1973-11-09

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I think will be of interest to all members of the House. I am sure that after I have related the facts Your Honour will find in my favour.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) made a statement on November 7 dealing with the Unemployment Insurance Act and it was duly reported in the Globe and Mail on Thursday, November 8. One never likes to question the Globe and Mail, but apparently statements which should have been attributed to me have been attributed to the minister.
I suggest that the statements are of some significance and I would not want to embarrass the minister. In the article, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is reported to have said:
I should like to say that one of the most disastrous things we have done in this House is to remove the $800-million statutory ceiling because this means that the members of the opposition and the people of Canada can never tell in what state the Unemployment Insurance Fund is at any particular time unless the minister stands up and makes a statement.
But that is not all. I questioned the disincentive aspects of the bill. In that regard the statement is reported to have been made by the minister:
This is a question which has been asked by employers across this country who advise that the disincentive aspects of the bill, in fact, are eroding the free enterprise system.
There is a further statement of some consequence that I think would be embarrassing to the minister. I indicated that because of government mismanagement the minister 0 had found it necessary to increase the employee contribution to $1.40. The following statement is also attributed to the minister:
This is an unwarranted tax because of government mismanagement.
Finally, there is this last and most important statement. I reviewed the entire matter and, keeping in mind the lack of significant projections as to the cost of the scheme and the amount of the benefits, I concluded with this statement which is also attributed to the minister:
In every instance the government is wrong and that is why I say this bill which, in the first instance the members of this House thought would be a good bill, is a fraud of some significant proportions upon the House of Commons and the people of Canada.
I think this is a matter of some significance. I know I speak on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration when I say that this is certainly a question of privilege. Through Your Honour's good offices, perhaps the Globe and Mail could be instructed to make another run at the matter in order to show the true facts. I am sure the minister may have some misgivings about the work of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, but I do not think he has the gall or the nerve to stand up and make the statements I did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister will, of course, be recognized, even though I am not sure whether the hon. member's question of privilege is raised with tongue in cheek. Whether it is or not, I remind hon. members there is a requirement that notice ought to be given to the Chair. It seems to me hon. members have a tendency to disregard the provisions of the Standing Order which insist that notice ought to be given in advance of questions of privilege or of motions under Standing Order 26. I would hope all hon. members will keep that in mind. It is helpful to the Chair. Having said that, I appreciate the way the matter was brought before the House by the hon. member and I have no hesitation in allowing the minister to comment.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it will be no surprise when I say that this is one of the rare occasions I would join with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), but for slightly different reasons. I totally disassociate myself and my name from those remarks of the member. Although we do not often agree, I find myself very much in parallel with the hon. member's thinking, but for slightly different reasons.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind hon. members that the day after tomorrow is Remembrance Day. It will mark the fifty-fifth anniversary of the ceasefire in the first world war.
It is the day our country officially observes as the day of remembrance for those Canadian men and women who gave their lives in the defence of freedom. In two world wars and the Korean campaign nearly 115,000 Canadians
7692

November 9, 1973
Remembrance Day
made the supreme sacrifice. This Sunday, at 11 a.m., that sacrifice will be remembered not only in Ottawa but all across Canada and in many other parts of the world. Our allies also keep November 11a sacred day to pay tribute to those who laid down their lives so that we and our children can live a serene and rewarding life.
There are many vacant chairs in Canadian homes today which belonged to fathers, husbands and sons who never came home from the wars. There are also many chairs which are filled by those who bear physical evidence of the scars and wounds of battle. These, also, we remember. Not just on November 11, but all through the year. The memorials we have erected to the fallen, both at home and abroad, pay dignified and worthy tribute to those whose names they commemorate. We are proud of them just as we are proud of the ways in which the people of this country have always acknowledged the debt which is owed to those who survived.
I feel that Canada, in her remembrance of both the living and the dead, has respected and honoured those who served in as fine a way as any country in the world. I feel we have caught the torch which was thrown to us in the immortal words of John McCrae. Let us for ever hold it high.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I am happy to endorse the statement just made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As a matter of fact, as Your Honour will recall, I spoke to you this morning to indicate that I intended to rise to make a motion on this subject. I therefore heartily endorse the minister's statement.
I hope the ceremonies on the fifty-fifth anniversary of the ending of the first world war will remind the government that there are still some inequities in the veterans legislation. I know that the 52 members of the House of Commons who are war veterans realize this and will dedicate themselves to fulfilling the obligations that successive prime ministers have undertaken to the veterans of Canada.
I might take this opportunity to call the attention of the House to the fact that we still have among us a member of the House of Commons who is also a veteran of the first world war in the person of the distinguished right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate the New Democratic Party with the remarks made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs concerning Remembrance Day. Those who will march in the parades to be held across Canada on November 11 will be remembering intimately their comrades who died in the service of their country, those who suffered in that service, all those who took part in wars which they and the country believed were necessary for the survival of our democratic system and our nation.
There are many young people today who will watch these parades with some interest and little knowledge. I hope that Remembrance Day will direct the attention of

those Canadians who have no knowledge of the wars to the efforts that Canada can well make by playing an independent role in the world and trying to fulfil the obligations that those who fought and died for Canada in two great wars were trying to accomplish. We can do this effectively and efficiently by remaining independent and maintaining a peacekeeping role throughout the world, thus eliminating the suffering, loss and grief caused those who gave so much in two world wars and in Korea.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, like our colleagues in this House, we are very happy to join the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) and all the people of Canada in paying tribute next Monday to those who died for their country.
If Canada still enjoys the total freedom that many other countries do not have, perhaps we owe it to those who are no longer among us or who gave their health and their limbs in the two previous world wars.
In the name of my colleagues and the Canadian population, I should like to thank those who gave us yesterday the freedom which we enjoy today.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on November 1 I informed the House that it was my intention to meet with the Secretary General of the United Nations in New York the following day to discuss with him the composition of the emergency force for service in the Middle East. My discussions with the Secretary General were useful and served to clarify some of the outstanding issues.
The same evening agreement was reached in the Security Council authorizing the Secretary General to consult with potential contributors, including Canada and Poland who were to provide contingents which would have particular responsibility for the provision of logistic support. On November 5 following my return from the United Nations I tabled in the House the text of the Security Council agreement along with the texts of notes exchanged between the Secretary General and our ambassador to the United Nations.	f
Our ambassador has since been holding discussions with the Secretary General, at Mr. Waldheim's request, concerning the organization and composition of the logistics element of the United Nations Emergency Force. Polish representatives have also participated in these more detailed discussions. Meanwhile, evaluation teams were dispatched to Cairo to assess the requirement on the ground.
In the light of the discussions to date, I wish to inform the House that agreement has been reached on the first phase of the deployment of the Canadian contingent. A signals unit which will provide communications for the United Nations Emergency Force will begin its departure
November 9, 1973

from Canada within the next few days. We understand the Poles will be dispatching an engineer unit as the first element in their contribution. In the meantime, the Secretary General is awaiting the final reports of the evaluation teams and continuing his discussions with Canadian and Polish representatives to determine the next stages of the logistics deployment. These discussions have, of course, even greater urgency than heretofore in light of the news that progress has been made in securing a truce and in initiating negotiations which we all hope will lead to a permanent settlement.
As Canada will shortly be dispatching a signals unit to the Middle East, I propose to bring forward in the House on Tuesday, November 13, the resolution seeking the approval of parliament for the government's decision to participate in the UNEF.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the minister indicates that the government is preparing to go ahead with a contingent for the peace force in the Middle East. We say bon voyage and best wishes to the signals upit about to leave Canada within the next few days.
The encouraging developments this week in the Middle East make it difficult for any responsible observer to suggest any posture on our part that could in any way add an extra dimension of difficulty to the situation. However, there remain some fundamental questions as to why our government pursued participation so vehemently and why the minister felt it necessary to ensure that Canada was part of the peace force. Surely our nation's foreign policies are not so fragile as to require the biannual injections of peace force participation in order to stay healthy.
My colleagues and I will have more specific matters to raise with reference not only to our participation in the Middle East peacekeeping force but on the entire question of peace force use and our role within peace forces when the resolution is brought forward for debate on Tuesday. That Canada should respond to international requests for assistance is beyond question; that Canada should insist on participating in every international peace force is truly open to question.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I hope that next Tuesday's debate will be a real one and not only a series of monologues like in the past.
If the minister really wants the agreement of this House, I hope he will give us all the necessary data and inform us of the position of the government and of its policy as regards a peacekeeping force. This is the only way that we shall have a useful debate; otherwise, it would be only a useless exercise.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear in the past that decisions such as the decision to participate in peacekeeping operations are of such importance that they should be referred to parliament for approval. We therefore welcome the proposed debate on the resolution next Tuesday.
Veterans Land Act
At a time when the Congress of the United States is seeking to assert control of the legislative branch over major international decisions, we in Canada should make it crystal clear that although the initial decision and the negotiation of details rest with the government, the ultimate decision on major issues of foreign policy must be retained by parliament representing the people as a whole. This is essential to the working of parliamentary democracy.
We will leave comment on the decision to participate in the peacekeeping force in support of logistics services and the details of that contribution to the debate when our position can be more fully explained. Suffice it to say that in our view the more hopeful developments in the last few hours in the Middle East would have been impossible without the existence of the United Nations and the willingness of nations to make a contribution to peacekeeping forces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, naturally we approve any attempt to restore peace wherever need be. However, we are especially pleased to see that the government will permit the House to debate this matter so that its policy may really reflect the opinion of the whole Canadian population relating to the part that our country must play in the race, if such an expression may be used, towards peace in the world and in the Middle East in particular.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Sunday being Armistice Day, I hope the House will agree to a motion which I should like to present under the terms of Standing Order 43.1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House requests that the Minister of Veterans Affairs give urgent consideration to the amending of the Veterans Land Act regulations to permit veterans to acquire small holdings, even if the main purpose of most of the older veterans now applying for loans under the Veterans Land Act is to meet their housing requirements, it being the view of this House that entitlement to a piece of this land ought to be the right of any veteran.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 9, 1973
Labour Conditions


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there is unanimous consent. Therefore I will put the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to present a motion under Standing Order 43. As the Manitoba government has stated this week that it wants no part of the Deer Lodge Military Hospital transfer due to internal problems and a poor federal government financial settlement, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Frank):
That the many representations made by veterans protesting handover of veterans hospitals to provincial and/or municipal authorities be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for investigation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

[ Translation]



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a most urgent and pressing matter.
Seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), I move:
That a special committee of the House be set up to study the serious problem of the many layoffs at Lauzon because of a steel supply shortage and to make necessary recommendations in order to correct the situation and mostly to prevent it from growing worse.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.

[ English]



INDUSTRY


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that many weekly newspapers in eastern Ontario, some over 100 years old, are being threatened with extinction because of the fact that the pulp and paper industry, and the distributors and suppliers of newsprint, are refusing to supply this basic necessity to the papers concerned, thus creating a situation in which one of the fundamental natural laws of the land, enshrined in the Canadian Bill of Rights, Part I, section 1(f), being "freedom of the press," is put in jeopardy in that there will be no press, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the government not grant any export licences to producers of newsprint, nor allow the selling of Canadian-made newsprint to foreign markets, until supplies of newsprint are guaranteed to all Canadian newspapers, weekly or otherwise, and any other Canadian customers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



MANPOWER


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in light of what appear to be scandalous inequities in the constituency allocation of funds for local initiatives projects, I ask leave of the House, under Standing Order 43, to move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose):
That the subject of the funds allocated to constituencies for local initiatives projects and the criteria employed in making such allocations be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for study and report not later than December 2, 1973.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.
November 9, 1973



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 regarding a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the plight of some war veterans. I ask unanimous consent to move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling):
That the many representations made by veterans showing grievance against the delays in adjudication of pension applications be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for investigation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



PAY OF NURSES IN VETERANS HOSPITALS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Ellwood Madill (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask unanimous consent to move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That the many representations made by federal nurses employed in veterans hospitals protesting the arbitral award of the government with regard to pay matters be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent under Standing Order 43 to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), in spite of an undertaking to this House two weeks ago, has so far been unable to give any statement to the House assuring the House and the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick of the continued operation of the Bay of Fundy ferry service I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That this House instruct the government to enter into an arrangement with CPR to assure the continued operation of that service, made on a twice daily sailing for another six months, and
Newsprint Supplies
initiate a study by the proper authorities to determine most appropriate means for assuring continued permanent service.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion. In view of the lengthy delays of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in disposing of the appeals of the CPR shopcraft workers at Moose Jaw and CNR dockworkers at North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and the hardships suffered by these people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir):
That the question of the rights of the shopcraft and dockworkers to receive unemployment insurance benefits be referred to the Standing Committee on Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   INDUSTRY LACK OF NEWSPRINT SUPPLIES FOR WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS

Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 26 I ask leave to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the withholding by Canadian manufacturers and distributors of newsprint, the diverting of newsprint to foreign markets, and the failure to guarantee the supply of newsprint by the papermaking and paper distributing companies in Canada to the weekly newspapers of eastern Ontario, thereby constituting a danger to the freedom of the press in that there will be no press in this vital area.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member knows, he has given the Chair short notice under the terms of Standing Order

November 9, 1973
Oral Questions
26(2) which stipulates that a member is required to give at least two hours notice by written statement prior to the opening of a sitting of the matter proposed to be discussed and, further, that if the urgent matter is not then known, the member shall give his written statement to Mr. Speaker as soon as practicable but before the opening of the sitting.
The hon. member did give me notice before the opening of the sitting and I am prepared to look at the matter when I have a moment to do so.
I think the hon. member knows the difficulty of the Chair in relation to the granting of leave to put a motion under Standing Order 26. Many aspects of the matter have to be taken into account according to the provisions of the Standing Order. The matter will be looked into within the next hour or so and a decision will be given from the Chair later, either at one o'clock or at two o'clock.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact the minister personally gave an undertaking on September 12 to the Native Council of Canada that he and his officials would consult with them fully, and on a continuing basis, in the development of a housing policy for Metis and non-status Indians, can the minister explain how he intends this policy of consultation to succeed when a senior official of CMHC, Walter Rudnicki, is summarily dismissed from his position because he did exactly what the minister promised, that is, honoured the minister's commitment to allow the native people of Canada a meaningful-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will agree with the Chair, I am sure, that a question asked in those terms is really argument, but the minister would perhaps want to reply to that part of the hon. member's question which is not argument and the hon. member could then ask a supplementary or supplementaries.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, many of the premises of the question are not correct. In reply to the principal part of the question about consultation with the Native Council, Metis groups and non-status Indian groups, there have been many consultations, and there will continue to be consultation, on the development of policies and the implementation of programs. I have, for example, an appointment this afternoon with one of those groups for the purpose of discussing housing policy in light of the problem of the native people.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister since the Minister of State has not explained the dismissal of Mr. Rudnicki. In view of the fact the Prime Minister wrote to the Native Council of Canada on February 4, 1973, assuring them that the government and its agencies would listen to the advice of the Native Council on policies and programs intended for them and "further to consult with the native people for whom the programs are designed and indeed to involve them in the implementation of these programs," can the Prime Minister say how this involvement in consultation is to take place when an official, who in good faith proceeded to involve the native people, is dismissed?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the principle of consultation is as I wrote to the Native Council, and as repeated by the minister a moment ago. On the matter of the dismissal, I think the hon. member had better direct her questions to the minister responsible for that general area.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a final supplementary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. What steps has the minister undertaken to ensure that the new housing policy for Metis and non-status Indians will not be endangered by recent events in his department?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am working with the Native Council, to use the existing new terms of the Housing Act most effectively and am considering and have asked my policy advisers to consider amendments and changes that can make housing policy more responsive to the particular needs of the native people, which are really twofold. First, incomes are extremely low and, second, housing is located in rural and hinterland areas. I hope to be able to produce policies for their consideration very soon.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister consulted with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs about the firing of Mr. Rudnicki? If so, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the basis for his dismissal was a breach of cabinet secrecy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot recollect that we discussed this matter. I repeat, the question should be addressed directly to the minister rather than skirting around it as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has done.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Can the minister inform the House why Mr. Rudnicki was fired from his job?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that matters relating to personnel, including appointments, discipline and dismissals, are not the responsibility of the minister but are the responsibility, clearly, of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 9, 1973


Stanley Ronald Basford: Clearly, the responsibility and control rest with the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It was, accordingly, the president who investigated the events that preceded Mr. Rudnicki's dismissal and who came to the conclusion that all the circumstances did in fact require the action that he took in the discharge of his responsibility for the administration of the corporation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let's have an investigation.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The person involved has approached me and I asked the president to review the circumstances, which he has done. The president confirms his decision.
I am reluctant to go into details on matters of individual personnel, for two reasons. First, the person involved, as I understand it, is considering, as is his obvious right, legal action. He is also considering employment elsewhere, which I understand informally he has obtained. I do not want to say anything that would prejudice the rights of the parties to any lawsuit or the right of Mr. Rudnicki to further employment.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I have a supplementary question Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's expression of sympathy for meeting the needs of the native people in the field of housing, why will he permit the president of Central Mortgage and Housing, who has never demonstrated anything except an ability to make money, to fire the one person in Central Mortgage and Housing who had the confidence of the native people?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, neither premise of the question is correct.


Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister say that he will talk to his ministers about inconsistencies in their dealings with their staff, whereby Mr. Rudnicki is fired because of close relationships with the people he is dealing with and Mr. Austin is less detrimentally affected although he has close relationships with the people with whom he deals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, I think it should be clear to the House and anyone who is not grossly prejudiced in this matter that the firing was not based on the fact that Mr. Rudnicki knew the Indian people and had good relations with them. He was fired after a series of events which are perfectly well known.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What is the real reason? The Prime Minister knows. This is a cover-up.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Does the dismissal of Mr. Rudnicki imply that the government does not accept the policy formulations of the planning unit of CMHC?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the government has not had the opportunity of considering those policy proposals, so I am unable to answer.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are three or four members seeking supplementaries on this important matter. I will recognize the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and attempt to complete the first round of questioning, after which we will return to this matter and hear all the supplementaries that hon. members may want to ask.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, may I direct another supplementary to the same minister. Will future policy formulations of the planning unit of CMHC be discussed in Cabinet without an opportunity for other discussion?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the policy proposals will be put to my colleagues by me and will be considered by them.


MANPOWER
Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of apparent inequities in the allocation of LIP funds to constituencies, would he be prepared to ask the House for a reference to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration of the matter of the allocation by constituency of funds for LIP projects and the criteria which have been employed in making those allocations, and would he agree to appear before the committee and provide that committee with a list of the allocations made?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the representation. I note also that the question of allocations and the criteria is on the order paper, and I will be addressing myself to that. The supplementary estimates of the department will shortly be before a committee, and I certainly anticipate that this question will be dealt with. I will welcome the opportunity to put it on the table before the committee at that time.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Can the minister assure us if he makes an appearance before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee during consideration of the supplementary estimates of his department, that the figures, constituency by constituency, of the amounts of money and the criteria will be made available to the members of the committee and that his officials will be there to defend their position?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that would be my intention. I point out that the expenditures under last year's Local Initiatives Program were made available in response to a question on the order paper, and that is what I would intend.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-STATISTICS USED TO ESTABLISH GRANT CRITERIA
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Minister of Manpower and

November 9, 1973
Oral Questions
Immigration. Since he admitted to the House yesterday that labour force survey figures were an inadequate basis for LIP grants and allocations and told us that, instead, they were based on an accumulation of data at Canada Manpower Centres, and since I have discovered that job applications at these centres bear little or no direct relationship to the various riding allocations and their sizes, would he tell us, when you rule out these two crucial yardsticks, what kind of base figures and statistics were used?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not rule out those yardsticks. In fact, I believe that their elaboration is probably much better done in the way the hon. member who asked the preceding question proposed, namely, before the committee. I will be glad to give details there on how the formula is applied.


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult for us to do what the minister suggests because we still have neither the figures nor the formula from last year.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-POSSIBLE PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO REMOVE ALLEGED INEQUITIES IN SOME CONSTITUENCIES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister confirm whether extra funds have been set aside from the public treasury to iron out the inequities in a number of constituencies?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the question about inequities. As to the main substance of the question, no such decision has been taken. If and when it is taken, it will be announced in the normal manner.


COMMUNICATIONS
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
Can he say whether, since November 1, the Quebec government has formally asked for a meeting with him to consider the problem of cable television and does the minister intend to revise the federal government position on this?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question following other ones which had been put to me on the same subject. Everything hangs now on the position that the provincial ministers and the federal Department of Com-

munications will take at the conference to be held on November 29 and 30 next.

[ English]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question arising out of the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. First, how many men are going to be sent from Canada for the peacekeeping force? Second, inasmuch as the No. 1 combat paratroop unit stationed in Edmonton was originally put on the alert, has it been decided that they will not be sent, nor will any actual combat troops be sent as part of the force?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer the question in the reverse order. It was never the intention that combat troops would be sent. We were asked by the Secretary General on behalf of the Security Council to supply the logistics component. We are not yet certain how many will be involved because, as I said in my opening statement today, the results of the evaluation have not yet been fully assessed. The Secretary General has asked us in the meantime to send one signals unit.


John George Diefenbaker: How many men would that be?


Mitchell William Sharp: We are not quite certain how many that will involve. Perhaps my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, can answer that question better than I.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the core of the Canadian contingent will be supplied by the No. 1 Canadian Signals Regiment from Kingston. Initially, an advance party of 100 will be leaving, but we expect that over the next few days that could build up to over 400 from the signals corps.


John George Diefenbaker: The Secretary of State for External Affairs stated it was not intended to send combat troops. Why was it that the No. 1 combat paratroop unit in Edmonton was asked to be on the alert preparatory to being called upon to serve as members of this peacekeeping force?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have explained to the House before that the No. 1 airborne regiment in Edmonton is trained not only for combat but also for a peacekeeping role. The logistics role is one of very great importance. Communications are important to the success of any military mission, and so is transportation. I think that even armchair generals like the right hon. member and myself should know that much about a military mission.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly the hon. gentleman has identified himself well.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You are an honorary armchair general.
November 9, 1973


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister assure the House and the country that in making up the logistics requirement for the Canadian group going to the Middle East the helicopter and other air-sea rescue strength of Canada's armed forces at Comox and elsewhere will not be reduced?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have given that assurance before, and at the present time there is no requirement for Canadian aircraft.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: My question is supplementary to the first line of questioning to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Was the minister satisfied with the recommendation of the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with regard to the firing of Mr. Rudnicki who had 18 years service or did the minister undertake to look into the matter personally before any decision was made to fire Mr. Rudnicki?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the president's action was not a recommendation, it was a decision of which I was informed, of course. With regard to the purpose of the question, do I support the action of the president, the answer is obviously yes.


Walter David Baker: In view of the answer the minister has just given, is he now prepared to apply the same standards regarding possible conflict of interest to Mr. Teron as he is apparently applying to Mr. Rudnicki?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Can the Minister of State for Urban Affairs assure the House he did not know anything about the incident for which Mr. Rudnicki was fired until after he had been fired by the president of CMHC?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the president informed me beforehand, as any good president would do.


John Allen Fraser: In order that the House may be informed as to just what happened, will the minister advise whether there was any discussion between the president of CMHC and himself from the time of the incident to the time of the firing and whether that discussion was by communication, verbal or in writing, direct or indirect?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, obviously I communicate with the president of CMHC almost daily about the whole range of activities of the corporation.


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


John Allen Fraser: That was not the question. A supplementary-


Walter David Baker: You are covering up something.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver South can ask a supplementary.


John Allen Fraser: Obviously members opposite do not want the truth to come out. My question was quite plain and the minister knows perfectly well what the question was. Was the minister consulted about this firing before it took place?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question. I told the House I was informed.


TRANSPORT
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the concern expressed by the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board within the past two days that we probably will not be able to meet our commitments because of congestion in the country elevator system and the lack of supplies at Thunder Bay and Vancouver-indeed, Thunder Bay is at an all-time low-what action is being taken to correct this situation? Has the minister been in consultation with the man or the minister in charge of the Wheat Board?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been in consultation with the man in charge of the Wheat Board but with the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. I know a meeting was held with the railways a few weeks ago. I, personally, have a commitment from CNR and CPR that they will meet their commitment. If they do not, that means I was misled.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In his discussions with CNR and CPR with regard to this problem, did the minister make inquiries with regard to the amount of Canadian rolling stock or boxcars that are in the United States and did he receive any assurance by the railroads that they would try to get some of that rolling stock back into Canada to move Canadian goods?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, many weeks and many months before the hon. member put the question in the House, CNR, CPR and the Department of Transport were worrying about this problem. I think that the cars now in the United States do not constitute a real problem. The time within which they are returned has been shortened considerably. The situation is improving. I think each railway has about 11,000 cars for use in the transport of grain and they are sure they can meet their commitment.

November 9, 1973
Oral Questions


POSSIBILITY OF PURCHASE BY GOVERNMENT OF ADDITIONAL HOPPER CARS TO MOVE GRAIN
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: May I ask the Minister of Transport whether any consideration has been given to the purchase by the federal government of additional hopper cars, as was done last year, particularly since the Wheat Board has made such a recommendation and since there is a chronic shortage every year, not necessarily arise because of the strike this year?


Jean Marchand: I think all those negotiations have been carried on by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, and it would be preferable to address the question to him when he is here.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I asked the minister a simple question, whether the government was considering the purchase of additional rolling stock as was done last year. It requires a simple answer, yes or no.


Jean Marchand: And I gave the hon. member a very simple answer, that he should put his question to the Minister of Justice.


INDUSTRY
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact Canadian manufacturers and distributors of newsprint have refused to supply the weekly newspapers of eastern and other parts of Ontario with newsprint, will the minister guarantee that the government will not grant any export licences or allow the sale of any Canadian-made newsprint to foreign markets until supplies are assured to all Canadian newspapers, weekly or otherwise?


An hon. Member:: Is that your attitude to oil?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member's question reflects the serious shortage of newsprint on a world-wide basis. My department has been meeting with publishers who have run into difficulties and with representatives of the industry, and in a number of cases we have been successful in arranging supplies for those who are out of newsprint.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I asked the minister whether his department would guarantee that publishers in Canada will be able to get newsprint before we export newsprint abroad.


Alastair William Gillespie: There is no intention of placing export controls on newsprint.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to put to the Prime Minister. Now that the right hon. gentleman has visited both Russia and China, is it his intention very soon to visit the countries of the European Economic Community as the leaders of all other important industrial nations have done in the past few months? If so, does he expect to announce plans for such a visit within the very near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I take this to be a representation, for which I warmly thank the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: As the Prime Minister knows, it is not a representation; it is a question seeking an answer on a very important subject. Now, I will ask him a supplementary. Is the reason for the unaccountable delay on the part of the Prime Minister in arranging such an important visit the fact he has been unable to obtain an invitation from France to visit that country and he is unable to make the trip unless he is first able to obtain such an invitation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: That is not the way I heard it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Stanfield:: It is interesting to find once in a while that members on the other side are still alive, even if it is only a matter of making noise.


PURCHASE OF HOME HEATING OIL BY CANADIAN
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services who indicated a few days ago that discussions were going on in connection with the Canadian Commercial Corporation purchasing home heating oil offshore. Can the minister tell the House whether the corporation is, in fact, seeking to purchase home heating oil, how much the corporation has been instructed to purchase and how much it has purchased to date?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are continuing between a Toronto dealer and my department, and not the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and we hope to complete today the purchase of approximately 40 million gallons of distilled oil. We expect that the schedule of delivery may be flexible enough to enable us to offset about 10 per cent of the fuel shortage that we anticipate for this winter.
November 9, 1973


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Considering the number of layoffs occurring at the Davie Shipbuilding Limited at Lauzon, can the minister inform the House whether new contracts are going to be allocated to this firm to reassure the workers about their future?
If so, what kind of federal assistance will be granted and to whom?


Alastair William Gillespie: A short while ago I announced the extension of the shipbuilding subsidy program for Canadian shipbuilding. I believe this has been very successful. More than that, the Export Development Corporation has become increasingly active in this field and today it is signing an agreement with the Cunard Steamship Company Limited for the purchase of two 39,000-ton product carriers with a total value of $35 million. The Export Development Corporation will be financing 80 per cent of that purchase.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF COAL PRODUCTION IN EASTERN CANADA-REVISION OF SUBSIDY ARRANGEMENTS WITH CARRIERS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. gentleman actively assessing measures in conjunction with the provinces for the revitalization and revival of the eastern Canadian coal industry as an important supplementary energy source? I noted yesterday that in answer to a question by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North the minister suggested that coal was a provincial resource. I should like to ask him whether there are many resources that are not provincial?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: We have discussed this matter with the Nova Scotia authorities. We have indicated to them that any initiative that might be taken with regard to bringing into production again what- have been, historically, high-cost coalfields lies, of course, at the provincial level.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I have a supplementary on the same topic to the Minister of Transport. Bearing in mind the energy crisis and higher fuel costs, is the minister considering a revision of existing subsidy arrangements with carriers across the nation? Further, is he considering the granting of subsidies with respect to the possible supplying to central Canadian markets of eastern and western coal,
Oral Questions
provided he is satisfied that the CNR and CPR are now delivering coal at reasonable rates?


Jean Marchand: those questions are under study in various departments, including the Department of Transport.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would ask the minister whether he is aware that the Cape Breton coalfields are a federal resource and not a provincial one?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The question was asked with regard to the Cumberland County fields.


TRANSPORT
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary to the Minister of Transport arising out of reports that the railways have tabled a schedule of rates for carrying coal from the west to Ontario, which a study carried out by the Ontario government shows to be about 50 per cent higher than they should be. Will the minister take steps to make certain that the information placed before the Canadian Transport Commission by the railways is made public and that the CTC undertakes its own study immediately of the cost of transportation of coal from western to central Canada?


Jean Marchand: I will surely look into that. The hon. member will, no doubt, recall what I said in the House as far as freight rates are concerned, and I will see if the action taken by the railways conforms to the statement I made. We made a commitment in the west to the effect that the provinces would be informed as to all details of railway rate structures, and I hope that one of the provinces will ask for this information.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are only a few minutes left before the end of the question period. The hon. member for Central Nova wishes to raise a point of order. I will return to the hon. member for York South, then the hon. member for Bellechasse, and we will try to go on from there.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, and I ask for your guidance in this matter. In view of all the undertakings made in the last few months by the Minister of Transport to look into a whole multitude of matters, I wonder whether there is a provision in the rules for a whole day to be set aside so the minister can make a report on these various issues.


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

November 9, 1973
Oral Questions


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I understood from the minister's answer that action to make available the facts upon which the railways are basing their freight rates has to wait until some province asks for the information. I should like to ask the minister whether he will see to it that the CTC undertakes its own study of the basis on which the railways are now trying, if the Ontario study is correct, to make quite unjustified profits out of the rather difficult situation in which Canada finds itself?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will surely ask for all the pertinent information.

[ Translation]


SECOND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ANNOUNCED BY QUEBEC HYDRO-CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HEAVY WATER PLANT
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Since Quebec Hydro has announced the construction of a second nuclear station and since the first one has been slowing down due to some difficulties in obtaining heavy water, can the minister tell the House if he will soon announce the decision of the government concerning the construction of another heavy water plant?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have not taken any final decision on that matter, but the announcement will soon be made as mentioned by the hon. member.

[ English]


INDUSTRY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton. It is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and is a little complex. In light of the fact that most weekly newspaper operators use letter press and most of those operating in Ontario use offset and require sheeted newsprint, and also in light of the fact that the mills have put all the people engaged on conversion of rolled newsprint and sheeted newsprint on last year's allocations generally, what particular steps is the minister taking to make sure that vast numbers of weekly newspapers in Ontario are not forced to cease publication in the near future?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, my department has been in consultation with all of the parties involved.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will address to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs since I am not having much luck with the other minister. Is the minister's department looking at the question of the allocation of newsprint and also at the pricing policy of mills?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it would be possible for the combines branch of the department to look into these questions only if they appear to pertain to possible breaches of the act. I would be very happy to have the director's attention drawn to any evidence that might indicate such breaches.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman could advise if, as a result of a possible fuel shortage, Air Canada has any plans to make drastic cutbacks in the number of flights servicing the Atlantic provinces?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I asked for a report on this a couple of days ago, and they said that at the moment they do not envisage any curtailment of service.


Robert Muir: In view of the fact that service to the Atlantic provinces at the best of times is not good, would the minister further suggest to the president of Air Canada that if there have to be any cutbacks they should be in trans-Atlantic flights, not in domestic flights to the Atlantic provinces?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think we should protect, as we have up to now, Canadian citizens first before giving service to others.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications and would have been supplementary to an earlier one, but I will try to ask it in any event. Since the Quebec telephone companies this week appeared before the Regie des Services Publics of the province of Quebec upon the same issue that was considered by the Canadian Transport Commission last February regarding joint use of telephone poles by telephone companies and cable television companies and there still has not been a decision, would the minister check with the chairman of the CTC to see
November 9, 1973

whether he is still alive, well and functioning and find out the reason for the unconscionable delay, or has he been instructed not to bring forward a decision until the constitutional conference at the end of the month or until the Regie des Services Publics brings forward its decision?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have already made that check and the reason for the delay in the decision is that it is one which is not easy to make. I have had an indication from the CTC that it will be out around the fifteenth of this month.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact the $18,000 ceiling for house construction under Part II of the Veterans Land Act will little more than lay the foundations for a house, will the minister bring forth amendments to raise the ceiling under the Veterans Land Act?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I will take that under consideration, Mr. Speaker.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the minister said recently that he was considering strengthening the foreign ownership regulations pertaining to Canadian banks after it was revealed that the Chase Manhattan Bank and Bank of America were now active in Canada, and in light of the fact that Bank of America has now purchased a 20 per cent interest in Montreal Trust, which is connected with the Power Corporation, can the minister say whether or not he has now decided to tighten the foreign ownership regulations pertaining to banks and financial institutions?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, looking at this question as we move toward a revision of the Bank Act. The particular transaction which the hon. gentleman mentions relates to the purchase of shares of a provincially incorporated company over which, at the moment, we have no control.


Mr. Crouse:: I have a related question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have just about reached the end of the question period. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville will be recognized for a supplementary, followed by the hon. member for Fort William.
Oral Questions


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary. In view of the fact that a large bulk, perhaps up to 50 per cent, of funds lent by Canadian banks go to foreign corporations either within or outside of this country, can the minister say whether or not he is considering any investment controls to keep a larger share of these funds available for Canadians?


John Napier Turner: I think the flow of funds goes both ways. The assets and liabilities held by Canadian banks abroad, which amount to about one-quarter of their holdings, also result in a wider money market in Canada.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the section of the trans-Canada highway through northern Ontario is probably the only section of this national highway that does not have paved shoulders, and in view of the fact the absence of such paved shoulders increased greatly the hazards to drivers, will the federal government take the initiative to bring the trans-Canada highway up to uniform standards through northern Ontario?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the agreement under which the trans-Canada highway was built has now expired. We know that this problem exists and it is being studied by my department in conjunction with the roads department of Ontario. We hope it will be possible to find ways and means of upgrading the highway.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, my related question to the Minister of Finance refers to statements made by the Secretary General of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in Toronto to the effect that continued inflation was bringing the free market nations to the point of no return, to the point where their social fabrics could no longer bear the strain. I should like to ask the minister if he shares this opinion and, if so, what steps he plans to take to end the present trend of printing fiat money which can only lead to increasing inflation and the ultimate collapse of our present monetary system?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has reservations about the form of the question. The hon. member is inviting the minister to express an opinion and to make a

November 9, 1973
Oral Questions
statement which ought to be made on motions. I recognize the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe.


PUBLIC SERVICE
John Ellwood Madill: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Has the Professional Institute of the Public Service resolved the remuneration situation for nursing staffs across Canada in our veterans hospitals and, if not, why not?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that the final award by an arbitral tribunal is being carried out.


ARBITRATION OF SALARIES OF CLERICAL STAFF-GOVERNMENT POSITION IN LIGHT OF SALARIES RECOMMENDED FOR MANAGERIAL LEVELS
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the executive advisory council made up of the heads of corporations in Canada recommended at least a 20 per cent increase in the upper echelon or managerial levels of the civil service, and in view of the fact that arbitration is coming about for the clerical staff and the government's most recent offer is in the area of 7 per cent, would the minister inform the House if the government intends to send the report of the advisory council to the arbitration board to use the evidence the council presented in deciding on the salaries of the people in the lower echelons?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the arbitral tribunals have at their disposal a very competent pay research bureau financed jointly by the employees and the government.


William George Knight: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. I apologize to the hon. member but there are a number of members seeking supplementaries and I stretched a point in allowing the hon. member for Assiniboia to ask his first question. I have no alternative at this point, five minutes later, but to call orders of the day.


Douglas Charles Rowland: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, during the course o'f his answer to me this morning the Minister of Manpower and Immigration indicated that he had given information respecting the allocation of LIP funds by constituencies under the program in the past year, in response to an order paper question. That order paper question is mine. It was placed on the order paper on February 28 and it has not been answered. In light of that, I think the very least the minister could do is to see that his answer appears on the next occasion that order paper questions are dealt with in the House.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it simply was my understanding that the information had been given. If I am out of date I will certainly correct that, but it was my impression that it had been done.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 7, consideration of Bill C-132, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Charles E. Haliburton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be recognized at this stage of the proceedings. I am only sorry that I was not recognized a minute or two ago for a question that I felt was very important to my constituents.
As I began to say on Wednesday in this debate, the bill before us has an underlying objective which all Canadians can support. That objective is the encouragement of Canadians to own Canada, to take up the challenges of developing our own research, to develop in all parts of the country the managerial skills, the research and development facilities and all the domestic infrastructure necessary to enable this country, its people and its commerce to stand on their own feet and be truly Canadian.
In the past, foreign investment has been welcomed and we owe a major proportion of our high state of development and our high standard of living to that fact. Our situation is very similar to that of Australia where the Prime Minister, in a speech to the House of Representatives in that country, said the following:
Overseas capital has played a vital role in Australia's development. It has added considerably to the resources available lor our growth. It has brought with it valuable technological know-how and access to overseas markets. It has created new industries. Australia is a large nation and a prosperous one as a result. The inflow of capital has been associated with increasing overseas ownership and control of industry in Australia. This has been one cost of the increased growth which has come from welcoming overseas capital.
Our experience parallels that very closely. A great deal of foreign investment has entered Canada because the total climate here has been hospitable to it. For precisely the same reason, domestic Canadian investment has also been substantial.
Let us look at what the government is proposing to do in our situation now, with a limited push or a substantial push from the NDP. This country has had a dynamic growth, a growth encouraged by stable government, a
November 9, 1973

satisfactory physical climate and a business climate which has encouraged entrepreneurship. In that regard, the President of Noranda Mines Limited made a speech on October 31, 1973 which I believe is significant. It conveys the attitude that our business community is developing toward the Canadian government. He said:
The reason why Canada has received such a large share of the world's exploration effort-
He was referring to the mining industry.
-has been our hospitable climate towards mining which has led the industry to accept a lower rate of return here than in many other parts of the world. For example, a U.S. government study indicates that average annual earnings on U.S. investment in Canadian mining returned less than 10 per cent from 1954-67 compared with 25 per cent in Latin America. However, we are losing this relative advantage.
Attitudes and proposed legislation with respect to foreign ownership have reduced the amount of non-Canadian capital directed to exploration here, and this trend will likely accelerate. The long period of uncertainty regarding federal taxation policy had an inhibiting effect on the level of exploration activity while the subsequent legislation removing most of the previous incentives has lengthened the odds against finding a commercial orebody. In addition, current attitudes towards mining in certain provinces have had a severe impact on the. level of exploration in large and highly prospective areas of the country.
He goes on to say that industry is facing a number of serious operating problems. He cites labour as being a problem; he cites the heavy capital and operating costs, costs of environmental controls and the incredible inflation which is taking place in construction costs. Those things, Mr. Speaker, are eroding the confidence of not only foreign investors but domestic investors in the future of the Canadian economy. What I understand him to mean is that any company interested in making money for its shareholders, as of course it must be, is no longer looking at Canada. He goes on to say that mining companies are looking at developing nations which are now establishing-and I wish the House would pay attention to this- clear-cut rules for foreign capital. While other nations, competitors of ours for international investment and for Canadian investment, are establishing clear-cut rules, our Canadian government is proposing the fuzziest possible type of legislation.
Whatever became of the idea of calling a spade a spade? Why is it not possible to define some industrial sectors which shall remain under Canadian control? Why can we not say that we welcome foreign investment in designated areas compatible with a generally outlined national industrial strategy? Why can we not develop national industrial rules based on regional and national needs with a voluntary input, a strategy which would enable the government to set out some form of guidelines and firm guidelines that would provide some permanence for both foreign and domestic investors?
This bill does not do that. This bill is not constructive. This bill provides for regulations and control. It intends to rationalize the Canadian industry. It confirms this government's determination to keep on tinkering with what is left of our free market economy until it is totally destroyed. Furthermore, this bill is a measure to provide the executive branch of government with a power to be wielded in a discriminatory, damaging, uncertain and
Foreign Investment Review Act arbitrary manner. It is further evidence to the people of this country, and to the business community, that this government has one firm, unswerving and continuing policy, that is its total devotion to ad hocery. Our party, and specifically my colleague the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), has made amendments to this act which would provide an assurance of input from provincial authorities. Those amendments go some distance toward removing some of the grosser uncertainties. At least a potential investor might be assured that a plan approved by the province had some reasonable chance of avoiding the consequences of the minister's regal whim.
I ask members in considering this bill to consider that we are not a unitary state, that we have regional aspirations, that investment capital does not flow from the financial capitals of this country to the hinterland, as it might. We have differing regional interests within the national framework. In this context, it is not proper to ask provincial governments to forsake their own responsibilities for property and civil rights.
The Canadian Bar Association made a submission to the government with regard to this bill. I do not have the original submission, but I have a quotation from the Financial Post, from an editorial including this paragraph: Indeed, Ottawa is on shaky constitutional grounds on its provisions to restrict sales made to foreigners. As the Bar's brief says, "the right to dispose of one's property is ordinarily within the provincial jurisdiction of the Property and Civil Rights power as enumerated in section 92 of the BNA Act.
There is that consideration which, I believe, adds some uncertainty to the whole impact of this act.
Then, we come to the subject of "significant benefit". The interpretation of the provisions of the bill and of the words "significant benefit" will vary greatly depending on the eye of the beholder. Coming from a region that is one of the have-nots, it will be difficult to convince myself that this government, hived as it is in central Canada, propped up as it is by the NDP which gathers its support from central Canada, can exercise that detached and objective judgment which would be required to administer this power, this power which means development or no development, progress or stagnation in different regions of this country.
Even if the minister is totally fair, totally unbiased, the biggest fault will still remain- the total lack of guidelines. Business is still left to guess whether or not it is safe to move. Uncertainly will be their greatest hurdle. Can we trust this coalition government to make objective decisions in any event? Can we trust them to be fair?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Charles E. Haliburton: These spokesmen say we cannot. I would remind the NDP that it was the Liberal party in power that established policies whereby foreign investment in this country has reached $60 billion. It has, after all, been in power for the past 75 years with three short breathing spaces. Now, they have had a conversion. They want to buy Canadian.
Furthermore, they say they will be happy to consult, even though the legislation does not require it, with the provinces in these matters. But I ask you: where was consultation over offshore oil rights off the Atlantic coast?

November 9, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act Where was consultation with regard to the development of the tar sands? Where was consultation when it was decided by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) to terminate certain fisheries off the Atlantic coast, and where was consultation when the export tax was imposed on crude oil? No, they will not be consulting; they are the government of confrontation.
I was interested in listening to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) on Wednesday. He said we can trust the government. He said that they are more reliable than the provincial governments which are blindly clamouring for industries based on foreign capital. He seemed to feel that foreign investment was tainted in some way, that is unless it was invested in his riding. He comes from an area of Canada where, in all probability, growth will continue by virtue of its own momentum. He complained recently about the failure of the federal government to demand that U.S. companies invest more money in the Canadian auto industry in Ontario. I suspect he might also be favourably disposed to increased tire manufacturing in his area under foreign ownership. But he says no to foreign investment in the Maritimes. If it is a Michelin tire plant or a Volvo automobile plant, where does he stand on that?
As I said a moment ago, significant benefit is all in the eye of the beholder. It is not of any significant benefit to Canada to have the NDP continue to prop up this government in view of the discretionary power given to the minister in this bill and that may well be the cause of the poorer provinces of this country losing industrial opportunity. It is not of any significant benefit to Canada, I submit, to have the Atlantic area continue perpetually to rely on central Canadian manufacturers for its manufactured goods. That may well be the price we pay if this bill passes in its present form.
Speaking of significant benefit a little further, this provision seems to be putting the wagon before the horse. Why should the onus, in determining whether or not it is of significant benefit, be on the investor? Why should he, in effect, be required to enter into the Canadian scene, to orient himself to Canadian commercial and social values to such an extent that he can judge the proposal to be made in terms of whether or not it would be of significant benefit to Canada? Rather, the onus should be on the controlling authority, the onus should be shifted to the government, to the minister, as it is in Australia where a similar type of judgment is made by an independent authority. In Australia, however, having been judged by the independent authority, the investment will be rejected only if it is determined to be against the national interest. It seems that we have the emphasis the other way round.
The adoption of the amendments proposed would go some distance toward removing the most obvious deficiencies in this bill. Providing for a provincial input in itself would ensure some objectivity and give some assurance to the investor as to the considerations to be applied to his application.
There are other actions which the government should be initiating. First, we should consider tax changes to encourage Canadians to invest at home by giving them a competitive edge on foreigners and foreign corporations doing business in Canada; second, tax changes that would make

it more profitable for Canadians to invest in Canada than to invest in the same business in another country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles E. Haliburton: Third, consideration should be given to rebating capital gains tax when gain is realized from the sale of a business or an industry to another Canadian; fourth, positive encouragement of small business enterprises by utilising tax delay measures similar to the retirement pension programs; fifth, positive encouragement of research and development in this country, possibly by a system of tax exempt profits based on equivalents spent on research or perhaps mining and oil exploration. Sixth, and most important, this government should be taking steps to assure investors, both domestic and foreign, that Canada's laws will not be changed daily, weekly or annually so that any potential investor will know on a long term basis what regulatory controls and tax laws his corporation or business will need to face. Investors should be assured that changes will be taking place in a gradual manner rather than suddenly, overnight.
I conclude as I began by saying that the underlying philosophy of this bill is one which I can happily support, and which I believe most Canadians can support. The methods provided in the bill leave much to be desired. Substantial improvements will be affected by adoption of the amendments proposed by my colleagues from Central Nova, but further changes in other government policies will be required if this measure is to achieve the desired effect.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of most members of my party why we, at times, support the Liberal government, particularly in view of the speech to which we just listened. Much has been said with respect to Bill C-132 at report stage, and so I do not wish to take up too much more time at this point in the debate. However, there are a few aspects with respect to foreign ownership and domination of our economy to which I would like to address myself today.
With your indulgence I would like to reflect briefly on some of the historical aspects of foreign domination by drawing a parallel between the great era of industrial development in the United States following the war between the states, and the inflow of foreign, mainly U.S. capital, into Canada in the last two decades.
At the end of the civil war in the United States, businessmen welcomed foreign capital from Europe, and of course for excellent reasons. They needed money in order to build railways, canals, factories and so on. But, Mr. Speaker, they were very careful to make sure that the capital they sought, and indeed got, was bond capital. This meant while foreign capital poured in, the American tycoons had completed control over how the money was to be spent, and foreign investors had no equity voting privileges whatsoever. This, of course, was a real coup for the Yankee robber barons of that period.
Contrast this with the deplorable situation that has been allowed to develop in Canada in the last 20 years,
November 9, 1973

where almost all foreign investment has been in equity voting capital, and where foreign investors simply moved in and, to a great extent, took over our economy. This is why today most of our natural resource industries, and a substantial proportion of manufacturing and food processing industries, are foreign controlled or owned outright. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the foreign investors are not to blame. They saw a good thing and took full advantage of it. We needed that capital 20 or 30 years ago, but surely the time has come when we must put a stop to any further foreign economic domination, especially when we are now dealing with huge multinational corporations whose power and influence in the world are greater than many nations themselves.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, if we do not now exercise control and restraint over the multinationals, they will soon control us. In some countries this has already happened. I can recall the statements made by the President of Mexico when he spoke to us in this House about a year and a half ago. He called upon Canada to co-operate with Mexico in restraining the fantastic powers of the multinationals, and it was my interpretation that he was referring to those based in the United States because of that country's close proximity to both Mexico and Canada.
I can also recall the number of members from all parties who applauded the Mexican President's remarks with respect to multinationals. So, Mr. Speaker, it is almost too late to regain control of our economy. In the available time left we must make every effort to repatriate our economy so that we will achieve control over our economic and political destiny, bearing in mind that we must co-operate in good faith with other national economies in the interests of greater human development and world peace. This is why my party supports Bill C-132 in principle, although we recognize some very glaring weaknesses in it. In my opinion, the bill is really not tough enough.
Before getting into the specifics of the weaknesses I would like to explode the myth, so common among most Liberals and Conservatives, that we must have foreign investment in order to develop our economy. This might have been true a couple of generations ago, although the inflow should have been bond capital, as I suggested earlier. The fact is that during the 1960's there was a net outflow, in terms of investment, from Canada. During that decade foreign firms operating in Canada sent out of Canada in interest, dividends, royalty fees, management fees and so on over $2 billion more than all the capital they imported. Of all foreign investment every year, only 6 per cent came from foreign countries and 94 per cent came from retained earnings, profits kept in Canada, and funds borrowed from Canadian banks and other financial institutions. In short, Mr. Speaker, we are in the embarrassing situation where we are selling out our own country with our own earned capital.
Contrast this situation with that of Japan. A broken and beaten nation in 1945, Japan struggled with its economy- and U.S. aid-until it has become one of the major manufacturing and trading nations in the world. And while it accepted foreign investment it made it abundantly clear from the beginning that it would be master of its own economic destiny by demanding control over its investment capital, no matter from where it came. And also by
Foreign Investment Review Act contrast, Japan in 1945 was the defeated enemy. Canada and the United States have been friendly neighbours- economically speaking I fear too friendly, but again it is our fault, not theirs. The profits made in our country should not flow out of it through the ominous channels of the multinational corporations. This capital should stay in Canada to develop the private and public sectors of our economy.
Before we quickly condemn the public sector of our economy, let us not forget that our economic development and history have not been the same as those in the United States. In many respects we could not have developed our economy in the 19th century without government aid and intervention. Many capitalists are quick to say, look at the great CPR. What they fail to say is, look at how much public funding was involved in this great enterprise. If you look at tax concessions and give-away land deals, you will see that the success of the CPR was due mainly to government intervention.
Let us look at the present, and at this bill. Let us also look at the reasons for this bill, at long last, being introduced as a much stronger bill that its predecessor which was brought in by the Liberals when they were riding roughshod, with majority government. I can recall the election of 1962 when the Chamber of Commerce published a booklet entitled "People's Capitalism." The Canadian Labour Congress was quick to point out in that election that people's capitalism referred to about 6 per cent of the Canadian public. The other 94 per cent of Canadians were not involved in any way with investment in stocks and private bonds.
From this came an expose on foreign domination of the Canadian economy. All during the 1960's the NDP was the only party that was warning the Canadian public of the consequences of Liberal continentalism, which really meant the big sell-out to powerful multinational corporations to the south. Let me remind this House that a substantial percentage of Americans are opposed to the multinationals as well. The old war cry went up from the Liberals, great and small, that continentalism meant more money coming into Canada, which in turn meant more jobs for Canadians. It was an argument that bought votes, and when it comes to buying votes with the taxpayers' money, the Liberals are absolute geniuses.
But now the chickens are coming home to roost. As long as most Canadians were willing to swallow the Liberal line, nobody in that camp had the guts to tell it as it really was. Oh, there was Walter Gordon and more recently Eric Kierans, but the Liberal party really did not take either seriously-until, of course, last October. Now we have a tougher bill on foreign economic expansion, but a lot is still to be desired. It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that a public opinion poll conducted not very long ago indicated that 58 per cent of Canadians favoured the nationalization of our resource industries. I would like to suggest, Sir, that their real motivation was a fear that unless the government stepped in, all our non-renewable resources would be eventually used up, not in Canada's interest but in the interest of foreign corporations and their stock holders.

November 9, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
Bill C-132 has three basic weaknesses, in my opinion. In the first place the proposed legislation is very powerful in that it gives the minister and the chairman of the screening board too much authority to be vested in only two persons. If a minister is genuinely concerned about the harm that continued foreign control of our economy would do, his delegated power could and would, in my opinion, be used wisely to stop further foreign domination. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, if the minister then in office doesn't care about foreign investment, the screening agency would be useless. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that these discretionary powers should be vested in an autonomous body of economic experts, well out of the hands of a politician who happens temporarily to be a minister of the Crown.
Second, the bill pertains only to takeovers, new investment and expansion of an existing firm into a non-related area. It says nothing about the expansion of an existing firm into a related area. This is a very important point, Mr. Speaker, because most of the huge foreign corporations we have in Canada can expand easily into related fields since they control so many other companies. For example, ITT controls 58 different companies in Canada. I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that if ITT wanted to expand into a non-related field, it could do so through one of its subsidiaries in a related field without having to be screened.
I am also concerned that this bill, because of the confusion that will arise from defining what is related and what is not related, will affect only between 10 and 20 per cent of foreign economic and financial activity in Canada. In other words, as much as 80 or 90 per cent of foreign expansion will probably go unscreened. This loophole should be plugged, so that a company like Gulf Oil cannot expand into the toothpaste business because one of its subsidiaries already manufactures this product.
I am also concerned about one of the amendments now under discussion, specifically one introduced by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), which would give the provinces a powerful voice in the screening process. In this bill we are talking about Canada and foreign economic control, not about one or two of our provinces. I can sympathize with a member who might represent a region or a province where investment capital is badly needed. Surely, it is the role of the federal government to see to it that industry locates in economically slow-growth areas. That is the responsibility of the federal government. I stress that. Let us not Balkanize our country any more than it already is. Let us use Canadian money to develop and expand the economies of slow-growth areas.
In my short speech, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to point out the need to tighten this bill and to impress upon hon. members the need to regain control of our economy, that does not mean that we must try to buy back all industries which are presently foreign owned. I am proposing forward looking policies, so that from now on we will continue to put more and more Canadian capital into Canadian investment and Canadian enterprise.


An hon. Member:: You sound like a Conservative.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: There is little time left, as I said earlier. Let us not forget that we are not legislating in our own self-interest but in the interest of future generations, as some of those people might like to be referred to as Canadians.
I am concerned about the cultural invasion from the United States, as evidenced by our text books, magazines and some of our journals. I think something ought to be done, particularly for our young people. I am not so much concerned about those of us who are already tarnished, soiled intellectually or biased. I certainly wish to see greater emphasis placed on measures to prevent the proliferation in this country of American-owned magazines, journals, textbooks, and so on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I am not anti-American when I say this. I am merely saying that it is time we started looking after our own culture and producing our own text books.
I am not a chauvinist or a flag waver, but I do have respect for my country. All I ask is that we put our house in order, and a heck of a good way to start is by regaining control of our own economy. At long last the Liberal government has opened its eyes. Let us make sure this is not just another rip-off.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for St.
Catharines.


Mr. Morgan:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour, I wonder if I might be permitted to declare it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, I do leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Morgan), I wish to make the following point.
Earlier today, a question was raised with Mr. Speaker by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). He proposed a motion under Standing Order 26 to
November 9, 1973

adjourn the House to discuss the very important and urgent matter relating to the supply of newsprint to weekly newspapers. It was indicated to the hon. member that the proposed motion would be considered and that a decision would be given later this day.
The hon. member also raised the same matter of great concern by question, and brought it forth under Standing Order 43. The topic did lead, as I am now advised, to discussions among the various parties with a view to finding a method of holding a debate under the terms of some other standing order. I believe that the hon. member is satisfied that such arrangements are being attempted. Accordingly, the subject matter of his motion will not be considered further today.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-132, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
J. Trevor Morgan: Mr. Speaker, this is a very memorable day, two days before Remembrance Day, for a member of this House to be able to speak on the so-called foreign takeover bill. I firmly believe this affects our beloved country for which so many thousands of our native sons, brothers, fathers, husbands and other relatives died. They wanted to do something to enable Canada to become a nation, so that we could have something here which we could call our own. We have this bill before us, and I think it is a very appropriate time to be able to make a few comments on it.
In 1968, many thousands of Canadians were convinced that with the election of the Liberal government which sits across the aisle, something would be done. There was promise of fortune and fame. Expectations were high. Unfortunately, they let us down. The members of the New Democratic Party are beginning to learn now. Like slithering rats, if I may use that expression, they are leaving the sinking ship. If I may change the analogy, they are like vultures soaring over the carcass of this government that once was. They are now spiralling and soaring because the flesh is flimsy.
I am a rooky. I stand here in the back-most bench. I remember being on the hustings during the election campaign, which was not much more than a year ago. I had very interesting discussions and debates with members opposite and members to my left. Everyone was vying with suggestions as to what should be done to make
Foreign Investment Review Act Canada belong to Canadians again. So, it was with high expectation that I looked forward to the introduction of Bill C-132. But I must confess that when I read that bill disappointment overhwelmed me. My hopes were dashed like a drowned dog. The bill means nothing but high bureaucracy. It is a piece of ad hocery such as the government has always practised when it does not know what to do. I cannot understand why they should not know better because I do not think they are really fools. They are either fools or they lack imagination, and they can let the shoe fit them as they will.
When we speak of foreign takeovers we are concerned basically with United States foreign corporations presently located in Canada who use their retained profits to buy out Canadian industry. Yet we are dealing in this bill with only about 20 per cent of foreign takeovers; 80 per cent are already allowed for under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The government will not change those provisions. It sits back and wonders why things are going wrong. Surely, they have enough sense to realise that once you permit a foreign corporation to use its surpluses to buy out more and more Canadian business-


An hon. Member:: What is your policy?


J. Trevor Morgan: I will come to that. Hold on, Buster! They have enacted tax laws which give a break to United States corporations, family corporations, with the result that they are required to pay less income tax than Canadian corporations in the same circumstances. What happens? Of course, Canadian businessmen will sell out to Americans because the Americans can make a better profit and are able to pay a better price. In a negative approach, the kind it so often takes, the government proposes to set up a body of bureaucrats to screen takeover applicants. Isn't that jolly?
But does this give the Canadian people any incentive to invest in their beloved country? I think we have one of the best records for savings per capita of any nation in the industrialized world. But what does the government do to bring out these savings? Where is the incentive? An hon. member asked what I would do. I would change the legislation as it pertains to retained surpluses so that foreign corporations could no longer use those surpluses to buy out Canadian corporations. That is one positive step I would take.
Then, I would give the Canadian people economic incentives to use the savings they have accumulated-give them some Yankee initiative. We could learn a lot from our Yankee friends. They are risking their money. We have more money in our insurance policies and in our savings banks than any country in the western world on a per capita basis. But this government, and the governments which have preceded it, have done nothing to encourage the people to take a chance on Canada. The financial and tax policies of the government do not encourage them to do so. And surely this is the direction in which we ought to be moving, not toward a negative bureaucracy.
I will offer one or two suggestions for hon. members to consider. I might add that I am not pretending to state party policy but just speaking off the top of my head. Why

November 9, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act not say to a United States corporation which has a subsidiary in Canada in the extractive industry: If you intend to operate in Canada, set up your corporation on the basis of public subscription as far as shares are concerned-not a wholly-owned subsidiary, but a public corporation in which Dan Jones and Tim Buck can buy shares. Having brought about a situation in which anyone could buy shares in the corporation, you would then say to the directors: This year you process 10 per cent of your production in Canada and next year you will process 15 per cent. Keep raising the required level. In this way we could build up the secondary industries we so badly need, and those industries would be owned by the Canadian people.
About a year and a half ago the government decided to cut corporation taxes from 49 per cent to 40 per cent. This so-called fiscal policy was designed to deal with the unemployment situation. It has not worked worth a tinker's damn. Yet it should not be difficult. You say to a Canadian corporation: Increase your exports by X factor and we will give you a discount on your income tax accordingly. Doesn't this make sense? Of course, it does. This will encourage people to invest their money in Canada and surely that is the object of the exercise. You would say to a corporation: Increase the employment you provide by a factor of X and we shall cut down your income tax by Y. This would help solve unemployment and the whole of Canada would reap the benefit.
Let me give an example of what the government has done to encourage investment in Canada by Canadian companies. In doing so I should refer to that famous little body known as the Industrial Development Bank. Hon. members talk about $250,000. The average size of a loan made by the Industrial Development Bank in 1972 was $45,000. No takeovers there. In no way would the IDB help Canadians. The Yankee comes up here, goes to our bank and he gets all the money he needs. You know that, Mr. Speaker. But what do the banks say when a Canadian comes in? The answer is, no. Do hon. members realise that 16 per cent of the applicants for loans from the IDB in 1972 did not get a dime? Or that every loan in excess of $100,000 had an interest rate attached to it of more than 10 per cent, though the prime rate charged by the banks in 1972 was 6 per cent? Is this government policy? Is this the way to encourage Canadians to develop and invest in our country? I say it is shameful.


Mr. Foster:: Keep it positive.


J. Trevor Morgan: I will keep it positive. I do not know where the economic policies of this government come from. It must either be from the grave or they have not been born yet.
I have one further brief comment, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues from Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and South Western Nova (Mr. Haliburton) have covered very explicitly and learnedly the problem of the provincial governments to which we have made reference. I support their amendments. I think they are utterly necessary. A judge once said to me: "Trevor, you know where the ivory tower is", and he pointed to his head. We have five basic economic units in this country and, let us face it, Mr. Speaker, no one sitting up in the ivory tower we have here under-

stands the problems of the Maritimes, Saskatchewan and B.C. all at the same time. These people are not gods.
Therefore, let us have a rotating committee if necessary comprised of people who know the problems of a given area. We are now faced with an energy crisis because the government failed to consult. My colleague for South Western Nova mentioned other problems that have arisen as a result of the failure of the government to consult with the provinces. If we believe in federalism, then let us make it work. But it will not work unless this government has the courage, perhaps with some embarrassment, to take its hat in hand and go to the provinces and say: "All right, maybe we were a bit high-handed and have done things that are wrong, but we believe in this federalism bit; let us get together and do the thing properly". That is the attitude the government should take. With a revolving committee examining the problems of an area we will not reach any hidebound or rigid opinions; instead, there will be a flow of personnel going back and forth who represent the various regions of Canada.
The minister said that this would amount to a veto. That is nonsense. It will simply be a case of people consulting one another eyeball to eyeball, and they stay there till somebody winks. This is what is necessary. Certainly, the government's DREE program cannot exist in the present atmosphere. The Maritimes are depressed and need capital, but Canadians are not supplying it. How are the Maritimes going to exist without it? The government must recognize these problems. What may be good for Ontario and Quebec-and I come from Ontario-may not be good for the Maritimes. I say put people from the Atlantic provinces on this committee because they will know how to deal with maritime problems.
In summary, I say the bill is negative. It is a do nothing, too little, too late measure-a cliche, I know, but nevertheless true. The government must realize that not too much time is left on our side, which is why it must be positive. We want positive programs, not negative bureaucracy. Lastly, I say let us have that consultation which is necessary with the provinces and regions so that federalism will mean something to us all.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all indicate my support for this measure. I think it is a much improved bill over the one presented to the previous parliament. Nevertheless, it is a bill with some very great defects, and I regret that the government has not given any indication of willingness to accept the amendments that we have put forward.
Although it can be remedied through political action, I nevertheless want to point out that in its legislative form the bill has a major defect in that it does not deal with reinvestment and the further expansion of foreign ownership in this country. For instance, there is nothing in the present bill to limit the ability of the multinational oil companies to expand their operations. This, to me, is one of the most serious problems facing the country. Admittedly, many of the problems associated with ownership can be dealt with in a political way without legislation. We have had ample evidence that, if the government is prodded sufficiently by the public or by the concerned citizens on this side of the House, then it is able to act. This happened in the case of uranium. Long before this
November 9, 1973

bill, it took action against the oil industry. So, the only hope is that politically some action will be taken.
The oil industry shows the vicious effect that foreign ownership can have on the Canadian economy. I want to add one rider. I am not one who believes that power automatically goes with ownership. In my view, power is political. It is this House of Commons that possesses the power rather than the multinational oil companies. When the House of Commons or the government want to take action, action can be taken.
Nevertheless, if an indictment can be made out against foreign ownership, it is in the oil industry. We might ask ourselves, for instance, would Canada be in the mess it is in today, would it be talking about curtailing energy supplies east of the Ottawa Valley, had the industry been in Canadian hands rather than in foreign hands? I think the answer is a resounding no. We would not have been in the mess we are in today but for the fact that our oil industry is dominated by the multinational corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Max Saltsman: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this calls for an explanation and I shall be very pleased to give one. Let me go back a little and recall that there are two major segments that comprise the oil industry. I should not say two major segments; there is a major segment and a minor segment. The foreign-owned corporations hold about 91 per cent of the assets in the oil and gas industries. The Canadian independents hold the remainder, with the exception of a small percentage that is held under public ownership. The policies of these two groups were diametrically opposed.
The national oil policy of 1961 was written for the benefit not only of Canadian independent oil producers but for the benefit of multinational corporations. The evidence is very clear from the Conservative government of that day that the purpose of the national oil policy of that time, and one which continues to the present, was to assure that the multinationals could manouevre the market to suit their own best interest. To the multinationals, it makes no difference where the money comes from as long as they make the profit. Therefore, we negotiated a deal whereby the multinationals would ship to their subsidiaries in the United States in return for which we would import through subsidiaries in the Quebec area and all eastern Canada, from the same companies. In other words, we would allow the internationals to allocate their reserves where they pleased.
The argument was that it was much cheaper but what was the consequence, Mr. Speaker? The consequence was that a pipeline to Montreal was not built. The multinationals argued that they would rationalize the market internationally. They would ship and refine where they pleased. That was supposed to have been in the best interests of Canada and that was their policy when it came to the development of the oil and gas industry of Canada.
Many of these transactions were not at arms length. The government of British Columbia is still trying to overcome the bad deal made by Westcoast Transmission for gas sales to the United States which many times were made below
Foreign Investment Review Act cost. The sales were made to a subsidiary in the United States or a company that the multinationals were associated with in the United States. They simply allocated the market in this way.
We might ask if things would have been any different if it had not been for foreign ownership. Let us look at the view of the Canadian producers. I was unhappily reminded of this when I attended a meeting recently in Banff where there were some representatives of the Canadian Independent Oil Producers Association. They told me that they had heard our party is now pushing for the Montreal pipeline. We have always pushed for that, Mr. Speaker, but they have just become aware of it. What they were really saying was, "where were you when we needed you". Well, we were there but at that time they were not paying too much attention to us. Rather, the independent oil producers were directing their energies to both the Liberal and Conservative parties in order to persuade them to build the pipeline to Montreal. They needed it because they did not have access to the American market.
Year after year they made their proposals to every member of parliament promoting the building of the Montreal pipeline saying that one day we would be in trouble on the east coast and would need the pipeline. When the oilwells of Alberta were prorated, when they overbuilt and overproduced and the Americans would not take our oil, production was cut back to 35 per cent or 40 per cent but the independents were cut back to 15 per cent or 20 per cent of production so for economic reasons a pipeline had to be built to supply the Canadian market because no other market was available. Unlike the multinationals, the independents could not play games around the world, therefore they had to depend on the Canadian market.
I am not saying for one moment that a Canadian capitalist is that much better than an American capitalist. I have been a socialist much too long to take that view, Mr. Speaker. What I am suggesting is that in this particular case the interests of the capitalists, as I think history will show, coincided with the national interest because they only had one market and they had to worry about that market. They were not diverted by what was happening in Venezuela or the Middle East because they just had this one arena in which to operate.
There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that were it not for foreign ownership Canada would not be facing any kind of crisis in terms of supply. The people of Quebec would not be asking themselves whether there is going to be sufficient fuel oil this winter to keep them warm. They would not be running around the world trying to buy tanker cargoes in order that there be some continuity of supply.
We have suffered enormously, but the question must be asked, did we have the money and could we have done it? Of course, we could have done it. At no time, from the figures I have been able to see, has the investment in the oil industry exceeded 4 per cent of the gross national product. Surely, a country that saves almost 25 per cent of its gross national product is in a position to develop these industries. The technology is quite simple. As a matter of fact, virtually all the work in oil development exploration is done by Canadian companies. There is an hon. member

Foreign Investment Review Act in this House who is engaged in drilling operations. The oil company simply acts as the entrepreneur. The technology is available internationally and often the majors themselves bring in specialists. The refineries are designed by specialists who would work equally as well for the Canadian government or entrepreneur as for anyone else.
Then, we may talk about a risk. What sort of risk is involved when there is a market for the product and when you know the product is in the ground? Certainly, you may dig some dry holes but there is no risk. Certainly, if an independent operator can only dig four or five holes and they turn out badly, he is in trouble but the operator who is prepared to keep on digging is eventually going to recoup. I do not know of an instance where a major has gone broke, Mr. Speaker. I know of some independents who have, but you would have to look a long time to find any major oil company that has gone broke because of too many dry holes.
I think we have a clear indication, Mr. Speaker, of the harmful effects, the damaging effects of foreign ownership in the energy industry. That is in the past. Perhaps if there had been foreign ownership 30 or 40 years ago when this business was starting we might not have been any wiser- we might have it permitted it to proceed. But the important thing is not what happened in the past, although it could serve as an illustration of what might happen in the future; it simply means that under no circumstances should there be any expansion in the area of energy by anyone except Canadians. The multinationals must be kept completely out of any further development of our energy resources. This is particularly pertinent because of the tar sands which are now ready for development. We in this party-and I think there are many people across the country not of this party who share the view-think that these tar sands should be developed not only by Canadian ownership but by Canadian public entrepreneurship and that nothing else will serve the national interest but that.
Any provincial-righter who may follow me may comment that the resources belong to the provinces. Of course they are physically in the provinces, and the provinces have a major claim on them, but there is nothing in the suggestion of public ownership that would exclude the provinces from participation. Surely, the federal government and the provinces together should be involved in the planning and development of energy sources in the future.
I should like to point out another reason why I think the multinational oil companies should not be permitted any expansion in the field of energy. Whatever these companies may have paid in the way of provincial royalties up to this point, they have paid virtually nothing in federal taxes-perhaps 2 per cent or 3 per cent. However, for all practical purposes, they have paid almost nothing compared to the manufacturing industries or even the mining industry. Until now the oil companies have taken the position that they have not really taken any money out of the industry; all these years they have been ploughing back earnings and developing the industry, and now they are just reaching the point where their sales are exceeding their expenditures.

While these oil companies are telling us this, they also neglect to tell us that they have 10 billion barrels of oil underground which, even at the controlled government price, is worth $40 billion, that is $40 billion of clear profit they they are ready to extract. They desperately need to go into high capital expenditures in order to avoid paying government taxes. They have reached the point where all the shenanigans will not do them any good and they will have to start paying tax. Nothing is more horrible to a multinational company than the prospect of paying taxes. So now they are coming to the Canadian government and saying we must give them special concessions to go into the tar sands. They say they will develop the tar sands because the incompetent Canadians will never be able to do it by themselves. They need the tar sands even more than we need the tar sands. They have to find some way of increasing their capital cost, of increasing the development and expenditure costs in order to cut down on their tax liabilities.
I do not think these multinational oil companies should be permitted to do that because, as I said earlier, they have really damaged the national economy in the most profound way and they are using it as a way of avoiding the payment of taxes. I think we have every reason to be suspicious and concern about foreign ownership in this particular case. I have been concerned about foreign ownership throughout this debate and over the last number of years. The difficulty with the debate is that foreign ownership was debated almost entirely on moral grounds, on so-called nationalistic grounds, on what I call Walter Gordon grounds. I think Walter Gordon is a great man, but in this sense he proved himself to be too great a moralist because the approach he took was that if we get rid of foreign ownership we will be somewhat poorer for it. He accepted the idea that foreign ownership made us richer, when in fact it is not true at all.
Foreign ownership and foreign investment have made us poorer. Walter Gordon took that argument as a point of departure and said to Canadians: Look, it will reduce our standard of living, but surely it is worth it in order to recover our manhood. He put it on that basis. This reminds me of the thinking of some of the old CCF'ers. I wonder how we missed out on Walter Gordon. He has a marvellous mind, but this was a faulty premise and one he never should have adopted. Unfortunately, Canadians came to believe it. They have been taking the attitude: we acknowledge that if we clamp down on foreign ownership we will become poorer; nevertheless, it is worth it because we want to be an independent nation, we want to find our own way, we want to express our manhood or womanhood, as the case may be. But in fact we have lost out both ways. We lost our independence and our economy has suffered as a result of foreign ownership.
Unfortunately, the time available to me today does not permit me to speak about other industries under foreign ownership. I believe I could make quite a good case to show that whatever industries foreign ownership has touched, those industries have been lucky to have survived. Without foreign ownership, this country would have been infinitely better off, both materially and spiritually. We could have accommodated Walter Gordon
November 9, 1973

and people like myself. Today my point is to make the argument that if we are going to have a national policy on energy that will serve the interests of this country, foreign ownership must be excluded.
I would like to read an excerpt from a report prepared by the research and development department of the Canadian National railroad in September 1962. It is entitled: "Some Implications of Marketing Canadian Crude Oil in Montreal". This refers to what I said earlier about the desire of independent oil producers to build a pipeline to Montreal. All kinds of studies were carried out around that time to see how feasible the building of that pipeline would be. In the chapter of this report entitled "Political Implications" at page 20 what emerges is that the pipeline was not built because of political blackmail from the multinational corporations and from the countries with which they were associated. I would like to quote directly from this report. It reads:
Reaction to the pipeline, and to the resulting exclusion of Venezuelan and Middle East oil from the Quebec market by means of controls on imports, might be expected from many quarters: from the exporting countries which supply Canada; from the international oil companies, largely owned and controlled in the U.S.; from U.S. independent producers; from the U.S. federal government; and from such international organizations as the OAS and GATT.
One wonders, today when those east of the Ottawa Valley line are facing what might be a hard winter, where GATT is to help us out and where the international oil companies are to help us out. They are not around. These were the groups that apparently counselled that if Canada were to build the pipeline to Montreal and attempt to make itself self sufficient in energy, then international repercussions and censure would follow. I do not think that the CNR is a terribly radical organization, and it is not worthwhile going beyond the paragraph that I quoted because the rest of it merely confirms, enhances and enlarges upon what I have said.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate on 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, one knows from the outset that basically this debate has gone on in this country for the 100 years that this country has established itself north of the 49th parallel. The debate on foreign ownership, Canadian independence and Canadian identity is as old as this country. But this does not make the debate any less relevant. The problem in this debate, and its relevancy, is the bill under discussion, and I wonder about it because we are all nationalistic. There is not a thought in this bill, however, with which any member on any side of the House can disagree. We all want to be Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I agree with the parliamentary secretary to the minister and I echo him en frangais or en anglais.


An hon. Member:: Bravo.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We can all preach, sermonize and philosophize about being Canadian and we all try to preempt
Foreign Investment Review Act members in other parties with regard to what party is the most Canadian. However, I do not want to indulge in that type of rhetoric here this afternoon at the end of a busy week by suggesting that it was the Conservative party around 100 years ago, which, through consultation and co-operation with some elements of this land mass north of the 49th parallel, developed and defined this country which is now known as Canada. This was not accomplished through confrontation, or gimmickery, or floss- and basically this bill is floss. I wonder if one day the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) will be so against foreign ownership that he will want the International Nickel Company to close down its smelters in Sudbury, putting him out of a job and leaving his constituents without anything in their pocketbooks. That is the type of shallow hypocrisy that comes from those to my left, those who preach pan-Canadianism. Just think of how Canadians sometimes are deluded by the CBC or by some of the PR management consultants working for the government.
Where Bill C-132 is on the side of all the angels is in its principle of trying to do something for Canada. But where we differ from time to time, depending on were we sit, is whether this bill is really going to do the things which obviously the minister thinks and hopes it will do. But before I come to the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, before we get caught up in the rhetoric of nationalism, and "Are you a good Canuck"? may I ask who the heck has been in charge of this country for the last 50 years but the Liberal party, except for 11 beautifull breathing years when this party formed the government.
The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Salts-man), who is one of the more imaginative, respectable, venerable, and now perhaps retiring members of this House, speaks so knowledgeably about oil and gas when talking of the energy problems facing the country. I can understand his propensity for gas, although I do not always agree with him on oil. He speaks sincerely about the problems facing this country in the energy field during the coming cold winter. And then we hear the platitudes from across the way about nationalism.
This parliament will be terminated when those who sold their philosophical soul for a mess of political pottage finally wake up to the realization that they are on a dead-end street. Who is going to vote for the NDP in the next election? We all know that NDP meant in the days of Mr. Coldwell and Mr. Douglas. It meant New Democratic Party, and before that the Commonwealth Co-operative Federation. Today NDP stands for "No Damned Principle." That is what it means, and the NDP are on a deadend street, because in the next election Canadians will have a choice between either the government or opposition parties.
I do not stand here today and say that the opposition has all the answers or has that connection with the Divine that makes it infallible. We do not, but we can rest easy that the next general election will not be polluted with the charade of a party masquerading under the name NDP when that party has no damned principles. Some 39 of the last 50 years have been years of Liberal rule, not the classical rule of the old Liberals like the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), not the classical rule of the
7714

Foreign Investment Review Act Liberal party of Mr. St. Laurent and other great Liberals who contributed much to this land. Today the President of the Treasury Board may be the last Grit about whom one can draw an analogy with the movie titled "True Grit." The present Liberal party does not have policies. It is built on sandstone. I think it was the man from Toronto, Blake, who founded the Liberal party, who coined the name Grit. He said, "We are as strong as grit." The present Liberal party stands on swamp, supported by the NDP.


Mr. Hellyer:: Supported by swamp gas.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I know you wish me to speak on the bill, and I am coming to that, but I just wish to define the atmosphere in which we are debating Bill C-132. Was it Saul or Paul who took that journey on the road to Damascus?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Saul.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thanks very much. Anyway the Middle East is very much to the fore these days, but never has there been such a conversion on that road to Damascus as has happened to the party opposite, the sandstone Grits. They finally realize there is a problem about the ownership of Canada, after having sold our birthright for economic pottage, for a few dollars from below the border and across the seas. Now, they try to pretend that this bill will solve the fundamental problem of foreign ownership.
How can we have a bill defining guidelines on economic nationalism when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has stood in his place many times and refused to define something called a "Canadian industrial strategy"? How can you have a bill on economic nationalism which avoids and almost eliminates any consultation with the provinces that make up the flesh of this skeleton known as Canada? In all seriousness, this is a fundamental flaw, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I come to the other fundamental flaw. There is something in this bill called a foreign review takeover agency. I am glad the hon. member for Nickel Belt understands what it is. I tell him he could be confronted with some speeches of his old leader, who was a great leader. The present leader is like a chameleon; he changes according to the colour of the day. In the old days when the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan The Islands (Mr. Douglas) talked about Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee he made some sense, but now we have Tweedle-Dum over here and Ho-Hum over there. That is the main problem.
But returning to the bill, which I know you want me to do, Mr. Speaker, and to the amendments, I would have thought the bill came from the hand of the President of the Treasury Board rather than from the hand of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce because it is so managerial, so bureaucratic in scope that one finds it almost impossible to imagine what could conceivably happen.
I say this because not too many years ago in an earlier debate which the President of the Treasury Board will remember-I think he was a deputy minister at that time-there was great controversy over a definition in the Customs Tariff Act which gave some discretion to the minister of national revenue or the minister of finance in

interpreting something called "class or kind." I will attempt to educate the hon. member for Nickel Belt on this, if possible. In the discussion on class or kind, members of the then opposition, led by the four horsemen, Pickersgill, Chevrier, Mr. Pearson and the present government leader in the senate, Senator Martin, for day after day castigated the government and criticized and complained about the arbitrary, discretionary power that was to be given to the then minister of national revenue in interpreting the meaning of "class or kind", as applied to goods entering Canada: he could decide whether those goods or products were of a class or kind made in Canada. That was an arbitrary discretion to be exercised by the minister.
Under the act, the minister could exact tariffs which would prevent certain goods entering this country and thereby help industry in Canada to grow. That is what the government of the day wanted. The opposition complained that the then minister of national revenue in the government led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was to be given dictatorial powers. The minister was to decide matters for which there were no guidelines, no rules and no regulations. He would interpret these things according to the functioning of his digestion or his indigestion, as the case may be, and make interpretations with regard to class or kind.
What those members said in 1961, more than ten years ago, about the discretion of the minister could be said with even more conviction today. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce does not need to take the advice of the foreign takeover advisory council. The minister has power to decide if foreign capital coming to this country will be of significant benefit to Canada, and he can decide this without guidelines, terms of reference, rules or regulations, according to his indigestion, good humour or, hopefully, good sense. He must make the decision.
There is a place in Nova Scotia called Point Tupper which has delivered to it oil from offshore. That is the only place where we can now get oil, the offshore mineral rights question not having been finally settled. Quebec wants to define what is an oil superport. Unless some protection is built into the act, as suggested in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and other amendments which the House will consider, and unless the provinces are given the opportunity to provide meaningful input and engage in consultative procedures and processes, it is possible that the sort of deep water port contemplated at Point Tupper will be built elsewhere. Unless we are able to provide some meaningful and substantive input with respect to consultations with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as to what foreign capital will be of significant benefit to Canada, it is possible that such deep water ports may be developed in other parts of Canada. I hear that especially Ontario and Quebec want a deep water port.
You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that a political battle is being waged right now on where the next nuclear heavy water plant is to be developed in Canada.


Mr. Bechard:: Tell us what happened in Nova Scotia.
November 9, 1973


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) wants me to talk about the heavy water plant in Nova Scotia. He knows as well as I do and as well as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) that the plant went to Nova Scotia after a great deal of competition from other provinces, including Saskatchewan. Ontario got into the act. The plant only went to Nova Scotia because the federal government of the day helped to subsidize the plant and because the government has also spent millions of dollars to try to resurrect it. That is the story, and it is a sad story. It confirms my belief in the free entreprise system.
My friends to my left talk about a national petroleum company which would buy oil and gas, refine it, put it into the pipeline and see that it gets into my gasoline tank or furnace. I say that the longer I am in Ottawa, in the geographic as well as the political sense, and close to government, the less confident I am in the ability of the government to solve problems which the people of Canada could solve for themselves if given the leeway. That is one reason why I am concerned about this bill. Other speakers have said that the bill will lead to the establishment of more bureaucracy, that it will be negative, that it will depend upon the interpretation of one man. We on this side of the House, unlike those echoes to my left-


Mr. Rodriguez:: Watch it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -say that incentives will do more to help us build up the Canadian economy than the kind of patchwork bill we are considering. These incentives do not come out of thin air; they do not come in the abstract. Today we are dealing with a foreign takeover bill. We tried to deal with a similar bill in the last session. Before that we dealt with the tax reform bill, the bill that was supposed to usher in the millenium for Canadian taxpayers, individual and corporate.
What have we learned from this government which has been in office for about ten years? The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) stood in the House the other day and tried to polish his apple because he had not got the LIP grant he should have had a couple of years ago for his constituency. He spoke about an anniversary. He and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) were of the same class of 1965. Well, I too am of the class of 1965, but unfortunately I have been a retarded pupil.


John R. Rodriguez: But a pupil who is not shy in coming forward.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am almost as retarded as the hon. member for Nickel Belt. Seriously, I have been a retarded pupil inasmuch as I have not moved as quickly as the Prime Minister. I say that the Prime Minister would have done a better job for Canada if he and other members of the class of 1965 had spent a little more time in opposition and a little time with the people he represents, whether in his individual riding or across the country. In that way he could have developed a perception respecting the problems of this country which has nothing to do with textbooks, theory or philosophy; it involves the human element about which he has not yet learned and which you cannot feed into a computer. Before my time runs out-
Foreign Investment Review Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He may continue only if he has the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Obviously, this is Friday afternoon generosity. I do not intend to expand my remarks further and go into any detailed dissection of the bill. I merely say that no good will come of this bill until the government decides to bring in an industrial strategy and take part in meaningful consultations with the provinces. After all, a country is made up of many parts, just as a man is. I am a man of many parts; I have legs, arms, and so on. We are a people of many parts and we make up the political life of this land. Canada is only as strong as the provinces which make up the parts.
I have very great respect for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as a person, but as a minister he is just learning. I notice that the government whip has said something. He is becoming more of a "whipper". He knows a good deal about the machinations of members, because in this House he is a man of experience. The minister, too, is gaining experience, I suggest to the minister that he has much to learn about trade and commerce, and we shall only make progress if we include the provinces in a consultative role. We are not reassured by the examples of consultation which have taken place with respect to taxes, with respect to oil and gas policies, feed grains policies and social policies. We are not that simple even though certain people may think we are.
We are the ones who in the last election said that one of our first items of priority when we obtained power-and we have only been thwarted in one way-would be to have a federal-provincial conference to try to define for the people of Canada the national priorities. That type of consultative role would have helped.
I am a little involved in communications policy because my leader said that this is perhaps one area where one could be challenged. I know I am getting away somewhat from the bill, but I want to say that whether it is on energy or some other area, the word "communications" connotes conversation and consultation. The Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) is not in the chamber, so I will not say anything about him personally. However, I will say something about him as a minister. Three years ago in a Speech from the Throne the government said it would define and develop a communications policy. For three years there has been a tax against the province of Quebec because in February, 1971, their minister, Mr. L'Allier tried to find a communications role for that province.
The second province that got into the act was Ontario. The Ontario minister of transportation and communications, Mr. Carton, defined where he felt Ontario should fit
26635-57 (

Foreign Investment Review Act into the national policy. He was followed by the Alberta minister. Then the new government-and they deserve full credit in British Columbia, where I practised law for six years-appointed Mr. Strachan as minister of communications and he is attempting to find a policy.
In this area, where there should be the greatest consultation and communication, there has been a physical vacuum: there is a fundamental, metaphysical and physical vacuum in any policy between the federal and provincial governments. After being urged by the provincial ministers of communications and some ministers on his side, the federal Minister of Communications is finally going to get the provinces together for a conference. Again, that is not the type of consultative role that we think the provinces should play in this country. The strength of this country depends on, and is defined by, how loud the provincial consultative voice can be heard.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member who has just spoken permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. That is not a point of order. The hon. member should rise for the purpose of asking a question. Does the hon. member agree to accept a question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will accept any question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I remind the hon. member that the hon. member who just finished speaking went beyond his time. Is it agreed that the hon. member may ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the bitterness with which the hon. member attacked this bill, would he inform the House how he intends to vote when it comes to a vote?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is an easy question. I can sympathize with an easy question from an easy mind. I am going to see how my friends vote on the amendments that are laid before this House. Those amendments will give some protection and help allay some of the concern that I and other members feel about this bill. It depends on the vote on those amendments. I hope the hon. member for Nickel Belt will join me, because if he and I can vote together on the amendments, he and I will vote together on the bill.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Annapolis Royal-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the parliamentary secretary did not mean to misguide or misdirect my constituency. While Annapolis Royal used to be part of my constituency-which happens to be the cradle of Canada, because in 1604 that is where western civilization began on this continent-now, because of a nefarious redistribution by the government, no longer is Annapolis Royal in my constituency. The name of my constituency is Annapolis Valley.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I hope that intervention will not be taken off my time. The hon. member for Annapolis

Valley (Mr. Nowlan) spoke about direct competition between this side of the chamber and his side without the intervention of the New Democratic Party. The hon. member and I sometimes get involved in competitions which would be unwise to mention in this House.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Herb Breau: Well, not that one, but I will mention another one very close to the hon. member's heart. I am very proud of this. When the University of Moncton hockey team meets Acadia, they beat them all the time. That is the kind of competition in which the hon. member and I can in some way get involved. While he and I do not meet on the hustings, we do meet at hockey games.
It seems in this debate that the Conservative Party is trying to satisfy, or answer an element of that party which does not want any control over foreign investment in this country.


Walter David Baker: Don't be silly.


Herb Breau: The Premier of New Brunswick is an influential member of the Conservative Party. I have read a few things the premier has said. It is to try to satisfy that type of concern that the amendments are now before the House. When he appeared before the committee, the Premier of New Brunswick said the following about the government of New Brunswick. I am glad he did not say the "people" of New Brunswick, because I happen to be one of them and I do not agree with what he said. I quote:
We see no need for it in our region of Canada and we believe that it would prove to be harmful to our attempts to attract and to accelerate industrial development. . .
How can you propose an effective national policy when it has no positive application in parts of the nation?
I underline the words "no positive application". While most of the speakers from the Conservative Party did not say this, they are trying, by bringing in amendments, to satisfy that element in their party and trying to justify voting this bill. They know the problems Canada has with foreign investment. As a matter of fact, the problems of foreign investment are as bad in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland as they are in central Canada.
The need for foreign investment control is just as important in New Brunswick, including my constituency which has as high a rate of unemployment as can be found in this country, as in central Canada. I firmly believe there is a need for my province, my country and the federal government to have some mechanism of control, review and assessment of any foreign takeover or foreign interest which wants to start a new establishment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: How about a little provincial input, a little co-operation, some communication?


Herb Breau: I will come to that. The hon. member was an assiduous member of the committee. He knows of the amendments brought forward by the minister and moved by me in committee to deal with consultative problems with the provinces. To say that the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) are needed to oblige the government to take into consideration
November 9, 1973

the views of the provinces is not to state the facts fairly. The hon. member knows that in many places in the bill the minister has an obligation to consult with the provinces.


An hon. Member:: There is no obligation.


Herb Breau: Will you just wait for a moment? First, there is the legislative requirement in clause 2 which provides that in assessing whether the takeover of a new establishment is of significant benefit, the enunciated economic and industrial policies of the provinces shall be taken into consideration.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As the minister interprets it.


Herb Breau: No. That is an obligation. Read it carefully.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No, it is not.


Herb Breau: The hon. member for Central Nova proposes that a notice should be sent to the province concerned so that it may be aware that an application is to be made. Most of the hon. members who support this amendment are from the maritime provinces. Those members, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) in particular, know very well that the province is bound to know about any project which has any real significance. First of all, if resource development were involved, a permit would be necessary.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not for a takeover.


Herb Breau: In some cases, yes. I can tell the hon. member that in New Brunswick the situation is this: permits are given to companies and if those companies are taken over, renewed approval is required from the department of natural resources. Most of the provinces have similar arrangements, I believe. Then, again, there are services to be provided-sewer, electricity, water, and so on. Some of these companies are looking for tax agreements, others must make arrangements in connection with labour training. I could go on. I might mention, also, that the notice for which the amendment calls does not merely mean notice by telegram. It covers all information pertaining to the application, because "notice" as defined in clause 8 means the whole file.
The hon. member for Annapolis Valley says he is concerned about the growing amount of bureaucracy, that he is concerned lest the administration of this bill be too bureaucratic. I wonder whether he has read amendment No. 6 which he is supporting. If he has, one wonders whether he has read clause 8 where the word "notice" is defined. The bill provides:
. . . shall give notice in writing to the agency of such proposal in such form and manner and containing such information as is prescribed by the regulations.
This means the whole file. The hon. member says he is concerned about bureaucracy. Well, I am concerned about it too, and it is for that reason I oppose the amendment. I do not want another layer of civil servants to take a file to be reopened after it has been assessed here. It may be that in some cases the whole file should be turned over and, indeed, the bill provides that if the minister believes the information should be given to the province concerned, it
Foreign Investment Review Act can be made available. I will refer hon. members to the precise clause, clause 14(2) (b). It says that any information ...
... for any purpose relating to the administration of this act, be communicated to a minister of the Crown in right of any province or to an officer or employee of Her Majesty in right thereof.
Sure the file can be turned over, but for the hon. member to support amendment No. 6, when he complains about bureaucracy, is self-defeating: he wishes to impose further bureaucracy.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You send a copy. The minister of health sends out a million copies of every speech he makes; so does the Minister of Agriculture.


Herb Breau: Well, if you send out information you must wait for a response and it will mean another layer of bureaucracy. Remember, it was not I who brought up this question of bureaucracy; it was the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, the hon. member for Central Nova and,
I	believe, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Haliburton).
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) said he would like to be shown a place in the bill which imposes an obligation to speak with the provinces and listen to their views. I shall be glad to oblige him. Certain amendments were brought forward in committee, not by the opposition but by members on this side, after listening to representations from some of the provinces. We felt we should go maybe half way toward meeting their requests.
I said a while ago, and no one seemed to disagree, that a province was bound to know about any project of real significance. If hon. members will read clauses 8, 9, 10 and
II	they will understand the process whereby the agency receives an application. In clause 9, provision is made for review and assessment by the minister. Clause 9 says, on page 20, that the minister shall review (a) the information contained in the notice, (b) any other information submitted to him, (c) any written undertakings, and (d) any representations submitted to him by a province that is likely to be significantly affected by the proposed or actual investment. This means there is an obligation to consider any representation by a province.


John Allen Fraser: If the province hears about it.


Herb Breau: I said only a few moments ago that a province is bound to hear. Can the hon. member tell me how it could be otherwise? The applicant would be bound to go to the province for some kind of service-light, power, roads, water or sewer-[DOT]


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


John Allen Fraser: Yes, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary secretary has asked me a question. I do not know whether he wants an answer now. I follow him, and I think I shall probably deal with it in the course of my speech.


Herb Breau: I would hope so. It says in clause 9 that any representations have to be considered. I agree this does not necessarily mean consultation. But there is no way in

November 9, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act which consultation can be defined in a statute. Let us turn to clause 11 on pages 21 and 22. It is provided here that the minister must refer these matters to the governor in council. Incidentally, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley complained that a lot of discretion was being left to the minister and said he thought this was dangerous. 1 wonder whether he had read clauses 8 to 12 which make it plain that it is not the minister who decides but the governor in council, the cabinet. The minister does not make a decision, as in some other instances.
I have no reason to believe the hon. member was overly concerned about the Regional Development Incentives Act, for example in connection with which the minister, not the cabinet, makes the decisions. Moreover, there is nothing in that act which guarantees that the minister responsible for DREE will come from the Maritimes. He could very well come from central Canada. He could even come from Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: Perhaps one of these days the minister for DREE will come from Hamilton West. There is nothing in the Regional Development Incentives Act to provide that the minister does not have discretion. The minister has complete discretion, something the hon. member for Annapolis Valley did not mention. Here it is not a case of the minister's discretion, but rather the cabinet's discretion; and surely the cabinet will have before it representations from across the country. If there are any particular problems in one part of the country, then the minister will have to convince the governor in council.
Supposing it is not enough to provide in clause 9 that the minister has to review and assess representations made by the provinces. If the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce does not want to go and speak to the provinces, then at least they can communicate with him by sending him a registered letter, or by coming up to Ottawa and speaking with him. Ministers are always free to speak to provincial ministers.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Are you kidding?


Herb Breau: Of course they are. Let me refer to subsection (2) of clause 11 on page 22 of the bill. At the end of subsection (2) it says:
. . . and any representations submitted by a province that is likely to be significantly affected by the proposed or actual investment to which the notice relates.
That subsection provides that if the minister is convinced he can go ahead, he must take with him to cabinet any representation made to him by a province. The hon. member is a lawyer and surely he can read and understand that. He asked where was the obligation, and I tell him that there is the obligation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We will figure it out later.


Herb Breau: Please do, because that is the obligation under the act. Hon. members say the amendment by the hon. member for Central Nova must be accepted in order to have consultation. That is nonsense; it is not true at all.

I have mentioned that in the bill there are three places where-


Mr. Epp:: There is an option.


Herb Breau: Can the hon. member read?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes.


Herb Breau: Has he read page 22?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I have.


Herb Breau: Read clause 11 (2) and tell me whether there is an option there. It provides that the minister must take to cabinet any representations received from a province. There is another problem with the amendment of the hon. member for Central Nova. In establishing whether there is any significant benefit, he submits we should only consider the policies of the province where the business concerned is carried on. As a maritimer, I hope my colleagues from the Maritimes on the other side of the House will agree with me when I say I cannot accept that. I submit we must retain in the bill the wording "a province that is likely to be significantly affected". It could be the case that the business carried on in one province affects another province significantly.
We all know what is Premier Hatfield's view of this bill. He has categorically stated that he sees no need for foreign investment controls. That is what he has said in his briefs and in his speeches. I often disagree with him, and I disagree with him especially about that. I have had occasion to speak to industrialists who want to set up businesses in my constituency. They approach me as a member of parliament from the area and ask me for help, for contacts in the region, and for help at the government level in the form of a grant or loan. We have received some very good government programs.
When I speak to these people, I go beyond the criteria that are set out in this bill. In my constituency there is a large amount of unemployment and poverty. I ask them about the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in business enterprise, about the effect of acquisition on productivity and industrial activity, about the effect of competition and compatible policies. I have had people from Germany and Japan representing certain interests who have asked me for help, and I have said I would help them so long as they obtained supervisory personnel who were bilingual and from the area. That is not mentioned in the act, and these people do not run away, as Premier Hatfield said they would, because they do not want to do this. They say "Sure, we will meet those criteria". If they do not meet them, then they can bloody well stay home. If they want to come to my constituency but do not respect the criteria in this bill and other conditions-I see you are getting impatient, Mr. Speaker. Has my time expired?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I was about to tell the hon. member that his time has expired. If he wishes to continue, he can do so with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Take just three minutes.
November 9, 1973


Herb Breau: I just want to say that if people from Japan, the United States or Europe do not like this bill, as Premier Hatfield has suggested, then as far as my province is concerned they can bloody well stay home, and I will repeat that for as long as I live.


An hon. Member:: What did you say?


Herb Breau: They can bloody well stay home.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Watch your language.


Herb Breau: Any industry that comes into my constituency should respect the policy of the province and, even beyond that, policy at the regional or constituency level. For example, roughly 90 per cent of my constituents are Acadian and French-speaking, and 15 per cent of those are unilingual French. Most industrialists from Japan and the United States transact business in the English language. Their technological backgrounds are English. If these people are not willing to train the people of my riding in their own language so that they can understand this technology and not just be janitors, then we do not want them.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is what provincial consultation is all about.


Herb Breau: The hon. member left his seat for a moment when I was explaining, and I am sure he does not want me to explain all over again what is the obligation set out in the bill to consult with the provinces. If hon. members examine other legislation passed by this parliament, they will find nowhere greater obligations than those contained in this bill.
Premier Hatfield bragged about how beautiful was the DREE program and how his province would be able to create a lot of jobs. There is nothing in RDIA which provides that the minister should turn his file over to the provinces. There is nothing in that act to provide that the minister should even consult with the provinces. But hon. members know that if a province tells the federal government that it is concerned about a DREE application or an application made to the foreign investment review agency, then the federal government will listen to that province. As I say, there is an obligation under this act that the minister, when he goes to cabinet, shall append to his recommendation any representations made to him by a province. One cannot go further than that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Would you vote for it?


Herb Breau: I never vote for things on a hypothetical basis-only when I see them. If the amendment were to say that, it would be a horse of a different colour, but it does not. The amendment asks for the whole of the information to be turned over to the provinces. To me that would be overly bureaucratic and would slow down the process. As I think Premier Hatfield said at the federal-provincial conference, it would help the process to become overly bureaucratic and pompous, or something like that. In any case, what members of the Conservative Party are asking for would make this bill overly bureaucratic and would slow down the process. We are attempting to do a whole review in 60 days, and then the application is automatically accepted unless we need more information.
Foreign Investment Review Act
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative Party, having an element within its ranks that does not want anything done about foreign investment control, has put forward these amendments to say to Premier Hatfield and others, "We are concerned about your problem and we are going to put things on the order paper to hold up debate on the bill. We cannot oppose the bill as a national party." None of them has suggested that, Mr. Speaker; they have all said it is needed. Their party and individual members from the Maritimes know there is a need for this bill.


Alastair William Gillespie: But they are trying to weaken it.


Herb Breau: Yes, they are trying to weaken it to let this element of their party believe they would have it otherwise. We did consult with the provinces on this bill, Mr. Speaker. We have an obligation to consult. Perhaps Premier Hatfield and a few other people are afraid to intervene, afraid to be tough with foreign companies. If this is against their political philosophy, I will respect the Conservatives for voting against this bill. But to try to sit on the fence on both sides of the issue, that I cannot accept.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that it is Friday afternoon, and of course that always makes debate a little more spirited in this chamber and perhaps accounts for some of the looseness in the debate to which we have been listening. I found it interesting that the parliamentary secretary made a fervent and fiery speech about the fact that if anybody from a foreign clime goes to his constituency, to la belle province or to his area, he is going to make sure that it benefits the local people. I would just ask the parliamentary secretary if he would make some inquiries over the weekend about how many bilingual helicopter pilots are operating in James Bay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a point of order.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member, by "la belle province" means New Brunswick, I accept that; but I am not from Quebec.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. However, still he might be interested in finding out in la belle province just who is flying those helicopters at James Bay. The hon. member has said there are obligations under this bill for the federal government to consult with the provinces. An obligation is either moral or legal. Moral obligations come and go and vary depending on the circumstances or mood of the person who has the obligation.
In his speech the minister said there are obligations to consult the provinces. There is not a single legal obligation to consult with a single person in the government of any province under this bill. With great respect to my friend who preceded me and made a very fervent plea that such was the case, I should like to ask him to read the bill again and see if he can find any section that compels any member of the government or the tribunal to consult with anybody in a province. He says that the provincial govern-

Foreign Investment Review Act ments' announced economic policy must be taken into account. What is the announced economic policy? Supposing somebody says they do not have one: how do you take that into account? The sections that my hon. friend referred to do not, under any circumstances, impose an obligation.


Herb Breau: Clause 11, page 22.


John Allen Fraser: I am going to look at clause 11. But let us go back a little first. Let us take the first clause that my hon. friend referred to. Clause 9 (d) reads as follows:
any representation submitted to him by a province that is likely to be significantly affected by the proposed or actual investment to which the notice relates . . .
Now, Mr. Speaker, how does representation get to the federal government under that section? It does not get there unless somehow, as the minister admitted, somebody hears about it, some application comes through, something happens. All hon. members know that these applications will probably be made in confidence between two or three parties, or whoever is involved, and they will not be preceded by a plethora of notice by governmental agencies whether municipal, provincial or federal before the application goes in. That is how things work.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


John Allen Fraser: Not yet. There is no compulsion upon the federal government to give notice to any province. I do not like the amount of foreign investment in this country. I do not mind the investment but I do not like the control, and if control results from the investment I do not like it. I have been living in a world where I have dealt with foreign control corporations and I know the pressures that exist. I am saying that there is nothing in this bill about consulting the provinces.
Take the other sections; they are all the same. I address these remarks to my hon. friend who made a very good speech and who is sincere. I think the minister is outside the chamber for the moment, but he was here and I appreciate that. Let me give some examples. Mr. Speaker, I see that the minister has joined our side for a few minutes.


Alastair William Gillespie: I beat a hasty retreat.


John Allen Fraser: Obviously, the minister feels that he is mediating between myself and the parliamentary secretary; but perhaps it is not necessary. I am flattered that the minister would personally intervene. Let us go through the examples of why one might say it does not automatically follow that the federal government is going to consult. Where was the consideration for the provinces in Mr. Gordon's budget of a few years ago? That was torn to pieces by the government.


An hon. Member:: By the opposition, too.


John Allen Fraser: Yes, and the opposition. But where was the consultation beforehand, after the interest in the white paper? Many members of this House were here then and backed that colossal sham that was perpetrated on the Canadian people. We now have a tax bill that the government called a reform-but nobody without a battery of

lawyers can understand it. Where was the consultation when British Columbia was having problems with offshore resources? We now have a lawsuit on our hands. What has happened to meaningful consultation as far as east coast resources are concerned? What has happened to meaningful consultation between the federal government and the province on west coast tanker routes? Where has been the consultation in this incredible confrontation between the federal government and Alberta? Where is the assurance that there will be consultation?
I will give another example. When British Columbia put in a bid for the winter Olympic games and it was finally decided how much money the federal government would grant British Columbia, what happened? There was a refusal to meet with the provincial government, and a unilateral announcement about so many dollars being granted for the purpose. What about the ports in British Columbia? How many members have already forgotten the great problems of five years ago over Roberts Bank port because there could not be any meaningful consultation with British Columbia, and the provincial government had to go ahead on its own?


Herb Breau: Who was the minister of transport then?


Thomas Miller Bell: Jack Pickersgill.


John Allen Fraser: When you talk about how easy it is for the provincial government to deal with the federal government, let me remind you of the headlines not long ago regarding what Premier Barrett said on the port problem, namely, that he will not talk to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) any more. So much for consultation! As he said, there was no meaningful consultation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: I want to turn now to something which all hon. members should know about, because if you have forgotten history let me tell you that this is something that is again happening right now, this afternoon, in this country and it illustrates the problem we are discussing. Some of you have already heard of Triton Industries, which is a small company in my province. Let me tell you what is happening to Triton Industries this afternoon and why it bears on this discussion. Consider what happened to the federal-provincial consultations. In 1971, Triton Industries developed a radio of considerable value to RCMP, air-sea rescue, fishing boats, etc. In April of 1971 it was advised by the Department of Transport that Triton would be placed on a suppliers' list and would be considered when this type of equipment was required.
In May of 1971 they had developed this particular radio and it was being used commercially on the west coast. By November, 1971, Triton was appraised by Sperry Rand that a large coastguard tender had been released for bid Triton did not receive a tender from the federal government and the contract for the supply of equipment was given to an American-controlled corporation in the province of Ontario. In January of 1972 Triton was advised by the Department of Supply and Services that it was not on the list, that something had gone wrong.
November 9, 1973

Subsequent to that, a large government grant was given to the Ontario firm to develop this radio and the result was that the radio, which has only been developed now, some time later, was taken away from them. The chance to sell it and operate it was taken away completely from this west coast company because one arm of government did not know what the other was doing.
I do not blame anyone for that in a sinister sense, but if all hon. members would just take a look at that example they would realize that one cannot ever assume that people will act in the most efficient way. I am not talking about people acting in bad faith; I am just talking about human nature. Things are forgotten, things do not get done. This afternoon that company is hours away from going to American financing to bail it out. At present a message has been finally sent in desperation-the Triton people were down here to talk to the government a week or so ago, but nothing has happened-to Premier Barrett of my province saying that if they cannot get some help from the province by 4 p.m. today they will discharge at least 50 per cent of their equity control to American-controlled interests. Why is that? Because this country does not look after its own people in incentive programs or consultative programs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: This is a classic example of what we are doing to our own people. I do not know how many examples of this sort of action exist across this country, but this matter is concrete and it is right in front of us this afternoon. That is why we say yes, we have to control our economy and our destiny. We recognize that for too long we have been prepared to sell out and take the easy road. All hon. members realize that. There is not a member on the government side or on this side who would disagree with me on this; and the public also agree.
When I say there is a defect in the act, do not tell me or my party that that is because I am in favour of the Americans taking over a company a mile or two below the southern boundary of my riding. That does not make any sense, and it is not so, as hon. members know. But we do have a problem here. All that these amendments require is that the federal government have the obligation to send a notice to the provincial governments when an application comes in.
This bill involves bureaucracy anyway, and I do not know how one can get around it until we get some experience. However, it is not difficult to bundle up a copy of an application and send it off. Second, it is not very difficult to devise a method whereby there would be representation on these particular boards when the decision involves a region or a province. You can quibble about the words but it is very hard to quibble about the principle.
The government has the capacity to bring in these amendments, and they are important amendments. I do not want to sit here any longer hearing people debate whether Alberta will secede, whether Quebec will secede or whether British Columbia will secede. This is foolishness and it is not in our interest. The tragedy is that it does not need to take place. I have been a lawyer and I know perfectly well that in the world of real affairs it is necessary that obligations be made mandatory.
Foreign Investment Review Act
There is one more thing that I wish to say before I conclude, and I ask the indulgence of the House to let me finish my argument in this way. It is all very well for the minister or for government members to tell us what this bill really means. I will give two examples to show that you cannot be sure, no matter how much good faith you have, that what is said will be done. A few years ago, when the expropriation bill was before the committee of the House, the then minister of justice when dealing with a certain section said that the rules of natural justice would apply, in spite of the fact that many members of the committee were worried about whether they would apply in favour of persons whose property was being expropriated at the time. That is what the minister said; you can find it in the committee report. However, a few months ago, the Exchequer Court of Canada decided that in such cases the rules of natural justice do not apply.
There is another instance of this. A few years ago, the Minister of the Environment, when talking about whether or not the James Bay project could possibly proceed before environmental studies were completed-you will find this in Hansard- said it was their understanding and the understanding of the province of Quebec that the project would not proceed until the studies had been completed. These are two examples. They demonstrate that we should not draw up legislation on the basis of pious hopes. Let us put in sound working principles and let us recognize the weaknesses we all have and the capacity for error which exists in any administrative system. Let us shore-up the bill. The principle of what I am saying is sound and sensible. It will help this country, not hinder it.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the agreement of the House to ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herb Breau: The hon. member is right when he says there is no legal obligation to send notice of an application to the province. But of course he will agree that if a province makes representations, then there is an obligation not only to consider them but for the minister to take them to cabinet. That is clear. If an applicant believes that the province would support him and the federal government might not, can the hon. member tell me why in the world that applicant would not just telephone the premier of the province and ask him to make representations on his behalf to the minister?


John Allen Fraser: I am pleased that the parliamentary secretary has asked me this perfectly valid question. The answer is this. First of all, we have no assurance that without some kind of prearrangement with the provinces they will have any mechanism by which to deal with this. You can say that this will make it more bureaucratic, but it does not take that much more bureaucracy. If a company puts in an application and if we had the amendments we have asked for, it would know that the province will act, not in its favour but in the public interest, which is the way the province would have to act.
7722

November 9, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
However, if the company has to go to the province itself and browbeat, push, cajole or twist arms to get the province to move, the province will have a built-in reluctance to become involved in that because it will ask: Why should we be supporting one company against another? At that time you have removed the province from the position of acting in the public interest as the result of provisions in this bill, and you get the province in the position of taking sides in applications.
If you make it mandatory that notice be given to the province, the province can then act completely on its own and can make its own decision without necessarily talking to the company. It can decide that this is in the interest of the province, that they have strong views on it, or that they have nothing to say on it at all. But if no notice goes to the province, they cannot act on it.


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


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties in the usual way, and I would like to announce that we will be dealing with the Middle East resolution all day Wednesday, after routine proceedings.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to today's private members' hour. I believe it has been agreed that the notice of motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr Roche) would be discussed. It has also been agreed by those involved that consideration of that notice of motion would terminate at five minutes before five o'clock, and that the five remaining minutes would be used for the purpose of sending the subject matter of private member's Bill C-143, standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), to committee without debate, except perhaps for a few words of appreciation from the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house has heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) regarding agreement about our procedure during the next hour, namely, that we proceed until five minutes to five o'clock with the notice of motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche). At that point, presumably, the debate will come to an end-one cannot foretell with what result-and the remainder of the time will be spent in discharging the order respecting the public bill moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), Bill C-143, and transmitting the subject matter of that bill to one of the committees of the House. This would have to be done by unanimous agreement of the House. I think it is also understood that other notices of motions and other bills would retain their priority. Is all this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider developing an integrated approach to social and economic policy development in Canada through the creation of an economic and social council to establish a more beneficial relationship between the social interests and the business interest in the community in order to help all our institutions be more responsive toward the interests and aspirations of the individual citizen.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion I am proposing to the House would provide a way to increase livability in Canada. I am asking that the government provide a structure for social planning through a social council of Canada in the same way that it provides a structure for economic planning through the Economic Council of Canada; and, further, that it integrate economic and social planning in the interest of the total human being.
My motion is aimed at improving the quality of life in Canada not in a vague, motherhood spirit but in a concrete proposal. The social council I envisage would help us to analyse and improve our progress in those areas that are regarded internationally as social indicators of the quality of life. These are: health, individual development through learning, employment and quality of working life, leisure, command over goods and services, physical environment, personal safety and the administration of justice, and social opportunity and equality.
Just as the government is aided in setting economic policy by the thinking and by the excellent reports of the Economic Council of Canada, so it would be helped by the social thinking of the council I propose. Social policy traditionally takes a back seat to economic policy. But the upheavals in modern society demand that we revise and upgrade our way of making social policy.
Since we have long suffered from the compartmentaliza-tion of man, I suggest that the economic and social proposals of the two equal bodies be linked, such as by the issuance of a joint annual report, so that the government receives integrated proposals designed for people. Such comprehensive planning is a vital first step if we are to protect human values in a society already dominated by the computer and soon to be challenged by the genetic engineers.
Let me state briefly why we must bring this new dimension of planning into government. In the development of Canada so far, the accent has been on building and growth. Our success has been measured in the production of goods and services. There has been an assumption that the emphasis on quantity would improve the quality of our life. I am not necessarily critical of this assumption; the material development of Canada has required concentration on the GNP. But the conditions of modern society have changed dramatically in the past few years as a result of the technological and cultural explosions. The intense problems of future shock have hit Canadians. Change used to be gradual but now it is rapid and escalat-
November 9, 1973

ing, allowing us very little time to adapt. The world is changing faster than we can cope with it.
Technology has brought many benefits-communications and transportation are just two examples- but it has also been a chief source of the anxiety and spreading frustration that characterize modern life. The acquisition of more goods has not by itself made us a happier people.
Our economy must grow at 7 per cent a year to maintain progress, as we have traditionally defined that word. This growth rate demands escalating consumer consumption. Thus, increasing numbers of people feel caught up in the faster-turning wheels of progress with no sense of purpose other than growth itself. We have to ask ourselves in this parliament a fundamental question: Is bigger, better? That question deserves the attention of parliament. It deserves much more attention than we have been giving it, for if bigger is better, why are five million Canadians still living below the poverty line? Why has crime increased? Why are alcohol, drug and suicide rates up? Why is there more pollution of water and air? Why is there more labour strife? Why are we congesting in urban areas, leaving vast areas of Canada empty?
These basic questions reveal why the assumptions and patterns of the institutions in our society need re-examination. It is critical that this re-examination take place now because as a result of technology we are entering a new period of our history, a period in which we have acquired the power to shape our own future for better or for worse. We must either control it for the better or it will control us for the worse.
Consider what is happening in our world. We have manned satellites riding the gravitational fences of our planet. We have put men on the moon. We have communications satellites to let us see by live television what is happening on the other side of the world, and sensory devices in orbit to detect and map biological and mineral resources concealed from the human eye. We are entering the bioengineering age in which we can manipulate the nature and structure of living things. Indeed, as Lord Ritchie-Calder of the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions maintains: "The whim of the present generation can determine the character of remote posterity." This is more than spare-part surgery or organ transplants; we can tamper with the genetic code and thus produce deviations whose consequences may be unpredictable and irreversible.
I have used this example only to illustrate my contention that we have entered a profoundly new period in our history. It is in these changed circumstances that government policies must be made. Government controls the economy and thus influences the framework of society within which people live their lives. The size and extension of government today makes it a dominant influence on the direction of society. William Dyson, executive director of the Vanier Institute of the Family, puts his finger on our dilemma as follows:
The issue is not that Canada has insufficient wealth... The central problem is people, not dollars: people being increasingly excluded from access to our riches, while a few others here and abroad, are increasingly favoured. Even worse, it is the exclusion of these people-who grow in number and now include business-
Economic and Social Council
men, scientists and engineers-exclusion from work, from status, from identity, from meaningful living.
Despite the enormous and, in some cases, threatening advances of technology, government policy-making and forecasting is still lamentably weak. It is not necessary to reject economic growth to recognize that we have produced wantonly and without recognizing the social impact of our affluence. It is not necessary to dismiss material comfort to recognize other values that are essential to the human and humane qualities of men. Government cannot escape its obligation to take a broad, long view. It must strive to combine economic development and personal well-being. Affluence makes sense only if it leads to increased social justice and personal fulfilment. In this way, economic growth may become a means to the end of an enhanced quality of life.
There are growing voices in Canada today calling for this new emphasis on integrated social planning. Foremost is the Canadian Council on Social Development, the closest body we now have to the model I propose. The council is a private organization drawing its support from the federal government, the ten provincial governments, the 70 largest municipalities and many businesses. Its central objective is social policy development. It does a fine job, but because of its non-governmental status and limited resources it is a poor cousin to the prestigious Economic Council of Canada. The federal government has put $3,-
474,000	into this year's Economic Council budget. The Canadian Council on Social Development has to scrape up its $820,000 annual budget of which $275,000 is contributed by the federal government.
I want to emphasize that keeping social policy as a residual aspect of economic policy is old-fashioned thinking and has led to the chaotic situation in Canada today in which government at all levels spends $6 billion a year on welfare and yet has not significantly alleviated poverty. Our reluctance to put social policy on the same level as economic policy fails to recognize that social policies can be dynamic, lead to incentive and thus, to tax reductions.
A practical benefit of linking economic and social interests is seen in minimum wages, for increasing minimum wages is essential to social advancement. Thus, people are given money for work done, not subsidized for work not done. Instead of collecting extra tax dollars for so many welfare plans, the government could reduce taxes so as to offset increased costs due to higher minimum wages. An increase in minimum wages actually costs the country less because it cuts down on welfare costs. We would then be paying people, not governments. Accordingly, the executive director of the Canadian Council on Social Development, Reuben Baetz, is himself a proponent of an integrated approach to social and economic policy development. Mr. Baetz says:
Canada desperately needs an independent organization active in the formation and promotion of sound social policies. Such an organization must have enough financial support to operate with a high degree of professional competence. It must take into account the needs, resources and attitudes of individual citizens and their organizations in development of policy proposals, but it must avoid becoming the mouthpiece of one or more special interests. It must speak courageously of values and desirable social objectives, but remember that resources are not unlimited ... It must remain non-partisan in politics but skilled in the dynamics and work of
7724

November 9, 1973
Economic and Social Council
the political arena, for that is where all public social policy is finally decided.
Such a model should be created by the federal government in co-operation with the provincial governments. Ad hoc consultations between federal and provincial ministers, while useful, are not good enough because they are dependent on political timing and good will. A permanent structure is needed. Perhaps the Canadian Council on Social Development could provide the nucleus for the model I propose. In any event, this new body should collaborate closely with the Economic Council in the development of social indicators that provide hard data on the quality of life issues.
The Economic Council has also shown increasing interest in the social and institutional aspects of economic development. In its eighth annual report the council noted:
... In our increasingly complex, interdependent society, short range and ad hoc responses to the problems of growth and change seem increasingly inappropriate in many instances.
Several departments of the federal government now look upon social indicators as a necessary instrument of public policy, but their work is fragmented. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion, for example, is developing indicators to measure the problems of social adjustment created by regional economic development. The Department of Labour is conducting research on indicators of job satisfaction. The Science Council of Canada and Environment Canada are both interested in social indicators of the environment. The Department of Health and Welfare's working papers on social security in Canada, focusing on the best method of achieving security of income for all Canadians, are useful as an indication of one important factor contributing to quality of life.
Statistics Canada is currently working on a report of salient trends in Canadian society including population, health, education, income and expenditure, welfare and social security, labour force and employment, leisure arts and culture, justice, housing, environment and urban statistics, participation, opportunity, accessibility and social mobility. This information will provide the basis for judging our "livability index". But we need more than statistical tools to tell us about the quality of our society. A social council is needed to encourage and to integrate such research into proposals for public policy.
Data gathering and analysis would be futile without a corresponding ability in parliament to evaluate proposals. So I come finally to how parliament itself will respond to the information and analyses presented to it. I believe there is an essential role for parliament in judging how the values of our society are being affected by change. In this light, human values need to be reaffirmed. We are not without human concern in our institutions, but we express it in the wrong way. We add on humanizing factors to public policy rather than developing policy that starts from the base of the human being, his rights and dignity. Our social security policies in pensions and unemployment insurance allocations are a prime example of this "adding on" humanization. We create a system which generates casualties and then add on another huge system to compensate the casualties. We must instead make our society conform to our own long-range human needs.

To take another example, our environmental dilemma is but a symptom of a much deeper problem facing us. No one decided to dehumanize life with crowding, traffic jams, noise and squalor. No one decided that air pollution and dying waterways should be the price of unlimited growth. No one decided these things, but neither were they accidents. They are what we have done because we have assumed, unconsciously, that we had the right, indeed the obligation, to do them.
We must begin to see ourselves no long as conquerors, exploiters or plunderers of our planet, but as stewards or trustees of its generous but not unlimited resources, of its resilient but not indestructible systems that support all life. As Maurice Stong, executive director of the UN environment program, explains:
We must begin to see that even if we win the fight against pollution, what will that gain us if three decades from now at least half of humanity will still endure a life of intermittent work, permanent undernourishment, poor health, poor housing and, at present standards, relatively growing illiteracy and lack of skills? Will that be an environment that is human or endurable?
Not only the quality of life in Canada, but global stability demand a reassertion of human dignity to ensure the survival and well-being of the whole human community. A commitment to true humanism does not demand uniformity in our individual or community lives. However, it provides the framework for man's search for beauty and truth, for moral and spiritual growth, and it is in this search that we achieve our highest levels of humanity.
To summarize, we are in an age in which we are transforming our lives and our world. We have done so hitherto on the basis of incomplete knowledge and narrow ambition, principally economic. We must broaden our knowledge and our values to recognize and to enhance the whole man and mankind. To do so we need better social data and analysis to be provided by a social council of Canada.
We must ask ourselves in parliament how we can truly help growing numbers of Canadians who are vulnerable to the economic system and dependent on government programs to gain greater control over their own lives and destiny. Upgrading social policy is the route to a more human society.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I was very much impressed with the speech of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche). I could not agree with him more that we as a nation, and perhaps as a whole western European society if we consider ourselves as such, have in the past generation or so been far too concerned about economic growth and not nearly enough about the effects it has on people.
This is not the gist of my speech, because I planned to go into something quite different, but I am particularly concerned about the notion of growth versus the environment. One member earlier gave the example of James Bay. We have to learn how to internalize some of these external costs such as environment and social costs when we get into massive growth schemes. James Bay has to be one of them. The cost in terms of environment, disrupting the Indian people, and so on, has not been internalized. That must be done.
November 9, 1973

I agree with the hon. member that there is a real gap between economic and social planning. This parliament and this government is slowly moving toward a position of greater integration. The key factor in this kind of integration is perhaps the impact on spending for social services, health, welfare, unemployment, family allowances, old age pensions, veterans pensions, disability pensions, the Canada Pension Plan, and so on. There is a whole raft of related welfare services which account for approximately two-thirds of federal government spending. The impact of very heavy spending in this area on the part of the federal government, as well as provincial and municipal governments, is certainly immense in terms of the over-all economic affairs of Canada. It involves a cause and effect relationship that deserves some consideration.
Basically, social needs in an economic sense can be divided into two areas. First, the needs of all citizens, whether they are partaking actively in the economic life of the nation in the sense of being breadwinners and not dependent on the state. These social needs include education, health services and some allowances such as family allowance. In many ways, the more affluent in our society receive a greater share of this kind of welfare than do the poor. Education is a good example. In many ways, it is the affluent who are the welfare bums in the sense that children from affluent families spend many more years receiving expensive education in universities where the staff-pupil relationship is very low and equipment is very expensive. In many ways, the affluent in our society benefit more from the state in terms of welfare than the poor.
The second group of welfare recipients are the needy. These people are dependent because they do not receive an adequate income and must have assistance from the state. This group includes welfare recipients, people on unemployment insurance, people with disabilities, and so on. They are unable to function on their own.
These are the two main groups of welfare recipients in our society. Unfortunately, the latter group seems to come off much worse than the former. Even in areas like health services the latter group does not avail itself. There are many reasons for this. It is possibly because they cannot get babysitters and this sort of thing. A report by the single-parent mothers indicates that these people do not or are not able to avail themselves of health services even though they may be free. Possibly there are also some social reasons.
Planning for social assistance to the second group also has a significant impact on our economy. In a rapid-growth type of society we are very dependent on an affective demand for goods and services. In addition to the supply and humanitarian demands, assistance to this group plays a very significant role in stimulating our economy. Since such groups are not likely to be involved in savings, a steady cash flow is very necessary, especially at times when there may not be very happy consequences with regard to savings and investment.
I can offer an admirable example of the integration of social and economic forces in our national life by referring for a moment to the LIP program. This is not a program
Economic and Social Council
which has a massive impact on our society but it is interesting because of the interaction between social and economic forces. It was designed originally for two purposes, to create jobs and the stimulation of the economy. I would refer to the OFY program in the same category. A third factor has been introduced by the nature of the projects themselves and the scheme has become heavily involved in social service programs. Projects were started as means of creating jobs and ended up as social services and meeting social needs which had been present all along.
The government is concerned about this interrelationship between the social planning side of our national life and the economic side. Serious discussions are going on in the area of finding employment, on the one hand, and the need for compiling inventories of community work so that should unemployment increase, these tasks can be undertaken. Economic necessities affecting social policy, decisions concerning the lowering of pensionable age, and so on, have obvious repercussions on social policy. For example, it seems to me that one of the ways in which we might increase the number of jobs available would be to lower the retirement age.
There are three bodies which deal with planning in Canada in this field, that is, economic and social planning. I have mentioned one, the Economic Council of Canada, and I shall mention another, the Institute for Research on Public Policy. I should also mention the Canadian Council for Social Development, a group which is functioning extremely well though it could function a great deal better if it were possessed of adequate funds. I believe there is much to be said for these groups all getting together to develop integrated policies.
I should like to deal in the few minutes left to me with a subject which concerns me a great deal, that is to say, the whole notion of adversary procedure, an extremely important notion and one which has become better received in the last six months or so, particularly on the Ottawa scene. I am concerned that very often in policy-making there should be massive economic forces aligned against extremely weak social forces. Perhaps this is one of the difficulties which the social council faces-it does not possess the political or economic strength to do the things it needs to do.
Then, again, parliamentary or regulatory bodies tend to be awed by prestigious information; if information is expensively put together we tend to be much more impressed by it than by material put out on behalf of groups which barely have sufficient funds to get them to Ottawa. Nevertheless, it is these groups which often have a great deal to say about the needs of individuals and communities in the social policy field. Perhaps parliamentarians and others concerned should make funds more readily available for such groups to present their cases, particularly where they affect social needs.
One or two examples come immediately to my mind; for instance, groups concerned in an adversary way about decisions to go ahead with pipeline development. Something must be done to ensure a better balance between the various elements in our society, those which have massive economic power and those which are calling attention to pressing social needs.

Economic and Social Council
May I say, in conclusion, that I support the intention behind this motion. I believe the development of a single body to co-ordinate planning in the areas of social and economic affairs is badly needed in this country.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, all too often very worth-while ideas are put forward during private members' hour in the form of resolutions and bills, and all too frequently they are rejected by the government. Such an idea is expressed in the resolution put forward today by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche). It is, as the cliche goes, an idea whose time has come. All it really does is call upon the government to give consideration to the advisability of setting up a social council of Canada. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona certainly put forward eloquently and sincerely some sound arguments to support his case that there is a need to set up such a council.
I believe the motion should commend itself to the government. All too often we as parliamentarians either on the government side or in the opposition vote public funds to carry out projects in various parts of the country without paying any regard to the social consequences of what we are doing. For example, there is the trend toward vacating the family farm and the movement of people toward the urban centres of Canada. We do not really know in any great depth what are the social consequences of the move toward urbanization in Canada, but we do know to a certain extent what impact it has had upon the rural population who suddenly find themselves placed in an urban milieu.
The obvious example that comes to mind is the resettlement program that was carried on in the province of Newfoundland. This was a program conceived-ill-conceived, in my view-by bureaucrats and technocrats who, in putting together a regional development program for the province of Newfoundland, came to the conclusion that there were too many villages in the province, that there were too many settlements or outports as they are called.
This prompted a decision to reduce the number of settlements in the province and to move the people there into what were called receiving centres. In other words, certain areas of the province were designated for resettlement and other areas for receiving centres or growth centres. People from five or half a dozen small outports would be resettled into a larger community within the area. In the process they were forced to abandon their homes, their fishing premises, their small gardens, schools and churches, all of the things that were familiar to them, the infrastructure that they had built up through the years and which had been passed on from generation to generation.
This move was made without any regard for its social impact. As a result, we saw the very sad spectacle of hardy fisherfolk being placed in these reception centres which gradually became welfare ghettoes. These people lost their small gardens, their little churches and schools and public centres, and as a result lost their sense of being, their sense of belonging and sense of pride. The psychological consequence of this was that they suddenly lost their initiative or urge to work and became wards of the state.

In many cases, they had no choice. They had left their villages, their fishing premises and their traditional fishing grounds, and the places they were sent to were designed, not to provide them with work but as places where welfare and social assistance could be conveniently administered. In my view, it was for the convenience of bureaucrats that this ill-conceived resettlement scheme was carried on.
I am pleased to say it has now been stopped because of the consequences which became apparent after the program was well under way. All these pitfalls could have been avoided if there had been the proper approach made and the kind of study conducted that could be conducted by a social council of Canada. That is about the best example I could give, Mr. Speaker, for supporting the very excellent idea that has been put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
The hon. member on the other side who just resumed his seat referred to some statistics released by Statistics Canada relating to the low incomes of single-parent families in Canada-the working mothers of this country. This leads me to another question which sooner or later will have to be faced up to, and that is the need to recognize that in this country there are single-parent families that should be given some degree of equality of opportunity. In order to provide them with this equality of opportunity and to provide these women with at least a reasonable return for their labours, we should consider establishing a federal day-care centre program. This, in my view, is long overdue. Such a program could be very conveniently worked out with the provinces and I am sure all provinces would be receptive to the idea.
A social council of Canada would be able to provide us with the necessary information as to exactly how much is involved in such a program and what are the benefits that would flow from a program of this kind. I have one day-care centre in my own city which was started as a consequence of the Local Initiatives Program. Most of the children in that day-care centre are from families which are on social welfare and which take advantage of the day-care centre to enable the parents to enter the work force and supplement their welfare payments. A great number of the children come from homes where the father has deserted the family and the mother has had to go out to help supplement her welfare payments in order to keep the family going.
The fact that this one day-care centre in a city of 100,000 people had to be started under the Local Initiatives Program points up, to my mind, the fact that here is where we as legislators are falling behind in keeping pace with the need for social development in this country. Social development, as the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona said, and said so eloquently and sincerely, should go hand in hand with and be complementary to the economic development of this country; because to my mind to have one without the other is to invite disastrous consequences.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, when I first had the opportunity of looking over the motion proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) I said to myself, "This strikes me as being an excellent idea". As is my habit, I then began to examine the resolu-
November 9, 1973

tion to see whether any of its components already existed in Canadian society today. As I began to think about his resolution, it became clearer and clearer to me that what he was really seeking to do was to create an institution known as the House of Commons. Because in point of fact, the role which the hon. member has outlined for his proposed new body is exactly the role which the House of Commons fulfils. It is this body which is the co-ordinator, and ultimately the final law-giver, in dealing with the kind of problems the hon. member suggested might be looked after by another institution or organization. For what is the House of Commons if it is not a body that deals with economic and social problems?


Mr. Yewchuk:: This House has not been doing it.


John Mercer Reid: If the House of Commons has not been doing it, then I suggest to the hon. member that all he need do is to look at the speed with which the House of Commons has been dealing during the last week with the foreign investment review bill. The house has been dealing at the report stage with the government's proposal to deal with a matter that has been identified as one of too much American takeover of Canadian industry. The government has proposed legislation, the House of Commons has that legislation and for the last five days we have desperately been trying to break through the log jam of speeches that have come forward. It is not that the House of Commons is not seized of Canadian problems; it is that the House of Commons very often has not agreed upon a solution to those problems.
I did not criticize in general the opposition for taking the stand it has on the foreign investment review act. All I suggest is that it is their right, under the rules of the House of Commons, to delay that piece of legislation as long as they wish; but they cannot criticize the institution or the government for not providing solutions and criticize the government for not allowing it to come to a decision. It is the opposition that determines when a matter comes to a decision under the rules we now have in this House of Commons.


Douglas Roche: Would the parliamentary secretary accept a question?


John Mercer Reid: Of course.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, in response to the motion which I put forward the parliamentary secretary suggested that the House of Commons is doing the very work that a social council of Canada would do in my view, and therefore in his judgment it is not needed. Would he say that the work of the Economic Council of Canada is not needed because the House of Commons is doing its work, and therefore bodies such as that should be disbanded?


John Mercer Reid: If I may make my position clear, Mr. Speaker, I would disband almost all of these so-called institutions that surround us. I do not really believe that a proliferation of organizations of that nature, or a proliferation of government departments is getting us anywhere in dealing with the problems that face us today. It is my opinion
Broadcasting Act
that we should cut away the underbrush that surrounds so many of these organizations and institutions that grow up one with the other and do not contribute very much to the good of Canadian society.
This House of Commons has the responsibility for taking decisions on these items. We are here as freely elected representatives of the people, and we have the responsibility to bring attention to matters in a way which allows a decision to be taken. The problems and difficulties experienced by organizations like the Social Welfare Council, the Economic Council of Canada and the countless other councils that interpose themselves between the will of the House of Commons and the potential solution of problems make our position very difficult.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The debate on the notice of motion presented by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has just concluded, pursuant to the agreement reached unanimously earlier in this hour.
We will now proceed to the next order of business. It was agreed that Bill C-143 would be called under public bills and that the motion would be presented by the Chair.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the order for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts of Bill C-143, to amend the Broadcasting Act, be discharged, that the said bill be withdrawn and the subject matter of the said bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my thanks to government members for allowing Bill C-143 to come forward at this time. I also wish to express my appreciation to the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit party for their co-operation in this matter. Canadian school boards, school trustees and teachers' associations will also be most grateful that the House has allowed this private members' bill to be moved up and its subject matter transferred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, where it is hoped that this question will receive full consideration at the earliest possible time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is now five o'clock and the hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired. This House stands adjourned until Tuesday, November 13, 1973, pursuant to special order made Monday, November 5, 1973, the hour for resumption being 2 p.m.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Tuesday, November 13, 1973