1973-04-04

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which concerns the failure of a minister to provide information to members of the House which legitimately he should provide.
Yesterday, while searching through the material related to the application by Bell Canada to the Canadian Transport Commission for increased telephone rates, I found a document dated December 28, 1972, presented by Bell Canada to the Canadian Transport Commission. It contains an item identified as No. 15 which reads as follows: "IRDIA grants credited to expense account, $1,212,482." This means that Bell Canada has declared in a public document that in 1972 it received federal grants administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the amount of $1.2 million.
On January 4 of this year I put on the order paper a question asking for the names of recipients of grants under IRDIA and the amounts paid. On March 7 the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) tabled his answer, which reads in part as follows:
Section 13 of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act prevents the disclosure of this information.
My first point of privilege is that the members of the House of Commons are refused by the government information involving an expenditure of some $165 million since 1967 under the pretext of statutory secrecy, while a recipient of these grants, in this particular case Bell Canada, is at liberty to divulge the same information in a public document.
The second point of privilege arises from the fact that the minister is using the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act to withhold inappropriately requested information from members of this House and the public. The minister-and this is the important point here-referred to section 13 of the act. Section 13 reads as follows:
All information with respect to a corporation obtained by an officer or employee of Her Majesty in the course of the administration of this Act is privileged, and no such officer or employee shall knowingly, except as may be necessary for the purposes of sections 11 and 12 or in respect of proceedings relating to the administration or enforcement of this Act, communicate or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled thereto any such information or allow any such person to inspect or have access to any application or other writing containing any such information.
The point I want to make is that the information requested by me does not involve information obtained by
the department from the corporation but information which had been generated by the department itself, namely, the amount of the taxpayers' money which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in his wisdom, had decided to give corporations. I maintain that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is therefore incorrectly using section 13 of the act to prevent members of the House and the public from finding out who is getting multimillion dollar grants from the federal treasury.
Therefore, if Your Honour agrees that this is a legitimate question of privilege-I think it is and I am sure you will agree-I would move that this matter be referred immediately to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should advise the hon. member immediately that I have to disappoint him; I do not agree that this kind of question is a question of privilege that ought to be referred to a standing committee of the House and, in particular, to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
By way of introduction to the brief remarks I will make regarding the hon. member's proposed motion, I might say that the notice he filed with the Chair earlier today is not, I suggest, entirely within or does not fulfil the requirements of the Standing Order. Hon. members are required by the Standing Order to indicate to the Chair, for the guidance of the Chair, the substance of the matter that they propose to raise by way of a question of privilege. I think I should suggest to the hon. member that it is not sufficient, and it does not fulfil the requirements of the Standing Order, simply to say that he proposes to raise a question of privilege having reference to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. But I say this only in passing; it is not the substance of the comments I propose to make.
The hon. member claims that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not supplying him or the House with certain information, which the hon. member claims the minister is required to do. I suggest respectfully to the hon. member that that is debate between himself and the minister. I really do not think it would be conducive to effective study and consideration of the business of the House if, every time a minister refused to give information for one reason or another and an hon. member felt that the information ought to be supplied to the House, the dispute were to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. That committee, I suggest, would then be overloaded with the business of dealing with such questions. I think this is a matter of argument between the hon. member and the minister.

April 4, 1973
Form of Committee Reports
The Standing Orders do provide ways and means by which hon. members can seek information by verbal or written questions, or by requiring the production of papers or documents. With all respect to the hon. member, I suggest that is the method or the procedure he should attempt to follow in accordance with the Standing Orders.



INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
Second and third reports of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Buchanan.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to seek the floor a second time but I do so only for a few minutes as I think this might be the appropriate moment to refer to certain procedural difficulties arising from the report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices which was presented to the House on Monday of this week.
Hon. members will have observed that there stands in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway a motion to concur in this report, and presumably this motion could come forward for debate as early as tomorrow.
I draw the attention of hon. members in particular to recommendation No. 6 of the report, which is to be found at page 234 of Votes and Proceedings for Monday, April 2. It states:
That the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs make specific moneys available to consumer groups to present briefs to various governmental boards, where appropriate.
It may be that there is available to the department funds to cover the recommendation I have alluded to, so perhaps the objection is not substantial or serious, but I feel that a direct recommendation of this nature appears to be a departure from the procedure and practices of the House. I would draw to the attention of hon. members, without reading it, citation 260(1) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition.
Hon. members will have observed also that the chairman of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development has, a moment ago, tabled two reports of the committee, and it is possible that the House may be faced again with a motion to concur in these reports in the immediate future. I particularly draw the attention of hon. members to the recommendation dealing with the allocation of federal funds for the settlement of certain claims. Here again, the recommendation is a departure from the well established form which is to the effect that the government is required to give consideration to the advisability of a certain recommendation proposed by a committee. As hon. members will appreciate, this question really goes to the root of our whole system, and in my view the House should not embark lightly on a new procedural course which would appear to be at odds with the Standing Orders and, as I have said, with the long established practice of the House.

I make these observations at this point merely as a caution in order that members may consider the difficulty. I make no ruling. It may well be that hon. members can easily satisfy the Chair that in at least one instance there is no particular difficulty. Perhaps the Chair does not interpret correctly the word "recommend", and that a recommendation of a committee is not in itself binding on the government. But I do feel this is a matter of some importance which should concern all hon. members and which perhaps should be looked into further in due course, not necessarily today.
As I said, I am making these remarks at this time only so that hon. members may give some thought to the possibility that a point of order could be raised when concurrence in these reports is moved in the House later.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order which in effect has been raised by the Chair. I realize one is not supposed to question the Chair from the floor, but I wonder if I might pose this issue? Is the comment from the Chair a comment on the validity of the report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, or does it involve the procedural acceptability of the motion for concurrence in that report?


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member says, the Chair should not be involved in a debate on procedural points. I think I have made the point sufficiently clear. I have raised it not as a formal issue but as a caution. I thought hon. members would want to give some advance consideration to the point I have raised for the guidance of hon. members. In any event, at the point when the motion for concurrence is proposed the Chair might be prepared to entertain the advice of hon. members on this matter, not in respect of the whole report but rather in respect of the particular recommendation contained in these reports.


Mr. Baldwin:: I take it that what Your Honour is doing is filing a caveat which might have to be considered at the time a motion might be made which if passed, might place the House in the position of accepting the report. The practice of filing caveats is one this party takes so often, Mr. Speaker, in respect of government measures.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is correct, of course, in his interpretation of what I tried to say.



MANPOWER


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on a subject which is of urgent necessity, concerning the Local Initiatives and Opportunities for Youth Programs.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That this House do appoint immediately a special committee made up of representatives of all parties to examine the possibility of entrusting the provinces and municipalities with the Local
April 4, 1973

Initiatives and Opportunities for Youth Programs so that the funds appropriated for these agencies be used more adequately for the needs of the people.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. 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 being no unanimous consent, the hon. member's motion cannot be put.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity under Standing Order 43, namely, the issue of the increased telephone rates granted Bell Canada. Since I rose on this matter yesterday the Quebec Minister of Communications has expressed opposition to the increase and Bell has now filed its new rates with the commission, so they will become effective a week from today. Considering that these two new and important events add urgency to the situation, I am hopeful that all members will be persuaded that this motion should be agreed to without debate. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the difficult and complex issue of telephone rate increases be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House before April 11.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.

The hon. member for Champlain.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to introduce exactly the same motion as the one moved by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Communications on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69,1969-70,1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister oi Communications):: In
so far as the Department of Communications is concerned: 1. Money spent on publicity and/or information: in 1968-69: this department came into existence April 1, 1969. Therefore there is no information available for fiscal year 1968-69. In 1969-70: Nil. In 1970-71: Nil. In 1971-72: Nil.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Contracts awarded in fiscal year 1972-73: to John Doherty Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ont., two contracts for a total of $9,800 to provide consultant and editorial services.

NEW JOBS-OFY, LIP, DREE Question 283-Mr. Leggatt:
1.	What was the total number of new jobs created in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, for each of the following government program or departments (a) OFY (b) LIP (c) DREE?
2.	What was the total number of immigrants to Canada in the fiscal year ended March 31,1972?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of the Secretary of State (Opportunities for Youth program), Manpower and Immigration and Regional Economic Expansion as follows: 1. (a) 27,832 jobs were created in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, under the OFY program, (b) Records of jobs created were not maintained on a fiscal year basis. The nature of the program was such that its time span covered part of the fiscal year 1971-72 and part of fiscal year 1972-73. Therefore, the total of 92,000 jobs created is for the period to May 31, 1972. (c) Projects that were certified in commercial production from April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972 and which were subsequently inspected by an officer of the Department for payment indicated that the number of jobs created was approximately 14,300. Details of the total jobs created by all programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion are not available; however, for industrial development projects under the Regional Development Incentives Act and Special Areas programs the figures are indicated above.
2.	117,568.


PACIFIC WESTERN AIRLINES VANCOUVER SERVICE
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Has Pacific Western Airlines applied to fly a Seattle-
Vancouver service and, if so, what decision was rendered?

April 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2.	Have complaints been registered about the present stop at Victoria and, if so, how many?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. No.
2.	There are no complaints before the Air Transport Committee.


IMPORTS OF AUTOMOBILE PARTS FROM U.S.A.
Mr. Rowland: 1.	Is the government importing automobile components from the United States which contain chrome originally obtained in Southern Rhodesia and, if so, what was the value of the imported components involved for each of the years 1968 through 1972?
2.	Is 1968 Order in Council 2339 still in effect and, if so, is it being applied with respect to direct and indirect importation of Rhodesian chrome?


John Mercer Reid: 1. Information not available.
2.	Yes, the 1968 Order in Council 2339 is still in effect and is being applied with respect to direct and indirect importation of Rhodesian chrome.


CANADA-U.S.S.R. HOCKEY SERIES-RECEIPTS
Mr. Rose: What is Hockey Canada's share of (a) the receipts from the Canada-U.S.S.R. series (b) from the other games in Europe?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Hockey Canada is a Private Corporation, established under Part 2 of the Companies Act, and while the Federal Government makes a grant to Hockey Canada, the Department of National Health and Welfare has no authority to divulge Hockey Canada's share of (a) the receipts from the Canada-U.S.S.R. series (b) from the other games in Europe.


FEES PAID TO OFFICIALS OF HOCREY CANADA
Mr. Rose: What were the amounts of fees, remunerations and salaries paid to all officials of Hockey Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Hockey Canada is a Private Corporation, established under Part 2 of the Companies Act, and while the Federal Government makes a grant to Hockey Canada, the Department of National Health and Welfare has no authority to divulge the amounts of fees, remunerations and salaries paid to all officials of Hockey Canada.


Marc Lalonde: The department periodically estimates the cost to the people of Canada of various health care services other than those covered by the major insurance programs-both under present arrangements and if provided as an insured service. Optometry and dental services are among the health care services considered. These estimates are prepared by experts within the department and the cost is absorbed as part of the annual program administration expenditure. The studies, being entirely in-house, are unnamed.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM
Mr. Leggatt: 1.	What was the total amount of money (a) applied for (b) granted under LIP, in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, in each of the following centres (i) Vancouver (ii) Winnipeg (iii) Toronto (iv) Montreal?
2.	What was the total amount of money (a) applied for (b) granted under LIP, in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, for cultural grants in each of the following centres (i) Vancouver (ii) Winnipeg (iii) Toronto (iv) Montreal?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. (a) This information cannot be made available without excessive cost as details of unsuccessful applications were not computerized. (b) (i) Vancouver: $6,147,618; (ii) Winnipeg: $5,291,098; (iii) Toronto: $4,864,347; (iv) Montreal: $18,400,235.
2.	(a) This information cannot be made available without excessive cost as details of unsuccessful applications were not computerized, (b) (i) Vancouver: $832,236; (ii) Winnipeg: $207,868; (iii) Toronto: $906,015; (iv) Montreal: $1,156,307.


NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM, ALBERTA
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Under the New Horizons program, who applied for and received grants to January 10, 1973, in the Province of Alberta?
2.	What was the address of each applicant?
3.	How much did each applicant receive?
4.	What was the project undertaken by each applicant?


Marc Lalonde: 1, 2 and 3.
	Amount
Name and Address	Granted
	$
Centennial Club $25, c/o Mr. Peter Larsen, President 4737-34th Street, Red Deer, Alberta	1,000


STUDY ON INCLUSION OF OPTOMETRY AND DENTAL SERVICES INTO MEDICARE
Mr. Muir: Has the Department of National Health and Welfare undertaken any studies on the inclusion of optometry and dental services into Medicare and, if so (a) what were the names of the studies (b) by whom were they undertaken (c) how much did each cost?

Camrose Golden Club,
c/o Mrs. Oma Huolt, President	600
4856-51 Street,
Camrose, Alberta
Blackfalds Senior Citizens Cheemo Club,
c/o Mr. E. Bergman, President	5,750
April 4, 1973

Name and Address
Box 244,
Blackfalds, Alberta
Visiting Resource Volunteers, c/o Mr. O. S. Geiger, Chairman 2612 Toronto Crescent,
Calgary, Alberta
4.	Centenniel Club No. 25: The project entitled "The Village Inn", has two parts: the opening of a drop-in centre for elderly people that will bring together senior citizens from a village of 250 people and the surrounding area; and secondly, the opening of a craft shop in which senior citizens will work and then try to merchandise their wares.
Camrose Golden Club: The grant is for the project "Louder, Please", which will enable the club to purchase and install a public address system in its meeting hall. The Golden Club has 180 active senior citizens as members, some of whom, however, have hearing disabilities that hamper their efforts at becoming totally socially animated in the activities of the club.
Blackfalds Senior Citizens Cheemo Club: The grant will allow for the continuation of a good quality of life, both artistically and recreationally, for the senior citizens of Blackfalds, a community 90 miles south of Edmonton. The grant will help defray costs of providing a senior citizens' lounge, and will result in the inauguration of a number of activities that will involve senior citizen participants in the club itself, as well as with other organizations.
Visiting Resource Volunteers: The grant will enable an active group of retired persons and senior citizens to productively use their leisure time by visiting Calgary elementary schools and addressing the young children. Talks will vary but will draw upon the experiences and knowledge of the participants to discuss such things as the early years of settlement and development of Western Canada. The project helps overcome any generation gap and gives the elderly participants a meaningful role in the community. The grant covers materials, and transportation costs.


DAY CARE CENTRES
Mr. Stackhouse: Is it the intention of the government to convene a conference with the provinces to clarify jurisdiction over and responsibility for day-care centres?


Marc Lalonde: The provinces clearly have jurisdiction over and responsibility for administering day care programs including the licensing of day care centres. The federal government's role is primarily a financial and consultative one. Under the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan, the provinces are reimbursed 50 per cent of shareable costs of operating day-care centres. In addition, a National Day Care Information Centre has been established within the Plan whose purpose it is to act as a clearing house for information on day-care. It is possible that this
Order Paper Questions
subject will be raised in the context of the over-all revision of the social security system which the provinces will undertake with the federal government this coming April.


INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES EMPLOYEES
Mr. Andre: 1.	For each year 1966 to 1971 inclusive, how many individuals employed at Canadian universities were exempted from paying income tax?
2.	How many of these individuals subsequently became ineligible for income tax exemption?
3.	For Parts (1) and (2), what was the distribution by province?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: 1, 2 and 3. Based on the records kept by this department, it is impossible to provide an answer to this question.


WELFARE TRAINING GRANTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money was allocated under the welfare training grants to help pay for the education of people desiring to improve their qualifications in the field of social work?
2.	How many people are now at recognized professional schools under the provisions of these grants?
3.	What are the amounts of the bursaries provided?
4.	Was any money allocated for research projects in the field of social service?
5.	Were any plans developed for research into appropriate use of sub-professional staff in the field of social welfare?


Marc Lalonde: 1. In 1971-72, $327,150 was allocated under the welfare training grants to help pay for the education of people desiring to improve their qualifications in the field of social work.
2.	In 1971-72, a total of 80 people attended recognized professional schools under the provisions of these grants, 29 of which received fellowships and the remainder, provincial bursaries.
3.	The amounts vary with the province, but the average appears to be approximately $3,000.
4.	In 1971-72, $410,127 was allocated for research projects in the field of social service.
5.	Several applications to this end were received in 1971-72 under the National Welfare Grants program of the Department of National Health and Welfare. One of these was supported to the extent of $17,215.


OFY 1972-CRISIS CENTRE, WINNIPEG
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Did a contribution from Opportunities for Youth help finance a "crisis centre" at Winnipeg in 1972?
2.	What other groups contributed to this "crisis centre"?
3.	What was the extent of (a) OFY contribution (b) the contribution of each other source?
4.	What was the described purpose of the "crisis centre"?
5.	Who were the sponsors of the "crisis centre"?
Amount
Granted

1,200

April 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions
6.	Who approved the OFY grant to this group?
7.	What investigations preceded the decision to grant OFY funds to the "crisis centre" and by whom were the investigations carried out?
8.	Was the grant to the Winnipeg "crisis centre" terminated prematurely and, if so (a) for what reasons (b) at whose direction?
9.	Was Mr. Harold Mike Lewis the supervisor of the "crisis centre" and, if so (a) by whom was Mr. Lewis appointed (b) what investigations preceded his appointment (c) by whom were these investigations conducted?
10.	Where is Mr. Lewis at this time?
11.	Are any criminal or civil charges outstanding against Mr. Lewis by that or any other name, in Canada or any other country and, if so (a) what charges (b) in what name (c) in what country or countries?
12.	Was Mr. Lewis a Canadian citizen at the time of his appointment as the supervisor of the "crisis centre"?
13.	Was it a requirement of the OFY grant that (a) the project supervisor (b) each project staff member be a Canadian citizen?
14.	Did officials of OFY investigate specifically to determine the citizenship of (a) Mr. Lewis (b) other staff members?
15.	Is it a general requirement of the OFY Program that persons employed by OFY-funded projects be Canadian citizens or landed immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what procedures are followed to determine the citizenship status of persons employed by OFY-funded projects?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary oi State):: 1.
Opportunities for Youth did not fund a crisis centre in Winnipeg in the summer of 1972.
2 to 14. Not applicable.
15. It is a general requirement that persons participating in Opportunities for Youth projects be Canadian citizens or landed immigrants. All project participants are required to sign the contract between the project and the Secretary of State which requires that all participants are either Canadian citizens or landed immigrants. If there exists any suspicion in the mind of the project officer that a participant is not of this status, the Immigration and Citizenship Registration authorities may be consulted.
Area
Development Incentives Act
Regional Development Incentives Act
(a)	April 1, 1968 to
March 31, 1969	Nil	N/a
(b)	April 1, 1969 to
March 31, 1970	One	Nil
(c)	April 1, 1970 to
March 31, 1971	Three	Nil
2.	In all cases the government has filed claims as a preferred creditor, (a) April 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969-Nil (b) April 1, 1969 to March 31, 1970-$19,413 (c) April 1, 1970 to March 31, 1971-$96,319 (of this latter total, a recovery of $81,167 is expected but has not yet been received).
I English]


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PERSONNEL
Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Department of Agriculture?
2.	How many of-those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Department of Agriculture?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 anually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. 8,507.
2.	Information not available from computer records. Would require several days manual effort to search individual files.
3.	9,152.
4.	771 as at January 31, 1973. $18,000 to $18,999, 151;
$19,000 to $19,999, 168; $20,000 to	$20,999, 76; $21,000 to
$21,999, 85; $22,000 to	$22,999,	60;	$23,000	to $23,999, 66;$24,000 to $24,999, 49;	$25,000	to	$25,999,	35; $26,000 to$26,999, 23; $27,000 to	$27,999,	19;	$28,000	to $35,000, 38;
$40,000 to $45,000, 1.


DREE-NUMBER OF BANKRUPTCIES AFTER RECEIVING GRANTS
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	How many industries declared bankruptcy after receiving grants from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71?
2.	What was the total amount lost by the governemnt in (a) 1968-69 (b) 1969-70 (c) 1970-71?
(Translation]


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. The following is a list of the number of companies which are bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act. The figures relate to the operations which became bankrupt during the control period of the relevant legislation (ADIA-36 months; RDIA-24 or 36 months). Therefore, this summary would not include companies that went bankrupt beyond the control period indicated above.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN DRUMMOND CONSTITUENCY AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 1973
Mr. Boisvert: 1.	How many workers were unemployed in the constituency of Drummond as of February 1, 1973, and of these, how many were (a) under welfare (b) recipients of Unemployment Insurance benefits (c) attending re-training courses?
2.	How many persons applied for jobs to the Manpower Centre at Drummondville in 1972?
3.	How many jobs were found by the Manpower Centre in 1972?
4.	What is the average salary paid to those who found employment through the Manpower Centre at Drummondville?
5.	What was the number of workers in the constituency of Drummond as of February 1, 1973?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows: 1. As of February 1, 1973, there were 2,943 unemployed clients registered with the Drummondville Canada Manpower Centre, (a) Not available, (b) As of February 1, 1973 there were approxi-

April 4, 1973

mately 3,500 Drummond constituents in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits, (c) As of February 1, 1973, there were 369 clients from the Drummondville CMC in training. These clients are not included in the count of unemployed clients in (1) above.
2.	In 1972, 7,250 new client registrations were received by the CMC, and 6,271 client registrations were revived by persons re-applying at the CMC one or more times in the year.
3.	3,987 placements were effected by the CMC in 1972.
4.	Not available.
5.	Not available.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT (1971)
Mr. Hueglin: 1.	To date, has there been a saving in welfare costs since the introduction of the new Unemployment Insurance Act (1971), and, if so, by how much?
2.	What specific category or categories of welfare payments were affected by the introduction of the new Act?
3.	How were the welfare payments referred to in Part 2 originally financed, and under what government jurisdiction do they lie at the stage when money is handed out to an individual?


Marc Lalonde: 1. The rate of increase in general assistance (welfare) costs, which had been in excess of 20 per cent per year for each of the two previous fiscal years, fell to an estimated 10 per cent for the 1972/73 fiscal year. Several factors have contributed to this decline, including: broader unemployment insurance coverage and higher benefits; the impact of financial support provided under the Local Initiatives Projects and Opportunities for Youth programs; increases in Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement payments; increased Canada Pension Plan benefits. During the past eighteen months several provinces have increased their general assistance rates. Because of the interaction of these various factors, it has not been possible to identify precisely the savings in welfare costs attributable solely to the Unemployment Insurance Act (1971).
2.	The general assistance provisions of provincially administered social welfare programs were affected by the introduction of the new Act, and in particular, the payment of financial assistance to unemployed but employable persons whose resources are insufficient to meet their basic needs.
3.	The welfare payments referred to are made to individuals by the provinces and/or their municipalities. The federal government shares 50 per cent of the cost on the basis of monthly provincial claims submitted in accordance with the Canada Assistance Plan agreements.


LIP GRANTS FOR PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING FACILITIES FOR SNOWMOBILES
Mr. Kempling: Have any LIP grants been made for the purpose of developing facilities for snowmobiles and snowmobilers and, if so (a) how
Order Paper Questions
many by province (b) what is the total expenditure by province (c) what is the total over-all expenditure?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Yes.
Province	Number of (a) Projects	(b) CostNova Scotia	2	$ 80,184New Brunswick	2	57,832Quebec	45	1,796,931Ontario	2	37,016Saskatchewan	1	10,296Alberta	1	29,274British Columbia	2	54,873Canada	55	(c) 2,066,406


DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD PROPERTY IN NORTH VANCOUVER
Mr. Nelson: 1.	What plans exist for development for National Harbours Board property east of the Seymour River in North Vancouver?
2.	Are there any plans for the development of bulk loading facilities on the Maple Wood Mud Flats between Seymour River and the Burrard Band Indian Reservation?
3.	What plans does the National Harbours Board have for the Indian Arm area of Burrard Inlet?


Jean Marchand: The
National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. National Harbours Board has no prior plans for development of NHB property east of Seymour River in North Vancouver. Preliminary discussions with the District of North Vancouver have taken place as to possible use of the property as a Town Centre.
2.	No.
3.	The National Harbours Board has no plans for the Indian Arm area of Burrard Inlet.


GRANTS UNDER LIP
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the total amounts of funds granted under the Local Initiatives Program to each of the ten provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories?
2.	What was the total number of LIP projects approved for each province, the Yukon and NWT?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. See Schedule 1, Column 1.
2. See Schedule 1, Column 2.

April 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions Schedule 1
Local Initiatives Program 1972/73 No. of Projects Approved and Federal Contributions as at March 7/73
Province	Funds Granted Column 1	No. of Projects Column 2Newfoundland	11,715,004	327Nova Scotia	10,147,304	355Prince Edward Island	1,953,406	95New Brunswick	10,773,249	407Quebec	64,041,478	1,719Ontario	24,910,497	1,256Manitoba	6,861,195	243Alberta	7,748,788	279Saskatchewan	5,142,828	183Northwest Territories	1,097,393	41British Columbia	18,980,331	913Yukon	654,219	34Canada Total	164,025,692	5,852


ESTABLISHMENT OF DEEP SEA PORT IN PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.
Mr. Oberle: What commitment and contractual arrangements has the government entered into with contractors or local governments and what plans are being worked out in respect to the establishment of a deep sea port in Prince Rupert, B.C.?


Jean Marchand: The
National Harbours Board advises as follows: NHB has no commitment and contractual arrangements with contractors or local governments. NHB proposes the construction of a deep sea dock facility comprising some 42 acres at the Fairview site at Prince Rupert. DPW has now completed first stage design and specifications and NHB proposes to call for tenders this spring.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE PERSONNEL
Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Department of National Health and Welfare?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Six thousand one hundred and nine.
2.		Full Time
	Salary Range $	Employees
	15,000-15,999	69
	16,000-16,999	54
	17,000-17,999	69
	18,000-18,999	56
	19,000-19,999	58
	20,000-20,999	23
	21,000-21,999	53
	22,000-22,999	80
	23,000-23,999	56
	24,000-24,999	14
	25,000-25,999	35
	26,000-26,999	2
	27,000-27,999	13
	28,000-35,000	4
	34,000-40,000	2
3. 7,164.		
4.		Full Time
	Salary Range $	Employees
	18,000-18,999	44
	19,000-19,999	29
	20,000-20,999	55
	21,000-21,999	69
	22,000-22,999	24
	23,000-23,999	49
	24,000-24,999	48
	25,000-25,999	42
	26,000-26,999	23
	27,000-27,999	52
	28,000-28,999	56
	29,000-29,999	22
	30,000-30,999	27
	31,000-31,999	10
	32,000-32,999	21
	33,000-33,999	5
	34,000-34,999	2
	42,000-	2


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL
Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Post Office Department on (a) January 1, 1963 (b) January 1, 1973?
2.	How many people in each of these years were receiving salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) over $20,000?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. (a) 24,830; (b) 37,293.
[Mr. MacGuigan.J
April 4, 1973

2.	1963: (a) 24,786; (b) 44; (c) Nil. 1973: (a) 34,873; (b) 2,274; (c) 146.


REPLACEMENT FOR THE ARGUS LONG-RANGE MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT
Mr. Rowland: 1.	Has the government now decided to purchase a replacement aircraft for the Argus long-range Maritime patrol aircraft rather than undertaking a major refit of the Argus aircraft and, if so (a) how many long-range patrol aircraft does the government intend to purchase (b) what is the total anticipated cost of the aircraft (c) of the total anticipated cost, how much will be spent in Canada?
2.	What is the regional breakdown of the total expenditures in Canada on the aircraft?
3.	Will Canadian content requirements, if any, be part of the formal contractual arrangements with the successful bidder?
4.	What companies have made submissions to the government with respect to a long-range patrol aircraft?
5.	On what date may an announcement with respect to the purchase of an aircraft be expected?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Department of National Defence and the Department of Supply and Services as follows: 1. Yes. (a) Not yet known as the number could vary depending on the type of aircraft selected; (b) Cost will not be known with any precision until the various proposals have been received and studied, (c) The amount of Canadian industrial participation will be evaluated when contractor proposals are received.
2.	The regional breakdown cannot be evaluated until contractor proposals are received.
3.	Yes.
4.	Requests for contractor's initial response have been issued to: Canadair Limited, The Boeing Company, Hawker Siddeley Aviation Limited, Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft Company.
5.	At the present time it is anticipated that the purchase contract for an aircraft will be awarded in the fall of 1974.


AIR CANADA-NUMBER OF VICE PRESIDENTS
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many Vice-Presidents does Air Canada employ?
2.	What are the salaries and responsibilities of each?


Jean Marchand: 1. Air
Canada presently employs 18 vice presidents.
2.	Their responsibilities are: Vice President and Assistant to the Chairman; Vice President, Personnel and Organization Development; Vice President, Flight Operations; Vice President, Operational Planning; Vice President, Payload and Operations Control; Vice President, Public Relations; Vice President, Computer and Systems Services; Vice President, Marketing; Vice President, Maintenance; Vice President, Purchasing and Facilities; Vice President, Finance; Vice President, Government and Industry Affairs; Vice President, Technical Services; Vice President, Eastern Region; Vice President, Central and Southern Regions; Vice President, Western Region; Vice President, US Region; Vice President, European Region;
Order Paper Questions
It has not been the practice to reveal information about the salaries of specific personnel.


DREE-BREAKDOWN OF EXPENDITURES BY PROVINCE
Mr. McKinnon: What is the breakdown, by province, of the estimated expenditures in each region as outlined in the estimates for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under total program at page 22-4?


Marcel Prud'homme: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: The main estimates cannot be broken out on a provincial basis. The geographic distribution of incentives activity depends on the response of industry to the program and the geographic incidence of other program activity depends significantly on agreements that are in the process of being negotiated with the provinces.


DISTRIBUTION OF PAMPHLET &quot;A WELCOME IS AWAITING YOU IN INDIAN COUNTRY&quot;
Mr. Atkey: 1.	Is the pamphlet "Canada, A Welcome is Awaiting you in Indian Country", being distributed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development this year and (a) if so, what has been the extent of distribution for the past five years (b) if not, for what reason has distribution ceased?
2.	Has the pamphlet been replaced by another pamphlet or pamphlets and, if so (a) what is the extent of distribution of the new pamphlets (b) what is the nature of the replacement?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. The pamphlet "A Welcome is Awaiting you in Indian Country" ceased to be distributed early in 1972 when remaining stocks became exhausted. The pamphlet was distributed to (a) the Tourism Authority in each province for placement in Tourist Information Booths; (b) the Canadian Government Travel Bureau for distribution outside of Canada; (c) Information Services of the Department to satisfy enquiries.
2.	The pamphlet is being replaced by a small, comprehensive directory treating all Indian operated tourist facilities in Canada. The Directory has been in preparation since before the supplies of the pamphlet became exhausted. It will be ready for distribution by June 1973 and will enjoy wide distribution through the normal tourist channels.


OLD AGE SECURITY PENSION
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	How many persons in Canada, aged 65 and over on December 31, 1972, received the Old Age Security Pension?
2.	How many persons by province?
3.	What was the total amount paid by the government for such purpose by province and what was the total amount for Canada?
4.	How many persons in Canada, aged 65 and over on December 31,1972, received the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
5.	How many persons by province?
6.	What was the amount paid for such purpose during the month of December 1972?

April 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Marc Lalonde: 1.	1,803,030.
2.	See following.
3.	See following.
Provinces	Question 2
Ne wf oundland	 33,331
Prince Edward Island	 12,617
Nova Scotia	 74,084
New Brunswick	 55,881
Quebec	 432,561
Ontario	 664,696
Manitoba	 98,505
Saskatchewan	 97,572
Alberta	 122,116
British Columbia	 210,295
Yukon	 880
Northwest Territories	 512
1,803,030


PUBLIC WORKS-NEW CUSTOMS OFFICE, LYLETON, MANITOBA
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What was the cost of the new Customs Office in Lyleton, Manitoba?
2.	Was the building put out to tender and, if so (a) how many tenders were received (b) what was the tender in each case (c) who was the successful tenderer?
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works): 1.
The estimated total cost of this building which is still under construction is $93,000. This includes design, construction and supervision.
2.	Yes; (a) Two; (b) (i) Tyndall Development Corporation Ltd. 1383 Pembina Highway, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Amount: $86,000; (ii) Penner & Company-Western Ltd. Kola, Manitoba; Amount: $94,000. (c) Tyndall Development Corporation Ltd.


INSTALLATION OF MERCURY LIGHTS AT DIGBY FISHERMAN'S WHARF
Mr. Haliburton: 1.	What year were mercury flood lights installed on the Digby Fisherman's Wharf?
2.	What was the total cost of installation?
3.	How many lamps were installed and what was the voltage?
4.	What person or firm obtained contract for the installation?
5.	Did installation costs include cost of erecting transmission lines to the site and, if so (a) over what distance (b) at what cost?
6.	What has been the annual cost of maintenance since installation?
7.	Are lamps serviced and maintained by an independent firm on contract or by departmental personnel, and in either case, where is their base of operation?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	1971.
2.	$10,800.

4.	1,047,411.
5.	See following.
6.	See following.
Question 3	Question 5	Question 6$ 2,761,300	28,296	$ 1,700,4351,044,316	9,787	556,7786,129,584	50,858	2,913,8294,670,292	38,873	2,189,00735,512,811	275,950	15,747,71155,461,568	330,875	17,044,4638,127,143	60,544	3,395,6788,203,772	60,731	3,190,05910,102,863	74,343	4,147,33517,389,701	116,082	6,404,27072,847	746	51,58542,434	326	20,788$149,518,631	1,047,411	$ 57,361,9383.	Four 120-volt.4.	It formed part of spur wharf construction contract and the electrical work was subcontracted by McNamara Corporation Limited to Roy V. Germain Ltd., Yarmouth.5.	No.6.	1971 $3.18; 1972 $8.75.7.	Maintenance is carried out by Digby County Power Board, Digby, N.S.


PFRA-NEGOTIATIONS TO INCREASE NUMBER OF COMMUNITY PASTURES
Mr. Stewart (Marquette): Are any negotiations taking place between PFRA and the Province of Manitoba (a) to increase the number of community pastures in the Province and, if so, in what areas of the Province (b) to enlarge present community pastures and, if so, where are these pastures located (c) for the Province to purchase land of any existing pastures that are presently leased from a municipality and, if so, where are these pastures located?


Marcel Prud'homme: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: (a) Although no formal negotiations have taken place between PFRA and the province of Manitoba with regard to increasing the number of community pastures in the province, discussions have taken place concerning the setting up of a committee to study proposals for the establishment of two new pastures in the central and northwest areas of Manitoba, (b) No. (c) No.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PERSONNEL
Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Department of Public Works?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
April 4, 1973

3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Department of Public Works?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister oi Public Works):
1.	6,619.
2.	$15,000 to $16,000, 52. $16,000 to $17,000, 47. $17,000 to
$18,000, 49. $18,000	to	$19,000,	10.	$19,000	to $20,000, 20.$20,000 to	$21,000,	16.	$21,000	to	$22,000,	25.	$22,000	to$23,000, 2.	$23,000	to	$24,000,	12.	$24,000	to	$25,000,	1.$25,000 to	$26,000,	1.	$26,000	to	$27,000,	1.	$27,000	to

3.	6,013.
4.	$18,000 to $19,000, 21. $19,000 to $20,000, 83. $20,000 to $21,000, 22. $21,000 to $22,000, 11. $22,000 to $23,000, 13. $23,000 to $24,000, 21. $24,000 to $25,000, 14. $25,000 to $26,000, 19. $26,000 to $27,000, 8. $27,000 to $28,000, 5. $28,000 to $35,000, 14. $40,000 to $45,000, 1.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTRUCTION WORK AT DIGBY FERRY TERMINAL
Mr. Haliburton: 1.	Was a contract entered into between the Department of Public Works and some independent party for the construction and equipping of the passenger ramp at the Digby Ferry Terminal and, if so (a) what was the name of the contractor and the date of the contract (b) did the contract set forth a completion date and, if so, what was the date (c) has the contract been completed and, if not, has it been extended (d) have there been any changes in the contract price (e) what is the currently estimated date of completion (f) is the work to be completed by the original contractor (g) has the Department imposed any penalty on the contractor for failure to complete in accordance with the contract?
2.	Are any funds budgeted for this item for 1973-74 and, if not, for what reason?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
Yes; (a) Contract was awarded to C.A. Annand Ltd. on December 9, 1971; (b) Yes, May 9, 1972 and was later extended to June 12, 1972. (c) No, the contractor went into receivership and contract was taken out of his hands; (d) Extra work in the amount of $1,349 approved; (e) May 31, 1973; (f) No; (g) Not applicable, refer to (c) above.
2. Yes, funds have been budgeted by Ministry of Transport.
Order Paper Questions


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-FUNDS CONTRACTED TO THE FIVE REGIONS OF CANADA
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	In the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1971-72, how much money was contracted to each of the five regions of Canada by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	What was this in per capita terms for each region?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The cost to answer to above question for the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 would be exorbitant. The manpower required is not available to research the files. However, we do have the figures for the fiscal year 1971-72.
1971-72	1.	2.Region	Amount	Per Capita$	$Atlantic	2,481,390	1,206Quebec	12,225,471	2,028Ontario	4,710,798	612Prairies	13,547,565	3,825British Columbia	7,731,112	3,538Northwest Territories and Yukon	2,044,344	38,573


FUNDS CONTRACTED TO FIVE REGIONS OF CANADA BY COMPUTER SERVICES BUREAU
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	In the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1971-72, how much money was contracted to each of the five regions of Canada by the Computer Services Bureau?
2.	What was this in per capita terms for each region?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. and 2. The records of the Computer Services Bureau in 1968-69 were not kept in such a manner as to provide Regional Statistics.
British
Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie	Columbia1969-70	Total	$ 7,949	$113,084	$3,299,704	$103,285	$ 63,242Per capita	10	20	440	30	301970-71	Total	$ 8,162	$ 93,841	$3,884,184	$ 81,093	$ 73,585Per capita	10	20	510	20	301971-72	Total	$93,950	$179,613	$5,452,482	$185,450	$105,750Per capita	50	30	710	50	50


NATIONAL REVENUE-REBATE OF SALES TAX
Mr. McKenzie: Since the construction of new schools permits a school board to claim a rebate of federal sales taxes amounting to 2.95 per cent of
the contract price, will the Minister of National Revenue give consideration to allowing the same rebate of sales taxes on the purchases of new materials and equipment used in the renovation of old schools in order to allow for the utilization of existing buildings?
2958

April 4, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Consideration has been given to this matter but in view of the fact that the Excise Tax Act provides for relief specifically in respect of materials used in the construction of school buildings, there is no authority whereby the scope of this provision in the Statute may be enlarged by administrative action in order to include materials used in the renovation or repair of school buildings.


NUMBER OF VISITORS TO CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Haliburton: 1.	How many visitors registered at the Cape Breton Highlands National Park during the summers of (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972?
2.	How many such visitors were from outside the Province of Nova Scotia?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The estimated attendance at Cape Breton Highlands National Park during the summers of 1970, 1971 and 1972 is shown below:
1970	1971	1972June	128,409	92,544	103,286July	270,888	271,257	265,297August	268,751	266,643	267,894Total	668,048	630,444	636,477
2. Eighty-one per cent of the visitors to Cape Breton Highlands National Park were from outside the province of Nova Scotia in 1971. It is estimated that the proportion of visitors from outside the province would be approximately the same in 1970 and 1972.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES
Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Department of Veterans Affairs?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Department of Veterans Affairs?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Hon. David J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	10,271.
2.	$16,000, 16. $17,000, 21. $18,000, 34. $19,000, 22. $20,000, 22. $21,000, 17. $22,000, 46. $23,000, 40. $24,000, 9. $25,000, 25. $26,000, 5. $27,000,11. $28,000, 1. $29,000, 2. $29,000-35,000, 1. $31,000 nil. $32,000, nil. $33,000, nil. $34,000, nil. $35,000, nil.
3.	9,728.
4.	$19,000, 14. $20,000, 16. $21,000, 23. $22,000, 28. $23,000, 39. $24,000, 17. $25,000, 24. $26,000, 19. $27,000, 21. $28,000, 24. $29,000, 20. $24,629 to 31,445, 9. $28,539 to 33,072, 7. $28,539 to 33,072, 10. $31,459 to 35,391, 3. $31,459 to 35,391,
1.	$34,000 to 40,000, 1.


DREE-FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES
Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. As of January 31, 1970 there were 1,316 full-time employees in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
2.	$15,000, 17. $16,000, 20. $17,000, 21. $18,000, 17. $19,000, 15. $20,000, 11. $21,000, 9. $22,000, 12. $23,000, 12. $24,000, 2. $25,000, 3. $26,000, 1. $27,000, 1. $28,000 to $35,000, 2.
3.	As of January 31, 1973 there were 1,653 full-time employees in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
4.	$18,000, 27. $19,000, 37. $20,000, 56. $21,000, 44. $22,000, 26. $23,000, 35. $24,000, 12. $25,000, 10. $26,000, 21. $27,000,
8.	$28,000 to $35,000, 15. $40,000 to $45,000, 1.


&quot;INFORMATION CONCERNING DISAPPEARANCE OF AIRCRAFT EN ROUTE TO HANOI, OCTOBER 18, 1965
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What information has the Department of External Affairs been able to secure concerning the disappearance of the aircraft operating under the auspices of ICSC which carried Mr. J. W. Douglas Turner, an External Affairs Officer, and two other Canadians on board en route to Hanoi on October 18, 1965?
2.	Did the Minister of External Affairs, when in Hanoi, bring up this matter with the authorities in North Viet Nam, in Laos or South Viet Nam and. if so, what was he able to ascertain?


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Department of External Affairs has made repeated enquiries over the years to determine whether any information has come forward concerning the disappearance on October 18, 1965 of the ICSC aircraft with three Canadians on board. At the time of the disappearance of the aircraft extensive searches were undertaken. However, the aircraft was never found and the cause of its disappearance has never been ascertained. While in Hanoi, the Secretary of State for External Affairs raised this question with authorities of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam and explained the circumstances, as far as they are known, of this incident. This enquiry was noted but it elicited no new information.
April 4, 1973


DUTIES OF POLICE AND SECURITY PLANNING AND ANALYSIS GROUP, DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is a full and exact description of all duties and tasks performed by the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group in the Department of the Solicitor General?
2.	Has any person attached to, on loan to, employed by, or on behalf of, the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group compiled information, dossiers or files of any kind on individuals serving as Members of Parliament since April 20, 1968 and, if so (a) for what reason were such files compiled (b) how many such files exist?
3.	Has the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group in the Department of the Solicitor General directly or indirectly undertaken or authorized any form of electronic snooping on individuals or groups of individuals since its creation?
4.	Has the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group in the Department of the Solicitor General furnished any information of any kind whatsoever at any time to any person attached to, on loan to, employed by, etc. the Office of the Prime Minister or to any other government department and, if so, how many times has this happened?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is: 1. The duties and tasks of the police and security planning and analysis group in the Department of the Solicitor General are: (a) to review and develop proposals for security policies in relation to the changing threat to Canadian security; (b) to review and analyze criminal activities, trends and developments which are of national interest and formulate proposals for government policy concerning crime and police procedures in relation to changing Canadian society; (c) to formulate proposals for general security policies and procedures concerning: (i) security of government buildings and installations, (ii) protection of specially designated personnel, (iii) security of classified information; (d) to receive, collate and evaluate data on the problems posed by subversion and criminal activities associated with social unrest; (e) to assist in the training of government security officers.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Since the police and security planning and analysis group is one of the principal agencies within the interdepartmental security structure, the exchange of information with security branches of other government departments and agencies is a continuous process.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension?
2.	Of the recipients of the Old Age Security pension, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
3.	Of those receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are receiving the full amount?
Orders for Returns
4.	What is the average amount, in Canada, and in each province, being received as a Guaranteed Income Supplement by recipients of the Old Age Security pension?
5.	Do the answers to the above questions take into consideration persons living outside of Canada who are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension and, if so, how many of such persons are there, and if they are considered as belonging to the various provinces, what is the number for each province?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Labour on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


DREE, DIP AND PAIT GRANTS
Mr. Reynolds: What were the total amounts of DREE, DIP and PAIT grants in 1972 and (a) by province, what was the breakdown in dollars (b) by program, what was the breakdown in numbers of projects?
Return tabled.


HEALTH RESOURCES FUND
Mr. Holmes: 1.	As of December 31, 1972, how many projects have been approved for the Health Resources Fund?
2.	For each project what was (a) the date of the approval (b) the name and address of each recipient (c) the purpose of each project (d) the amount of money approved?
Return tabled.


APPLICATIONS UNDER CANADA OIL AND GAS REGULATIONS
Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain): Under the Canada Oil and Gas Regulations, have any applications been made for production leases and, if so (a) what are the names of the companies receiving leases (b) for each company, what was the arrangement for the government's share of the acreage?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the starred question answered by the Solicitor General was a question I placed on the order paper a week ago. I would refer the minister to part four of the answer. I do not believe he answered the question at all. It was a vague, general statement. I asked specifically whether information of this kind was sent to the Prime Minister's office.
2960

April 4, 1973
Orders for Returns


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I did answer that question. I said it is sent on a continuous basis when it is necessary to do so.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: It was very vague.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough East.


William Warren Allmand: On that same point, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants specific answers, let him put specific questions to me.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. There is a debate between the minister and the member on whether a question is specific and the extent to which it is specific. I do not think we should have debate on that point. The hon. member for Scarborough East.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, on January 16 I asked a starred question which was specific but I cannot get any answer at all, specific or vague. It is No. 438. The information is well known to the government. There is no reason the government should not answer this question. It has made the appointments and it certainly ought to be willing to inform parliament.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, a week ago I rose on a question of privilege concerning a number of questions I had on the order paper that had been sitting on the order paper since the beginning of the session on January 4. The parliamentary secretary did attempt to facilitate the matter to some degree, and he answered two or three of them. Question No. 22 asks specifically:
-how many individuals who were defeated candidates in the federal election of October 30, 1972, have become employees of either the Prime Minister or cabinet ministers or how many have assumed a position with the government that is paid for from the federal treasury?
I realize that there may still be one or two defeated candidates who have not been employed by the government, but I would think that at this stage of the game the government could compile the names and provide me with the information. Of course, there may be two or three who are still feeling badly because they have not yet been looked after by the government.


Mr. Sharp:: You fellows looked after Perry Ryan, all right.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might inquire about questions Nos. 1,385 and 1,386 standing in my name since March 2. They deal with a very controversial matter in connection with income tax policy as applied to parttime farmers.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I have asked about those questions and I hope to have the answers next Monday, if possible.


Mr. Rowland:: Mr. Speaker, may I draw the parliamentary secretary's attention to question No. 276 standing in my name since January 12. It asks in effect whether there will be a reduction in the staff of Air Canada's finance
department located in Winnipeg. While the answer may cause some embarrassment to the government, it should be fairly simple to reply to the question.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 41 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, does the House agree that notice of motion No. 41 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND QUEBEC INVOLVING FAMILY INCOME SECURITY PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, and other documents between the Government of Canada and the Province of Quebec involving the Family Income Security Program (Bill C-170, 4th Session, 28th Parliament).
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion No. 159.
CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO LIP No. M-1101 BY PEACE IN THIS HOUSE INC.
Motion No. 159-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents, correspondence and memoranda related to the consideration of LIP No. M-1101 "OMNIBUS", submitted by Peace in this House Inc.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the papers requested are internal departmental memoranda and reflect on the personal competence or character of an individual. As such they are confidential and not of a public or official character. In view of this I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, standing in my name since February 26 are notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 161 to 185 inclusive asking for a copy of the time schedule established for individual pulp and paper

April 4, 1973

mills in British Columbia within which they must comply with the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations promulgated by the government. I wonder why there is this long delay in providing that information?


Mr. Speaker:: Are the remaining notices of motions allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would remind him that on January 16 he said that he would be "putting some reports on the table of the House with regard to a national energy policy". On January 10 he said it would be some time during the course of the spring that this would be done. I should like to ask whether he can assure the House that these reports with regard to a national energy policy will be tabled before the projected Easter recess or before he goes to China?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker; we anticipate they will be available immediately after the recess.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With the request apparently coming forward now from a number of provinces for a national conference with regard to the formation or development of a national energy policy, I should like to ask the minister what the government's attitude is toward this request. Is the government disposed to have such a national policy involving the provinces or does the government intend to develop its own policy and announce it with such consultation with the provinces as it sees fit?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the parliamentary committee about a month ago, the proposal of the government is to lay energy studies on the table and then by consultation both with the provinces and interested members of the general public we hope to develop a national consensus on the lines that energy policy changes should take. In this respect the comments made by Premier Davis in Calgary last night very much fit the plan we have been proposing. I would certainly be looking forward to his co-operation in due course. I think he was talking about an autumn timetable and that may fit very well.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do I take it from the minister's reply that he is favourable to the sort of conference that Premier Davis was requesting? May I ask what his attitude is on the position taken by the Premier of Ontario that a nation-
Oral Questions
al energy policy must be related, among other things, to a national industrial strategy? Can the minister give us any information as to when the government's national industrial strategy is to be announced?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think a national energy policy is really more pervasive in our community than a national industrial strategy. As I say, I am glad to have the support of Premier Davis in the timetable I had set out to the committee a month ago, and I will be glad to have his support in this regard.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister again, recognizing that a national energy policy is related to a national industrial strategy only among other things, as I put it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh,!


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Oh, now!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is exactly as I put it before, Mr. Speaker. I think it is time the Minister of Finance started to listen to me a little more carefully.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister whether the national energy policy he is developing will be related, among other things, to an industrial strategy and when we may expect to learn what the government's national industrial strategy is?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. As to the second part, perhaps the hon. gentleman would like to refer to my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, for a timetable.


NATIONAL GAS-GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS TO PROTECT CANADIAN CONSUMERS AND INCREASE EXPORT PRICE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the request of Premier Davis for a federal-provincial conference on a national energy policy arises from the fact that Canadian consumers of natural gas are faced with the prospect of having an increase in price of 10 cents per thousand cubic feet, while at the same time we are exporting gas at prices that are resulting in a loss of at least $150 million per year to Canada, has the minister any proposals now to put before the House or between now and Easter, or any proposals that he intends to put before the suggested conference on how he intends to protect the Canadian gas consumer on the one hand while at the same time securing a fair and just price for our exported gas?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the chairman of the National Energy Board put out in very extensive detail the returns from the export price of gas and the initiatives that he and the board have been taking in the very recent past. Therefore I have to

April 4, 1973
Oral Questions
take issue with the accuracy of the hon. gentleman's assumptions. I think we can expect with regard to the price of natural gas domestically that in the process of bargaining between the purchaser and the seller it is very likely that the price of this commodity will increase. The discussion of a national energy policy, however, will be related to the use of this and other commodities over the longer run. For that reason, of course, we would be planning on a federal-provincial conference, as the Premier of Ontario suggested some time during the autumn.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact the chairman of the National Energy Board admitted before a standing committee of the House that our export gas was underpriced and in view of the fact the Alberta energy board estimated that deficiency to be 10 to 20 cents per thousand cubic feet, has the minister issued any instructions to the National Energy Board to bring the price of export gas in line so that Canada will get a fair return for the gas it is exporting to the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. gentleman that the chairman made no such admission and the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board made no comment of that kind either. The figures he was referring to were the figures in the Stanford Research Institute Study which, of course, are a matter of some debate both within and outside the industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary and then, before continuing with supplementaries, including the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, the hon. member for Calgary North and others, I will recognize the hon. member for Richmond. For the moment, we will have the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on his supplementary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the Liberal party has been in government now for ten years-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and in view of the fact we have been waiting during that period for a national energy policy, may I ask the minister if he can assure the House that we will have a national energy policy before we run out of energy resources?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The hon. member for Richmond.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture.

In view of his statement in the House around mid-February that he was drafting a new policy for the price of feed grain in eastern Canada, can he say if in fact something has been done in that connection? If so, when will this new policy be enunciated?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throno announced that it would be before the new crop year. We are working on this and hope to announce it even before that. This is a joint project with the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. We are doing a lot of work on it and are trying to come up with a policy that will be satisfactory to users of feed grains no matter where they are in Canada.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: I have a supplementary Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Agriculture says that this new policy is worked out in co-operation with the Canadian Wheat Board. Can he tell us if it is also made in consultation with organizations in eastern Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL POLICY-SUGGESTED WITHHOLDING OF ANNOUNCEMENT UNTIL UNITED STATES INDICATES ITS POLICY
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. From his answers to the Leader of the Opposition I detected that he has considerable rapport on the planning of joint policy-making with the premiers of Ontario and Alberta. Did the premiers of Alberta and Ontario agree with the minister's position that Canada should not declare a national energy policy until the Americans have stated their policy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have not specifically discussed this with the two premiers. I am glad, however, that Premier Davis has supported the position I take. May I just say to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that we have had a policy for ten years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I will try again. What I am trying to get from the minister is a declaration of the government's intention not to announce Canadian energy policy until the Americans have stated theirs.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I said to the hon. member in committee and I just said to his leader that it is not the intention of the federal government to announce a uniquely Canadian energy policy. We intend to put the studies before the public, before parliament and
April 4, 1973

before the provincial governments and by a process of consensus achieve this. I cannot be sure when President Nixon will have his policy ready, but I know we will be ready with our studies soon. After that, it will be a matter for the Canadian political process to decide what changes will be made in the energy policy we have had in this country since the Borden Commission.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY OIL PIPELINE-REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On Thursday, March 22, and again on April 2, on the subject of a Mackenzie Valley oil pipeline to move Alaska crude oil to market and representations to the United States on this matter, the minister spoke of "measures taken just over a year ago by myself and repeated on a number of occasions since then to the American administration." On February 14 the minister said, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Calgary North on the same subject:
Mr. Speaker, the "not so long ago" to which the hon. member refers was 11 months ago. The government has no intention of renewing its representations.
Will the minister say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member respectfully that perhaps his preamble is a little too long. Perhaps he might come to the question. I gather he was just reaching the question in any event.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Will the minister say which of his answers was correct?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: They both were, Mr. Speaker. We repeated to the American administration the statement I made, which was tabled in the House in the last session. The hon. member, as a new member, might want to look it up. They were-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt, but I think the supplementaries have developed to the point that we have entered on debate. Perhaps we might try another subject for a few moments.


FINANCE
Mr. lames Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact we now have for the first 11 months figures for expenditures and revenues showing that there is a surplus of over $1 billion for the first 11 months, are the Minister of Finance and the department still staying with their prediction that we will have a budgetary balance for the current fiscal year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I must once again remind the hon. gentleman, that to get
Oral Questions
the total cash position of the government, he will have to look at both the budgetary and non-budgetary figures. As hon. members are aware, there is usually a substantial increase in expenditures in the final month, and particularly in the 30-day period after the end of the fiscal year which is permitted for the final allocation. I would think that at that time the position would be known with a little more accuracy than it is now.


Gerald William Baldwin: How is the unemployment insurance fund?


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. Has his attention been drawn to complaints by Indians living in Grand Rapids, Manitoba, that they have been mistreated by RCMP officers and to the subsequent investigation of those complaints by the provincial ombudsman?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have been made aware of this incident and disciplinary measures have been taken against the RCMP officers in question.


David Orlikow: Did the disciplinary action taken against these RCMP officers consist essentially of transferring those who were guilty of misdemeanors to other positions in the province of Manitoba?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will get that information and supply it to the hon. member. I do not have it now.


David Orlikow: While the minister is looking into this question, would he give consideration to whether, if that was the disciplinary action, he considers it to be sufficient in light of the very serious nature of the charges?


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the Royal Bank of Canada recently broke the interest rate ceiling set by the minister last June, and as increases in interest rates at this time will of course slow down the economy and make the provision of jobs more difficult, has the minister been in touch with the presidents of the Canadian chartered banks and has he received from those gentlemen an assurance that they have no intention of raising interest rates at this time?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have been in conversation with the Governor of the Bank of Canada who has the initial responsibility for

April 4, 1973
Oral Questions
monetary policy and I am watching the current situation both from the domestic and the international point of view.


George Harris Hees: Of course, the minister made no attempt to answer my question. Has he received any assurance either from the presidents of the chartered banks or from the Governor of the Bank of Canada that interest rates will not be raised at this time? Yes or no? Come on, answer.


COLLECTING OF CERTAIN COINS BY AMERICANS FOR MELTING IN UNITED STATES BECAUSE OF SILVER CONTENT-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance a practice that has since been expanding-indeed, it has become a racket-whereby Americans come over here with machines, pick up Canadian silver coinage, take it to the United States and there make very large profits. What is the government going to do about this?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the right hon. gentleman brought this to my attention two weeks ago. It is true that the price of silver has been rising, following the price of gold. There has been some impetus in the buying up of silver coin and exporting it in order to break it down. I have reviewed this matter carefully and when action is taken I will advise the right hon. gentleman of just what has been done.


John George Diefenbaker: While consideration is being given to this matter a group of Americans, particularly connected with trucking, are making a bonanza. I ask whether or not an order in council should not be passed, similar to the one brought in in 1970 which prevented this kind of thing taking place unless a permit was secured. That order in council was repealed in 1971. Will the minister not now do something about bringing in an order in council to prevent this racket continuing?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, of course the primary responsibility is to protect the currency here in Canada. As the right hon. gentleman knows, under the Currency Act there is only jurisdiction with respect to money being melted down within the country. He is also aware that since we are dealing with post-1968 currency, which was primarily in nickel, that to date this has not affected the amount of currency in circulation. I have looked into the precedent referred to by the right hon. gentleman and if action is taken it will be announced in due course.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of my previous questions and in light of the fact that the Canadian Trans-
(Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).]
port Commission report for 1972, just presented, states that there were 327 train derailments in 1972 compared with 271 in 1971, will the minister now appoint a special committee to investigate these accidents thoroughly?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what the commission is doing right now and I am expecting a report.


INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON RAILWAY SAFETY
Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Minister of Transport. On January 30, during a debate in the House on railway safety, the parliamentary secretary indicated that the report on railway safety was almost ready and would be available soon. Can the minister now tell us when this report on general railway safety will be ready?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement was quite accurate.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister consider the development of a policy directing future government building expansion intended to accommodate viable national services to areas of Canada experiencing high unemployment, provided that such services can function efficiently?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question, and for his patience. For some time now the government has, as a matter of policy, sought new opportunities to decentralize national services and facilities with a view to making Canadians more conscious of the federal presence and with a view to improving the services and to offering employment. The location of certain operations, like the mint in Winnipeg, is an indication of this. There are some services which inevitably, for reasons of efficiency, must be located in the national capital, but I fully expect to continue decentralizing, as has been the practice, and I hope the constituency of the hon. member will not be forgotten.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Since rural men qualify for government subsidies while attending courses in farm management and rural farm women do not,
April 4, 1973

despite the fact that many of them are involved in farm management, has the minister given consideration to changing government policy so that rural women can be included under this program?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: This is the first time the matter has been brought to my attention. I will certainly investigate.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the unfortunate incident that occurred at the Fort Alexander Indian Reserve in Manitoba on Saturday, March 31, which resulted in the death of a young native resident of that reserve, may I ask whether the Solicitor General has received a report from the RCMP or from officials in his department in connection with the shooting incident?


William Warren Allmand: I have received a brief report but I do not have sufficient information at this time to answer the hon. member's question fully. I shall be pleased to do so as soon as I have received a full report.



INDEMNIFICATION OF VICTIMS OF THALIDOMIDE-MEASURES TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising from recent discussions related to the tragic thalidomide problem. Has the hon. gentleman any information as to the progress being made which would relieve the great anxiety felt by the parents of the children concerned?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed met recently with representatives of Richardson Merrell (Canada) Ltd., and I am at present writing to all parents of thalidomide children whose claims have not been settled and who do not at the moment have legal representation.
After my meeting with the company's representatives, I first recommended all parents find themselves a lawyer, and the company agreed to pay all legal costs that the parents incurred in Canada, in all cases where the claim was recognized as legitimate.
The company also agreed to let me know periodically of any information it might obtain about the victims. In all cases, the company will attempt to have the settlements approved by the chief justice of the highest court in the province concerned.
Oral Questions
Moreover, the department and the company will be periodically exchanging any information that might help identify new cases of thalidomide victims. The company has also indicated its firm intention of reaching settlements in good faith with all parties concerned.



INDUSTRY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, following the suggestion of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he is developing a strategy of industrial development for Canada and when we may expect a statement in this regard?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have made a number of statements on the subject. The Speech from the Throne set out clearly that the government is committed to a coherent set of industrial policies for Canada. From time to time I have had occasion to outline some of these policies, as have the Minister of Finance and other ministers. The evolving position has, I think, been fairly clear with respect to the industrial strategy question. In addition to broad band industrial policies in support of Canadian industry, we will have a number of sector policies, or strategies for various industries.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the intention of the minister to meet with the provinces to involve the provinces directly in the development of an industrial strategy for Canada? I have in mind a conference designed to promote such a strategy.


Alastair William Gillespie: As I have made clear on earlier occasions-I am not sure that the Leader of the Opposition understands this distinction-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: -we are not talking about one big blueprint which for all time will represent what might be described as an industrial strategy for Canada. We are talking about a set of coherent industrial policies for Canada-this is our position-and an industry by industry strategy. A very good example is the textile industry. There is quite clearly an industrial strategy for the textile industry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: One can just hear Paul Martin standing up and making a speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. I hope the minister is able to conclude his remarks as quickly as possible so that we may continue with the next question.


Alastair William Gillespie: As to the second part of the hon. gentleman's question with respect to consultation with the prov-
2966

April 4, 1973
Oral Questions
inces, within the next ten days I shall be meeting with all the ministers of industry of the various provinces of Canada to discuss, among other things, this question.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: The minister has told us there would not be one over-all blueprint but a series of blueprints. Will he be making a statement in the near future with respect to some of the specific proposals in terms of goals or bench marks in order that Canadian public opinion may have some means of measuring the success of these various policies?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am not sure we shall be able to satisfy the hon. member with respect to the question of bench marks, but I hope to satisfy him and other hon. members with a plan which will clearly identify those industries that require a strategy for themselves. I have mentioned one. There is another at the present time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. An urgent appeal has been made to me by members of the Osoyoos Indian Band, British Columbia. I would ask the minister when he intends to answer the letter of December 21, 1972, in connection with the appeal lodged against the elections of December 14, 1972, the situation being that all band matters have been completely at a standstill since January 24, 1973?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether it is in order simply to ask a minister when he intends to reply to a letter. In any event, the minister may reply briefly.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will have to check once more. I believe an inquiry is going on at the moment and that the matter is in the hands of the judge. But I will check further and inform the hon. member.



MANPOWER


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Having regard to the policy followed by his department under which officials of the unemployment insurance claimants' assistance program work in close co-operation with Manpower in finding job placements for the unemployed, can the minister explain why applicants for unemployment insurance benefits in my constituency are being advised by unemployment insurance officials to apply for jobs directly to employers rather than through the Manpower office, and why Manpower is not consulted by U.I.C. in order to co-ordinate job placement opportunities?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I should like to see the specific details so that I can determine whether there is any irregularity, but the general practice is that in addition to being registered with Manpower claimants should also exercise their own initiative in seeking jobs and look anywhere they can.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Communications.
Could he tell the House whether the Canadian Transport Commission must ask his advice or inform him before taking a decision?


Gérard Pelletier: The answer to that question is no, Mr. Speaker.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is out of order and the minister answered too quickly. I point out to the hon. member that such a question is out of order. If he has another question to ask, I will recognize him for that purpose. He could perhaps try to ask an acceptable question.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I had a supplementary question to ask the minister if he answered my first question. Indeed, what are we doing here? It is useless to discuss the rates if we are before an accomplished fact.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
CONGRATULATIONS ON 125th ANNIVERSARY OF 8th CANADIAN HUSSARS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence, of which I have given him notice. Does the minister agree that the 125th anniversary today of the 8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise's), the original New Brunswick regiment and the oldest serving unit in the Canadian Armed Forces, is worthy of note now or, if the Speaker so rules, at the time of adjournment?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal that I am aware that today is the 125th anniversary of this oldest serving Canadian regiment. I would be pleased to join him in expressing congratulations and best wishes to this famous Canadian regiment.
April 4, 1973



MANPOWER


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the frustration and the great anxiety facing thousands of Canadian university students who have to obtain a work permit in order to work this summer, is the minister going to make an announcement in a few days to clear up this very difficult problem?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will be making some comment on the matter before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration tomorrow afternoon, I believe.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps my supplementary is in the form of a recommendation to the minister. Will the minister, in his statement, ensure that he makes it clear that students will be given an opportunity through work permits in the summer to carry on their education?



TRENT SYSTEM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF COURTS REPORT

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and deals with the joint study by his department and the government of the province of Ontario on the Trent canal system, known as the Courts report. When will the minister make a statement with respect to the implementation of this report?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to deliver a statement to the House but I can tell the hon. member that we have continued discussions with the Ontario government and that this is a joint project because some parts of the canal system are provincial government property and others belong to the federal government. We are trying to unite our efforts to obtain the most concrete results possible.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. As a result of the minister's answer to a question from my colleague last Friday in the House to the effect that he was not aware that there were thousands of cattle being imported into Canada, and since it is
Oral Questions
now quite obvious that Canada, particularly Ontario, is receiving much heavier than normal imports, of United States beef on the hoof, do the minister and the government not consider the situation serious enough to curtail these imports by means of the powers invested in the government for such emergencies, namely, the legality of the unknown deposit of stilbestrol?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a representation rather than a question. The hon. member has to assume that his representation is noted.



INDIANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development based on press reports of a decision of Mr. Justice Morrow of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories granting permission to file a caveat on behalf of the Native Brotherhood of the territories over a major portion of the whole of the Mackenzie valley. Does the government intend to take any action with respect to that decision, if it is reported accurately, and, if so, what action?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the hon. member did not quite understand the newspapers. The judge has taken the case under consideration and did not render any final decision. He has authorized the parties to prepare their case and a hearing will take place on May 15. As can be expected, I think the federal government and the territorial government will make representations as will the Indians.


Erik Nielsen: I have one supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hearings that will be held before Mr. Justice Morrow. Is it the intention of the government to be represented at those hearings by counsel?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been reached as yet but I should think so.



LAND USE PERMIT TO COMINCO AT WRIGLEY- CONSULTATION WITH NATIVE PEOPLE

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I wonder whether the minister would tell the House if the land use permit issued to Cominco at Wrigley in March was issued in consultation with the native people in that area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What was the place again?
26087-42i

April 4, 1973
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I asked whether the land use permit issued to Cominco at Wrigley in March, which is the area that started this whole question of the restraining order, was issued in consultation with the native people in the area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as a rule, my department never fails to consult the Indian and Eskimo communities when there are developments and in this particular case, I shall inquire and report to the hon. member. Our policy has been always to consult the communities involved.

(English]



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and it relates to the report of the joint study group on the basic rate of the war disability pension, which was endorsed unanimously by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Can the minister say when the bill implementing this recommendation will be placed before parliament?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this report has received some study by the government and it is coming back again on April 16. We planned on getting it there before that, but due to other matters that needed to be taken care of previous to that time we were not able to do so. As I say, it will be before the government again on April 16, and if I have the permission of the government I hope progress will be made on the report and that we will be able to proceed with the enactment of legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the likelihood that such a bill would receive quick passage by the House, will the minister make every effort to get it to us before Easter?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will make every effort to do that.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE SUPPLIES SUFFICIENT TO MEET DOMESTIC AND EXPORT REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that a recent news release from the International Wheat Council indicates that wheat supplies throughout the world are becoming scarce, and in view of

the fact that the United States and the Argentine are restricting exports of wheat, would the minister assure the House that Canada has sufficient supplies on hand to meet its export commitments and still retain a reasonable reserve for domestic purposes in the event of a reduced wheat crop in Canada this year?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House easily about the availability of supplies to meet our export commitments. Indeed, I can tell the House that the Canadian Wheat Board is very carefully assessing not only our own future needs but the regular supplies which our very good customers count on receiving from us, and are planning their sales accordingly. The Canadian Wheat Board is continuing to make forward sales of wheat in view of the supplies we have on hand.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
On March 14 last, I put to him a question concerning the official languages and, on that occasion, the Prime Minister answered that he expected to be putting something on the order paper within two weeks at the latest, that would provide the House with information.
Is the Prime Minister in a position to say when he will enlighten the House on the nature of that something?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will indeed see that it is something when it comes.
As concerns the date, I apologize to him and to the House for having been too optimistic about that date. I hope it is soon, but it will definitely not be within a few days.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Dan Hollands (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue concerning the land evaluation taking place in Canada for tax purposes. Will he inform the House whether the property owners whose properties have been appraised for tax purposes have been notified and, if so, is there an appeal procedure to handle these evaluations?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, the valuations that are taking place are for the purpose of future reference. They do not necessarily have any status in law at this point. Valuations from any source can be considered. This information is being gath-
April 4, 1973

ered to assist parties in the future determination of values.


Mr.  I. H. Homer@Crowfoot: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. How can one appeal some five, six or ten years from now when that same assessment is put forward by the department?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: That is not the assessment, Mr. Speaker. The assessment would take place at the time of disposition, and any owner is free to make that kind of valuation himself or obtain one.



HIGH WATER LEVELS OF GREAT LAKES-GOVERNMENT STUDY TO PROVIDE GREATER SAFEGUARDS AGAINST PROPERTY DAMAGE

Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In light of the information sent to him by a number of Ontario municipalities, including the borough of Scarborough, what plans has he or the government for initiating a study of the high water level situation in the Great Lakes with a view to gaining greater control of the water level in future, greater safeguards against property damage and greater protection for property owners in municipalities in the area? What type of study, if any, is being planned in consultation with other governments or on the part of the federal government alone?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, there have been very extensive studies under way, some of them for a number of years, in co-operation not only with the government of Ontario but with the United States and the governments of those states adjoining the Great Lakes.



ELECTIONS


Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the strong possibility of an election in the not too distant future-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nels Edwin Nelson: -will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the government plans to introduce legislation to regulate election expenses of candidates and parties before the end of this session, as recommended by various commissions and a committee of this House?


An hon. Member:: The coalition is crumbling.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would be the first to note that the premise
Oral Questions
to that question is hypothetical in character. Having said that, I can only remind the House that we did bring such legislation before the last parliament, but unfortunately it did not have the support of the parties opposite. We do intend to bring forward legislation on the same subject as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the right hon. member for Prince Albert has a supplementary question, after which the Chair will call orders of the day.



DISTRIBUTION OF KITS TO ENUMERATORS-POSSIBILITY OF EARLY ELECTION

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to leave this hypothetical question up in the air. I would ask the Prime Minister whether there is any significance in the fact that enumerators' kits are being sent out this week to all returning officers by the Chief Electoral Officer, bearing in mind the fact that in 1972 the same course was followed three months before the election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is significance in that fact. It is related to the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer stated publicly a month or two ago, I believe, that an election would not be easily held until perhaps June because of the importance of getting a lot of material printed and distributed. He is now taking steps to make sure that an election will be possible and will not be held up for technical or constitutional reasons, if an election were deemed to be desirable.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the right hon. gentleman saying there are technical reasons why these kits should go out at this time, other than because of a contemplated election on his part?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, hon. members know that the mails are slow in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to Question No. 1,849, in 29 parts, appearing on the notice paper in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I know it will not proceed to the order paper until Monday, but I want to enter a caveat at this time reserving my right to argue against the procedural admissibility of this question or some of its parts.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the slanderous statement first made in respect of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). I rise at this time to raise an objection on his behalf.

April 4, 1973
Foreign Investment Review



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 3, 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 second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been some discussions about the progress of this legislation. To help push the government into getting some legislation through before that hypothetical event takes place, and in order that we can get the income tax bill before us as soon as possible so we can redress the many inequities it contains, it is suggested that we might agree to an order of the House that all questions needed to be put to have second reading should be put before six o'clock tonight, and that speeches be limited to 15 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think this suggestion should be processed through the usual channels.


An hon. Member:: In other words, you disagree.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand it, the suggestion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is that there should be further discussion among party representatives. If that is the case, we will proceed for the moment by recognizing the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk).


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, when I began my remarks prior to the adjournment last night, I suggested this bill was not one which came to grips with the problem of regaining Canadian control of our economy. I said it was not the kind of clearcut measure the Canadian public expects from this government. It does not take into account regional differences. It does not provide for sufficient consultation with the provinces. In fact, it is essentially the same piece of legislation which was presented to parliament about a year ago. At that time the NDP opposed the bill. Now, they say they will support it and suggest it is an example of the kind of good which flows from that party holding the balance of power in the House of Commons. At the same time their leader condemned the government, the Liberals in general, and the Conservatives as being in favour of the same things in so far as our economic policies are concerned.
I pointed out also that, in spite of that statement, the Leader of the NDP supported the government on its eco-

nomic policies on the Vote at the conclusion of the budget debate. Because the members of the NDP talk one way and vote another, it has been difficult for us as well as for anybody else to know exactly where they stand on any particular issue. I said that this bill was negative and that its intent was based on restriction and suppression. Our policy is the opposite. It is based on the positive approach of encouraging something to happen rather than preventing something happening. We feel the desired goal can be achieved by encouraging something better to happen than is happening right now.
A policy on foreign ownership which proposes to lead to Canadian control of our economy must be tied in with the country's total economic strategy. Conversely, the total economic strategy must be developed in such a way that greater encouragement is offered to Canadian participation than to foreign participation in respect of the development of Canadian resources. This, of course, must be done in close consultation with all the provinces and territories to ensure that central policies are not in conflict with the needs and plans of the various regions of the country.
When I spoke yesterday, the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) wanted to know what our policies are. He has fallen asleep again in the usual way. However, I want to outline roughly what I have been suggesting the policies should be. First of all, we must immediately implement a full employment policy aimed at rapid expansion of the Canadian economy by taking measures which our spokesmen outlined during the budget debate and on subsequent occasions. We must make changes in the tax laws of a nature which would encourage Canadian entrepreneurship, Canadian enterprises and Canadian investment, again as we outlined during the last campaign and during the budget debate. Contrary to the policy of the NDP as stated by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who would apparently remove from the Canadian scene the principle of private ownership, I think we should encourage the small private entrepreneur to develop to his full capacity. We must take steps to encourage labour intensive industrial development to satisfy the Canadian need for jobs as well as to balance our economic policy, the primary objective of which in the past has been the exploitation of natural resources. Research and development in Canada must be encouraged and undertaken in order to ensure a rapidly developing and expanding economy for Canadians. On Canadian terms, methods must be found to ensure that more and more manufacturing and processing type industrial development is carried on in Canada to increase the emphasis on the export of finished products as opposed to the present emphasis on the export of raw materials. As I see it, Canada's future development is embodied in a national development strategy designed to achieve these goals.
I was disappointed by the statement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) today when he intimated the government had no industrial development strategy and that its approach was one of a piecemeal nature dealing with emergencies as they occurred in one particular sector of the economy. I do not think that is good enough. I think Canadians expect something a little better than that. In many ways, because of
April 4, 1973

the approach of the present government during the past decade, we have been losing not only from the point of view of the export of raw materials but also because by this action we export jobs. The people of other countries take our raw materials, develop them into finished products and export those finished products back to us. This means that those countries are using our resources to create jobs for their people, while our people need the jobs.
Second, these countries profit from the sale of the finished product to us and again Canada loses because we should have the profit from the sale of the finished product. There must be more flexibility in our financial institutions as well, in order to provide more venture capital from existing Canadian resources. In cases where foreign capital is encouraged to come in, steps should be taken to ensure that it comes in the form of debt capital rather than equity capital, which has been the method by which it has been coming. We must also make a massive effort to increase, and perhaps acquire, control of some of the major foreign companies which are functioning within our borders. Furthermore, we must take some steps in the area of labour unions to ensure that these are Canadian controlled and operated. Canadian labour leaders have admitted that their long term interest would be best served by getting more autonomy and control over their own affairs.
I was somewhat surprised to find that the hon. member for York South, and so far as I know all the members of his party, failed completely to make any reference to this aspect of Canadian economic nationalism. I think Canadian unionists are becoming increasingly resentful of being treated as a branch plant operation by remote and insensitive union leaders. The growing national sentiment in Canada within the labour movement must be used to Canadian advantage, and guided by responsible and experienced men within the movement in such a way that union decisions, union activities and union influence would be working in the interest of Canadians. I see this as equally important if not more so than the insistence on having corporations acting as good corporate citizens.
To sum up, the Progressive Conservative party recognizes the urgent need for increased Canadian participation in our economy. We propose policies which will ensure the development of Canada by and for Canadians. We believe that any effective approach in this country toward increasing Canadian participation and ownership in the economy must be a joint federal-provincial effort involving the closest consultation and co-operation with the provinces. We must ensure that any policies designed to monitor or regulate foreign investment in our country will be designed in such a way as to strengthen Canadian unity, which makes it all the more important that we have provincial involvement.
Bill C-132, which is merely a restriction of foreign takeovers, certainly does not ensure the survival, let alone the expansion, of Canadian companies faced with serious competition from industrial giants of other countries and their subsidiaries within our borders. We must be prepared to take positive measures designed to enable Canadians to participate in the development of Canadian enterprises, and we must take measures designed to
Foreign Investment Review
encourage these enterprises to thrive. In this way we can meet our own aspirations for control of the economy and at the same time create jobs that are needed in this country. However, stress must be placed on the encouragement of Canadian enterprises rather than simply on the suppression of the foreign enterprises. Based on a theory that the Canadian economy can and will grow rapidly, if a majority of that growth is produced by Canadian-owned enterprises, then in due course Canada will regain control of its economy with minimal damage to the standard of living as the process takes place. It seems to me a set of guidelines must be established, and that a long-term plan must be implemented to achieve these goals. While Bill C-132 may, in the long run, be useful in some ways, something much more bold and daring is required at this time.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in being able to speak on Bill C-132 which relates to foreign ownership. I find it rather ironic, if not pathetic, that in our national anthem "O Canada" no less than five times do we repeat the phrase "we stand on guard for thee", yet when we look at the present state of economic affairs in this country we find that it is indeed a sad one. I hope it is not prophetic that the composer of "O Canada" eventually gave up on this country and went to the United States where he became an American citizen.
I should like in my speech to review the causes of the situation that we now see before us, the fact that Canada's economy is owned to such a large extent by foreigners. I should like also to look at the state of foreign ownership in this country and then to examine the bill and our party's opinion of it.
If we look at Canadian history and the origins of this country, the first thing that must impress us is that Canada does not make sense as a geographical entity. The lines of communication on this continent run north and south, and to divide the continent by the 49th parallel to form a country runs contrary to this logic. We in Canada have felt this north-south pull to the extent that much of our trade, culture and economy is tied with our neighbour to the south. When we look also at the history of the development of this country, we see that its origins were founded on pessimism rather than optimism. There were more regional loyalties than there was loyalty to a national entity, and this country had to struggle not only against internal disunion but also the threat of American absorption through the famous policy of manifest destiny.
Another characteristic of this country in its early days was an inferiority complex which was bred out of living in the shadow of our giant neighbour to the south. This inferiority complex has all too often been a characteristic of not only Canadians in general but of Canadian businessmen and Canadian investors. We have all too often sat back and let Americans and other foreigners invest in this country to the extent that they now control much of our economy.
When we look at the history of Canada, we must look at the history of the Liberal and Conservative governments and their attitudes toward foreign ownership. I should like to review for the House some examples of these

April 4, 1973
Foreign Investment Review
attitudes at both the provincial and federal levels so that we may put this whole issue into context. I will use as an example the Liberal government in Saskatchewan under the premiership of Mr. Thatcher in 1971. I do not think you could find a more dedicated free enterpriser anywhere in Canada. Let us just see what this provincial government-and there are many examples-tried to do in 1971.
In 1971 there was a project to develop a $177 million pulp mill at Dore Lake. The mill was to be built and mostly owned by Parsons and Whittemore Incorporated of New York. Remember, this is an American company. What would result, unfortunately would be more competition for Canadian industry in this precarious pulp and paper market. Here is how the capital cost of $177 million was financed. This is typical of so many Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments throughout history. We find that $141.7 million of this capital cost was to come from or be guaranteed by the Canadian public, and this is broken down as follows. The American company was to receive $107 million as a provincial guaranteed loan, $12 million as a federal grant, $7.2 million as equity investment by Saskatchewan, and $19.1 million from Saskatchewan as road grants, part or half the contingency plans, an equipment loan and other credits. Of the $145.3 million the province was to get back only $3.6 million as a guaranteed fee.
What did the American partner in this venture, Parsons and Whittemore, put up as part of the required $177 million? They put $16.8 million into equity investment, $3 million as its half of the contingency loan fund, for a total of $19.8 million. The U.S. Export Import Bank guaranteed equipment financing by a loan of $12 million. So the company then put up 11 per cent of the total investment. What did it get in return? It got 70 per cent ownership of the mill through share equity, that is 70 per cent of profits, whereas the provincial government under the Liberal premiership of Mr. Thatcher was to get only 30 per cent of ownership. The company got another $12 million in contract fees for building the mill. It got about $2 million as an annual commission on sales.
The profit on sales of machinery from this wholly owned subsidiary was also in the hands of the company. The company got exclusive timber rights on 23,000 square miles of Saskatchewan, which is twice the size of Belgium, and had in effect a monopoly on all the pulp within the province. It was the province, not the company, which was to be responsible for replacing slashed timber. The company would pay only 25 cents per cord for reseeding and, in addition, the mill would consume 56 million gallons of water from the Dore and Beaver rivers with very little anti-pollution control.
So here, then, is the rationale of the Thatcher give away, or the attempted give away. He said since it was necessary to create jobs it was all right to give all this financial advantage to a foreign corporation. The premier claimed that 1,200 jobs would be created during construction and 1,600 during the operation of the mill. However, the truth was, as it was discovered later by the vice president, there would be 450 jobs in the mill and about 800 in the woods, which works out to a grand total of $157,333 for each job created. Fortunately, the people of Saskatchewan came to

their senses, elected an NDP government, and the whole deal was scrapped.
I could give other examples of the Conservative government in Manitoba under Premier Roblin and the great The Pas pulp and paper deal which was equally disastrous, or Joey Smallwood in Newfoundland and the Come-By-Chance refinery. What I am trying to show is that many provincial governments under Conservative and Liberal leadership contributed to the sell-out of Canada's economy.
What has the federal government done with regard to foreign ownership? The Liberals, I am afraid, have been continentalists from the time of Laurier. Foreign investment was welcomed, especially after World War II, with the encouragement of C.D. Howe. What has been the result of this Liberal government in action? Today, the percentage of foreign ownership in Canada, is as follows, and indeed it is a frightening list. In the printing and publishing industry, 20.4 per cent is foreign owned. In the wood industries, 42.6 per cent is foreign owned. In the mining industries, 60 per cent is foreign owned; mineral fuels, 82.5 per cent; machinery, 73.2 per cent; transportation equipment, 86.4 per cent; rubber products, 92.7 per cent, and petroleum refining, 99.9 per cent. Some 59 per cent of the total manufacturing capability in this country is foreign owned. On the average, approximately 80 per cent of foreign-owned industry in Canada is under American control.
Figures issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in 1969 show that foreign investment in this country totalled over $46 billion. When we examine the assets of corporations, the frightening finding is that corporations with $5 million in assets are 29 per cent foreign controlled, those with $5 million to $25 million in assets are 50 per cent foreign controlled, and those with over $25 million in assets are 54 per cent foreign owned. The statistics in themselves are frightening, but what are the implications? Foreign domination in this country means mostly American domination. Let us not kid ourselves. The Americans are not here out of the goodness of their hearts. They want our resources and they want profits from Canada, and they are going to place United States interests before Canadian interests. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you some examples of how foreign interests take precedence over Canadian interests.
First of all, American corporations or subsidiaries in Canada have to obey the provisions of the United States Trading with the Enemy Act. As a result, there have been numerous instances where subsidiaries in Canada wanted to sell products to foreign countries but were barred from doing so, not by Canadian law but by American law. I can think of our flour mills being prohibited from selling flour to Cuba and of truck and fertilizer plants being prohibited from selling their products to China. In these instances we have a foreign government interfering in our economy. Second, United States anti-trust legislation also applied to American subsidiaries in Canada. We can document at least 20 cases in Canada's history where the U.S. regulations on company merging policy have taken precedence over Canadian government policy, or irrespective of
April 4, 1973

Canadian government policy. An instance is the refrigerator market in Canada.
Our refrigerator market is approximately 400,000 units per year. This demand could be efficiently supplied by two companies but we have nine in Canada, seven of them being U.S. branch plants. What would be best for Canada would be to combine these refrigerator companies, thus bringing down the price through a rationalization of the industry and through more efficient competition. But because of U.S. anti-trust legislation, Canada cannot do this for the benefit of its consumers.
Moreover, U.S. policy can affect the Canadian money market. In 1963, 1965 And 1968 the United States government demanded that American subsidiaries in Canada return capital to the United States. This upset our whole money market. Indeed, the President of the Royal Bank of Canada was prompted to say:
Our own monetary authorities appeared to be attached to a string .. . the business end of which is held in Washington.
There is a fourth way in which foreign domination is detrimental to the Canadian economy. United States companies in Canada buy the majority of the component parts they require for manufacturing from their parent companies in the United States, which in turn means more jobs for Americans. Some 70 per cent of company imports in Canada come from the parent companies in the United States. American subsidiaries in Canada do not compete vigorously for foreign markets because this would be competing with the U.S. parent companies. Indeed, 82 per cent of the production of subsidiaries in Canada is sold in this country.
The fifth way in which foreign control is detrimental is that it results in our having a branch plant economy. This means that research and development are done in the United States rather than in Canada. As a result, we are exporting our scientists, engineers and technologists, and many of the bright young people graduating from our universities. They are going to the United States where the research is done. In 1951, 11 per cent of Canadian engineers and scientists left for the United States. In 1956, this figure had risen to 46 per cent. The science and engineering work force in Canada is growing at a rate of 9 per cent annually, the highest of all the occupations, and in 1970, 882 Canadian engineers and scientists moved to the United States. We all know how hard pressed the remainder are to try to find jobs here in Canada.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce reported in 1970 that foreign-owned firms were spending little or nothing on scientific research and development in Canada. Despite the fact that sales had risen 35 per cent, research spending here rose only 18 per cent, the average expenditure being $325,000, a sum considered trivial for the size of the firms investigated by the department. For example, in the rubber and plastic industries in 1967, $6.06 per $1,000 of sales was spent on research in Canada while in the United States this figure was $11.33 per $1,000 in sales. As a result, we have a lack of jobs in Canada for university graduates, and Canadian subsidiaries get new technology later than their parent firms, which weakens Canada's position in world markets.
Moreover, a foreign-controlled economy means that the decision to expand or close branch plants is made in the
Foreign Investment Review
United States by American companies to benefit American workers. When the American economy slows down the first lay-offs will take place in the branch plants in Canada. There are many examples to document this statement. One could think of Dunlop Tire in 1970. There is the infamous example of the U.S. company, Selkirk-Metalbe-stos, which made a decision in 1968 to take an Ontario Development Corporation grant of $77,000, supposedly to create jobs by expanding a plant in Brockville. However, the company then bought another firm in Hamilton, closed it down and moved that operation to Brockville. The result was that in Hamilton 50 workers lost jobs, and in Brockville ten new jobs were created, but at lower wages than had been paid in Hamilton. In light of this evidence how can it be argued that foreign subsidiaries work primarily for the benefit of Canadians? The decision making in our economic sphere rests with foreigners who place their interests above ours.
Why on earth have Canadians accepted this state of affairs? Many myths have been propagated about our economy, and I would like to examine a few of them. We have grown up under the myth of the necessity for foreign investment and the necessity for subsidiaries in Canada. We are told, for example, that Canada is 30 per cent less efficient than the United States in most secondary industries. This is a fact. We are told the reason we are less efficient is that we have a small population, we have to ship products a greater distance, we have a poor climate, our workers do not work as hard and our managers are not as skilled. But the facts belie this. A population of 21 million is not small. It is three times the size of the population of Sweden which is more prosperous than we are. Sweden has a less favourable climate than we, less favourable geography and agriculture, yet it is prosperous. Most of our industry is in southern Ontario where geography and climate are equivalent to the United States industrial heartland, and our workers are as good or better than American workers in productivity. Just talk to any automotive assembly line worker about that. The real reason that we are less efficient is duplication, and the inefficiency of our branch plant economy.
Another myth that has been propagated is that Canadians do not have the capital and must seek foreign investment. This may have been true in the past, but it certainly is not true now. From 1961 to 1967, over 60 per cent of the capital financing of foreign firms in this country was raised right here in Canada from Canadian sources. Indeed, in 1970, American subsidiaries raised 94 per cent of the capital needed for expansion and for buying up Canadian companies right here in Canada from Canadian banks and investment companies. We are the only country in the world that is financing its own sell-out. Foreign investment is not the blessing it is purported to be. From 1960 to 1967, American subsidiaries sent to the United States $1.8 billion more in profits than they received in capital inflow. Who benefits from this investment? Surely not the Canadian economy.
There is also this other myth that foreign owned corporations are contributing to the Canadian economy through the taxes that they have to pay. Mr. Speaker, 38 per cent of the manufacturing industry in this country did

April 4, 1973
Foreign Investment Review
not pay federal income taxes in 1969, which is the last year for which we have figures. Also, 79 per cent of mining, oil and gas wells did not pay income tax. Resource industries are overwhelmingly foreign owned and they have many ways of getting these tax deductions through capital cost allowances, depletion allowances, mine income exemptions, amortization and debt interest charges.
In my research, I discovered a more interesting revelation which I do not think has been brought out before, even in the last federal election campaign. I have discovered that the bigger the corporation the less income tax is paid. In 1969, income taxes actually paid by corporations approximated 50 per cent of taxable income. Do not forget that taxable income means the pittance that usually remains after all the loopholes have been taken out. The total amount of income tax paid amounted to $2.7 billion which, in turn, represents only 36 per cent of book profits. But this 36 per cent is only an average. The big companies, those with assets of more than $5 million, pay well below this average, only 28 per cent. Obviously bigness pays-but not income tax.
Manufacturing companies pay at an average income tax rate of 39 per cent, with the big ones paying 36 per cent. Within the manufacturing industry, the highest rates of income tax for both small and big corporations is, interestingly enough, in the printing and publishing industry, 49 per cent, and lowest in the petroleum and coal products group, 14 per cent. Do not forget which sector is Canadian controlled and which is foreign controlled. The mining industry, oil and gas wells pay little income tax, as we already know, and again the big ones pay less, an average rate of 10 per cent, while the little ones pay an average of 21 per cent. Mineral fuels pay an average tax rate of 7.6 per cent, and metal mining 10.1 per cent. In the latter group, the small companies average 22.1 per cent and the big ones 9.9 per cent on their book profits.
If you remember what I said earlier, that large corporations are mainly foreign controlled, you now know that they pay income tax at much lower rates than small companies, which happen to be mainly in Canadian hands. We have been more than hospitable to the man who came to dinner. He has gorged himself at our table and pocketed the silverware. What we see is that "big" means less income tax and big companies mean foreign companies. The results of Liberal and Conservative governments welcoming foreign investment without proper control as every other sensible nation in the western world has done are evident. Our Canadian controlled economy is fast reaching a point of impossibility; the number of foreign takeovers of Canadian companies is alarming. In 1959, nine companies were taken over by foreigners; in 1960, it was 93 and in 1970, it was 163. Over the last three years, it has been averaging 170 per year.
The federal government also aids in this takeover by giving grants to foreign firms. Of the grants given by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, over 50 per cent went to foreign-controlled corporations in Canada. Indeed, I believe this is one of the reasons Mr. Kierans resigned from Cabinet. He relates the case of the Canadian communications industry which was 85 per cent Canadian owned. What did the Liberal government do? It

gave a DREE grant of $22 million to a United States firm called Control Data to set up a plant in Quebec City, and it gave $6 million to the American giant IBM for a plant at Drummondville, Quebec. As Mr. Kierans says, "We create a few temporary jobs and destroy a whole Canadian industry".
We find, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is losing more capital than she imports, that exporting our resources means exporting our jobs to the places at which the resources are manufactured and refined, namely, the United States. As a result, areas like my own, northern Ontario, have chronic unemployment. We see that the Canadian consumer pays more for products because of the inefficiency of the branch plant economy. We lose our brightest minds as our scientists emigrate to the United States to take up research and development positions. Decisions to close down plants and decisions on the priorities for development and expansion are taken in boardrooms in the United States where their interests are placed before our interests. We see, Mr. Speaker, that foreign corporations are paying less income tax than Canadian corporations.
This whole problem of foreign ownership has accelerated in the past decade. The warnings were there. Our party spoke out against this trend but we were ignored. We were ignored by Conservative and Liberal governments and the Liberal government cannot plead ignorance. They had the Royal Commission Report, the Watkins Report, that voice crying in the wilderness, Walter Gordon, the former minister of finance, the Wahn Report in 1970 and the Gray Report in 1971, but they chose to ignore the alarming facts on foreign ownership brought out in these reports. Now, with a minority government the Liberal government of today has responded to public concern and brought forth Bill C-132 and it is this to which I should like to turn my attention.
This new bill covers takeovers of Canadian business; it covers new investment and expansion of foreign corporations into unrelated areas in Canada. The commission to screen foreign takeovers of Canadian companies has the power to block certain takeovers in the interests of Canada. Yet this provision would only affect between 12 per cent and 15 per cent of new foreign investment in one year. What remains outside the screening process is the expansion of foreign-owned subsidiaries in Canada operating in their own or related fields, and this represents about 80 per cent of the growth in foreign control.
My party believes that this bill is a step in the right direction, but we should like to see a number of amendments introduced to strengthen the bill. In particular, we should like to see a provision under which the screening agency would review the expansion of businesses operating in similar or related areas of production. We should like to see a screening of imported parts and components, to determine whether alternative sources of supply exist or can be developed in Canada at competitive prices. We want to see a screening of raw material exports, to determine whether further processing in Canada would be possible prior to export. Also, we want to screen any existing export restrictions imposed either by agreement or as a result of practices that prevent the expansion of export markets. I alluded to this earlier. We want to pro-
April 4, 1973

hibit new equity investment that would put effective control in foreign hands of all areas involving mineral resources, energy, power and water. Those are a few of the many amendments we should like to see introduced. Other members of my party will elaborate on this theme.
This problem in Canada has been accelerating during the past few years, and neither Liberal nor Conservative governments have been able to arrest the sell-out of our economy. One wonders, as one looks at the political donations of corporations, whether there is not some link that is significant here, because non-Canadian corporations contributed 29 per cent of all donations to the Liberal and Conservative parties of this country.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I submit the bill is a significant step in the right direction. However, it needs strengthening. We must press hard to stop the sell-out of the Canadian economy. There is one problem that this bill does nothing to solve, the repatriation of the Canadian economy. We must begin thinking about buying back the economy. To do that, we shall need a strong Canadian development corporation that has public funds, and that will engage on a program to encourage the repatriation of our economy. We need to utilize some of the $5 billion or $6 billion in foreign exchange reserves that this country has for buying back Canadian industry from foreign control. The time has come for the government, businessmen and people of this country to throw off their inferiority complex, to use their talents and the wealth of Canada in order to repatriate the economy for the advantage of all Canadians. Only with determined government leadership will the words of our national anthem become a reality. Only then will we be the true north, strong and free.


Mr. Bell:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; there was agreement earlier that we should end this debate at six o'clock, but we could not get definite agreement on the length of speeches. Through the usual channels, agreement has been reached to the effect that the remaining speeches should not be longer than 15 minutes, beginning right now. If at five o'clock there are still some who want to speak, we might voluntarily reduce the length of time for the last few speeches to somewhat less than 15 minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) is quite correct. There have now been discussions through the usual channels regarding this matter. We are prepared to agree with the arrangement suggested, which includes the question on second reading of this bill being put not later than six o'clock this evening. While I am on my feet, may I say that we shall have only one further speaker today, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, this is agreed to on my side of the House. I would hope that the other parties would agree that I might be allowed ten minutes, perhaps, not any more, to wind up the second reading debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the hon. member for Joliette rising on the same point of order?
Foreign Investment Review


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


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


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Speaker, I have already informed the government House leader that provided I have time to express some opinions in the House this afternoon, I shall agree to the arrangement that we end the debate at six o'clock. Otherwise, unfortunately, I could not give my consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member assumes that the Chair should recognize him without delay. Such terms are hardly acceptable.


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Speaker, I do not know. I am referring to the right or privilege that each hon. member enjoys in the House. If possible, I should like to way a few words, and then I shall consent to the second reading of this bill this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Perhaps the hon. member is right in assuming this: the Chair was probably about to decide to recognize him in a few minutes. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Agreed. Is the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) rising on a point of order?


René Matte: No, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I recognize the hon. member for Joliette.


Mr.   La Salle@: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for paying perhaps not special but fair attention to the independent member of this House. I shall certainly not waste the time of the House by making a long speech, but I do have a few remarks to make about this bill which strikes me as extremely important.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to express a few opinions which may not be different from all those I have heard. I am pleased to note that up till now the speeches have been very positive, very objective.
The purpose of the bill before us is certainly excellent. However, bills rarely achieve their objectives. Still, in view of the opinions I have heard, I can say that the debate is objective; this, to my mind, is absolutely necessary for the proper management of the country.
Bill C-132 relates to the control of our economy. This is all tied in with economic nationalism.
I think it is important to quote some statistics as many others did before. Naturally, everybody is tempted to accuse the present or past governments of being responsible for the exodus in our economy or the foreign takeovers of our industry and our economy in general.

April 4, 1973
Foreign Investment Review
There are reasons for this and previous governments certainly made mistakes in spite of all the good they did, which resulted in Canadians are not owning as they would like the largest part of our economy, especially our industry.
I would like to outline the particular care we should bring regarding economic nationalism and I would urge the government to increase its endeavours to promote nationalism among Canadians. I consider it of utmost importance. Of course nationalism requires a certain self-respect.
Do we not all limit ourselves to speech-making instead of getting involved, from a sense of national pride? And I think we should by all means recall that pride we, as Canadians, should have about that bill and its impact on our economy.
Of course, the present government has established, hardly two years ago I think, the Canada development Corporation which was a means for Canadians to keep control over their industries. I believe that most hon. members supported the bill. I was among them and I am very happy to see that this agency is to ensure retaining certain industries in Canadian hands.
Was that enough? Of course not, Mr. Speaker. Still, it was an effort, and a typical and concrete example of the government's interest in this problem.
Much has been said about buying back our economy, which is perhaps not the most difficult of tasks. It is very important that we assume immediate control of our economy and put a halt to this persistant drain taking place on our continent and primarily in our country as soon as possible.
We must consider measures enabling us to retain existing industries in Canadian hands in the future and now, and to finance any new industries or projects of major interest for our people.
I think that we must take care of the present and the future and with some very beneficial accomplishments, we could eventually consider the repatriation of our economy. It would be advisable to remind hon. members and especially the government that we should take steps urging Canadians to encourage Canadian compagnies first. This is true economic nationalism: to convince Canadian consumers that they ought to buy either Canadian foodstuffs or industrial products.
I for one try every day to buy an item made in Quebec, and I imagine that proud as they are Manitoba residents probably do the same. In addition, I insist that the product be at least Canadian and finally if I do not find the Quebec or Canadian product which I need, I will accept an import. Now, there are always some countries which are especially eager to export their products here.
I think that this is showing a certain nationalism which is prefectly justified and logical, if we truly want not only to regain control oever our economy but also to maintain our economy and ensure that it is balanced.
When economic takeover by Canadians in Canada is mentioned, I think it would be just as important for this government never to forget to negotiate or invite prov-

inces to discuss appropriate measures aimed at achieving the purpose contemplated by Bill C-132.
Promoting pride among all Canadians must obviously be done through publicity campaigns. To what extent have we forgotten that this publicity is absolutely necessary in order to awake Canadians? Whether we want it or not, we can do like several members and limit ourselves to condemning whichever government for not having found the appropriate machinery.
We could also just keep on thinking that legislation calling for huge outlays could manage to achieve the intent of the bill now before us. I think we will be able to do so if Canadians are aware of its importance and if they are willing to pay for this economic liberty.
It is all very well to talk about independence in all its forms but, just as we often say that a rich people is a strong people, we will indeed have to be rich if we are to be strong as an entity or as a country. Such wealth is attainable, therefore, if Canadians have enough sense of pride to invest and to want to invest, every day if that were possible, in Canadian industries and companies.
I suggest that the government should hasten to promote in Canadians this pride in investing in Canadian companies.
Let us take the example of insurance companies, because they involve large sums of money. If the millions of Canadians who need insurance were to choose Canadian companies, this could have important consequences and the government could then grant certain loans. That is what I call control of our own economy.
I have, of course, nothing against the American insurance companies, whose offices here are excellent, but I wonder if this field, like that of food, is not one in which we should exercize this individual pride. This might not seem like a very serious suggestion, but I think that governmental supervision of this sort may be necessary to attain the objectives of Bill C-132.
We can content ourselves once more with asking the government to pass legislation, but we cannot force a man to have enough pride to keep this objective in mind on a nation-wide basis. But, by means of publicity campaigns, for example, and by not being afraid to express certain opinions to the public, Canadians will become the real masters of their own economy, and then only to the extent that they want to and to the extent that they are taught to.
I could give as an example in Quebec, the Desjardins Co-operative Movement which achieved wonderful results through the promotion of collectivism, information and education. In my opinion, the government also has the responsibility for informing the people about the ownership of our corporations. We must teach the Canadian people how to invest in Canadian corporations and promote what we call Canadian products.
I will give another good example. In my own riding, Mr. Speaker, there is a green pea industry. Many times I have said, and I repeat it now, that if the people in my area decided to buy green peas from that industry which belongs to us, it would develop tremendously. Let us imagine the good results for all producers in that area and think of what might happen actually. We do not have enough pride which is essential to the success of a nation.
April 4, 1973

That is the reason why I say again that it is not only by passing legislation and by criticizing any government which failed to achieve that objective, but by teaching individuals and by giving them the necessary pride that we will cause Canadians to invest in Canadian corporations.
I am also aware of the efforts of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. For a few years, this department has been spending millions if not billions of dollars. Did we ever think, for instance, of giving many more benefits to the really Canadian enterprise than to another one? Here again, there might be a few comments to make about what financial policy the government could adopt to help Canadian companies through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, not necessarily to penalize foreign businessmen but rather to encourage Canadians. I suggest that no government could be admonished for having helped Canadian-owned businesses. I think that this suggestion would deserve the government's consideration.
If we are to speak seriously about taking over our economy and ensure above all that henceforth it will remain in the hands of Canadians, I suggest it is very important to make proposals and think of getting the contribution of Canadians.
I thought, Mr. Speaker, that it might be possible for the government to consider, for instance, withholding a percentage of Canadian wages. Perhaps this measure would not be very welcome, but the Canadian people would serve their own interests in so far as they would be compelled to do so. They are quite willing to be independant, they want to take all kinds of decisions, but they are not really prepared to endure the sacrifices all this involves. Therefore, I wonder whether the government should not decide to establish a bank designed specially to maintain our industries and establish new ones, something which would be particularly useful to our university graduates, to the experts we are now developing thanks to millions of dollars but who cannot find a job. At present, they become unemployed people with Phd's. The problem of university students is not one of skills-because they have skills-but of finance. Unfortunately, they do not have the necessary capital which would enable them to create new industries or to administer. In short, they do not have the necessary financial resources enabling a group to build something which would definitely be Canadian owned.
If we thought for instance of retaining one per cent of each Canadian's wages, it would represent millions of dollars in less than a week and much more at the end of the year. This money would be administered by the government and would not bring in a cent of interest to Canadians but it would be returned to the worker without interest 25, 30 or 40 years later; he would however have been forced to take part in the so-called conservation of our economy and in the development of the takeover of our industries. He would have been forced to it, Mr. Speaker.
This is a solution to consider even if it is unpopular at the outset. It will really be profitable for Canada inasmuch as the worker will be forced to a certain extent. He
Foreign Investment Review
will be proud to bring into being the objective aimed at in Bill C-132 by creating new industries, by offering jobs, which will be definitely useful to future generations. It would be a way for the government to implement a measure which would give Canadians a better chance to achieve this objective, to keep the ownership of their economy. The economy will be made by Canadians, perhaps in a coercive way. But, I think it will be necessary to remind them that economic freedom in this country, whether we like it or not, will have to be paid for, and I think it would be an outstanding way to get it.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should think that this debate is largely a rerun of the one we had last session; the bill has added to it only the clause dealing with new business. The subject of foreign ownership is one that has occupied Canadians for the last few years. Foreign investment has been viewed by many of our present economic nationalists as being something that has been foisted on us, and that much foreign investment has been deliberately designed to weaken Canada's position as an independent power. Yet I think we have to be reminded that Canadians actively sought foreign investment as a means to develop our industries and our resources for the benefit of our people. Canada has one of the most advanced, if not the most advanced, welfare structures in the world. We live in a cold climate, and without a very great level of economic activity and investment from outside this country it is extremely difficult to see how our social advancement could have been achieved without the help of foreign capital.
There are those who say that the over-all costs of foreign ownership and control are far outweighed by the benefits in the long run, while there are others who suggest that the costs and benefits are too close for a comfortable position on either side. There is the obvious question as to whether the rate of Canadian economic growth would have been significantly lower if foreign investment had not taken place at the rate it did. I do not think that there is any doubt, at least in certain parts of the country, that our resource industries would have been markedly reduced if there had been no foreign investment.
Let us take the example of the Alberta oil and gas industry. In the western provinces there are about six million people. Of these, it is reliably estimated that one million are dependent on the oil industry for their livelihood. And yet the oil and gas industry has been almost wholly developed by United States capital, with a small input of western Canadian capital. There was on the whole, up until very recently, just not the capital resources available in Canada to develop the oil and gas industry. Without this influx of foreign capital, it seems unlikely that the oil and gas industry would have been able to generate enough capital to balance Canadian imports with exports. Perhaps more amenable tax laws would have fostered a greater investment by Canadians in the industry. So, Mr. Speaker, whatever else we may think or complain about, we have as a nation been actively promoting foreign investment up until the present time.
Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, Canadians react curiously whenever conditions arise that will injure this flow of foreign investment. The United States DISC program is

April 4, 1973
Foreign Investment Review
designed to keep U.S. investment at home and to increase the productivity of their own factories instead of their foreign subsidiaries. This attempt by the United States government to keep investment at home should have been viewed with great affection by our economic nationalists, because it would mean a lessening of U.S. influence over economic activity in this country.
There is another facet of this debate which I do not think we have considered. There is an entirely different climate today from that a year ago as far as the investment of foreign capital is concerned. It is obvious that the position of the U.S. economy is considerably different from a year ago. The United States, with its complaints of trade unionists, a weakened dollar and a growing disenchantment abroad of the once respected label "made in the U.S.", is reordering its trading strength.
We then have the proponents of the Burke-Hartke bill which, if implemented, will bring an entirely new dimension to the problem that this act is supposed to solve. In Mr. Hartke's words:
This bill would discourage American business investment abroad and limit the flow of imports into this country. We can no longer afford to export American jobs and technology at the expense of our own industry, all in the name of free trade.
I think words such as those send shivers into the hearts of businessmen, as well as their employees, who export goods to the United States. But United States business has counter-attacked and the multinationalists have argued that their overseas activities create jobs by opening new markets for U.S. goods and technology.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who yesterday stated that Canada does not need foreign capital, would be heartily in favour of this Burke-Hartke bill. A recent survey of the investment plans of a number of large American multinational corporations, as reported in one of the financial papers, indicated that their projected investment of capital in Canada was down from around $600 million in 1966 to $300 million in the present year. The recent fall of oil stocks was an indication of a withdrawal of U.S. investment, so perhaps the functions and duties of this review board in future will be different from the past.
The central issue of the foreign ownership bill revolves around the question of the proper role of the federal government. The government and its supporters are consumed by a fear of engulfment and have resorted to a defensive Maginot line posture which in a dynamic world will inevitably be outflanked.
Canada with 22 million people is in the middle of 500 million producers and consumers in the advanced economies of Japan, the United States and the European Common Market. The arguments against foreign takeovers are emotionally appealing but economically unsubstantiated. Our economy is characterized by the rapid spread and progressive development of enterprise which demands efficiency and flexibility if we are to compete in world markets. Certainly, too, the tax legislation of 1971 operated in the wrong way by penalizing subsidiaries of Canadian companies through preventing them from sharing in tax concessions granted by foreign host countries. This measure will not produce any benefits if it has the

effect of cutting off the whole flow of investment funds with all that would entail.
The arguments for ensuring the Canadianization of the ownership and management of our enterprises rests on the doubtful assumption that it is the function of shareholders, directors and management, rather than parliament, to see that business is conducted in the national interest, and to ensure that Canadian ownership is sufficient to guarantee confidence and devotion in that endeavour. It is difficult to understand how one will become more efficient by ensuring Canadian control of share ownership. It seems likely that some Canadians will lose by being prevented from selling their business to the highest bidder, regardless of nationality.
It is almost certain that by eliminating the possibility of foreign takeovers, many Canadian companies will lose their bargaining power and they could be taken over by large Canadian enterprises at depressed prices. The best way to ensure the promotion of the general welfare is to compel the existence of effective competition in the market for goods and factors of production. Restrictions on foreign investment makes far less sense than making sure that all businesses operate in accord with Canadian interests.
Mr. Speaker, in attempting to control and monitor foreign investments, we are in effect setting up another bureaucracy to control private business. I use the phrase "private business" advisedly because, with the thousands and indeed millions of investors in some of the large corporations, they are in themselves almost small nations, albeit of a multinational nature, but the government will be setting up a bureaucracy in Ottawa which will mean that for every business sale the seller will have to ascertain whether or not the proposed sale meets with the approval of the screening agency.
Much of the impact of this legislation will depend on how the act is to be administered. There are many small businesses, including farms, that will be affected by this legislation. And then, of course, the onus is on them to ascertain whether or not the proposed sale of a particular business is to a foreigner. This screening committee will be a body in Ottawa that could have a great deal of influence and could become a bureaucratic nightmare when it is carrying out its functions. To the bureaucracy will be given the task of deciding whether a foreign takeover or a new business will increase the level of economic activity in Canada, including employment. This is almost a motherhood statement and I would think that every takeover or new business could be so classified.
Then, we must consider the degree of Canadian participation in an industry or the degree of productivity, efficiency and so on. The fourth factor is the effect of the proposed investment on competition within Canada and, finally, there is the compatibility of the investment with national industrial and economic policies, including those enunciated by the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, this is quite a tall order because the members of the board will have many variables to assess. I suggest that the senior members of this board, sitting here at Ottawa, will have a difficult time in deciding, with the
April 4, 1973

myriad of guidelines to follow, just what to do in any particular application. I suggest that this review body could have other very useful roles with regards to foreign ownership takeovers. Canadian society has rested on two major elements which protect the individual and promote general welfare. These are the rule of law and the maintenance of a reasonable balance among the institutions of power so that no one institution or group becomes too powerful.
This commission could well have the general authority to obtain information concerning businesses and corporations. It would gather statistical information on business organizations and procedures throughout the nation. This collection of data would serve as a groundwork for policy information and as a base for new legislative departures. This commission would serve to make sure that free enterprise would be permitted to operate; it could carry on investigatory activities which should be handled by its own economic staff; it could analyse purchasing and output policy and important market imperfections would be reduced and restricted, and unethical practices curbed. It could investigate the policies through which United States parent companies govern their Canadian subsidiaries, and the reaction of parent companies to permitting Canadian subsidiaries to expand their activities.
The present Combines Investigation branch only studies possible violations of the combines law that have been submitted to it. The projected trade commission would be a permanent organization which, by gathering statistical information on business organizations over the whole field of industry, would be able to uncover new problems and make recommendations for additional legislation to correct any abuses.
The devising of an industrial strategy for Canada, as has been noted by some, follows the idea that we should trade off manufactured goods as the price of allowing the export of energy to the United States. It is widely felt that only the manufacturing industry can provide the jobs necessary for the Canadian labour force. But all statistics indicate that Canadian manufacturing is hard put to maintain the present number of jobs and it has fallen on the service industries to provide the jobs for the record number of Canadians entering the work force.
These service industries have largely lived on the income provided by the selling of resources to the world at large. It is difficult to see how the United States, with its balance of payments problem, can provide the only market for Canadian manufacturing as it presently does. All indications are that the price of Canadian energy, if we have a surplus of it, will be high and run into competition from oil and gas brought from the Middle East. Canada's best export chance seems to be in selling raw materials, processed to the greatest degree possible before their sale.
It is interesting to note that many Canadians feel that the U.S. has made us the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, when the fact is that Japan and the ECM take our natural products in a much lower form than does the United States. All of these problems were ventilated at the hearings last year.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation brings forward many ideas as to what we should do to make our Canadian economy
Foreign Investment Review
more effective. It seems to me that the way to counter foreign investment is to have a strong internal business economy. In the budget speech the government suggested that they would bring forward proposals and legislation which would substantially help the small business. But really these are, in many cases, merely token efforts.
I should like to turn to agriculture as one area in which the government has often followed policies which have not been in the best interests of agriculture or the country as a whole. In recent years we have had the white paper on taxation, with all its uncertainties about what our taxation policies should be. These taxation policies were especially detrimental to the individual entrepreneur in agriculture, and, when the white paper was translated into the tax measures, the primary producer of food found that he was severely penalized. The overriding implication of the white paper that a buck was a buck and should be taxed accordingly found its way into the tax legislation.
Agriculture is a significant factor in both our external and internal economy. We have to import a large amount of food that cannot be grown in our cold country. We are confined in our exports to three or four major commodities such as wheat, barley, rapeseed and flax. In general, we are a meat importing country. The export of grains is especially valuable to Canada because this $2 billion is obtained mostly from outside continental North America, not the United States. Has the tax legislation this government enacted in this past four years been beneficial to these exports and to the industry? The answer is, of course, no. The government has introduced a capital gains tax on farm lands with merely a face saving device such as exempting from capital gains tax the passage of the land at death within the family.
The cancellation of the straightline depreciation on farm machinery is a severe blow to the grain farmer of western Canada. The removal of estate taxes is of no real benefit, but as a result of certain changes we will be able to preserve productive farm units from one generation to another. Mr. Speaker, I see that my time has expired.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that this particular subject is one which produced a remarkable lack of interest so far as the public was concerned during the election campaign. As I look over the number of members in the House of Commons today, that same lack of interest seems to be expressed by our elected representatives. I am sorry to see this, because I believe this should be one of the gut issues of the country. What we are debating today is really not a question of the effectiveness of this bill, but rather whether or not Canada can survive and whether or not this debate is really heralding the beginning of the end of Canada as an independent sovereign country. I suggest that unless we do something meaningful we can look forward to that in the future.
The trends in respect of increasing foreign ownership in this country are so firmly developed and so firmly established that to tinker around with the subject in the way in which this bill does will not come to grips with the problem. In fact, I suggest it may do more harm than good

April 4, 1973
Foreign Investment Review
because the bill appears to do something about the problem, when I submit that it will accomplish nothing significant in respect of retaining our cultural or economic independence. I say this because the extent of the problem is overwhelming.
I hate to bore parliament with the dreary litany of statistics in respect of foreign ownership, but a couple of items have not been raised. One is that there is more foreign ownership in Canada than in all the European nations combined. Second, we have the highest per capita foreign direct investment of any country in the world. In terms of percentages which have been gone into, 99.9 per cent of the petroleum industry is controlled by foreign investment. This figure is 97 per cent in respect of the automobile industry, 62 per cent in respect of mining, 83 per cent in respect of oil and gas, 90 per cent in respect of the rubber industry, 77 per cent in respect of the electrical apparatus industry, 90 per cent in respect of the computer industry and 92 per cent in respect of the aircraft and aircraft parts industry. What may be more significant is that these are the growth areas in which we find the new technologies which drive Canadian competition to the wall. What happens is that our Canadian companies are not being given the capital which is necessary in order to compete with this American multinational trend.
Let us have a look at what the bill would do to reduce this trend. I suggest that it allows this government to sit by and watch this process continue. It is less a screening agency than a welcome wagon. Let us not forget that this bill is not particularly significant in its present form. The key weakness in the bill is that it fails to limit the expansion of existing foreign-dominated corporations. By far the greatest growth in the foreign sector is through the expansion of existing subsidiaries. It has been noted that the growth is almost entirely financed through Canadian capital, either through loan capital or annual profits. The failure to cover this situation in the bill avoids the real problems which are developing and which have been developed in the economy over the past 30 or 40 years. I submit the bill must go further in terms of the export of raw materials. I come from a province where recently during a provincial election this was the number one issue. On this issue, the party which I represent was elected to office. That was the major platform. The people were waking up to the situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. What I have to say may not be very pleasant but the Chair must take this opportunity to point out to hon. members, and particularly to the one who now has the floor, that a certain behaviour is expected in this House. Conduct, decorum are prescribed by the Standing Orders; the hon. member should stand up like all other hon. members to address the House.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I assume that you have some objection to my placing my foot on the chair. I will be happy to conduct myself in a parliamentary manner.


Gerald William Baldwin: The game here is not to put it into your mouth!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I thank the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. I am sure he was being kind to a new member by admonishing me for having put my foot in my mouth rather than on the chair. I shall keep your admonition in mind, Mr. Speaker, but I think we should try to be informal in this place and when standing should attempt to be as comfortable as possible.
I was talking about the export of raw materials and the fact that the government of British Columbia recently changed over this particular issue. What I am suggesting to this government is that unless it wakes up to this issue, the government of this country will change. We cannot continue to export our jobs along with our raw material. There, again, I suggest that the bill is inadequate.
The other area which to me seems to involve something close to a national scandal is the way in which we continue to finance takeovers through the use of our own resources, taxes, gifts and grants. Over a three-year period DREE gave more than $42 million in grants to foreign-owned corporations. It gave $6 million to IBM, $15 million to Proctor and Gamble. How does a Canadian corporation compete with that sort of thing? I submit this kind of nonsense must end. It is even worse of course when one looks at the giveaways in respect of research to foreign corporations in this country so that they can more efficiently and more effectively compete with Canadian corporations and drive them to the wall or out of business. As much as 80 per cent of the expansionary funds the United States corporations use in this country are Canadian in origin. I repeat that we must be the most stupid people in the world to continue with this kind of nonsense. Let us not be afraid of tough foreign control legislation. The rest of the world has not been afraid of it. We can learn something from Japan, Sweden and France as well as Mexico which has begun to cure this problem in respect of its economy.
The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) indicated in his remarks that no one from this part of the House, the New Democratic Party, mentioned the labour movement in the context of Canadian independence. I am very happy to raise that particular subject because I think it is one which is important. However, let us keep it in context. The question of autonomy in this country is far less significant than the ownership and control of our natural resources as well as our business corporations. The international labour movement does represent a problem. I can give an example from my own riding. The local union of a distillery, Seagrams, the Distillery Rectifying Wine and Allied Workers of America, voted 96 per cent in favour of rejecting the recommendations of their international organization whose headquarters is in New Jersey. Their vote was invalidated in New Jersey on the somewhat spurious ground that it had been counted before it reached the international office. All these workers in New Westminster were seeking was parity with the workers in the Hiram Walker Plant in Ontario. They were seeking some equality for their female workers and equality in respect of benefits now paid in the province of Ontario. This international union, which looks surprising like a company union, refused to accept their legitimate ballot count.
[Mr. Leggatt.)
April 4, 1973

With reference to this subject, I say to the Canadian labour movement-and I am proud to say it as a member of the NDP-that they have to clean their house. We must give autonomy to Canadian labour unions. They have to change their constitution so that they can have autonomy with regard to their money, their votes and in every other area affecting labour in this country.
In 1958, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was quite a literary giant. He was writing in a publication called Cite Libre. He had some very interesting things to say about Canadian independence. This is what he wrote:
Shall we suffer passively our situation of economic domination? It would be better to be annexed outright by the United States than to be exploited without limit.
That is what he said then; what has he done about it since? In fact, the trend has not only continued but it has accelerated under the jurisdiction of the Trudeau government. The time has come in our history when we must ask ourselves: is this country worth preserving? It is these differences that are worth preserving. I do not think anyone in the House wants to see this country become an extension of Los Angeles or adopt an extension of the American ethic because there is something worth preserving north of the 49th parallel. It is subtle, it is intangible, and it is very hard to define, but it has something to do with the Canadian attitude to life. Perhaps the tradition of settling our differences short of violence and finding by the rational method a solution to what seemed on the surface to be an insoluble problem has something to do with it. We have the tradition in this country of having settled our west with very little violence, unlike the United States. Perhaps what is most important is that we have a chance on this half of the continent to learn from the tragic and serious mistakes that were made in the formation of society to the south, where a climate of violence prevails and where there is one of the highest crime rates in the world.
We have a different kind of experiment on this half of the continent, and I submit that it is well worth preserving. I want to quote Abraham Rotstein of the Committee for an Independent Canada who said:
It's time to interfere in our own internal affairs-
I suggest that this bill really does not interfere in our own internal affairs at all. It is just a kind of watching brief on the continuing sell-out of the country. Abraham Rotstein went on to say:
-to show that after a century of living as bastard Englishmen and bastard Americans, it's all right to be plain Canadians at last.
What Mr. Rotstein and the Committee for an Independent Canada have done has been to cast a strong light on Canadian identity because that Canadian identity will disappear into Baffin Bay if we continue the cultural colonization of this country at the present pace.
I also want to quote Dennis Duffy of the Globe and Mail who said:
You can cook a toad so slowly you won't even know it's being done.
That is what has happened, and I say it is time to stop.
Foreign Investment Review


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, clause 2 of the bill now before the House states clearly, specifically that the Parliament of Canada-
... in recognition ... that the extent to which control of Canadian industry, trade and commerce has become acquired by persons other than Canadians and the effect thereof on the ability ...
Faced with this situation, we cannot but support any measure intended to stir the Canadian people to react to that state of affairs. Still, it is strange, Mr. Speaker, that we should have to speak of taking over the control, since that leads us to ask ourselves why we no longer have it? It was therefore urgent that we should react to that situation, that we should take steps likely to favour typically Canadian undertakings. But we can only arrive at concrete and tangible solutions if we try to determine the causes of our difficulties.
How is it that for years we have had hardly any protest against the fact that we dress ourselves in foreign clothes, that most of our consumer goods are made abroad? How can we explain that we even buy some of our food products abroad?
Mr. Speaker, it is obviously our present financial system which is the cause of this. Why do these difficulties exist? It is because we have ignored a basic principle on which any investment policy should be founded, which is that the spirit of initiative that brings Canadians to set up manufacturing industries, or to found companies, is totally paralyzed, quite simply through lack of capital. As the sole source of such investments is foreign capital, it is hardly surprising to see that the investors finally take control. This is to be expected.
Mr. Speaker, first, we should ask ourselves to what extent do we need foreign investment to promote exclusively Canadian production, and whether or not we have the necessary raw materials. Second, we should ask ourselves if we have sufficient labour to manufacture what we need. Third, we should ask ourselves if we have the engineers we need to set up plans and make the extrapolations, in a word, to know exactly where we are going.
If we asked ourselves those three questions, Mr. Speaker, all hon. members of this House would agree of course that surely we are not short of raw materials in this country. We are short of nothing-I have said so on many occasions-except lemons, oranges, grapefruits and bananas. In brief, we are short of nothing in Canada. We even have pears in abundance.
Mr. Speaker, we have all the natural resources, all the raw materials that we require to manufacture all the products that we need for domestic consumption, We have-and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) knows that more than anyone-nearly one million unemployed in Canada. So we are not short of manpower. And since we have more universities and colleges which now train engineers, scientists in all fields, surely we are not short of experts either.
With those three essential elements, why, Mr. Speaker, ask ourselves if we need foreign capital? That is what we have done in the past, and that explains the considerable

April 4, 1973
Foreign Investment Review
amount of unemployment as well as the fact that 60 per cent of the products we consume come from abroad. We would be better off manufacturing them ourselves. In other words, that explains the failure of Canadian industry. If we want to remedy that we will not succeed by penalizing those who continue to believe in foreign investment but by changing in its entirety the principles which govern production in Canada. And that is why this bill centers on very deep causes as well as other points essential to the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that as long as we accept to consume foreign products which we can produce ourselves, as long as we believe that nothing can be done without foreign investments, nothing-and I repeat-nothing will be done.
Yet there is a concrete and clear solution: all our consumer goods whether food stuff, textiles or whatever, should be produced right here in Canada. All the government need do is ensure the availability of credits required for this purpose. As soon as this principle is recognized, we will no longer have any foreign ownership problem as it will be our own money. In other words, our own credit would finance our whole production system. This is quite same problems and never find any solution.
When we speak of respecting private enterprise, when I say that the government should facilitate credit I do not mean that it should take control of all our companies and interfere with the private sector. This is of course not my point; we are completely opposed to the NDP policy in this connection.
We want all businesses with initiative, when they prove they are able to manufacture the required products which can be consumed by the Canadians, to be assited by legislation aimed at creating new enterprises or at facilitating credit.
Mr. Speaker, we would then be far from subsidies and grants and the whole system now in force and in order to palliate the unemployment problem and promote production in Canada, I believe it would be much better to provide those businesses with the credits they need, provided it would be at a very low rate of interest. There lies the problem. I am convinced that if we were to ask all owners of businesses to choose between a $100,000 loan at 3 or 4 per cent and a $25,000 grant combined with a $75,000 loan at a 10, 11 or 12 per cent rate of interest, they would prefer not getting any grant at all and securing a total loan of $100,000, but at a very low rate of interest. That is how industry could compete with foreign production.
Besides, I think it could never be said too often-it is somewhat ridiculous to have production work exclusively on others.
On what grounds can Americans, Europeans, Asiatics or Africans, with the help of their internal policy, come and influence ours? On what grounds do we have to buy shirts from Japan, Korea or China, merely because those shirts on the Canadian market are, we are told, a little cheaper than the shirts made in Canada? On no grounds at all.
Even if Canadian shirts or shoes were a little more expensive than those made in Japan or elsewhere in the

world, what is important is that the Canadian consumer should have the purchasing power he needs to buy them.
Citizens from Quebec, British Columbia or Ontario would not mind paying shirts twice the price provided they would have in their pockets the money to buy them. It is as simple as that.
It is that sound and firm principle that should be applied. Should we concentrate all our activities on the attainment of balance between the purchasing power and the production cost there would never be any inflation or deflation; in short, there would never be any problems.
So, if our system allowed us to produce in Canada all the goods we need, whatever the price, we would only have to balance purchasing power and cost of production. Under such a formula we would reduce unemployment to its limit and we would no longer be at the mercy of other countries for our survival.
Under such a formula, I already said it and I am taking the liberty of saying it again, we would no longer be compelled to buy foreign products because they are cheaper. We cannot presume what went on in the exporting country. What assurance have we that such countries do not succeed in competing with us because of special laws of their governments? Mr. Speaker, I will say as a closing note on Bill C-132 that I understand the government's intentions and I agree with them. However, I want to point out that the question of foreign investment will not be truly solved until we stop waiting for foreign capital and start issuing the credits required to produce the goods the Canadian consumer needs.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that there are three speakers left on the list, and I suggest that to permit the minister to wind up the debate we limit speeches to 12 minutes for the succeeding speakers so that we could finish by six o'clock.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). Is there agreement that from now on speeches will be limited to 12 minutes, with enough time for the minister to wind up the debate and take the vote by six o'clock?

Do hon. members agree that speeches be limited to 12 minutes in order to allow those who wish to speak to do so before six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Otto lelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, because so many hon. members have spoken on this bill before me, I do not want to repeat the pages and pages of statistics which have been brought out in this debate. I would rather, Mr. Speaker, begin by trying to determine what the results of foreign investment in our country have been and will be on the well-being of Canadians one way
April 4, 1973

or the other. After all, this is the key area with which we should be concerned, and it seems to me that it is often overlooked by members from the other parties.
The contribution of foreign investment to economic growth can be measured by determining the extent to which foreign capital permitted an increase in the stock of Canadian capital that would not otherwise have taken place. Against these benefits to Canadian economic growth must be set the interest, dividends and business service payments of various kinds which foreign owners earn in Canada. Therefore, the value of foreign investment equals the increase of Canadian stock capital which otherwise would not have taken place, minus the interest, dividends and business service payments earned by foreigners.
However, the nature and extent of the grain from any given direct investment depends on two crucial points: first, it depends on the extent to which competition in a system diffuses the impact of new products and pro-cesses-increasing productivity or lowering prices. In brief, whether the new entrant shakes up the pattern of production or distribution, or simply adapts to the existing pattern in order to avoid disturbing the market. Second, the extent of gain depends on the extent to which Canadian governments succeed in taxing profits accruing to foreigners at an optimal rate. It also includes the special need to ensure there is not overpricing on purchases from foreign affiliates and underpricing on sales, such as to reduce the tax yield due to Canadian authorities.
For the greatest part of the last century, the principal objective of industrial policy in Canada was economic growth-growth through settlement of the west, growth through exploration and exploitation of mineral resources, growth through application and adaptation of technology to processing and growth through protection of manufacturing activities to supply the requirements of an expanding population. Today, growth is still important, particularly in the relatively short term, since in the 1970's the Canadian labour force is growing more rapidly than in any other developed country. But these days, growth in productive capacity is only one of our objectives. Our main concern is to increase Canadian participation in the development of the economy, and yet another is, obviously, to increase the quality of life for all Canadians, to create more "Canadianism" in our economy, if I may use that term.
The following problems draw attention to the fact that the allowance of foreign investment into Canada must be accomplished in terms which differ from those used in the past. The government must become more active than it has been in order to ensure Canadian participation in the Canadian economy. It must guarantee that not only future, but also present, foreign investment serves Canadian interests. Direct foreign investment provides capital for growth both through new inflows of capital and through use of retained earnings in Canada. The reinvestment of retained earnings is often viewed as the use of Canadian savings, which is correct in a sense, but the crucial question, frequently overlooked, is whether these savings would have been generated without the original foreign investment initiative.
Foreign Investment Review
We must, therefore, consult and co-operate with the provinces to assure an increase in Canadian participation in ownership of the economy, and not keep a closed door policy as the government has been doing in the past. We must have some positive measures designed to encourage Canadians to invest in the development of Canadian enterprise and our party has on numerous occasions proposed, among other things, initiative programs for both individual Canadians and Canadian small business. Mr. Speaker, I do not have time at present to elaborate on this matter.
We must establish more effective guidelines for corporate behaviour in Canada by foreign-owned companies. We must require full financial disclosure from Canadian based subsidiaries of firms owned by interests outside Canada. We must require that Canadian citizens constitute the majority on the boards of all companies operating in Canada under federal charter. We must encourage foreign-owned subsidiaries to appoint Canadians as executive officers of their companies.
We must immediately set to work with the provinces to produce a national development strategy for Canada. Part of the process of arriving at that strategy will be the identification of any additional key sectors of the economy in which foreign investment or takeovers should be limited or not permitted. These key sectors will be determined on the basis of their significance to either economic or cultural fields. Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to control in any way the continued expansion of existing foreign-owned companies in Canada so as to assist remaining all-Canadian companies to grow in a healthier economic climate. Foreign ownership in Canada has increased in the most part through the expansion of existing foreign controlled enterprises mostly with our own money-a fact that Bill C-132 has overlooked as well. And that, Mr. Speaker, leads me to the far too inadequate banking system and more specifically the antiquated Bank Act itself. I believe the banking system bears prime responsibility for not only the largest total of business failures since the depression, but for the ultimate alternative of foreign ownership.
I can think of no better example than my own business experiences during the Trudeau years to demonstrate the many flaws in the government's over-all economic policies. Unfortunately, my experience is not an isolated example but is a far too common happening in Canadian business today. I started a small manufacturing company some years ago. In the first three years we realized a substantial growth to over $1 million in sales, providing over 50 new jobs for Canadians. By the middle of 1971, business had become very active and we reached even higher sales which required us to expand our facilities. For this we needed further financing. Up to this point, it sounds like a perfectly healthy business situation. The simple fact that any Canadian, whether rich or poor, can start a small business of his own at any time, anywhere, makes me proud that I am Canadian. But over the years, especially the last decade or so, under the Liberal government, it has become more and more difficult to expand a Canadian business once started. Foreign owned companies can expand easier than we can, because of the high credit given their parent companies.

April 4, 1973
Foreign Investment Review
Mr. Speaker, let me briefly go back to my own experience, when my small all-Canadian business needed expansion capital in order to exist with the growing market trend. The crunch came when we approached Canadian chartered banks and finally the Industrial Development Bank, which theoretically was created to promote the economic welfare of Canada with particular consideration to the financing problems of small enterprises. It took us close to a year to obtain a relatively small loan from the IDB which cost us in legal fees nearly 10 per cent of the loan. Our collateral to the IDB was almost four times the value of the loan. As a matter of fact, so much collateral was needed that if I had told them my grandmother had gold fillings in her teeth they probably would have wanted those as well. On top of that, the interest rate was 111 per cent. I do not call that helpful to anyone.
Eventually, like many other Canadian manufacturing companies we lacked growth capital to create jobs, curb inflation, and generally, in a small way, help the over-all Canadian economy. The American sharks were biting at our heels. To make the story short, an American firm finally offered to buy me out. This American firm had already been offered the required capital for the takeover by the same Canadian bank that had turned us down to stay Canadian. In other words, it is the same old story of being bought out with our own money. Fortunately, in my case, due to numerous personal circumstances, we were able to stay Canadian. But there are many cases in Canada, not only in small business but large industry as well, where the Americans literally did buy us out with our own money.
For example, McGraw-Hill bought out Ryerson Press and did so with a $2 million Canadian bank loan. Michelin of France moved into Nova Scotia, financed in part by a $20 million loan from the Royal Bank. Crown Zellerback of Canada borrowed $35.2 million from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce to pay a debt to its U.S. parent. I could go on and on giving a great list of Canadian companies being bought out by Americans with our own money. If foreign firms, most of them American, get first crack at our savings, Canadian firms will therefore be denied this privilege which they deserve. There must be many revisions to the Bank Act, to encourage the development of financial institutions which are feasible and will suit Canadian needs.
We can only expect, if this dearth of funds continues, to see more reports such as this recent Dun and Bradstreet report from which I shall quote:
2,848 businesses went bust last year, the highest total since 1932, when there were 2,938 failures.
Immediate action must be taken by the government of Canada to change this drastic movement in our over-all economy or, to put it more simply, to get more Canadians involved in Canada. The government must act to revitalize the whole banking system. We need immediate action, Mr. Speaker. It is clear, once again, if we look at the present inadequate bill before us, that the Trudeau government is not the government that is able to cope with this most important of problems.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has once again demonstrated its incompetence. After years of legislation which has discouraged Canadians from investing in Canadian businesses, this government has found it necessary to yield to pressures and has introduced another negative bill, Bill C-132. This is an especially negative bill, when contrasted with the extremely positive ideas put forward in this debate by my colleagues, particularly the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill will create the foreign investment review agency, complete with commissioner and staff; and another full-grown bureaucracy will have been added to the ever-increasing amount of federal government.
The taxpayers of Canada have said that they do not want more government bureaucracies; nor do businesses, large or small, want more government forms and red tape. They all want less government, less taxation and less interference with personal freedom. They know that the Conservative party is the only party that can form a government which will provide the results they want and that Canada needs so desperately.
I should like to tell hon. members a little story that will illustrate the degree of incompetence displayed by this government and that will show that one hand of this government has no idea what the other hand is doing. At the same time that the government was drafting Bill C-132, which proposes to restrict the transfer of Canadian businesses to "non-eligible persons", this same government was embarking on a business venture in partnership with some of those very same non-eligible persons. On January 15, this year, the Vancouver Sun carried an announcement regarding the formation of a new capital ventures firm, with majority control by Canada Development Corporation. The new company, Ventures West Capital Limited, with head offices in Vancouver, has an initial capitalization of $3.5 million, of which Canada Development Corporation has taken over $2 million. Some other investors are the Bank of British Columbia, the Bank of Tokyo, Guaranty Trust Company, and several other individuals and private investment groups based in western Canada. The Bank of Tokyo, of course, would be considered a "non-eligible person" under Bill C-132, and at least one other corporate investor has non-eligible shareholders. Surely this is a strange involvement for the child of a government that professes a desire to save Canadian businesses.
You may recall that CDC was formed to prevent Canadian businesses from falling into foreign hands. As if its recent activities were not strange enough, we are told that CDC will participate in further Ventures West share offerings of $1.5 million. You may know someone who, on the apparently favourable terms offered, would also like to go into partnership with CDC. Unfortunately, Chairman A. E. Hall, who also happens to be President of the Bank of British Columbia, says that investors must be active in the world of big business and that the minimum investment is $100,000. Also, the new company considers itself to be a private company, so the books are closed to public scrutiny, even though some $2.5 million of taxpayers' money is invested.
April 4, 1973

I would emphasize that I do not question the motives of the non-government investors; nor do I suggest any wrongdoing on their part. Every westerner knows that western businesses have often been at the mercy of the big eastern financial interest. We westerners welcome new pools of capital, to give the eastern trusts and banking fraternity some competition.
The stated objectives of Ventures West are to take equity positions in western Canada and the north and to encourage Canadian and foreign investors to participate in joint ventures. But, I question the propriety of the government's entering into such a venture, especially at the very time it had Bill C-132 on the drawing board. The new ventures capital company will concentrate on investing in natural resource companies and companies that have good management and good growth prospects. These are admirable aims and the private investors are to be commended for their initiatives. But the government should be condemned for entering into a business which will use the taxpayers' money to undermine competitive sources of venture capital, underwriting facilities, etc. The targets of Ventures West are the companies that can survive and prosper in the existing conditions without government interference. And I protest on behalf of all taxpayers this further act of "big brotherism", by which the government takes away the fruits of our labour so that it can invest our money as it pleases, even when its investments conflict with its own policies.
As I said in this House only a few days ago, the government cannot create, cannot built of itself, but can seize only what others have created, to do what it want to do. So, Mr. Speaker, here we have the spectacle of the government proposing a bill to restrict foreign investment in Canada, when it has just embarked on a business venture with foreigners and placed itself in the position of having to answer the following questions: First, was proper value received for the investment of taxpayers' money? Second, did all investors pay the same price for their shares? Third, why can't the ordinary investor benefit from the apparently attractive terms offered, and why does the government favour only the wealthy, who can afford to put $100,000 into a single investment? Fourth, why has the government invested taxpayers' money in a private company which is not subject to public scrutiny? Fifth, why has the government seen fit to use taxpayers' money to undermine competitive brokers, investors and underwriters? Sixth, why has the government allowed CDC to vary from its charted course and use Canadian tax dollars to invest in the very companies that do not need government intervention? And perhaps the paramount question is, why is the government interfering with people's personal freedom to work, save, and invest as they see fit-as the people see fit?
I say again that it is folly for us to think that government can solve our problems for us, when the only resources at government disposal are our resources. Bill C-132 and the contradictory activities of CDC are examples of the government's taking the people's money and spending it as politicians and bureaucrats see fit. These are steps in the wrong direction, steps away from a truly free and prosperous society.
Foreign Investment Review
This government says that it is concerned about the high proportion of foreign ownership in Canadian industry yet this government brought in a capital gains tax! I cannot think of a single instance in Canadian history in which the government's actions were more inconsistent with its words. Even the actions of CDC, which I have been talking about, pale in comparison. Either the government is terribly ignorant of economics or the government is terribly dishonest. If it thinks that it can increase the proportion of Canadian ownership of Canadian industry by levying a capital gains tax, which penalizes Canadians for risking their savings in Canadian equities, then it is terribly ignorant of economics.
The alternative is that the government is aware that the capital gains tax seriously impairs Canadian investment, but that the government's tax policy is made by socialist theoreticians, who levy taxes in accordance with socialist ideology, not as a practical means of raising revenue. Of all the taxes presently levied on Canadians, none is more injurious than the capital gains tax. It discourages Canadians from investing. By forcing investors to make investments on the basis of tax considerations rather than considerations of efficiency, it wastefully distorts what Canadian investment there is. It reduces the amount and efficiency of capital goods with which Canadian labourers work, thereby reducing the productivity of labour and labourers' real wages. It imposes a nightmare of complexity on Canadian taxpayers. Surely the value of the time wasted by Canadian taxpayers and their lawyers and accountants, as well as by the bureaucrats in the income tax department, will exceed the revenue brought in by this tax.
If this government were really serious about increasing employment in Canada and encouraging Canadian ownership it would get rid of its socialist theoriticians and their capital gains tax. Then it would ask practical men to help find practical, not ideological, solutions to Canadian economic problems-problems which are substantially the creation of this government. But, Mr. Speaker, we understand this government well enough to know that Canadians cannot realistically expect such genuine reform from the present administration. That is why the present administration has got to go, to make way for a Conservative government to straighten out the mess that the present government has created.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on the investment review bill. I have listened to some very fine speeches in the House on this subject. I have listened to the economic surveys which have been presented to us by many hon. members, and the more I listen the more I become confused.
With respect to the foreign review board which is to be set up, I wonder, in particular, what it will cost the Canadian taxpayer and how effective its actions will be. I am prompted to ask this question because of what other boards set up in this country have done, or left undone. I think, particularly, of the anti-dumping board intended to protect Canadian industry and the jobs of labour. This tribunal is, as I understand it, processing cases at the rate of five or six a year. I have looked up the cost of this

April 4, 1973
Foreign Investment Review
tribunal to the Canadian people and I find it is in the neighbourhood of $300,000 a year with a top salary to its chairman of about $34,000. What have they done? This is a question we should ask ourselves. What is the board contemplated in this measure likely to do?
In my area there is a Canadian-owned industry processing hides. It was not protected. They have not been able to buy their hides in Canada. They have to import them from Mexico. Then they must compete with foreign labour whose wages are half those paid to workers on similar jobs in Canada. I should like to place on record an excerpt from the statement of the president of that company to show how ineffective are the tribunals and boards which have been set up. The statement is contained in a report delivered to the annual meeting held at the Skyline Hotel in Toronto. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has a copy of this report. Mr. Albert Cook, the president, stated:
The tanning industry has been in existence in Canada for 323 years, since the building of the first tannery in Levis, Quebec. I doubt that the industry has ever in its long history been in as precarious a position as that in which it finds itself today. Unless help is forthcoming soon, the Canadian tanning industry as we know it is on its way out. With it will go the jobs of some 2,500 men and women working directly in the industry and, more important still, the jobs of 25,000 workers in related industries would be affected.
This is a Canadian industry, Mr. Speaker. What are we doing to protect it? Mr. Cook continued:
I speak not only as president of this association but as a Canadian when I say this situation is a matter of national concern. Our industry is unique in Canada. Our member firms are 100 per cent owned and operated by Canadians. We are well-equipped, technically competent and well-managed. In this era of multi-national corporations and the dominating presence of foreign investments in almost every facet of this country's economic activity, a genuine all-Canadian industry is a rarity. But, like the whooping crane, we are an endangered species, threatened with extinction.
I go on, now, to read another excerpt from the report:
In 1960, only 5 per cent of the pairs of shoes sold at retail in Canada were produced outside Canadian factories. Almost half of all shoes sold at retail in 1972 were imported.
We might well ask ourselves at this point what is the use of setting up boards costing the taxpayers millions of dollars when they are not even protecting the industry which is presently established here. I think it is most important we should protect established Canadian industry, and for this reason I am putting parts of Mr. Cook's statement on the record. He continues:
The intrusion of both shoes and leather from other countries into the Canadian market is perplexing, to say the least. The shoes and the leather come mainly from the so-called developing countries where substantial government subsidies to exporters and comparatively low wage structures combined with the very latest in production equipment, often provided at government expense, make it impossible for Canadian-made products to compete in the Canadian domestic market.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that some of this equipment is provided by the Canadian government itself. The report goes on:
Another factor working against our industry in the past year has been the spiralling price of hides generated by a world shortage ... Not only does our industry find itself threatened by imports, but our markets abroad have declined drastically largely due to the devaluations of the pound sterling and the U.S. dollar.

Britain and the United States have been the industry's chief customers. The possibility of replacing these two main markets is non-existent. Other countries are developing their own tanning industries and with them are coming trade restrictions. To quote directly from the report:
Some 65 per cent of domestic leather sales goes into the manufacture of footware and unless other markets for leather can be developed we have to reply for survival on a continuing domestic market for shoe leathers ... It is apparent that the Canadian tanning industry has become almost totally dependent on the Canadian footwear industry for its existence.
A recent study commissioned by the federal Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce shows the folly of this position. The study forecasts that by 1975, only two years away, if the current situation remains unchanged and the trends of the past ten years are allowed to persist, imports of footwear would total 41 million pairs and would result in reduced consumption of Canadian-made footwear to 18 million pairs. I suggest to you that this is a very conservative forecast.
Perhaps it is not quite so conservative, because it was the government which undertook this study, I believe.
It would mean that domestic sales of shoe leather would be reduced by at least 50 per cent.
Clearly, before 1975, unless something is done to rectify this situation, the Canadian tanning and shoe manufacturing industries will be on the ropes, and also the jobs of those Canadians who are employed in these industries.
I think this is most important because, after all, we are dealing here with a Canadian industry.
What is to be done? We have placed all these facts before the federal government. We have placed them before the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the previous administration, as well as officials of his department. We have privately restated our case for the benefit of the new minister.
I note he is in the House and listening to this. Last May a submission was made to the anti-dumping tribunal but since then we have heard nothing. The anti-dumping tribunal is not a regulatory body but merely makes a recommendation, if so inclined, to the federal government. I do not know whether the federal government have heard anything. If not, I think they should have communicated with this tribunal.
This gentleman winds up by saying:
-I predict the Canadian tanning industry, born in 1651, will before 1975 be preparing its obituary.
I put that on the record, Mr. Speaker, because here is a Canadian industry that is disappearing from the Canadian scene. I should like to know how the minister proposes to deal with this situation, and what he proposes to do about it when the investment review board is set up. I have seen so much political window dressing during my time in parliament, Mr. Speaker, that no wonder I am sceptical. To put the matter in focus, I have put on the record some excerpts from the report of the Tanners Association of Canada.
I suggest that we will have to develop new Canadian industries. I feel that what we have to do is to put much more money into research. I am sure the minister realizes as well as I that it was the United Kingdom that developed the United States and its industrial complex. The United Kingdom also developed Canada. In about the year 1926, if my memory serves me correctly, investments from the
April 4, 1973

United States and the United Kingdom were roughly equal. Then, the flow of investment capital from the United States into Canada became greater and greater while that from the United Kingdom fell off. It is also interesting to note that United Kingdom investment was mostly portfolio investment, including railways, canals and other investments of that type, whereas U.S. investment went into industry in Canada. Had it not been for this situation, the people of Canada today would probably be accepting half the standard of living they presently enjoy. There would have been a Chinese wall along this 5,000 mile boarder that separates us from the U.S.
If with all our great natural resources which the United States craves for-and we have the resources that the U.S. is growing short of-we cannot do the necessary research in this country to develop the particular products that are peculiar to our resources and which other countries have been unable to develop, then I suggest there is something wrong with us. The minister knows as well as I do that if you spend the required amount of money on research and you have the right men, you will be able to market products you can sell to the world.
This is what I conceive we should be doing. We should be spending much more money and using our educated young people, many of whom today are walking the streets hunting for jobs as research workers. If they are insufficiently trained, then we should send them back to school and make researchers out of them. To date we have depended on the United States to do the research for us. U.S. subsidiaries operating in Canada largely depend on their parent companies in the United States for research.
I was talking to a manufacturer the other day in my constituency who told me: "Ten years ago when we needed some money, a time when we employed less than 100 people in our factory, do you know where we had to get it? We had to go south of the border to our parent firm. We got the money and today we are employing 600 people". I can see no reason why we should not talk to the United States, tell them that we have the resources, that they have the know how and the industrial base, so let us work this out to the benefit of both of us. We are neighbours by geography, and historically we are blood related. You have the French descendants in the New England states, whereas in other parts you have Anglo-Saxon descendants. Why do we not sit around a table and work out what is in the best interests both of Canada and the United States? I think this could be done, and must be done.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be rising at this time to conclude the debate on second reading. It has been a debate which I think all members have sensed to be a rather dramatic occurrence. I listened to the various speeches for their thoughtfulness and for their imagination as well. I think we all sensed there was an emergency with regard to foreign investment, and I think there is a general disposition on the part of the House to regard this measure as timely.
I was particularly struck by the amount of common ground that exists between the various parties. This is as it should be, since this is a question of national concern. For instance, there is general agreement that a problem
Foreign Investment Review
does exist and that something should be done about it. There is even a large measure of agreement on the general policy approaches which should be taken. Various speakers have alluded to the economic policies that Canada should have-policies with respect to the pursuit of full employment; policies with respect to encouraging Canadian savings and entrepreneurship. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) referred to these matters, and so have others on both sides of the House.
The hon. member went on to emphasize, as did the previous speaker from Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), the importance of research and development which is undertaken in Canada. He referred to the need for flexibility in our financial institutions and to efforts to increase our exports. Without wanting to sound immodest, I think hon. members could have found all those particular policy thrusts in my own statement on second reading when I introduced this bill.
Perhaps it might be worth mentioning that the economic background to the development of Canada and to foreign investment policy has to be seen, from our vantage point, as one of the key elements in a coherent set of industrial policies for Canada. Some would use the phrase, "the industrial strategy" which covers the broad band of policies.
Let me refer to one or two of the items which were alluded to. For example, entrepreneurship. The government has adopted a two-fold approach in this area, one relating to financing and the other to the development of managerial and entrepreneurial capability. On the financing side, the government has introduced programs such as the general adjustment assistance program, GAAP, and the defence industry productivity program, DIP. Then, we have the operations of the Industrial Development Bank which are under review by the government. Special additional measures are also contemplated in relation to the financing of small business. On the management side, the government is thinking of expanding, indeed, doing more than that, is planning its counselling assistance to the small enterprises program, CASE, which was introduced a year ago in Montreal and subsequently in Winnipeg. I would hope that during this fiscal year it will be introduced in a number of centres across the country.
I would refer as well to the question of support for research and development to which the hon. member for Simcoe North referred. We do have a substantial government assistance program for the advancement of industrial technology, PAIT, the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, IRDIA, shared on a 50-50 basis, as well as the Industrial Design Assistance Program. The Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act allows for outright grants in respect of new industry or innovative research.
As the Minister of State for Science and Technology I announced a year ago the government's new policy on contracting out research and development projects previously undertaken by the private sector. In other words, we are giving the private sector an opportunity of learning from research efforts by the government. In this way we are assisting in the development, if you like, of a distinct

April 4, 1973
Foreign Investment Review
Canadian competence, and in this sense I refer to the Export Development Corporation bill which is presently before this House. Indeed, it was referred to the standing committee which has had its first meeting. That represents a major program for the expansion of exports.
While there is some common ground, as I have indicated, there are also some major differences. This is a debate on foreign investment in Canada. I was struck by the fact that the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) managed to avoid any reference in his policy proposals to measures directed specifically at foreign investment. Is his a foreign investment policy without measures to deal with foreign investment? There was not even the usual reference found in Conservative statements to a need for additional key sectors.
As I pointed out in introducing this bill for second reading, it is important to have measures to support the development of strong Canadian owned and controlled companies. That is the first pillar of Liberal policy. It is also important that the government has the means to ensure that needed foreign investment brings maximum benefits to Canada. The Conservatives appear to have no answer on that point. Bill C-132 does. I must also confess to some surprise and disagreement with the Conservative espousal of the buy back of Canadian industries. We must increase our trade surplus, said the hon. member for Trinity, in order to generate the capital to repatriate Canadian industry. However, as I pointed out in my earlier remarks, there are grave problems to this approach.
Let us leave aside for the moment the massive amounts of capital involved. What are we to do about the other problems? Why buy back the past instead of building for the future?
There is common ground between myself and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: There is, for example, some substance to his comment that Conservative answers all involve some form of tax concession, or some other form of incentive directed toward the public purse. Positive incentives have a role to play and, as I have indicated, the government has used them where necessary, but to rely solely on these incentives is to admit the bankruptcy of that policy.
The NDP has given notice that it will seek to strengthen the bill in committee in three respects: Increasing the coverage of the screening agency; amending the presumption of non-eligibility back to the 5 per cent and 20 per cent as in the old takeover review bill, and have the entire bill proclaimed at the same time. According to the hon. member for York South, screening powers should be extended to cover imports of parts and components, exports of raw materials, export agreements between affiliates of multinational enterprises, and the expansion of existing foreign controlled corporations in Canada into areas related to present lines of business.
Let me say that there may be some misunderstanding about the proposal now before this House. As I and my
predecessor have made clear on a number of occasions, in looking at whether a proposed investment will result in significant benefits to Canada, the government will look at procurement policy, export policy and further processing to ensure that to the maximum possible extent economic activity which can rationally be carried out here in fact takes place here. These considerations go to the heart of the screening process.
This is not to say that the screening process will examine every purchase contract, every export contract and every sale of Canadian resources. Just to state this possibility is an indication of how impossible it is. Billions of dollars of exports and imports between affiliate companies across our borders every year are being carried out under thousands of contracts. It is inconceivable to me that the government could contemplate setting up a bureaucracy to screen every such transaction. Business and the economy would grind to a halt in that event.
Mr. Speaker, in the one minute left to me I would just like to refer to one criticism that has been raised, that there is no screening of the expansion of existing foreign-controlled firms already in business into related areas of activity. As the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) pointed out, there are some horrendous administrative problems in this regard. Perhaps this explains why other countries have shyed away from this type of action.
I have indicated on a number of occasions that the proclamation of this part of the bill, and this is another criticism which has been suggested, should take place within a year of passage of the takeover provisions. It seems to me entirely sensible to proceed in this orderly step-by-step manner when introducing this policy which will affect all sectors of the economy. As Aristotle said "Well begun is half done".


Gerald William Baldwin: Are you sure it was Aristotle?


Alastair William Gillespie: There will be an opportunity when the bill is before the standing committee to deal with a number of other aspects. The one point I would like to make to hon. members this afternoon is that this is not a policy of negative nationalism, this is rather a policy in support of the Canadian attitude and in support of Canadians running, managing and developing their own economy. I look forward to the discussions in the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In accordance with the order accepted previously today, it is my duty to put the question at this time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday. April 5. 1973