crop losses and a program to alleviate the problem of feed shortages which exist in that part of the country?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, before we participate in any program such as this we have to receive a formal request from the province concerned. I have checked my files and I find that as of yesterday there had been no such request from Alberta. I understand that our officials have nearly completed the survey so far as crops under snow are concerned and I am waiting for a final report from them.
November 20, 1973


MANPOWER
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that Renfrew county is a special area under DREE because of its high unemployment rate and according to figures I have seen it is getting $81,000 versus $526,000 for Rosedale under the Local Initiatives Program, I wonder when the minister will make these figures available to members of parliament, because they are already published and known within the civil service?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think they will be tabled tomorrow.


SHIPPING
Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In light of the new coasting trade policy for Canada announced by the minister on September 24, can the minister inform the House whether notice has been served on the British government of Canada's intention to withdraw from the British Commonwealth merchant shipping agreement? Further, if this has not been done, will he indicate to the House when that notice will be served?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check whether the notice was served. It was our intention to serve it as soon as possible. I may be able to inform the hon. member tomorrow if this has been done effectively.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would he advise why the Gibson Committee to consider the Pickering Airport decision has not yet got off the ground and held any hearings or otherwise communicated with the public, and could the minister also advise whether the government's decision on this project to date has taken into account the projected energy crisis and the possible decline in flight volumes we may experience in future years?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the board has been nominated and constituted. Offices have been secured, and I think preparations are
Foreign Investment Review Act now being made for public hearings. If the hon. gentleman wants to know more about the activities of the board there is nothing to prevent him getting in touch with the president, because it is an autonomous board. So far as the energy problem is concerned, this is something that should be brought to the attention of the commission.


PICKERING-REASON FOR DELAY IN PAYING EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED AT EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS
Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works, but for the benefit of the Minister of Transport may I first say that communications have been sent to the board and no replies have been forthcoming. Can the Minister of Public Works indicate why the objectors and the expert witnesses who appeared before the expropriation hearings on the aiport a year ago have not yet received the $10,000 owing to them, and does the government realize it has become a defaulting debtor in this matter?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into this matter. My recollection is that all those who have agreed to a settlement have received their cheques, but if this is not the case the situation will be remedied.


Ronald George Atkey: I asked about witnesses.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 19, 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.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions in relation to the report stage of Bill C-132, An Act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons. Call in the members.
And the members having been called in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on the amendment in the name of the hon.

November 20, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), to Motion No. 2, in the name of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay).
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Peters) which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 44)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Alexander
Alkenbrack
Andre
Arrol
Atkey
Baker
Baldwin
Barnett
Bawden
Beattie
(Hamilton
Mountain)
Beatty
(Wellington-
Grey-Dufferin-
Waterloo)
Beaudoin
Bell
Boisvert
Caouette
(T6miscamingue) Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Clarke
(Vancouver
Quadra)
Coates
Cossitt
Danforth
Dick
Dinsdale
Dionne
Ellis
Epp
Fairweather
Forrestall
Fortin
Frank
Gauthier
(Roberval)
Godin
Grafftey
Hales
Hallburton
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Hargrave Hees Hellyer Higson Holmes Horner
(Crowfoot)
Horner
(Battleford-
Kindersley)
Howard
Howie
Hueglin
Jarvis
Jelinek
Kempling
Knowles
(Norfolk-
Haldimand)
Korehinski
Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Laprise Lawrence Lundrigan MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) Maelnnis
(Cape Breton-East Richmond) MacKay MacLean Maequarrie Marshall Masniuk Matte
Mazankowski
McCain
McCleave
McGrath
McKinley
McKinnon
Mitges
Morgan
Muir
Munro
(Esquimalt-
Saanich)
Neil
(Moose Jaw) Nesbitt Nowlan Oberle O'Connor O'Sullivan Paproski Patterson Peters Reilly Ritchie Roche Rondeau Rynard
Schellenberger
Schumacher
Scott
Stackhouse
Stanfield
Stevens
Stewart
(Marquette)
Taylor
Tetrault
Thomas
(Moncton)
Towers
Wagner
Whittaker
Wise
Woolliams Yewchuk-103.
Andras
Blackburn
Blaker
Blenkarn
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Brewin

++NAYS
Messrs.
Broadbent
Buchanan
Caccia
Cafik
Campbell
Clermont
Comtois
Corbin
Cote
Cullen
Cyr
Danson Davis De Ban6 Demers Douglas
Drury
Dub6
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Ethier
Faulkner
Fleming
Foster
Gauthier
(Ottawa East) Gendron Gillespie Goyer Gray Grier Guay
(St. Boniface) Guay (L6vis) Guilbault Haidasz Harding Harney Herbert Hopkins Isabelle Jamieson Jerome Knight Knowles
(Winnipeg
North Centre) Lachance Laflamme Lajoie Lalonde Langlois Laniel La Salle
Messrs.
Leblanc
(Laurier)
LeBlanc
(Westmorland-
Kent)
Lefebvre Leggatt Lessard Lewis L'Heureux Loiselle MacDonald (Cardigan) MacEachen MacGuigan Maelnnis (Mrs.) (Vancouver Kingsway) Marceau Marchand (Langeller) Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo)
McRae Morin (Mrs.) Munro
(Hamilton East) Neale
(Vancouver
East)
Nesdoly
Nystrom
Olivier
Orlikow
Ouellet
Pelletier
(Hochelaga)
Pelletier
(Sherbrooke)
Penner
Portelance
Poulin
Prud'homme
Railton
Reid
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rooney
Rowland
Roy
(Timmins)
Roy
(Laval)
Sauve (Mrs.)
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stanbury
Stewart
(Okanagan-
Kootenay)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Stollery
Symes
Thomas
(Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner
(London
East)
Walker Watson Whelan Whicher-112.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The question is now on the motion. Is it the desire of the House that we proceed with the division without ringing the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The question is	
now on motion No. 3.


Mr. Speaker:: Messrs.
Foreign Investment Review Act Messrs.
Reilly
Richardson
Ritchie
Roche
Rooney
Roy
(Timmins)
Roy
(Laval) Rynard Sauvg (Mrs.) Schellenberger Schumacher Scott Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stackhouse
Stanbury
Stanfield
Stevens
Stewart
(Marquette)
Stewart
(Okanagan-
Kootenay)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Stollery
Taylor
Thomas
(Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Thomas
(Moncton)
Towers
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner
(London
East)
Wagner
Walker
Watson
Whelan
Whicher
Whittaker
Wise
Woolliams Yewchuk-178.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The House will now proceed to motion No. 5.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The House will now proceed to motion No. 6.
7964

November 20, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The House will now move to Motion No. 9.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Gillespie moved: that Bill C-132, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before we move to third reading I should like the privilege of moving that a well deserved encomium be expressed to the Clerk Assistant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Clerk Assistant is inquiring whether the hon. member is using a parliamentary word.

I gather that by consent the motion will be put at this time.


Alastair William Gillespie: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the minister is rising to speak at this stage. If he is, perhaps the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North would want to defer to the minister to allow him to open the debate, and the hon. member will be recognized immediately thereafter. Again, I am not sure whether the minister is rising for that purpose.


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) for accepting the suggestion of the Chair and giving me an opportunity to introduce third reading.
It is now almost nine months, perhaps a little over nine months since this bill received first reading. It was some time back in March and April when the House debated second reading and approved the foreign investment review bill in principle. After that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs held numerous meetings and received evidence from many persons- spokesmen for business, the labour movement, provincial governments and other interested groups. I and my officials appeared before the committee on several occasions. Subsequently, a number of amendments were proposed by members in committee. Some are now incorporated in the bill. Most are technical in nature. Others are intended to improve the administration of the legislation, and still others deal with such matters as the requirement to take into account provincial representations. This process has given us a better bill. I want to commend the committee for its work and to thank its members for their efforts.
Finally, during the past two weeks the House debated proposed amendments during the report stage, and adopted two of them as recently as yesterday. In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill has been subjected to lengthy and detailed scrutiny by members of the House. The time has now come to give the legislation our approval.
All of you are familiar with the background to the foreign investment review bill-the very high levels of foreign control of Canadian business, and the growing concern of the Canadian people. The work of my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), who has given his name to the most exhaustive study of this area, contributed in a very important way to the understanding by the public of this problem.
The figures on foreign control of Canadian business have been cited many times. This makes them no less important today. They bear repeating. No less than 60 per cent of the capital employed in our manufacturing industries is controlled by foreign businesses. The figures are even higher for particular manufacturing sectors. For
November 20, 1973

example, for rubber it is almost 100 per cent; automobiles and parts, 98 per cent; chemicals, 81 per cent, and electrical apparatus 75 per cent. In petroleum and gas, the comparable figure is 74 per cent, and for other mining 73 per cent. These industries are among the principal goods producing sectors of our economy. They are the engines of our economic growth. They are also the vital base that supports a large part of our service sector. They help to shape the character and quality of employment opportunities available to Canadians.
The Canadian future, Mr. Speaker, is not something that just happens. We, the elected representatives of the Canadian people, have the power, and more than that the obligation to help shape that future, for no country offers a greater opportunity to its citizens to share in building a future. At no time in our history have we had a better opportunity than we have now to build a distinctive Canada. It is our choice if we wish to make it. It is a question of political will, no more, no less. Bill C-132 is an important part in the exercising of that choice, in expressing that political will.
The kind of Canada we want to build must be more than a mere appendage of foreign corporate giants south of the border and the resource hungry multinational firms of other industrialized countries. We must look to the day when these astonishing figures on foreign control are more moderate, when Canadians themselves have an adequate degree of control over the Canadian economy, and when those Canadian firms that are foreign controlled are nevertheless more oriented to the needs and potentials of Canada.
This bill is an important instrument in support of our objectives for Canadian industrial development. As I have said on other occasions, those objectives can be summarized in six propositions: one, the achievement of the maximum attainable levels of employment to match the current and future growth of the labour force; two, the development of an efficient processing and manufacturing industry capable of meeting competition at home and abroad; three, the increased up-grading of our natural resources prior to export to maximize Canada's economic return; four, to provide for greater domestic control of the Canadian economy so as to create conditions conducive to greater Canadian entrepreneurship at home and abroad; five, to increase national income and to provide for regional economic expansion which will reduce regional disparities; six, To contribute to improvement in the quality of life in all parts of Canada by creating satisfying jobs for Canadians and by reducing the harmful effects of industrial activity on the natural and social environment. These six objectives are clearly central to our task.
Just as clearly this bill underlines how inter-connected are our industrial objectives and a coherent set of industrial policies. Our objectives for greater Canadian control of our domestic economy are interwoven with the other objectives. Just as clearly, our policies on foreign investment are interwoven with the other major policy areas. In short to achieve our objectives, to give effect to a coherent set of policies, and to implement our strategies for individual industries we need the passage of Bill C-132. This bill focuses on control, not ownership, because it is the actual power to make decisions rather than the mere
Foreign Investment Review Act fact of share ownership that affects the performance of subsidiaries in Canada.
Federal policy does not aim at cutting Canada off from foreign direct investment. Such investment has played an important role in our past economic development and, in my opinion, certain kinds of foreign investments will continue to have an important contribution to make in our future growth. Let us not forget that we still have the fastest growing labour force in the world. But Canada has also paid a substantial price because of this phenomenon. There are at least two dimensions to these economic costs.
The first is the impact on the general economic environment in Canada, the result of having such a vast proportion of our productive economy controlled by foreign corporations. We have become too accustomed to expecting others to do our research, product innovation and market development, and too accustomed to others telling us what we might do. We have not become nearly accustomed enough to deciding for ourselves what we should do. The degree of foreign control has dulled or inhibited entrepreneurship in Canada by Canadians in Canadian firms. Many Canadians have become too accustomed to playing second fiddle. If we continue to rely so heavily on others, we shall never ourselves become more innovative. If we lose the power to innovate in a changing world we turn over the future development of Canada to those who retain that power.
Earlier this year in Vancouver the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the government's policy of insisting upon the further processing or upgrading of our natural resources prior to export. In a number of public speeches since that time, I have repeated the importance of this policy announcement and the importance of the bill now before us in giving effect to that policy objective. Under Bill C-132 the foreign investment review agency will have the power to obtain a commitment from a foreign corporation making a direct investment in a Canadian raw material enterprise when that investment involves control.
Similarly, the sourcing of components in Canadian operations-sometimes not too different in principle from raw material development where a foreign investor ships machinery in in order to ship unprocessed raw materials out-will be covered by screening where there are changes of control or foreign control involving the establishment of a new business. One has only to talk to senior officers of many of our leading firms-subsidiaries of foreign parents-to know that they do not have free access to the markets of the world for their products, nor do they have freedom to decide on the products that they will produce in their Canadian factories for distribution in Canada.
The point is simply this: There have been real costs to Canada. Yes, there have been important benefits, too. But our responsibility now is to ensure that we maximize those benefits and minimize those costs for the future industrial development of Canada. Only by conscious and purposeful effort to break this self-perpetuating chain of independence, an effort demanding active and vigorous support by businessmen and government, shall we succeed.

November 20, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
Will the boardrooms of New York, Detroit, London, Dusseldorf and Tokyo recognize Canada's needs and abilities? Will they do so if we do not insist? The answer is clearly, no. Do the decisions of other governments sometimes unreasonably deprive Canadians of legitimate economic opportunities? I think here the record says clearly, yes. These questions could, of course, be asked in relation to international trade as well as international investment. In the case of trade, governments have reached a high degree of agreement on the rules of the game. There are accepted procedures for international negotiation. These procedures assure Canadians that if their government negotiates skilfully, their economic interests will be protected and advanced. The rules of the GATT, while not perfect, provide considerable assurance against a return to the mistakes of the 1930s.
But, in the matter of direct investment, there is no comparable set of rules binding governments or multinational businesses. It is, therefore, not unreasonable for national governments to concern themselves with the impact of direct investment on their national economies. For the Canadian government, in particular, the need to be concerned is especially compelling, in view of the uniquely high degree of foreign control in our manufacturing and resource sectors. The fact is that both the structure and the growth of our economy are heavily influenced by corporate decisions taken outside our border. And these business decisions can be affected by the actions of governments which are not answerable to the Canadian electorate. Canadians want the advantages of international investment, as well as of international trade, and they want access to the new technologies developed elsewhere. But at the same time they want some reassurance that they are not unduly and sometimes detrimentally controlled by forces which they cannot influence. Canadians want to know that they retain considerable independence to determine their future.
Hon. members may be aware that I have spoken on several occasions about the fact that the government's approach on foreign investment rests on two pillars. One pillar is built on that package of policies-tax measures, investment aids, research and development incentives, export assistance, support for small business, are examples-which are aimed at encouraging Canadian businessmen to do more. I shall comment more fully on this aspect of our policy in a few moments.
The second pillar is based on that group of measures which might be called safeguards, those aimed at assuring for Canadians that certain vital national interests will be protected. The Tories would try to put down these safeguard measures down as negative measures. But I say to them that they are positive measures aimed at protecting and developing Canada. To listen to some of the Tories, Mr. Speaker, one would think there should be no restraints, no restrictions; that we do not need restrictions, that there is no reason to screen foreign investment. They say, Mr. Speaker, that they would rely on guidelines and incentives alone. Mr. Speaker, not all hon. members in the Progressive Conservative Party believe that myth but some do, and we have heard it in this House. Some right now are trying to tell me that they believe it. That is the only interpretation I can put on the heckling from across

the floor. Mr. Speaker, I say that these measures are positive measures.
Part of the second pillar has consisted of identifying key sectors of the economy in which it has been necessary to require by law that all, or at least a large proportion of the firms in those sectors, can be Canadian-owned and con-trolled-chartered banks, life insurance companies, other financial institutions-


An hon. Member:: What about trust companies?


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, such as trust and loan companies, broadcasting and newspapers. Liberal governments have legislated to ensure that in these sensitive areas, Canadian control is dominant. And, as you know, on the matter of foreign ownership of land, it was decided at the last meeting of federal and provincial first ministers to review jointly the legal, constitutional and land use aspects of this question and to consider ways in which the levels of government could co-operate on this problem.
Bill C-132, the Foreign Investment Review Act, signifies an important development of this second pillar of safeguards. One feature that distinguishes this bill from previous legislation is that it will apply across the entire economy and not just to a particular sector. Having described the bill during the debate on second reading and in considerable detail before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, I shall confine myself today to a brief review of its highlights.
The Foreign Investment Review Act would initially give the government the legal authority to review proposed foreign takeovers of Canadian businesses, above a threshold size. The threshold is not as high as the Tories would like. They wanted to raise that threshold, but they were outvoted when the amendment came before the House a little while ago.


Robert Carman Coates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; the minister ought to know, even from the short time he has been in the House, that he is not supposed to refer to or reflect on a vote taken in this House. That vote has been taken; that matter has been finalized, and I hope the minister will stay in order in his remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the minister made a reference to the vote; I do not think there was a reflection on the vote. In any event, a number of votes were taken previously. I cannot say the minister was out of order because, in my opinion, he merely seemed to refer to a vote.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to state a fact. I was not trying to reflect on the vote. The point is that the threshold is related to the whole question of takeovers.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Are we on the threshold of a new era, in which there will be corporate marriages?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member for Crowfoot is interested in heckling, perhaps because his party at no time in the last 15 years has introduced any legislation in this important area. I can understand his wanting to heckle.
November 20, 1973


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister referred to actions taken by my party in the last 15 years. I should like to inform him that he is in error. We brought in laws making unions disclose some things with respect to their money and making companies, public and private, disclose some of their operations. Certainly, we took steps along those lines.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will not say any more. If the hon. member is basing the position of his party on those modest-that is an overstatement-measures, I do not need to say anything more.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we are not a party of dictatorial rule, as is the party opposite and its friends to my left.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister has picked a very bad example to use for an insinuation because the minister and his colleagues are two or three years behind in bringing forward reports for which they are responsible, under CALURA, to Parliament and the Canadian people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all deference, I think members are acting as though we were debating the stage preceding third reading. I think the debate ought to proceed along more traditional lines for third reading.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think we have all been around long enough to understand the tactics of the opposition in instances such as this. The takeover provisions of the bill would take effect after the first proclamation. After the government has gained experience in operating the takeover review process, and has consulted fully with provincial administrations-


An hon. Member:: That is not correct.


Alastair William Gillespie: -the second part of the bill will be proclaimed. Under this second set of provisions, the establishment of new foreign-controlled businesses, and the expansion of existing foreign-controlled businesses into unrelated lines, would be subject to review according to the significant benefit test.
I wish to talk about the significant benefit test, which is central to this bill. In reaching decisions on individual investment applications under this legislation, the government would be guided by the criteria set out in Section 2 (2) which includes such factors as: the impact on the nature and level of economic activity in Canada including employment and further processing of our resources prior to export; the degree and significance of Canadian participation; the effect on productivity, efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety; the impact on competition; and the compatibility of the transaction with national industrial and economic policies, taking account of the industrial and economic objectives of the provinces likely to be affected.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the federal government must take into consideration provincial economic policies. It also stipulates that the government must give consideration to any provincial representations in particular cases. The bill does not provide, as a few people have suggested it should, and as some
Foreign Investment Review Act Tory spokesmen opposite have suggested, that we should provide for a provincial veto.


Mr. Baker:: That is not correct.


Alastair William Gillespie: This bill provides a voice-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Where?


Alastair William Gillespie: -but not a veto for the provinces.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When did we ask for the veto?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Who was the spokesman who asked for the veto?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-132 is to be an act of parliament, not of provincial legislatures. It is to be an instrument of national policy, Mr. Speaker. We do not believe in adopting measures which would balkanize Canada. A provincial veto would do exactly that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell us about the Canada Pension Plan and opting out provisions.


Alastair William Gillespie: Since the federal government will be politically responsible for the effective administration of the law, it clearly follows that only the federal government can be made responsible for the final decisions in individual cases. Once again, I wish to state that I shall be in touch with each of the provincial governments once this legislation is in place. I do not think there will be any difficulties-


An hon. Member:: May we quote the minister?


Alastair William Gillespie: -in developing regular channels for consultation with the provinces in particular transactions.
Under Bill C-132, decisions will be taken by the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister. Decisions are to be taken by the government, by the cabinet-I wish to underline this point-which is representative of all the areas and regions of Canada. I wish to draw the distinction to the attention of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), who suggested in a speech that the decision will be taken by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I have been at some pains to emphasize that the minister will recommend but that the cabinet, which is representative of all parts of the country, will decide.
Another criticism which has been raised in the debate concerns judicial review of the concept of significant benefit. I suggest that it would be improper to have a judicial review of government decisions regarding significant benefit, in much the same way as it would be quite unreasonable to have a judicial review of the economic desirability of a budgetary tax measure for purposes of stabilization policy.
With cabinet responsibility, there is quite properly some room for ministerial discretion. But the amount of discretion will be limited by the fact that decisions must be based on the criteria spelled out in the bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Will the findings be made public?

November 20, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read the bill he would know the answer to that question. Decisions regarding the impact on employment, efficiency, competition and those other factors to which I referred a few moments ago will be governed by the economic facts. Furthermore, since economic strengths and weaknesses differ from region to region this policy, while national in scope, will be sensitive to differences in the needs of the regions.
I should like to say another word or two about the test of significant benefit. In my view this is central to our policy for Canada and is central to the bill itself. It is essential for two reasons. First, given the present degree of foreign control of the Canadian economy, it seems only reasonable not to allow that degree of foreign control to increase unless foreign investors are in a position to add something of significance to the Canadian economy. To have further increases in foreign control where there are not significant benefits is unacceptable.
Second, the significant benefit test puts the government in the position of being able to bargain to achieve improved benefits from foreign investment, to insist on certain practices or policies by the investor which become his commitment to the government, practices or policies which in the absence of the commitment could be altered at will by the arbitrary decisions of foreign-based businesses or pressures placed on them by foreign governments. We must have some capacity to bargain with investors about their plans for Canada. I expect that we shall be more successful in some cases than in others. The need for the government to intervene, and the capacity to do so effectively, will obviously vary according to the time, the sector and the economic circumstances. However, I have no doubt that the review agency will with perseverance and growing experience, bring to Canada benefits which it would not otherwise have obtained.
There are some people who think that this approach is wrong, that we should replace the significant benefit test with a no detriment test.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Right.


Alastair William Gillespie: I am interested in hearing the hon. member say "right". I am interested in knowing whether he is declaring himself on the no detriment side. I gather by the nod of his head that he is.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will be speaking after you.


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) believes a no detriment test is better than a significant benefit test.
I have tried on previous occasions to explain why this test would be negative and unacceptable, but judging from some recent reports I have apparently failed to persuade some proponents of the no detriment test. The notion of a no detriment test involves an assumption that unless there are obvious and striking disadvantages from a foreign investment, Canadians should be indifferent to it. That view misjudges the intelligence of the Canadian people. However, that is the view of those who really want unre-

stricted access for foreign corporations, for takeovers and the establishment of new businesses. That is really their position, no detriment.
There will be cases where foreign investors have the potential to make significant contributions to our economy which they would not make in the absence of a significant benefit test, contributions which would be lost if we were to adopt the wishy-washy test of no detriment. It is a timid, tentative test at best. It is a look backward, not a look forward. This bill provides that officials of the foreign investment review agency can sit across the table from such investors and discuss with them the means whereby their initial investment plans might be improved to offer significant benefit to Canada. However, if we switch to a no detriment test, we will have given all the high cards to the investor. Maybe that is what its proponents want.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Will the minister permit a question?


Alastair William Gillespie: I will be very pleased to permit a question after I have completed my remarks. We will have no effective legislative authority from which to seek improvements. A no detriment test would castrate the intention of the bill. Canadians should benefit by being here just as others benefit by coming here.
I have referred in the past to our foreign investment policy being built upon two pillars, a pillar of safeguard measures of which C-132 is the major part, and a pillar of incentive measures designed to encourage Canadians to save, invest, manage, innovate and develop competitive modern enterprises. Let me refer to some of these other positive measures.
First, Canadian controlled private corporations pay a reduced rate of corporation tax on the first $50,000 a year of income. This reduced rate is 20 per cent on income from manufacturing and processing activities and 25 per cent on income from other activities. This reduced rate is not available to foreign controlled firms. Moreover, the savings from these advantageous rates must be repaid if the firm is transferred to non-Canadian control.
Second, the Canada Development Corporation was established to help develop strong Canadian-controlled businesses and to attract Canadian savings into such development. As is already evident, the CDC is actively at work assisting to promote Canadian ownership and control and a vigorous economy. Although it operates at arms length from the government, the CDC is an outgrowth of a Liberal initiative.
Third, the proposed new Canada business corporations act, Bill C-213, introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), the man who gave his name to the exhaustive examination of foreign investment in Canada, will require that all federally incorporated foreign-controlled corporations have a majority of directors who are resident Canadians and who are not employees of the corporation or its affiliates.
Let me mention a few other measures that are pertinent. There are some which do not discriminate between Canadian-controlled and foreign-controlled firms, but in fact principally assist Canadian-controlled firms. First, I
November 20, 1973

announced a few months ago plans to revamp and expand the activities of the Industrial Development Bank. The necessary details are now being worked out. The new industrial bank and development agency will build on the accomplishments of the IDB. I think it is perhaps worth reminding hon. members that less than 1 per cent of the loans of the IDB have been made to foreign-controlled firms. This new agency will be more entrepreneurial in its lending and investment activity and will also be a major source of management advice and assistance to small businesses. I expect that the almost exclusive assistance to Canadian-controlled firms will continue.
Second, tax incentives have been implemented to stop the undue leakage of savings from Canada. Pension funds need to retain 90 per cent of their assets in Canada to avoid paying a penalty tax of one per cent per month on those of their assets abroad that exceed 10 per cent of their total assets. The gross-up provisions on Canadian dividends encourage investment in Canadian stocks.
Third, Canadian businesses are able to deduct as an expense the interest paid on funds borrowed to finance the purchase of shares of other firms.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the catalogue of accomplishments of the Liberal government that I referred to relate mainly to what we have done in the economic sphere. I could have also elaborated at some length on the various measures which have been taken to fortify and encourage Canadian cultural development, the Canadian content provisions in the CRTC regulations, the numerous positive incentives to the film industry and the book publishing industry, programs to foster bilingualism and mul-ticulturalism and the various cultural activities which are supported so effectively through the Canada Council. When viewed as a whole, I believe it will become strikingly clear how much the Liberal government has done in assisting in the development of a Canadian identity and helping to build a Canada for Canadians-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: -an independent, vigorous and creative nation of which all of us can be proud.
The proposed Foreign Investment Review Act will be an important instrument of economic management. It will bring economic benefits to the Canadian people. More than that, it is part of a package of policies that is helping to strengthen the ability of Canadians to shape their own destiny at the same time as they participate increasingly as responsible citizens in the world community.
The House has now given careful study of Bill C-132 and after the vigorous scrutiny carried out by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and the improvements introduced by that committee, I believe the time has come to pass this bill. I urge that this House give third reading to Bill C-132. The Foreign Investment Review Act is an investment in Canada.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Before I recognize the hon. member, 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 Brant (Mr. Blackburn) - Immigration-Possible exemption of Iroquois Indians wishing to move to Canada from having to apply for landed immigrant status; the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn)-Energy-Authority of government to enforce petroleum price freeze and price indexing; the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Accelerated coverage plan- Date of implementation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie that Bill C-132, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons, be read the third time and do pass.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Could I ask the minister a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Would the minister be prepared to answer a question?


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Can the minister assure the House and the country that the agency which this bill sets up will act in a way absolutely independent of government influence when bringing down its findings-that it will not be like the National Energy Board has now become, a tool of the ministry concerned?


Alastair William Gillespie: I do not know whether the hon. member is familiar with the relationship between the agency and the government. It has not been set up as a tribunal. It has been set up as a body which will report through a commissioner, a deputy minister to the minister. It will be concerned with the question of whether a particular proposal, whether a takeover offers significant benefit to Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It will be chock full of politics, then!


Alastair William Gillespie: If that agency does not find any benefit or advises me that in the circumstances it believes a proposal
26635-74t

November 20, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act could be improved, then I will advise and recommend to my cabinet colleagues a course of action consistent with the advice I get.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Another pork barrel!


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I have another short question for the minister. About 15 minutes before the end of his statement he mentioned that the extension of existing industries would be subject to review by the agency. But it is my understanding that only the acquisition or takeover of new businesses was to be the subject of review. I should like to have this point clarified.


Alastair William Gillespie: I thought I made it quite clear in my remarks. I used the adjective "unrelated". I referred to the extension of a business to unrelated activities or the establishment of a new business. That is what the second part of the bill deals with.


Robert Carman Coates: It is a particular pleasure to enter this debate just after the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has outlined his views of what this piece of legislation will do for Canada. I consider the outline be has provided to be a devastating indictment of the Liberal party which has held office for 32 of the last 38 years. If this country has gotten into the terrible mess he tells us it is in at the present time, I can only say that the buck stops at the door of the Liberal party, for they are the people who allowed the things he says have happened, to happen.
One of the real problems a member from the maritime provinces faces when he comes to Ottawa lies in differentiating between what is said by cabinet ministers of the Liberal government and the facts as they affect his part of Canada. One of the reasons members from the Atlantic provinces have expressed such deep concern over the legislation presently before the House is that, day in and day out, their constituents encounter the many difficulties which arise in trying to remain part of this nation and trying not to feel they are second class citizens as a result of one action after another which federal governments have taken.
It might not be so great a travesty if the facts were different. But we came into confederation in 1867 as a prosperous area of a new nation. And we have gone downhill steadily ever since. It has been a very difficult role that the people of Atlantic Canada have played as citizens in the development of this nation. But we have stood with this nation. We have never talked about separatism. We have not adopted the sensible words of Joseph Howe when he spoke them in 1867 and warned us about our future. We have watched a tariff system established which has been of tremendous benefit to the central region of the nation but which has done vast damage to the remainder. We have asked over and over again for programs which will improve our position. As a region, we have been studied to death.
Some time ago I asked a question on this matter and I was told there had been some 250 federally-sponsored investigations into the problems which face our area. Yet today, when we look at the various indicators to determine our health as compared with the rest of Canada, we find we are a very sickly part of the nation. We have less of 
everything and we end up paying more for everything we require. It is just great for a minister from Toronto to get up and tell us how he is going to defend us and look after our resources and see that we keep them for our children and their children. But what comes to the minds of most of those who live in Atlantic Canada is this question: How are we going to live and how are our children going to live to enjoy some of the benefits available to the fat cats who live in central Canada, and who are now so concerned about the resources of this country.
We have resources in Atlantic Canada. They are providing jobs today for the people who live in that part of the country. By and large, these resources have been developed as a result of foreign investment. We would be much happier, as I am sure all Canadians would, if Canadian capital were developing our resources. But what we discover is that if foreign investment does not develop our resources, then no investment does. As a result, we are left without jobs for our people, which means they cannot maintain themselves and their families. That is the sad fact of the matter.
It is all very well to run down the multinational corporations and to accuse them of great rip-offs. But off the coast of the Atlantic provinces today a great deal of oil and gas exploration is going on which is proving to be very expensive. If it were not for foreign companies willing to gamble their profits, we would not know whether or not we have a tremendous resource here which, if exploited, will produce jobs and dividends for the people living in Atlantic Canada. So, we welcome such investment. The provincial governments in that part of Canada have indicated their concern about this particular piece of legislation. They are afraid it may deter the kind of investment that we still require in order to provide our people with the things they need and which, as Canadian citizens, they have the right to expect.
The amazing thing I have discovered during the 16 years I have been a member of this House is that, almost without exception, members of parliament from the Atlantic or maritime provinces find that their problems are looked at and appreciated by members from western Canada, and that almost always members from western Canada are talking about the same kind of situation which exists in their regions of Canada. In other words, almost always it is central Canada that finds favour as against the east and the west.


Walter David Baker: The rich get richer.


Robert Carman Coates: Let me give the House an example of how the rich do get richer and the poor get poorer. I have before me two newspapers published on the same day, November 15, 1973. One is a Toronto paper, the Globe and Mail, and the other a Nova Scotia newspaper, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. Both papers are carrying two identical advertisements relating to a Zenith solid state Chromaco-lour II television set. Both advertisements carry the same wording. I might say in passing that I certainly have no complaint about Zenith television sets; I think they are excellent. But in Toronto, one of the television sets pictured costs $719.95; that is the price listed in the Toronto
November 20, 1973

Globe and Mail. This same set costs in Halifax $829.95, or $110 more. The price of the other television set shown in the Toronto paper costs $789.95, and there is a little asterisk which denotes this is the suggested retail price. The price in the other paper of this same set is $869.95, in other words $80 more.
It might be said that transportation cost is the reason for the difference. Yet this smaller set that costs $719.95 in Toronto and $829.95 In Halifax is lighter in weight than the other one which costs $80 more. Whatever the reason is, all I can say is that it is just one more symptom of the sickness in this nation which means if you live in the Maritimes, where your pay cheque is less, you pay more for the goods you feel you require. The story is probably exactly the same in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver and Calgary. This is just one example that a constituent of mine has brought to my attention. We are living in a time of spiralling inflation, with costs increasing all across the nation, yet we in the maritime provinces pay even more than someone living in central Canada. In my opinion there are other basic matters requiring a great deal more priority than investment coming into this nation to create jobs for people who require them. Certainly, transportation is one of the matters that requires action, but action is not forthcoming.
This government has held office for 32 of the last 38 years. It seems that all of the things that it did not do during those 32 years it is now going to correct with this particular piece of legislation, though I do not know how and neither, I am sure, does the government. When the government does try to bring equality to the people of this nation I suggest this area should be number one on the list.
During the 1968 election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talked a great deal about the just society. The just society just did not happen in his first four years in office, and it was not even mentioned during the last election campaign. The Prime Minister also talked about regional economic disparity, and some action has been taken in that regard, though not nearly as much action as should have been taken when one considers the kind of investment the government has made in the programs of that particular department. However, there has been some forward movement. Whether the federal government considers itself the main proponent of the improvements that have been made, and thereby the recipient of the kudos arising therefrom, is not really important. Although conditions are improving slightly, a great deal more improvement still needs to be made before we have anything like equality of opportunity.
The minister mentioned some of the areas in which he considered the government had taken action to protect Canadians and to maintain the Canadian heritage for future generations. I suggest that if he is anxious to see the Canadian heritage retained for Canadians there are certain areas in which he and his government should move, and should have moved long before now. We are faced today with a tremendous energy crisis. The minister could have assisted Canadians to enjoy a part of their own heritage had he agreed last January to the extension of the oil pipeline to Montreal. He did not do that, and this
Foreign Investment Review Act winter we must depend on other countries and their decisions for the necessary oil and gas to heat our homes.
I suggest that the minister and his government should also take another look at the tremendous coal reserves in this country. It is suggested they are in the neighbourhood of 120 billion tons. The government should do something about making this coal marketable in order that Canadians could produce the energy required to manufacture goods and produce the employment we need. Since confederation, more than 100 years ago, we have used less than one billion tons of coal in this nation. In other words, we have used just one per cent of our recoverable coal resources. As a result of the energy crisis, the President of the United States has undertaken a $3 billion research program in respect of their coal reserves in an attempt to find ways and means of gasifying the coal to produce the energy they require to become self-sufficient in the energy field by 1980. That is an example of what that country is doing in order to meet its energy crisis.
Much of our coal is located in the Atlantic area. Coal can be produced by the conventional methods, but we should also consider these resources from the point of view of gasification, cutting down the cost of production and other things of that nature. This can be done with the proper type of research. The minister has not said one word in this regard, except that the coal fields in my constituency, which other Liberal governments have closed down, should be reopened. Certainly, they should be reopened on the basis of conventional coal mining, and we should also look for other ways of deriving benefits from this resource.


An hon. Member:: They are waiting for foreign investors.


Robert Carman Coates: The government is waiting for foreign investors, just as we in the Atlantic provinces are waiting for foreign investors to develop the tremendous energy potential from the Fundy tides. This is a gigantic project of the magnitude of the Churchill and lower Churchill Falls combined. It is comparable to the development undertaken in Quebec at James Bay. I was informed last week by the government, through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), that after two years of re-examining a study produced in 1969, which indicated that the Fundy tidal power project was feasible from an energy point of view but not from an economic point of view, perhaps there will be another investigation carried out to determine further aspects of this project. The Premier of Nova Scotia recently suggested that this new study, which could cost another $1 million, might be a good thing. I wonder how many studies, environmental and otherwise, were carried out in respect of the James Bay project before the government of Quebec moved toward producing the hydro power associated with that development, once again with foreign capital.
The sad fact is that the development and employment we have today in this country results directly from foreign investment, that is investment by others who are more daring and willing to invest their capital in projects here than we in this country are. Surely, we should be trying to

November 20, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act give Canadians incentives to invest in this country rather than making conditions attractive to foreign investment.
In 32 of the 38 years we have had a Liberal government, Canadians have been coddled to the extent they see nothing but mortgages and bonds in which to invest their money. They are afraid to take a chance, and I do not blame them if they have money invested in projects of this government. We should provide great incentives to Canadians to invest in Canada. We should make sure that they can obtain reasonable returns on their capital, while at the same time helping their fellow citizens toward a better way of life. This is what our party stands for; an incentive society in which people take advantage of incentives provided by the government. This government should provide incentives rather than detriments.
We have reached the point where people talk about rip-offs. I suggest we should rip-off this government in order to derive some benefit from the tremendous number of tax dollars that have been invested over the years. What better opportunity could we provide our citizens than tax incentives to encourage investment in this country. We should encourage Canadian investment to an extent comparable to foreign investment with comparable benefits.
I should like to make one or two remarks about land ownership. For some time I have been concerned, as a maritimer, about land ownership. I am not speaking as a member from the Atlantic provinces, but as a maritimer representing the view of the people of an area which has been a part of Canada for a long time. We lived, grew up and tried to get our children to grow up in that part of Canada even though we knew they could probably do better if they went somewhere else. But we did it for a great many reasons, and one of them certainly is the grandeur of the land itself.
We have discovered that people who went to the asphalt jungles of North America are now coming back to our part of Canada and are endeavouring to take us to the cleaners because they have made a lot of money. They can afford to offer us a sum of money for our land that we cannot refuse because we are not in the same league as they are. As a result, much of the recreational land that is associated with our way of life in the maritime provinces is being gobbled up by speculators from other parts of Canada and North America. I am pleased that the provincial governments are finally moving in this area, because we have only a limited amount of land and in my opinion our people have the right to first enjoyment of it. From that point of view, I do not mean that we should stop Canadians having cottage land or we should stop Americans and people from other countries buying a piece of land here and enjoying the scenery that we know so well. But I do believe we should put a stop to the kind of speculation that has been going on and that will increase if we do not do something about it.
I think there should probably be a national policy in this regard; but more important than that, there must be provincial government policies to see that our people who stay in the Maritimes and accept a life that is not as fruitful, from a financial point of view, as that available to those who live in other areas, have a right to the enjoy-

ment of that land 12 months of the year, and not to have fences put up and access eliminated to the very best recreational areas and to the surrounding ocean.
I want to conclude by saying that, so far as I am concerned, there are many pieces of legislation that this parliament could be considering that are a lot more important to people in the Atlantic provinces than the measure we are considering. At the same time, I would like to say that I am deeply concerned about any type of roadblock that is put in the way of investment in our area until we at least have an unemployment rate that is on a par with the rest of the nation.
I also think there must be a tremendous amount of guaranteed co-operation between the provincial and the federal governments. I regret very much that some of the proposals made by my colleagues, especially by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), have not been acceptable to the government. I would be much happier with an incentive type of bill that would convince Canadians that there are many reasons why they should be investing in this country rather than in another country, and that many good dividends are available to them if they do.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in this debate for a very short intervention which will last not later than six o'clock, because of the view which my colleagues and I take of the importance of the issue of foreign control of Canada's economy. As I have travelled across this country in the last number of months, I have been very impressed by the fact-and it is a fact-that ever-growing numbers of Canadians in every part of Canada are deeply concerned about the foreign control of Canada's economy and about the impossibility of envisaging a future for Canada which is shaped by Canadians themselves if this foreign control continues at its present level, let alone if it is permitted to increase.
I do not think we can exaggerate the losses to Canada flowing from the fact that our economy in its most important aspect is in the hands of multinational corporations. Whether you look at the fact that our natural resources are yanked out of the earth and shipped across with very little processing, and the consequent loss of development and jobs in Canada; whether you look at the fact that little research and development is done in this country, that almost all of it is done at the headquarters of the parent corporations which control Canada's economy; whether you look at the danger that always faces a Canadian worker in a multinational corporation in Canada; whether you look at the fact that a multinational corporation may find it more economic to transfer its activities not only to the United States but to anywhere in the world, to Singapore, to Africa or elsewhere where they now have plants, and the danger to the jobs of Canadians in those situations-in our present society you will find that the moguls of industry have an immense influence on the ethos of society and on the standard of values by which society is governed.
This is a fact which I regret very much. They have an immense influence on the cultural and spiritual essence of a society as well as in the material and economic sense. When you look at all these aspects that are affected, indeed influenced and governed by the economic power
November 20, 1973

which is now in the hands of multinational corporations, you find that no Canadian who looks ahead, who is not blinded by his subservience to the so-called free enterprise system, can fail to be concerned about our country's present situation.
It took many years for the Liberal government of this country, and the Conservative government before it, to realize the dangers we were facing. If I may say so without, I hope, being improper, some of us saw this many decades ago. It has been drawn to my attention that in a speech I made back in 1956 which was published in pamphlet form-I had forgotten about it until it was drawn to my attention-I gave a warning to Canadians about the foreign control of our economy. My colleagues and I have been warning Canadians for many years about it, not because I like an exploiting Canadian corporation any better than an exploiting multinational one but because multinational control carries with it consequences beyond mere economic questions in a country.
Finally, after years of study, the government brought down a bill in the last parliament which we were determined to stymie, a bill which did nothing at all, which dealt with perhaps 2 per cent or 3 per cent of the problem that is before us. But this year, undoubtedly because of the minority situation of the government, it has produced a bill that is considerably stronger. Instead of dealing only with foreign takeovers, it deals also with new businesses of foreigners and with the expansion of existing corporations in unrelated areas.
The minister has accepted some changes which my colleagues on the committee suggested, which have also served to strengthen the criteria which are to govern the agency and the government in making decisions under the bill. Because it has been considerably strengthened, we have said from the start that we would not block the passage of this bill and would vote for it. However, I want to make clear, Mr. Speaker, that we are under no illusions that Bill C-132 is more than a short step in the right direction. This is the main reason for my taking part in the debate at this stage.
The bill still does not deal with the most important part of the problem in Canada, which is the expansion of existing foreign corporations in this country. Even the present bill will deal only with 10 per cent to 20 per cent of the problem, depending on what happens in a given year, and the remaining problem will not be touched. The minister has again indicated with figures the extent of this problem. There is over 70 per cent foreign ownership in mining, and in certain manufacturing industries almost 100 per cent. It is almost 100 per cent in the automotive industry, and 90 per cent ownership of the natural resources of this country, including the energy resources to which I will return in a moment. There is something like 80 per cent foreign ownership of the refining facilities in this country. The minister quite rightly emphasized that all these important levers of economic control-"important" is almost an understatement-these almost overwhelming levers of economic control are now in the hands of multinational corporations.
Foreign Investment Review Act
When the minister says that the bill is good because it will prevent existing corporations from expanding into unrelated areas, if he applies it as it should be applied, I am a little less worried about that. It may be that other hon. members were as ignorant about this as I was until some research was done, but everybody thinks of Imperial Oil as being merely an oil, gas and pipeline outfit in this country. It is not. Is not that the company that has a tooth-brush factory, toilet-paper interests, furniture interests, interests in a good many areas-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This government was going to let that company into our natural resource industry in the parks.


David Lewis: The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) of course is ready to let them move into control of the natural resource industry.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I said the government was going to let them into the national parks.


David Lewis: I am dealing with the government of the moment. I will return to the hon. member for Crowfoot with great pleasure.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Don't put words in my mouth.


David Lewis: These multinational corporations are conglomerates. They are not limited to any one area. They are in almost every economic area. Their influence will not be touched by this bill. In the submission of my colleagues and myself, we will not do the job for Canada and Canadians until we take, not mincing steps to prevent further foreign expansion of economic control but decisive steps to repatriate the economy of Canada, to put it into Canadian hands and particularly into public ownership so that it cannot be sold to any multinational corporations.
There are some hon. members in this House who object to this bill. I do not know how they will vote, whether they will vote for it or against it if there is a division. But they object to this bill because basically they want foreign investment in this country. Basically, there are people in this country and members of this House who have no confidence in Canadians. They want forever to go begging to Washington, Pittsburgh, Chicago and New York to do the job which Canadians themselves are fully able to do. There are people in Canada-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is the direct opposite.


David Lewis: There are hon. members in this chamber who have been persuaded by the myths propagated by the multinational corporations, (a) that we do not have enough savings in Canada and (b) that Canadians are not entrepreneurs, that they don't have the guts to undertake the risks. The hon. gentleman who spoke before me said something to that effect. It seemed to him that foreign investors are more willing to invest in Canadian resources than are Canadian investors. Mr. Speaker, the only reason-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There are a lot of investors in your party. They have all of five cents invested in Canada.

November 20, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act


David Lewis: Yes, because my colleagues, unlike the hon. member for Crowfoot, represent the average Canadian and the average Canadian does not have much investment. That is perfectly true, Mr. Speaker. The only reason that foreign investment has come to Canada over the years is that governments and big business in this country have not wanted to expend what was needed to be expended to develop our own technological know-how and to undertake our own development, because they could make a faster buck by inviting the multinational corporations to come in and do the job for us.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


David Lewis: A short one.


Donald MacInnis: Would he take a few moments to outline the difference in the approaches of premiers Regan, Blakeney, Schreyer and Barrett in regard to outside investment?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is doing the usual thing that some hon. members of this House do-he really does not know what he is saying, but he says it. It is a fact that provincial governments in this country may go elsewhere to borrow capital, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about equity investment in Canada. We are talking about ownership and control of the Canadian economy, not loan capital. It is always possible to borrow elsewhere, pay interest and repay the loan, but we have seen another type of development-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Was Schreyer against foreign investment in his province?


David Lewis: The hon. member for Crowfoot will have a chance to make a speech in time, if he will just shut up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. This is a good time to remind the House that when an hon. member is making a speech, nobody should interrupt him except to raise a point of order. We should allow the hon. member to carry on with his speech so that at least the Chair can hear.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the interruptions-


Donald MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I rose to ask permission of the hon. member to ask a question. This practice has been followed for years, and it does not behoove the Chair to remind me that I cannot follow a precedent long established.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I do not think the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) got my point. I was saying there should not be interruptions while an hon. member has the floor. I did not refer to members asking permission to ask questions.


David Lewis: I would not mind the interruptions at all, Mr. Speaker, except that I have the pleasure of standing fairly close to the hon. member for Crowfoot, who has a strong

voice, and when he interrupts me I cannot hear myself nor can anybody else hear me.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is the first person you want to hear; you like the sound of your own voice.


David Lewis: Oh, come on now; stop being an ass. Mr. Speaker, the only reason we have had foreign investment in this country is that there have been no policies directed toward the development of our resources by Canada for Canadians. Since I do not want to talk beyond six o'clock, that takes me to the energy situation.
There was never any reason why Canada should have an energy crisis. It is not as though Canada does not have enough oil and gas for its own needs from one coast of this country to the other. We do have it. The only reason we have an energy problem in Canada now is that we sold the resources in the west. The oil resources of Alberta were sold out-given away in some cases-for very little by the former Social Credit government. It was assisted by the federal government, particularly by the Tory government of 1961 dividing Canada into two markets,-drawing a line down the Ottawa Valley and saying that west of it Canadians would be served by western Canadian oil and east of it Canadians would be served only by imported oil.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member for Crowfoot rises on a point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I think there should be some ruling in the House that hon. members should stay somewhere close to the truth. The last statements of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) have been completely erroneous, and he knows it. He should at least try to lay the honest truth on the table.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. This is another example of what I was saying. That is not a point of order. The hon. member will have a chance to make a speech later if he wishes.


David Lewis: When I reach the stage, Mr. Speaker, that I have to come to the hon. member for Crowfoot for a lesson in honest truth, it will be a very sad day for me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: It is perfectly obvious that the hon. member for Crowfoot thinks it is a good idea to keep interrupting me, and he uses excuses for doing so. If he enjoys playing that kind of game, then I appreciate that he has not yet gone past the adolescent stage. But that is his trouble.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh, the exalted ruler speaks again.


David Lewis: What I said was fact; that in 1961 the Tory government decided this country needed two markets. That was the Diefenbaker government. East of the Ottawa Valley we now have shortages that never would have occurred in this country, with the oil and gas that we
November 20, 1973

have, if we had not handed over our resources to the multinational corporations.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Garbage.


David Lewis: Under pressure, they were given a complete monopoly of the market west of the Ottawa Valley and the right to export 50 per cent of their production to the United States. Both by closing off the eastern half of Canada from the western market and by yanking out- someone suggested I am punning-the oil as fast as possible and shipping it out of this country as we have done for so many years-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is all nonsense.


David Lewis: -we are now faced with a crisis. And that is not all. The Conservative government of Alberta, supported by the Conservative members of this House and supported, so far as I have been able to gather, by the Liberal Party as well, is now determined to sell out the remaining oil reserves, the largest oil reserves in the world, the Athabasca tar sands-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Absolute nonsense.


David Lewis: -to a consortium of four multinational corporations-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Absolute nonsense.


David Lewis: -which are demanding that the government give them certain concessions before they continue. It is this kind of sell-out that has taken a toll of our natural resources, particularly of our oil reserves, and has caused us problems which become more difficult to handle every day.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A glaring distortion of the facts.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I have distorted is my friend's humour, and that is an object to be desired.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A glaring distortion of the facts; a knowing distortion.


David Lewis: These are the facts about Canada's economic situation. The fact that hon. members to your left, Mr. Speaker, are constantly interrupting everybody who speaks about Canada's independence and Canadian autonomy and the sell-out of Canadian resources shows you, as it will show the people of Canada, the impossible position that the Conservative Party finds itself in, when its leader rose in the House at two o'clock and asked a question about the shortage of oil and the price of oil in the Atlantic provinces-and the Conservative premier of Alberta determined to raise the price of oil not only for the Atlantic provinces but for all of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now you are getting close to it. That last statement was the truest statement you've made.


David Lewis: The economy of our country until now has been deliberately given away, deliberately sold out by the
Foreign Investment Review Act corporate interests of this country, supported by the government of this country, both Liberal and Conservative, and indeed by the provincial Social Credit government as well. As far as my colleagues and I are concerned, we will support this bill-but we will not be satisfied with this legislation in the slightest because it touches only a small part of the problem. We will not be satisfied until we have persuaded parliament and the Canadian people that the time has come to place such things as the tar sands under public ownership.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The time has come to place under public ownership one or more of the large multinationals in the energy situation. The time has come, Mr. Speaker, to take control of the Canadian economy away from multinationals and give it to the people of Canada


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell us about General Motors and Ford.


David Lewis: This must be done to allow Canadians to establish their own destiny, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A really selfish speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, recently the people of Quebec were given a choice, for or against Canada. Overwhelmingly they opted for Canada. It was not easy, I am sure, for those who had supported the Party Creditiste or l'Union Nationale for long years, and some of their parents before them, not to support those parties in the election. It was not easy, I am sure, for many who for social or economic reasons, would have supported the Parti Quebecois to opt for Canada. Many others who supported the Parti Quebecois did so because they liked its economic and social views; they would not have supported the party if asked to vote on a referendum. The people of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, have opted for Canada. I am firmly convinced that if the rest of the people of Canada were given the same opportunity, they too would most certainly respond in like manner.
If there is one single issue which would catch the fancy of all Canadians, whether from Quebec or British Columbia, from Newfoundland or Ontario, from Alberta or any other part of the land, that issue would be the opportunity to opt for Canada and for the independence and the integrity of the nation.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the foreign investment review bill is by any means the vehicle which

November 20, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act would catch the fancy of all Canadians. It is not that kind of bill. It is not that far reaching; it is not that exciting; it is not that stirring. None the less, it is, I believe, an extremely significant piece of legislation. It is significant, I submit, in two respects. First, it enables us to stand up and be counted. Second, it sets up a good mechanism which, if extended, could have a really important effect on all foreign investment in Canada.
As we approach the vote on third reading I should like briefly to review the status of foreign ownership in Canada at this time. With respect to foreign ownership, this country is perhaps like no other in the western community in the degree of equity ownership which we allow to outsiders. Most countries either limit ownership or take funds in the form of bonds or other non-equity or portfolio capital. Britain, for instance, financed a great deal of North and South American growth in the pre-first world war era with this type of investment.
The extent of foreign ownership in Canada in many areas of the economy is well known. I will mention only two or three areas. When we look at manufacturing, we are talking of foreign ownership in the area of 65 to 70 per cent. About the same amount of our mining is foreign-owned. When we consider petroleum and the petrochemical industry, we must concede that between 80 and 90 per cent of the industry is foreign-owned. That shows the extent of foreign ownership affecting our various industries. In addition, we must consider the matter of control. Much of the Canadian portion of the manufacturing industry, and particularly of the petroleum industry, is held in the form of preferred stock and not in the form of voting or controlling stock. That is the situation in this part of the 1970s.
A great deal of concern has been expressed in this debate and in committee hearings about the need for foreign investment. Without question, our affluence up to now has depended upon a great deal of money coming in from outside. I question, at this point, whether this is still true. Let me first of all say that I wish to ease the concern of some hon. members from the have-not provinces. I will mention this later. I know that some of those members are concerned that possibly their provinces will suffer if less foreign investment comes into the country.
Let me mention some figures. According to the latest American figures available to me, during the five years 1966 to 1970, $2.2 billion U.S. was directly invested in Canada. The outflow to the United States in the form of dividends, rents, etc., was $5.5 billion. Further, during that period U.S. interests acquired an additional $7.4 billion of assets in this country. In other words, for every dollar that entered Canada from the United States-this does not include money coming from Japan, Germany, or other areas-$2.50 went out in dividends and American interests acquired $4 worth of assets or equities. In other words, outside groups are buying Canada with our money.
I mentioned concerned groups. Perhaps the most significant group we dealt with in committee were some of the provinces which are not as well off as a province such as Ontario. I can understand the concern of these provinces. They fear that in some way or another foreign investment

will decrease because of this bill. That is misplaced concern. At the very beginning of the second reading debate there was a lot of talk about the term "significant benefit". There are those who would like to water the words "significant benefit" down to "benefit". It seems extremely important to have the words "significant benefit" in the bill. What might only be of benefit to a province like Ontario could be very significant to a province like New Brunswick or some other province where the amount of investment is not as great.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) made a statement which impressed me very much. He talked about the kinds of foreign investments that are made in the poorer provinces. Generally, these are in raw materials and do not create many jobs. The processing is not done in the province. As the minister indicated, as soon as there is some slightly adverse situation, as was the case with the three fish producing plants in the Mari-times, the companies disappear as soon as prices become poor. The disadvantaged parts of Canada should not be concerned. They should welcome this bill. In many cases it is a way of attracting investment to those areas.
The other group which seems to be concerned includes some of the large corporations, some of which are multinational, some major oil companies and some real estate companies and other important groups in our corporate sector. There was one group of 32 companies of which one-half were Canadian-owned. The people who represented them were from companies where the majority ownership was American. In spite of the testimony, this bill will be an advantage to Canadian firms in this group. In a case where there is not significant benefit for an American firm to buy out a Canadian firm, that firm would not be able to do so. A Canadian firm in competition, trying to buy out the same company, would have an advantage. This bill, rather than being detrimental to the have-not provinces or the Canadian portion of the corporate sector, should be of real benefit.
There is one problem with this bill that has been cited by members of the New Democratic Party. It has to do with the fact it does not make provision for companies already functioning in Canada to expand. I can fully understand the concern of the minister in expressing the difficulty one would have in defining expansion. Where does expansion start and where does it stop? As a government, I do not think we are relying on this bill to prevent this kind of expansion or to increase Canadian ownership. There are other ways of doing that, and I wish to suggest one or two. First, the provinces must be concerned about land sales. I understand that in northwestern Ontario, in the area around Thunder Bay in particular, 10 per cent of the surveyed land is owned by nationals of another country; they are mostly American. The province of Ontario has had a select committee seriously considering legislation to correct this type of situation.
There is a whole series of areas where tax incentives can increase Canadian ownership. Many have suggested these. I do not intend to get into them at this time. The Canada Development Corporation is to be congratulated on its efforts in acquiring a principal holding in Texasgulf. There will be many more opportunities in the future to acquire control of other large corporations working in
November 20, 1973

Canada. This should not be taken as a threat; it will come about in a very natural way.
There has been a tendency to look at all incoming capital as being always welcome. When we get into the whole area of energy with up to $100 billion in capital flowing into Canada in the next 15 years, it will have a very serious effect on the Canadian dollar, pushing it up considerably. It will also have a very serious effect in terms of purchase of energy. In other words, if the United States or other countries buy Canadian energy excessively, they will not be in a position to buy other manufactured goods. The Economic Council dealt with this question in its recent publication. This excess inflow would be significant enough that we could in some way or other arrange for a portion of it to be turned back in the form of equity. The same thing that Britain did between the wars and during World War II might occur. The Americans might well sell some of their equity to maintain a stable dollar and a stable trade relationship.
There is another field in which we can expand our Canadian ownership, control and input. This relates to the whole field of energy. There are those who ask why energy should be singled out as being different from manufacturing or any other sector of the economy. The present energy crisis tells us why. If, for example, the manufacture of plastics became a problem, we could survive. However, I am not sure we can survive without an adequate supply of energy. We must take a special look at this area. We must first become self-sufficient.
We must be able to control our energy supplies. That does not mean we should not sell excess energy; that is not the case at all. However, we must become self-sufficient. We must also have a single-price system across this country. To do this we need a national marketing board. This could be set up without too much difficulty. I think negotiations in this area, especially with the province of Alberta, are forthcoming. I talked about this before in terms of a quid pro quo.
Perhaps one of the most important steps that we must take is to set up a national petroleum corporation. That is an area in which it is important we act.
I think, too, we must acquire our own pipelines. We must ensure that our supplies are secure. I would be much more interested in a pipeline from Sault Ste. Marie to Montreal than a pipeline from Montreal through Toronto looping to Sarnia. It seems to me that if a pipeline were routed to Montreal from Sault Ste. Marie, with a short bridge to St. Ignace, a distance of 30 or 40 miles, we would be halfway toward completing a pipeline; and then the second link could be routed from Manitoba to Thunder Bay and around to Sault Ste. Marie. I understand the distance is about the same from Montreal to Sarnia as from Sault Ste. Marie or St. Ignace to Montreal.
Lastly, I think we should be most concerned to acquire and control the whole operation of the tar sands in the Canadian interest. The tar sands area has to be Canada's most valuable piece of real estate. This is not an energy debate and I do not intend to elaborate on this aspect, but I think it is very important for the people of Canada to acquire a considerable interest in this development, either
Foreign Investment Review Act through a national petroleum corporation in some other way, by arrangement with the province of Alberta. These are five or six ways in which we could extend Canadian interest in her own resources.
There is a popular fallacy that those who talk about being Canadian or acquiring an interest in Canada through Canadian ownership are anti-American. This label, which is immediately imposed upon them, is ridiculous. In the field of energy, I do not think anyone is suggesting we are cutting off oil supplies to the Americans. We are shipping over a million barrels a day to them, and to date I am aware of no proposals that this supply should be cut off at least for several years.
A national petroleum corporation should certainly not be a threat to foreign countries. It would create more competition-but competition is what makes the world go round. After all, British Petroleum is a nationally-owned company in competition with United States firms. The multinational corporations in the oil industry and elsewhere are used to tough rules in various countries, and to judge from some conversations I have had, I think they wonder how it is that Canadians are so easy to deal with in this respect. The changes proposed in this bill before us are not such as to create basic animosity. We must remember, as the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) reminded us, that other nations besides the United States are also becoming very large investors in Canada, and that funds of those countries might possibly replace American sources some day. I am thinking particularly of Japan and West Germany.
I have followed the debate in this House on both energy and foreign takeovers. There is one characteristic which I have noticed among spokesmen for the Conservative Party particularly-a constant reference to consulting with the provinces. I accept the need for consultation, but we cannot allow consultation with the provinces to mean the balkanization of Canada. Canada is far more than the sum of its parts and it is extremely important that politicians understand this. We must make decisions here. We will consult in the sense that we will find out how the provinces feel, but the decisions made by the government must be made for the good of all Canadians. Consultation is excellent as a way of finding out; but to the extent that it leads to balkanization-no.
In conclusion, I support this bill, partly because it gives us a good mechanism; but also because it gives us a chance to stand up and be counted. We have dealt with matters such as over-consultation with the provinces, such as reducing the word "significant" or taking it out of the phrase "significant benefit." We resisted these efforts because we felt we must be counted for Canada. This is a beginning, which will be followed by other actions particularly affecting energy policy. However, I think this measure is the beginning of an opportunity for Canadians to opt for the integrity of Canada.


Mr. Joe Hueglin (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, it was a very real privilege to hear the minister speak this afternoon. Always I have believed that what this government does is marked by the style rather than the substance. The speech we heard this afternoon has turned this belief into an unalterable fact based upon experience.

November 20, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
In his opening remarks, the minister said the bill was intended to provide opportunity for building our future and that it was a question of political will, no more and no less, that this be done. He then proceeded to list the problems which many people feel accompany foreign ownership-the dulling of entrepreneurship, control of markets, control of machinery purchases, control of component purchases. He then outlined the steps taken or promised-an increase in the number of Canadian directors until they constituted a majority, Canadian resources being refined in this country, an interest advantage in taxation matters. He referred to the role of the Industrial Development Bank and of the Canada Development Corporation in glowing terms and listed again the priorities set up by his department.
In school, years ago, we were taught to make precis. It would be interesting to determine which part of the minister's rhetoric related to the bill, which to the ideals that are not being met, and which to programs purloined from other sources but claimed now as Liberal achievements. The bill does not deal with the extent of present foreign investment or its expansion within the economy in any way, as long as the expansion is related to an existing undertaking. It does not provide better opportunities for the Canadian entrepreneur in any way-and this is not as dulled as the minister implied; it is simply unable to obtain capital in many instances. The measure before us does nothing to encourage or assist these men who wish to play their role in building Canada.
Claims have been made that the bill embodies innovative provisions including, as I have mentioned, arrangements for Canadians to be in the majority on boards of directors, tax relief in the field of interest, and increased local refining of Canadian resources. Mr. Speaker, these ideas are all taken from actions first carried out in Ontario by a Conservative government. This applies also to the reference which was made to the Prime Minister's speech in Vancouver. None of this is Liberal in origin.
Portions of the minister's speech related to significant benefit and cabinet responsibility. This same gentleman and his fellows presided over the disposition of Supertest Petroleum Corporation, an Ontario-based firm. Granted, the present bill was not then law but the cabinet would, presumably, act on the same basic principles. But though this was a Canadian company, although it was profitable, it was allowed to be sold to a foreign concern, ironically; a company owned and controlled by the government of a foreign country. The minister says it is a question of will, and I agree with him. But the will of this government is lacking, as it has been in the past, and all the will in the world cannot add solid meat to the sawdust that is represented in the minister's speech.
There is no will in this government except to survive, and it hopes the Canadian people will look no further than the rhetoric and not look for the meat. But they will not be so easily fooled as this. They will opt for Canada and for policies that give incentives to Canadians, not for hollow style that is aimed at grabbing headlines and providing grist for candidates trying to prove that their government has done something, that something has been accomplished.

There are a number of important aspects of the control of foreign investment in Canada that must be clearly stated. Investment in the past has been beneficial. It has provided jobs for Canadians, which in its time was a fair bargain in view of the profit and increasing equity gained through such investment. Presently, however, little new money is coming into Canada relative to increased foreign control. In fact, most expansion is financed by Canadian savings, which year by year are becoming more and more adequate and capable of financing our own growth.
Canadian funds are being used to finance the takeover of Canadian companies by those whose primary interest is not necessarily the expansion of jobs in Canada and Canadian markets but, rather, increasing profits to send home. These are companies that look at the world not from a "Canada first" point of view, but from a multinational point of view in which Canada is merely one pawn in a widespread game.
This bill will not necessarily prevent the growth of foreign ownership in new industries. It most certainly will in no way place Canadians at any advantage compared to these many companies presently foreign-owned. Neither will it in any way encourage or assist Canadians either in buying or in retaining their interest in Canadian firms. It will, in effect, give the appearance of action, but will do little except build another department of government that will seem to be active but which in reality will not be. It will simply let the government convince those who are unwary that something has been done when it has not.
However, this bill is better than nothing at all, for the government at least will have to relate its actions to the act and the guidelines under the act, rather than to its own ad hoc actions, as has been the case in the past. But the legislation will do nothing constructive.
Although Canadians, particularly Niagarans, are presently, quite rightly, primarily concerned about rising prices and the energy crisis, there is no doubt that one of their greatest continuing concerns is the question of who will control our destiny. This government has failed in controlling inflation and in developing a rational, planned energy policy. It has also failed during its ten years of existence to address itself in any positive manner to this continuing concern of all Canadians.
The role of the government should be to assist Canadians who are willing to undertake risk, people who are willing to operate companies that can compete for sales at home and abroad and are willing to invest in the enterprise of others. Vast sums have been loaned to countries other than Canada at interest rates lower than Canadian citizens can obtain from the Export Development Corporation, indeed at lower interest rates than the Industrial Development Bank, which the minister boasts about, have offered. This is not just. Many millions have been spent on programs that are of no long-term benefit, often of little short-term benefit and at times of potential or real harm to our society. Could not these funds have been better employed in assisting Canadian enterprise to become more productive and competitive, thus opening up permanent jobs?
A Canadian Development Corporation has been established, but it has not as yet assisted small businessmen to any significant degree to obtain the equity capital which
November 20, 1973

they need. Nor has it reached out in any way to the citizens of Canada, allowing them to assist in building a stronger Canada through personal involvement. The Canadian Development Corporation was claimed by the minister to be an achievement, but as yet it has not touched the citizenry of Canada. This is provided for in the act, so why has it not been done?
Over the years I have sought the opinions of the citizens of Niagara riding and their position was always clear. In the year since they saw fit to place me in this House, the message has become even clearer. Canadians, at least those in Niagara riding, are looking for leadership in regaining control of our economic destiny. They are looking for positive action and are willing to become involved themselves if given the opportunity and support that only the government can provide.
In summation, this bill does not in any way alter the situation of foreign investment in Canada, as it now stands. It is window-dressing that few who are really concerned will be satisfied with. Lastly, it is clear that Canadians who are looking for effective action that will be of assistance to them and will allow them to become involved in this greatest of all problems, that of our independent economic survival, will have to wait still longer than they have already. They will have to wait until the day when the positive programs of the Conservative Party are put forth in the form of government bills. Clearly, the minister does not have the political will to provide the opportunity for Canadians to share in building their future. Just as clearly, a Conservative government, when in power, has that will and will put it into law.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, over the last few months we have been spending many hours discussing Bill C-132. First of all, we dealt with the second reading stage and then had 30 to 40 meetings of the committee; then it came back at report stage, and finally this evening we have reached third reading stage of the bill. During its progress through the House, the committee of the House was able to get three or four amendments put into the bill which, in my opinion, strengthen the bill. Foreign ownership in this country is a very important question. This bill goes part way toward solving at least some of the problems of foreign ownership. It is a small step. It will deal with between 10 and 20 per cent, depending on the year, of foreign activity in Canada and I think it is the first step toward seriously repatriating the Canadian economy.
Canada, perhaps more than any other country, is dependent upon foreign capital. According to Statistics Canada, we now have in excess of $50 billion worth of foreign funds in this country. About 80 per cent of these funds come from the United States of America. On the other hand, as of 1970 Canada had about $6 billion invested in other countries. The reason that the issue of foreign ownership concerns me is really threefold. First of all, we are exporting capital from Canada today. We are a net exporter of capital, not a net importer of capital any longer. As a matter of fact, last year Canada exported some $2.3 billion of capital in the form of dividends, profits and interest rates to United States corporations alone.
Foreign Investment Review Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And union dues.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Perhaps there were union dues as well, though I do not have the statistics for them. But in the form of interest rates, dividends and profits, $2.3 billion went to United States corporations. Yesterday there was a story in the press to the effect that at the rate of outflow of funds, this year probably $2.8 billion of Canadian funds will go to United States investors. As I have said, about 80 per cent of the foreign ownership in Canada is United States investment, and I take it a lot of money in the form of dividends, profits, and so on, also flows out to investors in Japan, Germany, Britain or wherever those investors live.
The second matter that concerns me about the tremendous intensity of foreign ownership of our economy is that I think in the long run it hurts us in terms of jobs. We now have a branch plant economy that depends on the parent plant in many cases to make decisions that effect our economy. Thirdly, I believe that because of the tremendous influx of foreign capital into this country, some of our political and economic decision-making powers have been eroded. Our future is genuinely at stake. I know some people tend to look at some of us as narrow nationalists. I do not think we are. But if you are faced with a choice between nationalism or annihilation as a nation, one would come down on the side of a person who is a nationalist in so far as wanting Canada to develop its own economy in the world community, with the strength to make political and economic decisions.
I become very annoyed at times when I hear members of the Conservative Party suggest we in this party are antiAmerican. I am not anti-American, and I do not blame Americans for what has happened in Canada. I blame two groups for what has happened.


Mr. Paproski:: The Grits.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I blame the Grits and other governments of this country, including the Tory governments, for the lack of foreign ownership legislation which we should have on our statute books. We have been selling ourselves out; we have been economic prostitutes, so to speak.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We have allowed foreign investors to come into our country, with very few rules or guidelines, to do to us almost anything they want. Secondly, I blame the multinational corporations or the transnational conglomerates which have established themselves around the world. They are vertically integrated and massive in their power. Many of them are much more powerful than the economies of entire countries; some of them more powerful than the economy of Canada. Huge, multinational corporations can affect the economic pattern of the world, the value of various currencies and the balance of payments of many countries. These are the people I blame for the type of situation we face today.
As I have already indicated, the bill before us has a couple of major deficiencies. It does not go far enough because it pertains only to takeovers and new invest-

November 20, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act ments. The bill is, in my opinion, too subjective and leaves too much of the decision-making process to the proposed agency. In some cases that might be good, but you might have an agency which is not too concerned about the question of foreign ownership in Canada and because of its subjectivity there might not be many positive decisions taken. As I said earlier, this bill deals with only 10 per cent or 20 per cent of foreign activity in Canada. It deals with takeovers, new investments and the expansion of existing firms into non-related areas; and this is where you run into trouble. How do you define what is a non-related area? You probably define it by product. Many of our multinational corporations are vertically integrated and are involved in literally hundreds of products.
Let us take the IT&T as an example. It has 58 different subsidiaries operating in this country, involved in literally hundreds of products from toilet paper to telephones. They are involved in the hotel-motel business, the rent-a-car business and many other businesses in Canada. IT&T could literally expand into almost any product in this country and not be screened, because it would be expanding into a related area of one of its subsidiaries.
The same is true of almost any huge, transnational conglomerate now operating in this country. Let us consider Imperial Oil as an example of what I fear. Imperial Oil is operating now in the gas and oil business. However, it is involved in mining, manufacturing, the finance service industry, the wholesale and retail business in this country, in trade, transportation, utilities, construction and pipelines. It is also involved in many other areas and could expand into the binder twine and rope industry in Canada because one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries Polytwine, a company which manufactures rope. Imperial Oil could, through this subsidiary, expand into the twine and rope business. These are the things that concern me about the bill before us. I think it has many loopholes.
Gulf Oil could manufacture as much toothpaste as it wanted, as it is now manufacturing toothpaste in this country through a subsidiary and could further expand in this field. When one travels on an airline he often uses little plastic dishes; they are manufactured and processed by one gas and oil company. One can see that when we start to screen these companies which expand into unrelated areas, because of the vertical integration we will have a difficult time blocking or screening the expansion. Many of them are intertwined and greatly vertically integrated. Bell Canada controls Northern Electric, and Northern Electric controls Microsystems. Microsystems can manufacture a number of devices for Bell Canada; therefore Bell Canada can get into many related businesses through Microsystems.
These are some of the problems I see in the bill before us. I have given a number of reasons why we in this House should strengthen our foreign ownership legislation and should treat this bill as only a first step toward repatriating the economy of Canada so that we, as Canadians, have control of our own destiny. In the next few minutes I want to deal with what I think are two myths constantly referred to in the debate by members of the Conservative Party and many people who are afraid of stronger foreign ownership legislation in this country.

I see that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has just entered the chamber.


An hon. Member:: He has been here all evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No he hasn't.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Some of the arguments used by that hon. member are along the lines about which I have spoken. One of the myths is that Canada needs more foreign capital if we are to develop. The second myth follows directly from the first, that without foreign capital we would have more unemployment and less development. These are two myths about which the people of Canada should be aware. First of all, as hon. members have pointed out, we are financing our own takeover. Study after study has revealed that of the new foreign expansion in Canada each year, only about 6 per cent has been carried out with funds from abroad and the remaining 94 per cent has been carried out with capital raised in Canadian money markets, through Canadian banks or from profits and retained earnings reinvested in this country. In other words 94 per cent, if not more, of foreign investment is now being accomplished with Canadian funds.
We are using the savings of many ordinary citizens of this country to finance huge, foreign conglomerates which are expanding their industries in Canada, draining off many of their dividends to the foreign parents whether they be United States corporations or companies of other countries. The annual outflow of funds this year, in terms of dividends, interest payments, and so on, is expected to be about $2.8 billion. During the decade of the sixties there was a net export of capital from Canada of about $2 billion. There is more capital flowing out of this country than there is coming in.
We have the money in this country, but we are a net exporter of capital because so much of our industry is foreign-owned. This capital investment is becoming more of a disadvantage than an advantage to us because the percentage of outflow, in terms of capital, is increasing each year. To realize this fact one has only to read the annual statements of various organizations. For example, for the years 1962 to 1971 the payment of interest and dividends to foreign companies increased by some 90 per cent, and from 1967 to 1971 managements fees to parent companies from branch plants increased by 60 per cent. We find that the return on the foreign investment dollar in this country is continually increasing. According to the Shultz report on the Alberta oil and gas industry, for every U S. dollar invested in Alberta since the Leduc find, there has been a return of 71 cents since the first year of the investment.
We find that foreign investment is very profitable for those who are investing in other countries. In the United States, for example, between 1960 and 1967-during that seven-year period-Americans invested around the world some $19.4 billion. The returns on their investments were some $33.3 billion. In Latin-America, during the same seven years, Americans invested $1.7 billion and their returns on those investments were some $8.8 billion. So you can see once again that the people who are helped most by foreign investment are those who are doing the
November 20, 1973

investing, and not the country where the investment is taking place. It is about time Canada grew up and started to repatriate our economy so that we controlled it, and not the foreign corporations.
We find, for example, that our banks and our financial institutions are largely responsible for the sell-out of our country. About $2 billion to $3 billion of Canadian savings was lent to expand foreign activities in this country between 1960 and 1967. Between 1965 and 1969, the Canadian bank and bond market tripled the financing of foreign corporations in their operations in this country. Why do the banks lend to the huge, foreign companies operating in Canada? Basically, they do it for two reasons; one is for the security of their loan and the second is that it provides them with great profits. Canadian banks have been operating with tremendous profits in the last two years. Profits have approximately doubled those in the non-financial sector of the business world. From 1967 to 1971, for example, the banks' profits increased by 102 per cent. The five major banks hold some 70 corporate directorships. Of those 70 corporate directorships, about half are with foreign-owned corporations.
You can see, again, that there is a tendency throughout the whole banking and financial system for the banks to lend a great deal of money, perhaps as much as half of their funds, to foreign corporations operating either in Canada or outside the boundaries of our country. The banks also encourage the spending of Canadian money in other parts of the world. I have here, for example, a couple of advertisements from the New York Times and the Washington Post by the Toronto-Dominion Bank. The ad says, in a big headline, "We are happy to be accused of unCanadian activities". I have here another advertisement by the Royal Bank of Canada, saying in a great big headline, "We deliver Canada. Contact the healthy bank for a copy of businessmen's Canada". Again, that comes from a foreign newspaper.
What I am saying is that the banks in this country are largely responsible for the sell-out of funds, for the financing of foreign corporations in this country and for the draining of funds that are now leaving this country for other countries around the world. Our banks have 300 offices operating in 40 different countries that serve basically multinational corporations in the foreign countries. About 26 per cent of the assets of the Canadian banks are now held outside of Canada. I think that gives you an idea of the way banks are operating and how they are part of the drainage of funds and capital out of Canada.
Of the mutual funds in this country, some 38 per cent is now being invested in the United States alone. I suggest that the mutual fund market is another source of capital that could be used for the development of Canada for Canadians. So you can see that through the banks, through the bond market, through the financial institutions, through mutual funds and insurance companies we are financing our own sell-out. We are financing the purchase of Canada by foreign companies, by foreign multinational corporations mostly based in the United States.
It is not only the banks and the financial institutions that are aiding and assisting foreign corporations operating in Canada. The government, through DREE and many other programs in the Department of Industry, Trade and
Foreign Investment Review Act Commerce, gives grants to foreign-owned corporations. For example, Imperial Oil a few years ago was given a grant of $10 million to build a fertilizer plant near the city of Edmonton, Alberta. We give many tax incentives-some members of the Conservative Party have been outlining them-to foreign corporations to expand their business in Canada, be it in mining, in energy or in manufacturing fields.
I think this deals with the first fallacy, that Canada does not have enough capital. We do; we are a net exporter of capital. Even the Toronto stock exchange officials, when they appeared before the committee, said that Canada has enough funds to develop its own economy. There is no reason why we should have to rely on foreign equity capital to develop the country in which we live. I think that all we need now are some government policies, some industrial development policies to repatriate our economy.
The second myth that I think prevails in the minds of many people is that if foreign investment or ownership is to be hindered in some way, we will lose jobs. I suggest that is a lot of nonsense. I speak as a person who comes from the Prairies, where many people do not live as they do in southern Ontario and where I have seen some of the direct results of the foreign control of our economy. In my riding, in the town of Esterhazy, there is the world's largest potash mine owned by International Minerals Corporation of New Mexico. A few years ago when there was an oversupply of potash in the world and the potash company had to cut back on production. Naturally, the company made the decision that the cutback in the American plant would be less than in the Canadian plant, so they cut back to 90 per cent production in New Mexico and to 40 per cent production in Saskatchewan. It was the people in my riding who were laid off and lost their jobs.
I suggest that if this were a Canadian-owned company, perhaps the cutback would have been less severe, but because it was a branch plant and the headquarters were situated in another country, quite naturally the management protected its own people first rather than people living in another country. You find the same situation in many places around the world. For example, let us consider the International Nickel Company. In 1971 they closed down two mines in Canada, despite the fact that they were making tremendous profits. Their profit in 1970 was $102 million. The reason for the cut-down of production and closure of two mines was that there was a reduced demand for nickel in the world.
But what did they do after they closed down the two mines in Canada? They opened up new plants in Caledonia, Indonesia and Guatemala. They used some of the funds to develop the new mines in Guatemala and Indonesia from the profits they made here in Canada because it is cheaper to lay off Canadian workers and to hire labour in what are called underdeveloped countries. The multinational corporations can do this. If this were a Canadian-owned corporation, and particularly if it were publicly-owned, you would not have seen this cutback in production but, rather, a continuation and expansion of those mines because there is a demand for nickel in the world.

November 20, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
Due to the fact that we are foreign-controlled and dominated there is a lack of jobs in the area of research and development. Just today, for example, I heard of a young physicist, or chemist who is 27 to 30 years old who has reached the top of his field in Canada. If he wants to advance in his career, he will have to go to the head offices of the plant in either Pittsburgh or New York. That is another real consequence of foreign ownership in our country where many of the people who are involved in research or development jobs have to go to the parent company because most of the research and development is done in the United States, in Japan or wherever it may be.
Another area in which we lose jobs in Canada because of foreign ownership is in the export of raw materials. We export them in the most crude form, have them processed and finished elsewhere and then import the manufactured goods. We import more manufactured goods into this country than any other industrialized country. We all know that it is in manufacturing, processing and developing that most jobs are to be found. These are labour-intensive industries, not capital-intensive industries. If we can control our own economy, we can do a lot more processing of foodstuffs and of natural resources in our own country rather than exporting them in a raw state to other countries.
Take the example of Sudbury, where nickel is mined and exported in its crude state to Pittsburgh, to be refined there and provide jobs for Americans. This is another consequence of foreign ownership where we lose jobs rather than gain them simply because there is so much foreign equity in the ownership of our economy. Another consequence of this which results in our losing jobs is that when the parent country is in trouble, it will introduce a program like the U.S. DISC program. The hon. member for Crowfoot is very well aware of it. Or a bill will be introduced like the Burke-Hartke bill in an attempt to reduce foreign expansion and investment. In that case we find Canadians losing jobs because branch plants here are not expanded and preference is given to the parent companies in the United States. We have had many examples of this over the past few years.
I contend that we have enough money in this country to develop it ourselves and to provide more jobs for our people. There is one other point I wish to mention about capital. It was raised again today by one of the members of the Progressive Conservative Party who accused one of our premiers of going to New York or Washington to borrow money on the financial markets there. I am not saying that all foreign debt capital should be excluded from this country. There is a difference between equity and debt. Many states have gone to other countries to borrow money to build up their industry and after a period of time have paid off the debt and owned their industry outright. But that is not what is happening with respect to our capital requirements today. Instead of issuing mortgages, we provide equity in ownership, so that the dividends flow back to the investors in various countries.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other areas in which we should be moving, beyond what is proposed in this bill. I wish to touch briefly on five or six of them before I conclude. First of all, we should have

some legislation to deal with existing corporations as they expand. Since this bill deals with only 10 per cent to 20 per cent of foreign investment activity, obviously we are missing the boat. Obviously, we are not touching any existing corporations such as Imperial Oil, General Motors and IT&T, and we will have to find ways of getting at existing corporations.
Secondly, like the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae), I think we should be expanding the sector-by-sector approach to repatriating our economy. We have controls against foreign ownership in broadcasting and banking. I believe we should extend that control to the energy field because it is vital to all industry. At present, our gas and oil industry is 90 per cent owned by foreigners. All future development should not only be Canadian owned, but I would argue for its public ownership. Gas and oil are public utilities. They must be used for the benefit of the public. The industry should be operated as a public utility and run for the benefit of the people of the country. We can do that, Mr. Speaker.
The province of Alberta this year will be exporting about $1 billion in profits which will go to foreign oil companies mainly based in the United States. From my own province of Saskatchewan, which does not produce that much gas and oil, there will be an outflow of about $120 million to parent companies in the United States. What I am saying is that if we have control of the oil and gas industry, under public ownership, these profits would accrue to the people of Canada. We do have the funds in this country to undertake that. We can raise what we need. We can tax the gas and oil companies that we already have here. We can take the proceeds from export taxes. We can float bonds in this country. By using all these devices we will have enough funds to have the oil and gas industry in Canada taken into public ownership and made to serve the people of the country. All this we can do. We have the technology, we have vast reserves of gas and oil, and we have a need for them here in Canada.
The third thing we should be doing is reform the taxation system so that we do not continue to give huge tax incentives to foreign investors, particularly in the energy and mining areas. As has already been pointed out in this debate, foreign investors do have a tax advantage that Canadians do not enjoy. Fourthly, under the government's industrial policies we should enact legislation requiring resource industries in Canada, in mining and so on, to develop and process more of the raw materials in this country. This has already been done by various governments. It was done by the provincial government of Ontario in the area of pulp and paper mills. Now, timber cut in the province must be processed in the province, thus providing jobs for the people of the province. This could be done in many other industries and would provide more jobs for Canadians.
We must insist on having more research and development undertaken in Canada. Without research and development we will never make great progress in industry. At present there is not much specialization of industry in Canada. What do we produce as specialists in Canada? We produce very little because we have a branch plant economy which depends too much on the decisions made by parent corporations.
November 20, 1973

We must end a lot of the government's giveaway programs under which money goes to foreign corporations. Under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion I find that a lot of capital grants go to foreign-owned corporations. Under the IRDIA program, 39 per cent of the grants go to foreign corporations. Under the PAIT program, 45 per cent of the grants go to foreign-owned corporations. We must start to phase this out, and instead provide government assistance to Canadian corporations and citizens. A seventh suggestion I would like to make is that we use some of our foreign exchange reserves to buy back parts of the economy. Why do we not use $3 billion or $4 billion, using all these sources, to develop an allCanadian gas and oil industry, rather than having that industry developed by foreign-based, multinational corporations?
As my eighth suggestion, I say we must have more public ownership in this country and much more development undertaken through Crown corporations. This is the only way in many areas. Really, what has private enterprise done in the Maritimes? What has it done in eastern Quebec? It will not go into those parts of the country because it cannot make a buck. It will only go there if you provide it with huge incentives-and once the incentives die, the companies that are established want to bail out. A good example is Devco, in the province of Nova Scotia.
My ninth suggestion is that we must have some investment controls making it mandatory that the banks and financial institutions in Canada lend more of their funds to Canadians. My understanding is that roughly half of the loans made by Canadian banks and financial institutions go to foreigners either operating inside or outside Canada. I suggest that the government over a period of years could make it mandatory for this figure to be increased, say to 60 per cent of their funds going to Canadians in the first year, 70 per cent in the next year, 80 per cent in the next, and so on. There is no reason why we should be financing foreign corporations that take over our own companies. Another way we might do this is by establishing a Crown bank in this country to provide more competition for the other banks and operating in terms of direct investment, in terms of direct funding of Canadian enterprises. These are some of the things that could and must be done if we are to develop a country that is truly Canadian and is owned and controlled by the people.
There is another thing we could do, and it has already been done by such radical countries as Switzerland. That is, to use foreign exchange controls to keep out some foreign funds. In Switzerland there is an 8 per cent negative charge on any money that comes into the country. We could use foreign exchange controls like that in order to guide and plan the fiscal and monetary development of our country.
There are just a few things that the minister could pursue in order to repatriate the economy. The bill before us goes only part way; it only screens the acquisition of Canadian companies by foreigners and new areas of expansion. That is a very small part of the problem, Mr. Speaker. It we are to take control of our own country and grapple with the question of foreign ownership, we need policies that go much further. We have the funds and we
Foreign Investment Review Act have the technology; all we need is the planning and policies. One way of achieving that is for those of us who feel strongly about it to squeeze as much as we can out of the orange before it dries up.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) on a point of order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: That is not a point of order. Of course, the hon. member needs the consent of the hon. member to ask a question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Is it the view of the hon. member and his party that they would be in favour of significant tax cuts to Canadians to encourage Canadian investors, including a lower income tax level to Canadian investors, corporate tax incentives and that type of program?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think there are some inequities in the tax system vis-a-vis foreign investors in this country, but I do not think the way to solve that is by giving Canadians a much lower tax bracket or greater tax incentives. The Conservative Party has argued for years that the way to develop this country is through incentives-but that is not going to work. It is one of the reasons why development in Canada has been concentrated in southern Ontario-Montreal and Toronto. If you operate on that type of system, you will find the capital going where the market is, where transportation costs are lower, and so on. I do not think you can develop this country by providing greater handouts to businessmen, because there is not that much difference between the Canadian entrepreneur and the foreign entrepreneur.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is what we wanted you to say.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I see no reason why the foreign oil man should have a greater tax advantage than his Canadian counterpart. If you want to develop this country, you can do it by cutting the tax of the low income person or average income person. He will then spend more, he will need more consumer items and the economy will grow. This is one way to stimulate the economy. If a person can afford to buy another car, I am sure General Motors will not complain.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the reply given by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) to the question put by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) with regard to incentives. If I heard him correctly, he said that incentive goes where the trade is; that money will search out the best place. He felt it would probably go to southwestern Ontario, or somewhere in Ontario, where the money already is. He would know what the situation is if he lived in the province of Alberta. In fact, he does not have to live there; he just has to use the telephone, which the government provides for him, to phone a real estate agent in Alberta. Nine out of ten of them are getting requests for

November 20, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act opportunities to invest money from British Columbia, so there is some kind of drift of money out of B.C. to Alberta.
Any real estate agent in Alberta will tell you that in the last ten days he has had requests for opportunities to invest money in Alberta. There seems to be greater incentive there, or there seems disincentive in the province of British Columbia. The hon. member's party should try to find out why the flood of money is coming from British Columbia to Alberta. It certainly would be an awakening truth for his party to analyse that problem.
I ask him to just get on the phone tomorrow to any real estate agent in the telephone book in Alberta and ask if he has had any requests to invest money from British Columbia in the province. The answer will be, "lots of it". We are having a hard time placing it, Mr. Speaker, but we want it and we will do our best to sell them something. The hon. member spoke about the outflow of capital. There is nothing in this bill to prevent capital going out of Canada. But he said it four or five times. I generally repeat myself three times, but he beat me. All the mutual funds in Canada are finding some other source to develop their money, according to him.
The oddity of this piece of legislation is that it will encourage further outflow of capital. This afternoon the minister said there is one view, that government should not interfere in business, and there is another view that government should. He said he was one of those who thought that government should interfere. Is this going to encourage Canadian money to stay at home? I do not think so. Certainly money will seek the highest return. In the past, government intervention with major investors in Canada has caused concern to some individuals. Their hands have been burned because of government intervention; and if they have money to invest when this agency is set up, they are going to seek another country.
While the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville may have been making a point which school children could have understood, we in this House surely understand what it is going to do. We understand that it will encourage a greater outflow of capital. He talked about how we should develop processing in Canada. Of course we should, but we must have the capital to invest in the country. Then, when we have developed the processing, we have to find the markets. Saskatchewan has been traditional in the export of its raw material. What is its biggest raw material, exported for huge amounts of money? Wheat-and they get it out of there as quickly as they can. Feed barley goes out as well. They do not even want to feed it to their own cattle and have given no encouragement to invest in a feed plant in the province.
The hon. member said that the potash industry was in a terrible situation; that at one time there was a surplus of potash and foreign companies curtailed the production in Saskatchewan, and that if potash had been owned by a public company there would have been no curtailment. What nonsense, Mr. Speaker. He said there was a world surplus of potash. Naturally, the potash that is the most costly to produce is the first to gc out of production. Naturally, if there is a surplus of potash and the price is low, it will not be produced no matter whether a Canadian or an international company is involved in its production.

A company will only produce something when the price is right. If there is a surplus of any commodity and the price goes down, it will not be produced. The Alberta Wheat Pool and the Calgary Wheat Pool were producing fertilizer in Calgary. When the LIFT program was introduced and the use of fertilizer in Canada was cut back, you should have seen what happened. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville should have visited the plant. He would have seen the surpluses piled up. He knows what the Alberta and Saskatchewan wheat pools did. They had surpluses, which they stockpiled in my constituency- good old Crowfoot. We encouraged them to stay in business. If those people had listened to people like the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), that co-operative fertilizer plant in Calgary would have been in severe difficulties.
Members of the NDP have implied that encouraging foreign investment in Canada is a sin and that only the Conservative Party wants to encourage it. What was the Saskatchewan government doing when it asked the Roumanians to build a tractor plant in Moose Jaw or Saskatoon? The people representing Moose Jaw and Saskatoon were going to Russia and to Roumania trying to get that plant established in this country. The Saskatchewan government was to give them everything under the sun in order to encourage them to invest in the province.
Odd as it may appear, Roumania said, "No, we do not want to invest in your country because you want to sell our tractors to the United States, and we do not want our tractors to go to the United States." The Saskatchewan government said that such manufacturing plant cannot be viable unless it is prepared to market its product in the United States. Isn't that odd? Because the Saskatchewan government said, "You must sell in the United States," that Roumanian plant was not established in this country. What does this mean? In this House we are speaking about the outflow of Canadian capital. The NDP members of the House want to build a fence around us; they want Canada to become an isolationist state. At the same time, the NDP government of Saskatchewan says we must sell in the United States. There is a mix-up in the thinking of the NDP. They should reconsider their position.
Canada is a trading nation. Nearly 80 per cent of Canadians, directly or indirectly, work in industries that are export-oriented. What about the automotive industry? It is 99 per cent owned by foreigners, yet the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) treads lightly there. The equity control, even of the automotive parts industry, lies not in Canada but in the United States. The NDP skirts around that question.
In our complex world we need multinational companies to market commodities. If you want to break into the Japanese meat market, the little butcher on Wellington Street will not do it. Only somebody with the finances and time can break into that market. That means a multinational company. Even the lovable farm boy, who may or may not know anything about the exporting of meat-I am inclined to think he knows very little-could break into that market. Whether we like it or not, it takes a multinational corporation to do that kind of thing. Many of those companies serve a useful purpose-
November 20, 1973


An hon. Member:: Some are Canadian.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -and many multinational corporations are Canadian multinational corporations. Surely we should not say, "you have grown too big; you have cut mama's apron strings and we are not going to look after you and claim to be your parents any longer." This is what this bill could do to many Canadian multinational corporations. We should have enough confidence in ourselves as Canadians to claim the parentage of the multinational corporations which have sprung from Canadian soil. We should be proud of their endeavours and use them to assist in the marketing of our goods.
The leader of the NDP suggested that Canadians have no confidence in themselves and that is why they need foreign money coming to do all these things for them. I consider that the reverse is true. Canadians have confidence in themselves and are prepared to use foreign capital to develop this country. They are not afraid. They do not need to shelter themselves. What person doing anything in Canada today is not doing it on borrowed money? There are very few. It is far easier to use money today than to use brawn. That is one thing my father taught me-although he taught me how to use brawn, too-and that is that you must have confidence in yourself to use someone else's capital, to use the banks and, if necessary, to use foreign capital.
I was very annoyed when the leader of the NDP talked about our energy industry. He said this bill will affect only a small portion of foreign investment in Canada, that it is just a short step, and that ultimately it may affect between 10 and 20 per cent-I think that is the figure he mentioned-of corporations. When he says that this bill is just a short step, he frightens Canadian investors and foreign investors in Canada. When he makes such utterances, we see a government wagged by the tail of the dog; we see a government kowtowing to the little group on my left which says that this is just a short step, that it will only affect up to 20 per cent of corporations and that it wants stricter laws.
Such utterances will make it mighty difficult to keep Canadian capital at home. They have not kept it in Saskatchewan, and are not keeping it in British Columbia. The Premier of Manitoba is doing a much better job in encouraging investment in Manitoba. He invited the Japanese over. He wants Japanese investment in Manitoba. He is not as narrow-minded and shortsighted as are certain people in this House, especially in the NDP.
The hon. member for York South suggested that oil and gas are in short supply in the Maritimes because in 1961 the Conservative government drew the Ottawa Valley line and said that western oil could be marketed as far west as the Ottawa Valley line but no farther east. He said that action has created the present high gas and oil prices in the maritimes. Well, every intelligent person in this House knows that the opposite is true. The hon. member knew it when he said it: he knows that exactly the opposite is true. It is terrible the way some people will play political games in an effort to scoop more votes. They do not consider what is good for Canada: Canada comes second to votes. I say that in view of the hypocritical statements which were made this afternoon by members such as the hon. member for York South.
Foreign Investment Review Act
The fact is that the creation of the Ottawa Valley line in 1961 enabled oil companies in Alberta which had been producing at less than 50 per cent of capacity to produce at least at 50 per cent of capacity. We wanted to build a pipeline to Montreal but were not able to do so. We said, "All right; give us a certain part of the market." Certain Canadian-owned companies were going broke, not having the resources to keep active in the Alberta oil business. Throughout the sixties these conditions brought about a reduction in the number of Canadian companies operating in the Alberta oil business. They were not able to sell enough oil and could not produce at even 50 per cent of capacity. Then along came the Ottawa Valley line. As a result, certain of the bigger companies developed the oil industry, exploration went on and to a certain extent at least that is responsible for our present increased reserves. We could assist eastern Canada with its needs if only we had the mechanical means of getting the oil there.
The leader of the New Democratic Party went on to say how terrible it is that Alberta is selling out the tar sands to foreign-owned interests. What sort of rubbish is that? Who can he convince that that is anywhere near the truth?
I surely hope it is no one in this House. The Alberta tar sands consist of 15,000 squares miles. I ask my friends to the left to envisage that. The Syncrude project, which we in Alberta all hope will go ahead, is for the right to mine eight square miles over the next 25 years. They readily admit it will require a $1 billion expenditure to put them in the position of mining those eight square miles over the next 25 years. They hope their production will be 125,000 barrels of oil a day.
When the NDP say that because of Syncrude we are selling out our natural resources to foreign investors, that is puppycock. I say puppycock because they are puppies in the investment world. Not one in their group has invested a five-cent piece in Canada. The leader of that group said they represent the average Canadian. They do not represent the average Canadian because the average Canadian has invested in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: After the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville was elected, he attended university for the first two years he was here. He has never held a job. He has not done a thing. As far as I know, he has not put a nickel into Canada. By the way he talks, I doubt if he will ever save a nickel to put into Canada.


An hon. Member:: He is saving to go to Chile.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Alberta and Quebec ministers recently discussed the energy problem. There is no doubt the Alberta government will encourage Quebec to invest in another eight square miles of the tar sands. If it wants, the Ontario government can invest in another eight square miles. We will require a major capital investment in those 15,000 square miles of oil sands if all of Canada, including Quebec and the Maritimes, is to become self-sufficient. We must become self-sufficient because we can no longer trust our sources in the Middle East. We hear the hue and cry about the terrible multinational, foreign-

November 20, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
owned oil companies. Well, I would rather trust them today than the Arabs.
If the Canadian government wants to form an oil company to mine specifically in the Athabasca tar sands, that is a decision they will have to make. However, I would not want to see them trotting around speculating as to where the best political hay might be made. Because they want to get votes in Newfoundland, they should not drill a well off the Grand Banks. Maybe they are drilling for votes rather than oil.
The tar sands is a different situation. It is a known product that is there. If the government wants to mine there, let them put up $1 billion and get into the business. There is all kinds of oil there. One cubic yard will yield a barrel of oil. This is refined down to three-quarters of a barrel of light density crude. Squeeze out these cubic yards and you will have oil for a month or two. Everyone can go there. There is no problem; the oil is there. Let us not hear any more about Alberta selling out to foreign interests. We are still in the experimental stage of squeezing that oil out of the tar sands. We have not proven to the world that we can get that oil out of the tar sands. For the past five years, Great Canadian Oil has been involved in this and has lost money every year. To date, they have lost a total of $90 million, not counting the capitalization to get them started.


Alastair William Gillespie: What was the average price of crude?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It has not been very high for the past five years. We hope this government will allow it to be high enough in the next one, two or three years so that the oil sands can be developed and we can become self-sufficient. If we do not become self-sufficient we will be at the mercy of the Arabs until hell freezes over. If we are to become self-sufficient, the government must encourage investment in these tar sands. Don't buy this puppycock from people who are reluctant even to invest in their own province.
We hear a great deal of talk about money flowing out of the country. Certainly, money will flow out of the country. Four wells in the North Sea have more reserves than has been developed conventionally in Canada to date. In Alberta we have been drilling quite succesfully for the past 25 years.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Forty years.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know it has been longer than 25. In the past 25 years we have developed a certain amount of reserves. However, as I said, four wells in the North Sea have as much reserves as all the wells that have been drilled conventionally in Alberta. That gives some idea where the money will go if we curtail it. It will not go to develop our oil fields.
There has not been a major find of oil in Canada for nearly six years. You cannot acknowledge that fact and then continue to discourage foreign investment in oil. They are discouraged enough. Outside of the tar sands there has not been a major find for six years. In spite of this we still hear all this garbage and see government intervention in the industry. Are we to sit idly by hoping

that some day we, even with that kind of discouragement, will become self-sufficient in oil? I doubt it.
We must also consider the cost. It is obvious, and I know Your Honour will agree with me, that the first oil find is the easiest. The next find is the next easiest. For the past 25 years oil has been quite successfully found in Alberta. However, as the years go by the finds will be more difficult and more costly. That is pointed out in a brief that was sent to all parties by the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada. On page 53 it states:
In 1968, production cost per barrel was 43 cents, development cost 28 cents, and finding cost $2.63 for a total of $3.34 to replace a barrel of oil in a developed field.
That was only five years ago. What has happened since then? This year there was a 10 per cent increase in inflation. Last year there was a 10 per cent increase in inflation. All this was due to bad financial handling by the whole Department of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That, coupled with six years of no major find in Alberta and greater and greater finding costs, means the following were the costs in 1972: the development costs were $2.70; finding costs were $10.98, with production costs still at a relatively stable 50 cents per barrel; replacement cost last year was $14.18 per barrel, or almost double the new posted price for Venezuelan oil. I can say it is an exaggeration. I can say I do not believe it. But if I seriously want to help Canada become self-sufficient in oil, I must put some faith in these figures. They are the best I can get.
I do not know what it costs to produce a barrel of oil, but this is what they tell me. I have to pay some attention because I know oil companies are pulling out of the east coast. I know they made five major finds of oil off Sable Island. Since they are offshore, they would not be economic to produce. In any case, no settlement has been reached as to which government the companies would be dealing with. They do not know. We proudly say we want to become self-sufficient in oil. But we are still sadly lacking in an energy policy which would go any way toward enabling us to become self-sufficient in oil in the near future.
In 1969 the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada came to Ottawa and said it wanted to build a pipeline to Montreal. The answer was no. It was told Montreal wanted to stay with Middle East and Venezuelan oil. In effect, the association was told, "Go peddle your oil elsewhere". Can you blame them for searching out the market? The industry needs a cash flow in order to offset the expense of exploring and drilling for new supplies.
The spokesman for the small NDP group to my left tries to suggest he knows nothing about energy. He knows a lot more than he admitted. He knows enough to distort the facts. He knows enough to destroy the truth in the hope that doing so may gather him a few votes. In fact, he is copying another person who was elected to power by hook or by crook in a far away land, Germany. That person was elected to power and he used the technique of the big lie. I suggest that this little group to my left is very interested
November 20, 1973

in that technique and may well attempt to copy it in the future.
The minister told us this bill was a good one and that there are five or six results the government thinks it will achieve. He said it would provide more employment. I do not see how it will. When I was old enough to work, as a boy of ten, my dad gave me a shovel and a pitchfork-and they did not cost more than $1.50. But I have three sons and I need to buy them some pretty expensive equipment before they can go to work. What I am saying is that not much capital was needed 30 or 40 years ago to get a job, but today it takes $60,000 to create one job in Canada with any degree of permanency.
This bill does not stop the outflow of capital; it encourages the outflow of capital. I do not want governments, whether provincial or federal, to get into business, but this may be the only source of capital available if we carry on as we are doing. I do not believe governments can do things better than private corporations. The governments I have seen around here in the past 15 years have not demonstrated any great degree of efficiency in terms of goods produced per man-hour. Sometimes they have laboured long and produced very little. Sometimes they have laboured very long and tried to produce a whole lot, which has only created more problems.
There is no one more anxious than myself to see more processing of raw materials done in this country, but I do not see how the bill before us will encourage such a thing. Nor do I see how it will upgrade our natural resource industry, as the minister suggested. He said there would be greater domestic content. Very often, people have said it is all right for a provincial government to go to New York to borrow money, that it was all right for Premier Bourassa to go to New York for funds to develop James Bay because that was not equity money; it would give them no control. Let me say once again in this House that the oil industry does not exercise equity control over the oil in Alberta. If the Alberta government so decides, the oil or the gas, as the case may be, stays in the ground. The company, whether American, or British, or French-it does not matter-may have drilled a well; but if Alberta doesn't like the price it is getting out of it, the price it receives, the oil stays in the ground. And no matter what the price may be, if the conservation authority in Alberta wishes to restrict the amount of oil coming out of that well, it stays in the ground.
It is often said that 80 per cent of our oil industry is controlled in the United States. That is not right. The oil industry, that portion of it which lies in Alberta, is controlled by the Alberta energy board. The portion which lies within Saskatchewan may well be controlled by a similar board, but most of the oil in that province has not been found because investment there has been discouraged.
Whether greater domestic ownership will be brought about remains to be seen. My fear is that the bill will lead to fewer Canadian companies. The minister went on to suggest that regional development, or regional input would be increased. Well, DREE was supposed to do that. It is operated by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It should have solved all those problems. The former minister, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Foreign Investment Review Act Marchand) admitted in this House that he was slightly disappointed that after a year's operation DREE had created no more than 16,000 jobs having spent "X" million dollars.
The minister who is piloting this bill through the House is too stubborn or too much of a greenhorn in his department, or too frightened by cabinet domination, to accept a sensible amendment as moved by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). The amendment proposed that a copy of the notice should be sent by the agency forthwith, by registered mail, to a province or provinces likely to be significantly affected by the proposal or investment to which the notice refers. Mr. Speaker, that does not turn the legislation inside out. That does not call for any major decision. It just says that a region shall be notified.


Alastair William Gillespie: No, it does not.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister has made his speech, and he did not want to be interrupted then though I was trying to ferret out the truth. He may think he is trying to ferret out the truth now. If he did not mean that, why did he not explain it? He could have taken the spirit of that amendment and used his own words. But he did not. When he had finished his speech, I asked him a question; I asked whether this agency would operate completely independently of the government. He said no, it would operate at deputy minister level and report to the minister.


An hon. Member:: Whoever suggested it would?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think it should, if it is to
operate fairly. The National Energy Board was set up by a Conservative government to encourage energy development. Until last year it operated completely independently of the government, brought down its own findings, laid them at the door of the government and said, "Here are our findings. You can overrule them if you like, but these are our findings". They were never overruled until the last year or so. Then the chairman of the National Energy Board was silently done away with and the government's own stoolie put in charge. Now it operates directly under the thumb of the government. This is my point when I say that agencies tend to become political. As I said earlier, the fault and folly of minority government is that it tends to try to protect its own little political party without caring a hoot about the well being of Canada in the long term.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Cheap politics.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Politics becomes the order of the day.


Walter David Baker: With one eye on the NDP.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As the hon. member suggests, with one eye on the NDP, which has been the government's saviour to date. This is the folly of this whole bill; it is one more political pork barrel. Then the minister said that the bill would improve the quality of life in Canada. I thought he was really stretching for straws when he

November 20, 1973
Adjournment Debate
dragged that one in. We in Alberta tend to think that we have a pretty high quality of life. The air is quite pure; most people are working. Our biggest trouble is to keep a lot of these people we are talking about, and their money, out. We let it come in freely, but we do sometimes worry about it. There is no danger in Alberta. But I thought the minister was really reaching when he mentioned the higher quality of life.
Some mention was also made of the DISC program. The hon. member for York South is fond of holding up the oil industry as the culprit, but what about the automotive industry? Has he talked about that? Some time ago he said the government should go down to Washington and say we will cut off our energy supply unless the United States leaves the automotive pact alone. He was putting jobs in Ontario over jobs in western Canada, but I think it was safe for him to do that. However, the next crisis in Canada will be the automotive pact since 99 per cent of the industry is United States-owned. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) tells me he is now driving a General Motors' car. I was pleased to hear that, though I know he was driving one of the smaller makes at one time.
There is no question that if we continue to discourage foreign investment, we are exemplifying a lack of confidence in our ability to manage foreign investment. We are encouraging a further drain of our own capital either into North Sea interests that are developing sea bed oil, or into the United States in search of gas and oil. We will not encourage more manufacturing in Canada; in fact, we may well be encouraging less.
What has been the origin of foreign money invested in Canada recently? It has been Japanese money.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret that the time of the hon. member has expired.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, on October 29, I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) a question with respect to the fact that no longer will Iroquois Indians born in the United States be able to cross into Canada to settle without first applying

in the United States for landed immigrant status in Canada. I stated in my question that the directive of November 30, 1972, went contrary to the historic rights and privileges granted the Iroquois as a result of their loyalty to the Crown during the American war of independence, and that special status should be granted them with respect to crossing the border and resettling in Canada. The minister replied that it was not the policy of the immigration department to grant special status to the Iroquois, and that therefore any Iroquois born in the United States would have to apply in that country for landed immigrant status if he or she desired to settle in Canada.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, many Iroquois have over the years, indeed for nearly 200 years, moved from time to time to the United States in search of employment and have remained there for considerable periods of time. They married, had children, remained there; and these are the people I am most concerned about in this short address this evening.
In the federal constituency of Brant, which I have the honour to represent in this House, lies the Six Nations Reserve with a band list of over 10,000 persons, a great many of whom live in the United States. As a result of the November 30 directive, these people have become very upset and consider this directive just another erosion of their native rights. As you know, native North Americans guard with great pride and determination rights and privileges granted them by the Crown.
The minister in his reply also stated that Indians would be treated the same as any other group and cases would be judged on an individual basis. That is a very nice, free-flowing expression. I could certainly agree with the minister with respect to Italians, Germans or Englishmen or any other ethnic group as far as the November 30 directive is concerned. But when it comes to the Iroquois and other Indian bands, I must emphasize that I cannot agree. These people were here long before all other national groups, and in my opinion an Indian born in the United States who is also a member of a Canadian band of Indians should not have to go through the procedure of applying for landed status in the country of his forefathers.
In a letter from the minister dated October 30, 1973, the fourth paragraph reads as follows:
Canadian Indians consider that there is no need for them to follow these procedures-
That is to say, immigration laws and the November 30 directive.
-since they hold that the Jay Treaty provides them with free and unrestricted movement across the Canadian-United States border. The Jay Treaty has of course no application in so far as Canadian law is concerned. In fact the Supreme Court of Canada, in a case brought before it in 1956, found that the articles of the Jay Treaty and the Treaty of Ghent which were pertinent to the question did not apply in Canada since they had not been implemented or sanctioned by legislation.
In the same letter the minister did indicate that-
-in the current review of immigration legislation we will be considering the possibility of recommending changes to the Immigration Act which would admit children of Canadian Indians who were born outside Canada provided they are registered with a Canadian Indian band under the terms of the Indian Act.
November 20, 1973

I wonder how long it will take to bring about these suggested changes, in view of the fact that many sections of the Indian Act are in such disarray? Moreover, with respect to the Six Nations Reserve, the recent Ostler decision in the Supreme Court of Ontario implies, or indeed states that this reserve is not in fact a reserve and therefore does not come under the Indian Act because the Six Nations Reserve was granted in fee simple by the Crown and is not held in trust for the Indians on that reserve by the Canadian government. I suggest that the immigration and Indian affairs departments get together on this matter and clear the air as soon as possible.
In conclusion, while the Immigration Department might be finding a way out for the Iroquois and other Indian bands, one of their fundamental and historical rights has been taken away from them in principle. Those Indians on the Six Nations Reserve to whom I have spoken, including their chief elected councillor, Richard Isaac, are not at all pleased with the way the Immigration Department is treating them. This is causing concern among many of the residents of the Six Nations Reserve, or the Tuscarora township if you wish to call it that, at this time. Many of the people who live on that reserve have moved to the United States or were born in the United States and came to Canada and are now to be subjected to what I must call an indecency in terms of their having to go through the immigration provisions in order to become Canadian citizens, when in fact they were the first Canadian citizens.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there has always been a certain amount of friction between North American Indians and the immigration service because of differing concepts of the Indians' position in modern North American society. These are epitomized in disputes over the effect of the Jay Treaty and the question of nationality.
In 1794, Great Britain and the United States concluded the "Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation," commonly called the Jay Treaty, which says in effect that Indians living on either side of the Canada-United States border could freely cross that border into the other country. With the outbreak of the war in 1812, the United States considered the Jay Treaty abrogated, but some argue that it was restored by the Treaty of Ghent in 1815.
In 1928, the United States enacted legislation that allowed Canadian Indians to enter the United States under much the same terms as those embodied in the Jay Treaty, but Canada has not taken similar action. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a case brought before it in 1956, found that the particular articles of the Jay Treaty and the Treaty of Ghent that were pertinent to the question had no application in Canada since they had not been implemented or sanctioned by Canadian legislation, even if these treaties were valid. They were in effect treaties between Great Britain and the United States, and neither Canada nor the Indians were a party to either.
The nationality question, simply stated, is that some Indians refuse to recognize Canadian or American citizenship as applicable to them; they claim not only to be Indians first and foremost, but to be Indians only. The
Adjournment Debate
Indian Act permits an Indian to be registered as a member of a Canadian band without regard to his citizenship. The Citizenship Act accords an Indian Canadian citizenship if he is born in Canada or if he is born outside Canada to a Canadian citizen father and his birth is registered with citizenship authorities. The Immigration Act and regulations permit nearly free access to Canada by Canadian citizens, but insist on certain formalities for the entry and stay of all other categories.
The problem arises when a Canadian Indian returns to Canada, after a period in the United States, with a U.S. born spouse or children. If the Canadian Indian is a male and a member of a Canadian band, his wife and children may be registered under the Indian Act as members of the band. Under the Citizenship Act, however, the wife cannot become a Canadian citizen until a year after her admission as a landed immigrant. In the meantime, she remains an American citizen regardless of her status under the Indian Act. The children may be Canadian citizens if the fact of their birth abroad to a Canadian father is registered with the citizenship authorities but, if not, the children also remain American citizens. Under the Immigration Act, in turn, the wife and children, as American citizens coming to Canada to live, must be treated as immigrants, again regardless of their status under the Indian Act.
At a recent meeting with a group of Indian leaders, including Carl Brant, president of the Iroquois and Allied Indian Association, this whole matter was discussed and two very valuable avenues of approach were agreed upon. Firstly, Indian leaders will be urged to submit their suggestions on this subject to the task force reviewing current immigration legislation. Secondly, a meeting of the assistant deputy minister, Indian and Eskimo affairs, the assistant deputy minister of immigration and a senior representative of the Secretary of State will be held to determine if the registration of Indian children born abroad as members of an Indian band can be tied to the registration of births abroad for citizenship purposes.


ENERGY-AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE PETROLEUM PRICE FREEZE AND PRICE INDEXING
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, tonight I draw your attention to a question I directed to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on November 2 in connection with the purported freeze by this government on petroleum prices and as to whether the government felt it had the authority. I also referred to the activity of the government in disciplining oil companies if they decided on their own to disobey the freeze, if indeed there was one.
The Prime Minister brushed aside my question and sort of indicated that the government had the authority to control prices, in spite of the fact that I asked the question because in answer to previous questions he indicated that there was perhaps some doubt in that prices could only be controlled by provinces under the heading of "property and civil rights". Clearly, the Government of Canada has the authority under the "peace, order and good government" provisions of our constitution to control prices in the national sense.
However, what has happened is not control of prices but total sham, because not one iota of legislation has been

November 20, 1973
Adjournment Debate
introduced to this House entitling this government to control petroleum prices. We have been told that there is a price freeze and that the price freeze will last until January 31, 1974. But in fact there is no price freeze because there has been no legislation authorizing a price freeze. It is a voluntary action, it is not law. The rules that are voluntarily asked of the industry are meaningless-zip!
When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) was speaking to the House on November 1, he said that Gulf Canada had not obeyed the petroleum price freeze and they were bad corporate citizens. I do not want to defend major oil companies here tonight. On many occasions I have criticized the activities of these corporations in dealing with service station operators and the like. To some extent they are monopolistic. However, they are corporate citizens of this country. Gulf Canada in particular has a fairly large refinery in my constituency.
That corporation is a good corporate citizen in Mississauga. It allows its employees time off at full pay to run scouting ventures and other community activities. It contributes to the tax base of Mississauga. It tries to keep a clean ship and it is a good corporate citizen. But what does this minister say about the company? He says it is an American company run by an American president, and that it would not obey the "non-law". When, in the history of this country, has disobeying the edict of a government that has no authority and has not requested the authority from this House been to act as a bad corporate citizen?
Here we have a purported price freeze when in fact there is no price freeze. Here we have a company told that they are bad boys because they did not obey a law that does not exist. What kind of newspeak have we arrived at here? Here we have a government that says, "You have done wrong because we say you did wrong. Not because parliament said you did wrong, not because there is a law that says you disobeyed it, but because we in our wisdom say you have done wrong." According to press reports, the NDP has suggested that if the price freeze does not extend beyond March 31 it will vote against the government. Through you, Sir, I would like to tell the members of the NDP tonight that there is no price freeze anyway, and they can vote against the government right now and not be out of court on that score.
The government has used blackmail pressure against a corporation that is paying taxes in this country, that has obeyed every other law of this country, and has slandered that company and its president in this House where it is not subject to any of the laws of slander. The government has tried to enforce rules that do not exist and has indicated to the country that there is a freeze on petroleum prices when there is no freeze. It has not brought forth legislation. It has acted in a most irresponsible way.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, on September 4 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced in the House that the oil industry would be asked to refrain from further increases to Canadian consumers before January 30, 1974. On the basis of this voluntary program there has been a good response from industry and to date there has in fact been no need for a

legislative base for the program. The government started out with the concept of a voluntary program, which has operated well and there is no need to consider empowering legislation for the term of the program as now envisaged. As the Prime Minister said today in the House: "We had obtained agreement from the major petroleum companies to accept a voluntary freeze until that date. This is the undertaking I gave and this is the undertaking which I believe they intend respecting."
I would further draw the hon. member's attention to the comments of the Prime Minister this afternoon concerning the lifting of the freeze and government policy attendant thereto. The Prime Minister indicated that members of the House "should be in a position to know the government policy related thereto in some detail and assess for themselves, perhaps in advance of February 1, what the effect might be."
I would just add, Mr. Speaker, that the objection which I understand the minister had to the action of Gulf Canada in advancing prices at the time it did was not that it was forbidden by law to do it, but that it had agreed with the Government of Canada that it would not do so; and it was precisely the breaking of an agreement with the Government of Canada, and not the breaking of a law, which well merited the condemnation of the minister.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-ACCELERATED COVERAGE PLAN-DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, on October 24, 1973, I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) about the five-year accelerated coverage plan the objective of which is to bring radio and television coverage to all unserved communities in Canada with populations of 500 or more, and whether this plan had been submitted to the cabinet for consideration and approval. He indicated to me that it had not been submitted to the cabinet for approval.
I should like to state that people in the north have had aspirations for television-radio coverage for many years. Politicians have been making them promises for years- politicians from both the old-line parties who happen to have been in power for years. I might also point out that on December 4, 1972, I received a letter from the CBC and I quote one paragraph from it:
A number of improvements are envisaged in our future plans for the constituency of Meadow Lake. We plan to establish television rebroadcasting transmitters at Leoville, Green Lake, Dorin-tosh, Goodsoil, Beauval, Michel and La Loche. In future development of radio service, transmitters at Beauval, Buffalo Narrows and La Loche are envisaged. As all of these projects and hundreds of others across Canada are part of a master plan yet to be submitted to the government for final approval, we cannot yet be specific about the exact time at which they will be activated.
Several months later, in March of 1973 to be exact, I brought up this matter again and the minister, in a memo to me, indicated as follows:
The corporation has just recently finalized its five-year accelerated coverage plan whose aim is to bring radio and television coverage in the required language to all unserved communities in Canada with a population of 500 or more. The plan will be reviewed by the CBC board of directors at its forthcoming meet-
November 20, 1973

ing on March 26. If approved as presented, the plan will then be submitted to the Secretary of State.
Apparently the CBC has its plan finalized and it has been submitted to the Secretary of State, but I was wondering what the delay is in submitting it to cabinet and getting final approval on this project. One of the most obvious needs of northern Saskatchewan is radio and television service. At present, the only radio transmitter in northern Saskatchewan is a 40-watt relay station at Uranium City which broadcasts programs from the CBC northern service station in Yellowknife. Low-power television transmitters are operational in La Ronge, from CBC Saskatoon via microwave, and Uranium City from CBC Vancouver via satellite. Now the station in Uranium City is experiencing a great deal of problems as well, in that originally they were getting only programs from Vancouver and now they are getting programs from Vancouver and Halifax and other places in Canada, and in some cases programs have been repeated as many as three times a day.
Except for these two limited facilities, residents have either no service at all or poor and erratic reception of stations, often from other provinces or from outside of Canada. Owing to this situation, I am concerned that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has not sought licensing approval to extend radio and television service to other northern areas in Saskatchewan.
The CBC has presented an extended coverage plan to the federal cabinet to provide their services to unserviced communities of 500 population or more over a five-year period, and as yet the federal cabinet is holding back on its approval and I feel that the time has come to approve it immediately. Broadcasting facilities at some of the points I mentioned earlier in my speech would do much to overcome the lack of media service now available. There are other unserviced communities meeting the criteria of "500 population" that have not been included in the CBC listing.
Delays in receiving approval of the extended coverage plan have apparently not stalled service extensions in other northern regions. At least five communities in northern Manitoba are scheduled to receive television service this year. New radio and television transmitters are also operational or under way in northern Alberta, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I applaud these extensions but believe that immediate consideration of the needs of northern Saskatchewan must also be made by the CBC.
Population figures would suggest that some smaller centres in other northern regions have been given priority over Saskatchewan communities. There are several northern Saskatchewan communities with populations of at least 1,000 lacking reliable radio reception and no television service at all: for example, Stanley Mission, with a population of 1,000; lie a la Crosse-Beauval, with a population of 1,800; Portage La Loche, population 1,800; Buffalo Narrows, population 1,300; La Ronge, population 2,800. The extension of television service to La Ronge this summer was much appreciated, but the community's radio reception remains very poor.
In view of the fact that attempts are being made to develop northern Saskatchewan economically, I consider
Adjournment Debate
that the extension of radio and television service must proceed with urgency. I believe that in addition to providing news, entertainment and educational programming, electronic media can contribute in developing community awareness, interest and action necessary to facilitate meaningful northern progress. Ideally, it is hoped that the CBC plans for Saskatchewan might include establishment of a radio program centre in the north somewhat similar to that provided in locations such as Frobisher Bay, Inuvik or Churchill. Such a station could feed transmitters throughout northern Saskatchewan and would provide a worth-while blend of national, regional and local programming.
It should be indicated that the government of Saskatchewan is proceeding with the extension of microwave facilities in the north. Saskatchewan Telecommunications is completing service extensions to Buffalo Narrows and Wollaston Lake this year and will complete their program as far north as La Roche and Uranium City in 1974.
The distribution mechanism for radio and television signals is therefore available to service CBC transmitters, and now all the CBC has to do is co-operate with the government of Saskatchewan to use the facilities already there. I understand that the government of Saskatchewan is anxious to co-operate in any way possible to expedite CBC extension to northern Saskatchewan. I sincerely hope that the minister will expedite this program, which is an excellent one, as quickly as possible.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the previous speaker for his excellent remarks and especially for the very moderate way in which he made his important representations, which I shall naturally transmit to the minister.
I should also like to thank him for allowing me to say that I share his interest in the accelerated program which I hope will soon be implemented. Unfortunately, certain strategic areas of the country still lack the French or English radio and television stations which could reflect throughout the provinces the cultures of which Canada is rightfully proud.
I believe that one of the main purposes of the CBC is to work for a greater unity of all Canadians and I am completely in favour of this rather far-reaching program.
I believe that I should explain to my hon. friend that while we may agree about the principle of the project, it is extremely important that we should determine its terms and conditions. The case which he has just explained gives further evidence that these terms and conditions often are quite complex. We must therefore make sure that the program is just and that its budget is correctly estimated.
I can assure my hon. friend that the Secretary of State and myself are giving particular attention to this program I can even assure him that an important step was made
7994

November 20, 1973
Adjournment Debate
not so long ago, that intensive discussions are still going on with the CBC, and that we may hope that the project will be submitted very shortly so that it be adopted as soon as possible, since like my hon. friend, I consider its implementation as being a matter of high priority.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Wednesday, November 21, 1973