1973-11-07

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Speaker:: May I be allowed to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a very distinguished visitor and parliamentary colleague, the Honourable Allen E. Reuter, Speaker of the Ontario Legislative Assembly. Mr. Speaker Reuter is in Ottawa to discuss Commonwealth Parliamentary Association matters with his federal colleagues. On behalf of the House of Commons I extend to him a warm, cordial and friendly greeting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (A) for the financial year ending March 31, 1974, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That the Supplementary Estimates (A), tabled this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, the Unemployment Insurance Act requires the government to
review annually the rate of premiums to be paid by employers and employees during the year ahead.
With the completion of tabulation of the T4 returns for 1972, processed by the Department of National Revenue in September, 1973, and analysed by the commission, we now have accurate and complete financial data for last year. For 1972 the insurable earnings base was $42 billion, 36 per cent of this being the wages or salaries of persons covered by unemployment insurance for the first time and paying a preferential rate; the employer-employee contribution, just recently determined, was $691 million. The cost chargeable to the employer-employee account is now known to be $1,104 million. Earned interest is $2.8 million.
Thus there was an operating deficit of $410 million on this account for the calendar year of 1972. The opening cash balance as of January 1, 1972, carried over from the old unemployment insurance fund, was $235.5 million. This was applied against that deficit.
For 1973, we now forecast the total benefit payments at $2,050 million. This, together with administrative costs, interest payments, less overpayments recovered, will bring the total cash flow requirements to $2,201 million. Of this, $932 million will be the government's share, and $1,269 million is chargeable to the employee-employer premium account.
This year the shortfall of charges to the employee-employer premium account over premium revenue is expected to be about $335 million. Adding this figure to the net cash deficit of $174.5 million as of last December 31 will result in a cumulative deficit of about $509.6 million in the employee-employer account by the end of 1973.


Mr. Stanfield:: What's half a million?


Robert Knight Andras: Based upon this analysis, we have recommended and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has approved, these contribution rates for the calendar year 1974: For employees, $1.40 per $100 of insurable earnings; for employers, $1.96 per $100 of insurable earnings.
At the new rates, the employee-employer account can be expected to break even for operations in the calendar year 1974, and could produce some surplus to reduce the cumulative deficit. In 1975 there will be between $100 million and $120 million in new and additional revenue as a result of the disappearance of the preferential rate, which will mean a very substantial reduction in the deficit that year. These new rates are adequate to retire the current deficit at least by the end of 1978, barring unforeseen adverse economic developments.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Don't worry, the Socialists will keep you in power.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 7, 1973
Unemployment Insurance


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, when the new act was passed in 1971 it was obvious that the old structure of the Unemployment Insurance Commission would not be adequate to cope with the new universal coverage, the different definitions of eligibility, the range of special benefits, and other changes that made the new program radically different from the outmoded one it replaced.
In an ideal world-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: -the desirable, cautious approach would have been to design and set up the new organization and give it a year's dry run before implementing the new act in order to work out the snags and loopholes, and to compile the data necessary for precise calculation of its costs, and the fine tuning of the premiums necessary to pay the portion of these costs shared by employers and employees.
But I need hardly remind hon. members, who I thought would be interested in a full disclosure, that in 1971 in Canada unemployment was at its recent peak. Over the year it averaged 6.4 per cent. To hold back the launching of the new program until all systems had been triplechecked and tested would have been to put administrative tidiness ahead of real human need. The government's choice was to introduce the program on an urgent basis- the new benefit rules went into effect June 27, only five days after passage of the bill-rebuilding the administrative structure and redesigning its operations as it went along. Of course, the high unemployment that made the changeover so urgent added substantially to the problems it entailed.
The problems that did develop fell into two main categories: inadequate service to claimants and inadequate control to protect the program from payment of benefits to persons not entitled to receive them.
While the commission began attacking both problem areas, it was clear that priority had to be given to service. In fairness, control measures could only be fully reinforced after it had been assured that every person entitled to receive benefits was in fact getting them, and getting them on time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure hon. members will appreciate that these interruptions make it difficult for some hon. members, and certainly the Chair, to hear the statement the minister is trying to make at this time on motions.


Robert Knight Andras: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Clearly the old, mail-order operation of the commission was no longer appropriate. It was in fact a major weakness of the system.
With this in mind, and following many of the recommendations of my predecessor, I laid special stress on more efficient, sensitive and personalized service when I announced in April a major reorganization and decentralization of commission operations and head office. The reorganization, which included the opening of 20 new offices and upgrading some 100 existing offices and satellites,

essentially transformed our operations from an assembly line into a network of compact working units in which clients and staff deal mainly face to face. By the end of the year, practically all our 359 working units will be in place in our various locations.
Along with the structural and procedural changes, a comprehensive and successful training program has been completed, involving 100,000 hours for commission personnel, an investment that is paying off in service and in the attitude of our people to clients.
In addition to better service, this whole reorganization is intended equally to prevent the payment of benefits to persons not entitled. Concurrently, over the last year, we have been expanding our benefit control staff greatly. It was 147 a year ago. It is now 369 and will be 424 before the end of the year. Our benefit control investigations have resulted in disqualifications, disentitlements, or both, of 200,000 claimants so far this year and the total is expected to reach a quarter of a million by the end of the year. By contrast, the total for all of 1972 was 65,000.
Benefit control investigation, as such, is only one of several programs followed to ensure that benefits are paid only to those entitled to receive them. I am referring to such measures as the active job search, information concerning job refusals, and our post-audits. Through these, and over all, our disentitlements and disqualifications have increased by close to 50 per cent from 1972 to 1973.
To further ensure that the need for strict control is observed as fully as the need for efficient service, we are now taking several additional steps: First, a stepped-up information program to ensure that claimants are fully informed not only of their rights but also of their obligations, including the obligation to carry on an active job search and to be available for work, as an essential condition of entitlement to regular benefits. Second, to assure balance between service and control, additional insurance officers were appointed to interview personally, at the initial stage of a claim, selected categories of claimants. Among the categories to be interviewed are persons who have left their jobs voluntarily, claimants who have transferred from special maternity or sickness benefits to regular benefits, persons who have their unemployment insurance claims transferred from one part of the country to another, and claimants whose occupational skills are in high demand in their locality. These interviews will begin with an initial monthly target of 60,000 people in December, increasing to 95,000 by March.
Thus, as many as 50 or 60 per cent of our claimants will be directly reminded of their obligations, as well as of their rights, through these interviews. This was not done before. Nor was it practical or possible to do so until the reorganization took place this year.
We shall be maintaining close liaison with Canada Manpower Centres to ensure that the unemployed person receives the promptest possible referral to a job opening and that these referrals are followed up until the claimant has the best possible form of income maintenance-a new job and a regular pay cheque.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 7, 1973


Robert Knight Andras: All these control requirements will be in place before the end of the year. I am confident they will eliminate most of the remaining misuse of any significance. Because of this administrative vigilance and the effective protection it offers against the kind of abuse Bill C-125 was originally intended to correct, I have decided against proceeding further with that particular bill at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: The important review of social security in Canada now going on under the leadership of my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, also makes this the wrong time for a legislative change in a social program as significant as the unemployment insurance program. Nevertheless, we are pressing ahead with the analysis of the many briefs and representations we have received in connection with the legislation, all in the light of the much better data now available and the experience of the first full year's operation of the new act.
I have said, and I repeat, that the program is good. But as a result of a year's experience and a better information base we shall be in a much better position now to determine and bring forward the kind of legislative changes that may be beneficial.
In the light of our experience this year, I believe the main specific purpose for which Bill C-125 was introduced, namely, to deal with the situation in which persons voluntarily quit their jobs without cause, can be better achieved by vigilant and selective administrative action rather than by rigid and perhaps punitive changes in the law. However, I must warn that the administrative approach will indeed be vigilant. Anyone who thinks the decision with regard to Bill C-125 is any hint of laxity in control on the part of the Unemployment Insurance Commission is in for a rude awakening.
I am determined-and I hope all hon. members will join me in this determination-that the unemployed who are genuinely doing their best to get work will receive their rightful benefits and our fullest assistance in their efforts to find new jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: But, Mr. Speaker-and I hope all hon. members will join me in this, too-I am equally determined to protect the integrity of this plan and ensure that those who are not entitled to benefits will not receive them. I am confident we now have the administrative system and the competence to make this determination stick.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wants to get into the act. I want to let him know that the unemployment insurance bill, C-125, that was brought into the House of Commons was one of the greatest fiascoes with which this House has ever had to contend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Before I go further I do want to be fair to the minister in one regard. I want to thank him for making his statement available. I believe it was submitted
Unemployment Insurance
around 1.15 p.m., which certainly is an all-time record for this government. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says he has known longer times, but I thank the minister for that anyway.
The fact that the minister has now admitted that disen-titlements and disqualifications could reach a quarter of a million by the end of the year certainly shows that in the first instance the act should never have been passed without it having been given a dry run and unless we were quite sure of its administrative tidiness. The minister indicates that he preferred to see those who were in need get assistance. But what he forgot to say was that those who were in need never did get it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It took the prompting of the opposition through questions, speeches and motions to bring the government to its senses and make it attempt to tidy up the legislation. At that time improvements were made. But what shocks me again is that the minister implied that, because the Minister of National Health and Welfare is now considering certain legislation with respect to social welfare, he cannot bring in any amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think this is irresponsible. If the minister believes there should be amendments made to the Unemployment Insurance Act, then what the Minister of National Health and Welfare has to say has nothing to do with the minister trying to improve the commission which at this time is in a mess.
One of the most disastrous things we have done in this House was to remove the $800 million statutory ceiling. This means that 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. Thank goodness that he will be bringing in his estimates soon, at which time we will be able to probe quite deeply and raise very important questions.
I am surprised to note that the minister did not take it upon himself to answer in his statement the several very important questions that were raised by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis), who in a very critical analysis made some points that should have been answered by the minister. I refer to the $1 billion in connection with overpayments and frauds, the increase in staff from 5,200 to 13,000, the failure of the commission to account publicly for $857 million in emergency funds, the attempt by the UIC to disguise overspending by deleting from its monthly reports statistical information that it used to list giving amounts spent in previous months and years.
I do not know why the minister did not have the courage to answer those questions. They are extremely important and he will have to answer them as soon as his estimates go before the committee.
I am also very surprised that the minister did not bear down on a particular sequence of events which are making a number of people in Canada, particularly members of the opposition, very concerned, especially in regard to the minister's estimates. He has indicated that the plan will cost $2,050 million for the year 1973, but at no time did he

November 7, 1973
Unemployment Insurance
tell us what the unemployment rate would be in 1973.1 fail to understand how he can give us projections without telling us what the unemployment rate is or will be. This is an extremely important point.
We now find that job vacancies are rising. We find we are suffering from higher unemployment. There are higher benefit and administrative costs within the Unemployment Insurance Commission program. The minister has not attempted to correlate these or to advise the House whether a study is being made in order to show what is the relationship between the high job vacancy rate, rising unemployment and UIC costs. This is a question that has been asked by employers across the country who advise that the disincentive aspects of the act in fact are eroding the free enterprise system. I do not make light of that claim. It seems to me that in many instances, notwithstanding what the minister says, because of the inadequacy of this act people are prepared to take advantage of unemployment insurance when in fact they should be working, although sometimes we cannot blame them.
The minister indicated today that the program will cost more than $2 billion, much more than in 1972. What the minister did not say-I am continually reminded of the actuarial soundness of this plan by his predecessor who has pronounced that time and time again-was that the projected figure for administrative costs in 1971 was $71 million while the actual figure turned out to be $119 million. In 1972 these costs jumped to $122 million and in 1973 to $145 million.
I do not have much confidence as the minister has in the economy which to me is certainly being mismanaged. This act can work only if in fact we have a full employment policy, because without it we are approaching unemployment insurance as an ad hoc measure. We can only reduce the cost if the government will take it upon itself to introduce such a policy. We must have a full employment policy in order to decrease the run on the unemployment insurance fund.
I am also very surprised that the minister did not bring to our attention what is wrong with the illusive advisory committee. This committee was set up by the minister in order to probe allegations of harassment and to look into other related matters in respect of the UIC. I think, and I believe most people think, that this is an extremely important committee. I cannot understand why we have not had a report from the advisory committee to assist us. I say to the minister that he must start demanding rather than asking this committee to do its job. We need the information. We need the report.
I am very surprised also that the minister did not make any reference to holiday pay and severance pay. I understood that in conjunction with Bill C-125 he was going to bring in regulations in this regard. Severance pay was not to be included and only the first two weeks of holiday pay would be taken as income. Is that dead too? I wish the minister had answered that.
What we have now is an increase in the premium which is certainly an unwarranted tax. It is up to $1.40 for employees and I believe it was about $1.19 before. This is an unwarranted tax because of government mismanage-

ment What disturbs me is that this plan was supposed to be actuarially sound, meaning that all the contingencies had been looked into and it was possible for the government to bring out projections as to what it would cost and what the premiums would be. In every instance the government has been wrong. That is why I say the bill, which in the first instance some hon. members thought would be a good one, was a fraud of some significant impact upon the House of Commons and the people of Canada.
There are, of course, some matters on which the minister should be congratulated, particularly the stepped-up information program to ensure that claimants are fully informed. This is needed. I hope that with the further employment of benefit control officers these officers will be given instructions to deal with claimants in a humane and compassionate way. It seems to me that in too many instances benefit control officers are only being used to further the government's cause. I say that with some deliberation, and after some thought, Mr. Speaker. I trust the minister will advise these officers that those in need should not be unduly harassed and that they should get humane treatment. There are still too many people writing personally to me and to my office, saying that after working for 35 years and having paid the premiums they now find it extremely difficult to get their unemployment insurance benefits.
The minister's statement also indicates that an additional measure is close liaison with Canada Manpower Centres. This is a policy which should be adopted in full. Canada Manpower and the UIC should be blended into one, as this is the only way in which a claimant can acquire the necessary services and assistance that he needs.
In the long run the only way we can determine what is happening with respect to unemployment insurance is to have the ability to probe for information from the minister. In this regard I hope that the minister in future will give us a greater opportunity, because of the removal of the ceiling, to get involved with the UIC by asking him questions on the state of the fund.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we accept the minister's statement. We are pleased that he was in a position to give us some answers with respect to the several problems that exist. But we cannot have confidence in the minister as to the cost of the plan because he has not advised us what the unemployment rate will be for the balance of the year, not to mention the inflation rate. Further, we are afraid that if a quarter of a million people have to be disqualified or disentitled there must be something wrong with the act. The program should be tightened up in order to make it more acceptable and in order to see to it that the Canadian people are not paying out money needlessly.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear at the outset that my colleagues and I are in favour of a decent unemployment insurance program and are therefore in favour of the general thrust of the unemployment insurance program that we have now.
November 7, 1973

I listened to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), Mr. Speaker, and in almost every sentence he went both ways at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: It is all very well to say that the act was a catastrophe, a disaster, when it was passed and that it should never have been passed. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government which was responsible for the high unemployment that we had in 1971 would have been doubly responsible, not only for mismanagement of the economy but for complete inhumanity, had it not brought that act into existence and implemented it even though the administration had not been entirely cleared up.
I have made clear on many occasions on behalf of our party that we do not condone, indeed we condemn as does every Canadian, any attempt by any person to misuse this program or any program that is on the statute books of this country, whether it is unemployment insurance, old age pensions or welfare. I would also like to point out that we in this party condemn the abuse by corporations of the various tax allowances to which they are entitled-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -about which certain members of this House are always very silent. I do not know of any scheme provided by men, applicable to men and women, that is not abused by some section of the community. We congratulate the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the minister for having taken steps to tighten up the administration. I also congratulate him for not pursuing Bill C-125. I am in entire agreement with the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) who uttered the following words on October 29, addressed to the government House leader, as recorded at page 7304 of Hansard:
In view of the continuing difficulties being experienced by those, particularly in the Atlantic provinces, who have truly legitimate claims for unemployment insurance benefits in receiving such benefits, would the leader of the House give us his assurance that Bill C-125 will be cremated without ceremony and not brought back before the House?
My colleagues and I fully agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. He made that statement because of his experience in his area and because of the human approach he has to the problem of unemployment, which some members of this House do not show.
I want to say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that he is far too complacent about the way in which his benefit control officers are functioning. The suggestion in his statement that on the whole they are treating the legitimate claimants for unemployment insurance well, and that these legitimate claimants have no reason to complain, is far too complacent a statement. While it is true that the number of complaints we have received in our offices has been lower than it was some months ago, it is still a fact that many of the benefit control officers are acting in an insensitive and bureaucratic way, harassing genuine unemployment insurance claimants, and so far as my colleagues and I are concerned we will not be satisfied until that harassment of legitimate unemployment insur-
Unemployment Insurance
ance claimants completely disappears from the operations of the UIC.
I am very worried about the numbers that have been disqualified or disentitled this year, with an expectation that a quarter of a million will have been disqualified by the end of the year. To the extent that those people were abusing the program, my colleagues and I are totally in agreement with tightening up the administration. But to the extent that there have been disqualifications and dis-entitlements because people could not leave their homes in one community when they were told to go 50 or 60 miles away where there was a job available-and that situation has arisen-and to the extent that people left their homes and went to places where they found jobs were not available-to the extent that this quarter of a million involves some thousands of these cases, as I am sure it does, of people who have been unfairly treated, it is shameful for the commission, and indeed for the minister, to boast about it.
An unemployment insurance program is essential in any community for a redistribution of income, to make sure that people get some rights, even when they are unemployed, and to make sure that they have a means of living. My reading of the act tells me that the maximum benefit has been increased to $107 almost, will go up again to about $113, and that that increased benefit has to be paid for.
We agree with the principle that the proportion of the plan up to 4 per cent, which now has to be paid by employer-employee contributions, should be paid by those contributions. I am not convinced that the 40 cents increase is necessary, or that it might not have been 20 cents or 25 cents, but no doubt that is something a parliamentary committee will go into. But the principle that the increased benefit should be paid for, up to the 4 per cent level, is contained in the act and we accept it.
There are two things we regret. We regret that the government rejected our proposal that the cut-off line should be 3 per cent rather than 4 per cent, because 3 per cent is the line at which most economists consider we have more or less full employment. To have tacked on another percentage point, to be paid for by employers and employees, is something that we consider unfair and unnecessary.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister and to the government that the only way to avoid the costs of unemployment insurance, to the extent that we now have them, is to have a full employment policy. The real condemnation of the government is that in the month of October we still had 6.2 per cent, seasonally adjusted, unemployed people in the work force of Canada. The only way to improve the situation is to go for a full employment policy, something which the government has not pursued. We reject, as strongly as I can find words to do it, the antiwelfare, the anti-unemployment insurance backlash for which the Tory party in this parliament is responsible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred receiving this statement a

November 7, 1973
Unemployment Insurance
few minutes earlier as this would have allowed me to make relevant remarks under the circumstances.
The minister says in his statement that he sees a possibility of making up the deficit in 1978, if of course there are no mistakes such as those which occurred a few months after the passing of the legislation-because the mistakes which occurred at that time greatly distorted the estimates. For several days, we discussed the possibility of replenishing the unemployment insurance fund because the law did not make the necessary allowances.
This statement also mentions the adjustment of premiums for employers and employees. There is now much more effort to improve a system which caused so many delays harmful to the unemployed. Since its implementation, its mechanism completely defied common sense in certain instances. There is no need to go very far to find proof of this when hundreds of unemployed have to wait one, two, and even three months before receiving their unemployment insurance cheques. This happened in my constituency of Kamouraska and I believe that it also happened all through Quebec and probably Canada. Thousands of cases were brought to my attention last winter. Faulty administration of the law caused all types of payments to be made: excessive payments, double payments, reduced payments, and no payments. This makes four different types of payments. This is why I say-and I said it some time ago when I spoke in this House about the unemployment issue-that the law should be amended and made more flexible in its application.
In the present Unemployment Insurance Act-I should like to point this out immediately to the minister, because even though I read his statement quickly, I note that there is no such mention. It is provided that if the unemployed must wait too long, he can while waiting apply for assistance to the Quebec Department of Social Affairs. Is it possible to imagine a more stupid legislation! In such circumstances, they cannot even be paid! The legislation describes all kinds of periods: waiting period, supplementary period, extension period and we could even add without fear of being mistaken, a delay period. In his statement, the minister says that the system will be improved adn that steps will be taken to that effect. I do not blame the officials who administer it, because I had the opportunity to meet several in carrying out my work. Generally, the personnel work well, although some are putting off while others are idle. However in my opinion, the legislation is faulty, since it compels officials to adjust themselves and give stupid answers.
If I had had the time to study this statement a little better, I would have brought forward astounding proof that a bad legislation compels civil servants to pick their brains to give insignificant answers. Then, why not amend such a legislation and make it more flexible?
The minister also mentioned that the number of investigators had been increased in order to avoid frauds. But I would advise the minister to keep a sharp eye on the manner in which these investigators are prepared to discharge their duty.
The main purpose is so easily determined. God knows I met many investigators! Their main objective is to protect the fund and not the unemployed. If one of these investigators has other aims but to protect the fund, tell me his

name. It is primarily what the investigator does. With an army of investigators acting this way, it will not be possible to give satisfaction to Canadians.
Once the few improvements to the act have become law, I hope that my colleagues and I will be able to see the results. I do not think that we have good reasons to cheer the minister for his statement as some did earlier. Good intentions will do for the moment but let us wait for the results.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the House that tomorrow is to be an allotted day.


INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table two copies of the annual report of Information Canada for the year 1972-73 in both official languages.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I wish to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Information from the Department of Finance and individual fishermen confirms representations I have made in the House, that chartered banks are ignoring government guaranteed loan programs and are actually deluding fishermen by charging rates of interest in excess of those provided under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter):
That the matter of government guaranteed loans be referred to the Standing Committees on Finance, Fisheries and Forestry and Consumer and Corporate Affairs and that an order be issued to call as witnesses the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the presidents of chartered banks to explain their unlawful practices which affect fishermen and consumers who are Canadian citizens.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 7, 1973


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


SUGGESTED STUDY OF POSSIBLE INCREASED USE OF COAL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to move a motion on an urgent and pressing matter arising from the extremely serious situation in regard to the supply and the cost of oil for home heating purposes, particularly in eastern Canada. In view of the need to devise means of substitution and conservation related to this state of affairs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, take all necessary steps to study and evaluate the possible increased utilization of coal as a substitute energy source and the capability of coal producing areas in the nation to provide this alternate energy source taking into account as well the necessary capital investment, length of time involved, as well as other factors, and report back within 30 days to this House or to the appropriate standing committee.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also is proposed under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent before it can be put. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


ABORTION
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 and in view of the concern of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) about an effective definition of terms in the Criminal Code provisions regarding abortion I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Danforth):
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be instructed to examine this matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. Bawden: In 1971-72, what was the total amount spent in each province by (a) the Department of National Defence in procurement (b) the Canadian Armed Forces?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: (a)
Suppliers' Accounts and Miscellaneous Expenses
Province	for 1971-72*
Newfoundland	 $	763,017
Prince Edward Island	 938,914
Nova Scotia	 20,075,198
New Brunswick	 8,513,271
Quebec	 176,072,900
Ontario	 195,831,812
Manitoba	 21,815,034
Saskatchewan	 1,644,486
Alberta	 12,958,616
British Columbia	 12,506,528
Yukon	 4,032
Northwest Territories	 186,638
Outside Canada	 83,400,283
*534,710,729
'The major part of these amounts represents accounts paid to suppliers for goods and services, including all capital payments. Also included are postage costs, freight and express, telephone and other communication services, advertising and printing, school tuition fees, medical and health care provided in facilities outside National Defence, public utility services, local labour abroad, Corps of Commissionaire services and payments to other governments and agencies for various facilities, and services provided to the Canadian Forces overseas.
The distribution by province of the amounts included for suppliers' accounts is based on a computer analysis and reflects payments to companies on the basis of the location from which their accounts were sent and to which payments were made. Consequently, in those cases where accounts are billed by the head or regional office of a company, the expenditures are shown as having been made in the province where the head or regional office is located, even if a branch office in another province may have been primarily concerned with the transaction involved. The amounts recorded above are therefore not an accurate indication of the location where goods are manufactured or consumed.

November 7, 1973
Order Paper Questions
(k)	Estimated DND
Province	Expenditures for 1971/72*
Newfoundland	 Prince Edward Island . Nova Scotia	 New Brunswick	 Quebec	 Ontario		
	
Saskatchewan	 Alberta		
British Columbia	 Yukon		
Northwest Territories	 Outside Canada			 3,785!000
	$1,932,630,000
*The total amount of money spent in each province by the Canadian Armed Forces is not available separately from the department's expenditure figures by province. In fiscal year 1971-72 the amounts shown are based on a distribution of all DND budgetary expenditures without adjustments for military payroll deductions, government pension contributions and pension payments from nonbudgetary accounts. The totals by province include the financial data provided in (a) above for suppliers' accounts and miscellaneous expenditures.


Mr. Godin: 1.	During the conference of the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses held in Ottawa July 9 to 18, 1973, did the government organize any exhibition and, if so, how many departments, organizations, institutions and companies took part?
2.	What was the cost to each participant?
3.	How many guides and hostesses did each exhibitor have and what were their names?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes. Seven.
2.	Average $3,500 per participant.
3.	Ten hostesses, part-time (in shifts), average three persons per display, at any one given time. In total, there were 55 people involved in the staffing of all displays, and these people rotated in shifts to cover the hours during which the displays were open. The names are as follows: Charles Raizenne, Nickloas Evanoff, Peter Bailey, Branda Goudie, Sandra Mongeon, Marvell Sarac, Diane Lapensee, Bonny Smyth, Heather Hope, June Russell, Louise Seguin, Barbara Gleason, Gunilla Hinize, Ed Doucet, Tom Muir, Jacques Auger, Lyle Bennett, Don Williams, Howard Bould, Jim Rose, Lome Stewart, Frank Ling, Ron Shiels, Mike Jeffries, Larry Slaght, Darby Mills, Doug Gray, John Butt, Mike Hubbard, Barry Murphy, John MacCauley, John Ough, Jack Young, Bob Bowbridge, Ralph Pine, Jim Coke, Ed Murray, RCMP-2, Art Mantel, Alec Maton, A1 Hewitt, Dave Johns, Ron Miller, Dave Houston, Don Bilodeau, Laurent Fortier, Marcel Fortin, M. Roberts, J. Gau-dreau, F. Elmitt, J. Sech, W. Calladine, D. Vonrichthofen.


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	What position does the government take about the Canadian companies, including Falconbridge Nickel Company Limited and Bata Shoes Limited, having branch plants in Rhodesia which export products from Rhodesia despite Canada's adherence to United Nations sanctions?
2.	Will the Minister investigate and report upon the relationship between Falconbridge Nickel Company Limited and the Blanket Mine whose operations are described as "a disgusting example of a Canadian company exploiting black workers"?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. The Canadian government has received no evidence that Canadian incorporated companies have branch plants in Rhodesia. Our position on this is quite clear. Canadian companies are not permitted to invest in Rhodesia, nor are Rhodesian exports allowed entry into Canada.
2.	Our records reveal no evidence that there are direct corporate ties between Falconbridge Nickel Co. Ltd. and Blanket Mines.


Mr. Forrestall: During the next three years, what are the specific roles assigned to CFB Shearwater?


James Armstrong Richardson: The primary role of CFB Shearwater is to contribute to Maritime Command's surveillance and control responsibilities by operating helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft from the base and by providing helicopter detachments for helicopter-destroyers. In support of this primary role, CFB Shearwater conducts air and ground training and provides technical and administrative support. Additionally it provides airfield and ship berthing facilities for authorized military and civil aircraft and ships.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How many CL-41 (Tutor) jet trainers were purchased for use by the Department of National Defence and what was the total cost? '
2.	Of the total purchased, how many were never in use for either operations or training?
3.	How many Tutors are now in use and how many are in storage?
4.	How many Tutors have been sold and, if any, to whom?
5.	What are the plans for those at present in storage?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. In 1961 a contract was placed for 190 Tutor aircraft. These were purchased by DND at a total cost of $92,010,658. This figure includes cost for engines, spares, ground support equipment, engineering orders and one aircraft systems trainer.
2.	None.
3.	There are 73 Tutor aircraft in use and 84 in storage.
4.	No Tutor aircraft have been sold.
November 7, 1973

5.	It is currently planned to take 25 Tutor aircraft out of storage in the next few months. These will be used in the Forces' pilot training program. The remaining 59 aircraft will be kept in reserve to meet attrition from accidents and to enable rapid expansion of pilot training in the event that the international situation warrants such expansion.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): What is the amount in dollars of grants and subsidies made by the government (a) to de Havilland Aircraft of Toronto (b) to Canadair of Montreal during the ten-year period ending either on December 31, 1972 or on March 31, 1973?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
(a) de Havilland
Grants	 Nil
Subsidies	 Nil
Contributions	 $28,480,535
Less Repayments (Royalties)__	1,264,260
Net Contributions	 $27,216,275
(b) Canadair Nil Nil


[Stage Direction]
In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned: This information is not available for the period prior to April 1, 1967. (a) nil from April 1, 1967 to March 31, 1973; (b) $101,543 paid from April 1, 1967 to March 31, 1973. Under the Canada Manpower Training in Industry Program. In so far as the National Research Council of Canada is concerned: (a) $82,239.35; (b) Nil.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Have proposals been received from, or on behalf of, Iraqui Airlines for the establishment of direct, regularly scheduled air service between Iraq and Canada and, if so (a) on what dates (b) what was the response to such suggestions?
2.	Is it the view of the government that improved commercial air contacts with the Middle East, notably the ore-producing areas thereof, are desirable?
3.	From what other airlines based in the Middle East have overtures been received?
4.	What has been the response thereto?


Jean Marchand: The Canadian Transport Commission and the Ministry of Transport (for question 2 only) advise as follows: 1. Yes; (a) May 29, 1973; (b) After interdepartmental consultation, a Canadian reply was made on July 16, 1973 advising the Iraqui Embassy that due to a current review of Canadian air policy and requests already received from other countries, a period of time would elapse before Canada would be in a position to negotiate. At the appropriate time we would get in touch with the Iraqui authorities.
2. It is the position of the government that there should be expanded commercial air contacts with various parts of
Order Paper Questions
the world, including the Middle East, where traffic warrants regular services by a Canadian airline and such services can be operated on an economic basis, and when satisfactory agreements can be negotiated. At the present time services are operated to Israel, and a first round of negotiations has been held with Lebanon.
3 and 4. Although airlines from time to time make approaches concerning scheduled services, only those requests received from governments are considered official. Taking this into consideration the following Middle East countries have requested negotiations: Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan: a note dated September 5, 1971 was received from the Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Canadian Embassy requesting negotiations. The Embassy reply of December 10, 1971 indicated that it appeared that traffic did not warrant a scheduled service but that Canada would continue to review the situation. United Arab Republic: The Minister of the Embassy of the United Arab Republic was informed by External Affairs on August 14, 1970 that Canada would be prepared to enter into negotiations if it were the wish of his government. To date there has been no official response. Lebanon: Following a meeting on August 13, 1970, as with the UAR, the Lebanese Ambassador requested negotiations. The first round of discussions took place on August 19 and 20, 1971 in Ottawa. The CTC is awaiting a mutually acceptable date for resumption of talks. Turkey: A bilateral air agreement with Turkey was signed May 21, 1960 and to date service has not been commenced by either country. Israel: A bilateral air agreement with Israel was signed February 10, 1971 with CP Air and El A1 Israel Airlines operating comparable services since March 1971.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works have a fine arts purchasing program for its public buildings and, if so (a) on what date was this policy introduced (b) what is its purpose?
2.	(a) How many works of art have been purchased since the program was initiated (b) what has been the total cost of these art works?
3.	Are contracts for works of art awarded by tender and, if not, how are they commissioned?
4.	Are invitations to bid on works of art under the program restricted to Canadian artists?
5.	Have Indian and Eskimo artists been requested to submit works of art for approval by the Department of Public Works and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
Yes; (a) January 4, 1965; (b) to provide works of art of the highest quality for government of Canada buildings and to give Canadians a sense of quality in their environment.
2.	(a) 133 to date; (b) $2,167,997.
3.	No. The department's consulting architects recommend the artform, its location and the artist. The Advisory Committee on Art advises the department on the suitability of the recommendation. Once an artform and artist have been approved, a contract is awarded to the artist, by the department.
4.	The Fine Art Program is restricted to artists resident in Canada.
7618

November 7, 1973
Orders for Returns
5.	Yes.


Mb. Marshall: 1.	Is it the intention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to eliminate the position of Director for the Province of Newfoundland in its Divisional structure and, if not, is the intention of CBC to make a new appointment to replace A. K. Morrow as Director for the Province of Newfoundland?
2.	What are the responsibilities of CBC in the Province of Newfoundland insofar as the stations' responsibilities for programming are concerned?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. There is no intention to eliminate the position of CBC Director for the Province of Newfoundland. Mr. A. K. Morrow became Director for the Maritime provinces effective September 1, 1973 and continues as acting director for Newfoundland only until a new director for this region is appointed.
2. The Corporation's programming responsibilities in Newfoundland, as in other regions of Canada, are as outlined in the Broadcasting Act, Part I, Section 2(g) of which includes the statement that the national broadcasting service should serve the special needs of geographic regions and actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural and regional information and entertainment.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Alexander: In the past five years, how much money has been expended by grants through Canada Council (a) in total (b) by province (c) by categories in provinces (d) in Hamilton and district (Ontario) and in what categories?
Return tabled.



INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Broadbent: What were the names of the corporations which received cash grants under the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 (January 1, 1973 to end) and 1973-74 to date and, in each case, what were the amounts of money committed and paid?
Return tabled.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On July 19, I put on the order paper a number of questions, namely Nos. 2529 to 2538 inclusive, asking for statistical information. These questions are easy to answer. In some cases they could be answered within two or three days and certainly within a week. There is nothing complicated about them and there is really no excuse for not answering them. The fact that they have not been answered means, of course, either that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is indescribably incompetent or

that the government by its delay is trying to hide something.


Mr. Bell:: Both.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In either case, Mr. Speaker, we can have no confidence in the accuracy or extent of the internal report in the hands of the minister, especially when he is so reluctant to table it. In the circumstances I feel the House is entitled to have the answers to these questions forthwith. Further, the report in the hands of the minister should be made public so that parliament and the press can decide if a public inquiry is warranted.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, on June 1 I placed on the order paper question No. 2177. That question was rather important to a constituent of mine, one Michael J. Houlton who was a candidate for the Liberal leadership in Ontario. It appears that the government refuses to answer this question because it is embarrassing. In view of the stated political faith of the person involved, possibly the government might now consider answering that question.


Mr. Atkey:: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) indicated that the internal departmental inquiry into student co-operative housing and the financing thereof produced an internal report which would not be made public. On July 23 the minister's parliamentary secretary indicated to the House that the findings of the inquiry which had been started in February would be made available to members when they were complete. I feel that I and other members of the House have been misled by the minister, through his parliamentary secretary, and that he should not be allowed to cover up that which has been promised and that which is in the public interest. If he continues his present stand I suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should immediately take over the matter and launch the public inquiry which was promised on July 12.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the points of order raised by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) and the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), yesterday I raised the question of the report which both those hon. members have been discussing. When I suggested that there was an undertaking that the report would be tabled or given to the House, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) said that I was incorrect.
I wish to put on record the statement made by the parliamentary secretary, as recorded at page 5872 of Hansard for July 23, in which he undertook to make the report public and lay it before the House. On being asked whether this report would be made public, the parliamentary secretary replied:
Mb. Ian Watson ( Parliamentary Secretary to Minister or State for Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I understand from remarks by the minister in the House that an inquiry into this matter began toward the end of February. When that inquiry is complete, I presume the minister will make it available to members of the House.
I did not have that answer before me yesterday when I raised this matter. It was uncovered by research. However, the minister said I was incorrect. Possibly the minister
November 7, 1973

had not examined the record to see what the parliamentary secretary had said, but in fact he did, maybe unintentionally, mislead the House. I now ask the minister to table the report, according to the undertaking given by his parliamentary secretary, instead of covering up this matter. There are questions here that should be investigated by a judicial inquiry which should make a report as to what are the crimes involved, what are the charges and who were the people involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, because of the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) I think I should make my position very clear. It was stated on July 13. I said that I had asked since February for a report on these matters, and that the report would be referred to the appropriate authorities. The hon. member for Calgary North has referred to remarks made by my parliamentary secretary on July 23. I must inform you, Mr. Speaker, that when my parliamentary secretary said, "I presume the minister will make it available", he at that time was not aware of the nature of the report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, if I may deal with unanswered written questions, I direct the attention of the House to some questions I placed on the order paper on April 18 dealing with the payment to certain solicitors of certain sums by CMHC. Those questions have not been answered. I feel this is a very serious matter and request that these questions be answered forthwith, in addition to the data processing question which was also placed on the order paper on April 18.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I will see what I can do to provide the answers to the hon. gentleman and to provide a response to the other requests.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the same point of order which has already been raised by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). It was I who asked questions on this subject on July 23. I made it perfectly clear in my first question exactly what inquiry was meant. I phrased my question in such a way that there could be no mistake. After the first answer of the parliamentary secretary I repeated the question. I said, as recorded at page 5872 of Hansard:
In view of the fact five months have elapsed since this mythical inquiry was instituted, will the minister or the government now indicate if they are satisfied that no meaningful inquiry is being made and refer this matter to the Auditor General for a thorough and complete study under sections 62 and 63 of the Financial Administration Act?
The parliamentary secretary replied:
To repeat my earlier answer, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that an inquiry was started in February-
The parliamentary secretary knew to which report I was referring.
-and when the finding is complete, it will be made available to members.
Motions for Papers
That was a clear and categorical undertaking. We are entitled to ask questions under the pertinent Standing Order. If the government chooses to have a parliamentary secretary reply, that is its privilege, but we are entitled to rely upon an answer given by either a minister or a parliamentary secretary. Otherwise there will be no confidence in this House.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for production of papers No. 228 is agreeable to the government subject to the usual restrictions concerning confidential documents.
[ English |


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 228 be deemed to have been agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO LOCATION OF CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IN VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 228-Mr. Reynolds:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of correspondence to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance regarding the Canada Development Corporation and the proposed location of its headquarters in the City of Vancouver.
Motion agreed to.
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 252, 256, and 257?
I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



COPY OF MATERIAL RESULTING FROM FIRST MEETING OF VLA SENIOR MANAGEMENT TEAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 252-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all material resulting from the first meeting of the VLA Senior Management team convened by the Director General of the Veterans Land Administration in Ottawa from March 26 to 29 as follows (a) operational plans in the periods before and after the March 31, 1974 deadline for new loan applications (b) further implementation of MBO as the VLA style of management.
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, the materials requested are internal, departmental documents of a confidential nature and cannot be produced. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, the information contained in the material should be made available to 125,000 war veterans. I would ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
26635-51^

November 7, 1973
Motions for Papers



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE U.S.S.R. RESPECTING WHEAT SALE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 256-Mr. Stackhouse:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the government and the U.S.S.R. with respect to the wheat sale between the two countries.
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, correspondence and other exchanges between the government of Canada and the government of the U.S.S.R. and between the Canadian Wheat Board and Exportkhleb with respect to the sale of wheat are confidential. It would be prejudicial to the interest of Canadian grain producers to make the information in such exchanges public. Therefore I would hope that the hon. member might withdraw his motion.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I think this material is of relevance and value to the people of Canada and I would ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA RESPECTING WHEAT SALE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 257-Mr. Stackhouse:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the government and the People's Republic of China with respect to the wheat sale between the two countries.
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, correspondence and other exchanges between the government of the People's Republic of China and between the Canadian Wheat Board and the China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation with respect to the sale of wheat are confidential. It would be prejudicial to the interest of Canadian grain producers to make the information in such exchanges public. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: I would ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I rose on this question a few days ago. It has to do with two motions, Nos. 241 and 242, calling for a copy of the guest list on August 7 for the reception at the National Arts Centre, and the list of invitees to the dinner given in Calgary by the Prime Minister on July 5. Failure of the government to answer is a contempt of this institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister smiles and smirks. It is a deliberate contempt of this House. The

government has the lists. Two months have gone by and there has been no answer. I know the government will be ashamed when they are produced because the lists indicate the greatest patronage, the greatest accumulation and conglomeration of Grits that this country has ever known.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I may owe the House an explanation on this, particularly the right hon. gentleman. It was brought to my attention a couple of weeks ago that material was being gathered to reply to the motions. I indicated to those who were doing the research that the House, and certainly the right hon. member, would want to have those replies and probably also replies concerning the other receptions and social functions which were hosted for the Queen while she was in Canada twice this year at the invitation of my government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the cause of the delay. I do apologize to the right hon. member. I hope he will be patient. He will be grateful that it took a bit more time because it will permit the people of Canada to see the variety of functions that were held for the Queen. He will realize that only two of those were held at the invitation of the government of Canada. The others were by provincial governments, municipalities, the RCMP and other organizations. I think the right hon. member's curiosity would be satisfied if he could see the total picture. Knowing his interest in the monarchy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Prime Minister. I am not sure whether he has completed his reply, but if there is an indication that the motions will be accepted I hope we will not have a debate now.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to finish, I just want to assure the right hon. member that, being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, which incidentally he is not, I will do my best to get the answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he only found out two weeks ago about these two motions which deal with his own department and himself. They have been on the order paper since September 12. That answer is in keeping with the last observation he made, as I have been an honorary member of the Royal Society of Canada for several years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask for the co-operation of both the right hon. Prime Minister and right hon. member for Prince Albert in order that we may go on to the next item of business, oral questions. Perhaps the question of who is and who is not a member of the Royal Society of
November 7, 1973

Canada might be decided on the "late show" either tonight or Friday night.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might return to more day to day events by directing a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Is the government now using the Canadian Commercial Corporation as a government agency for purchasing petroleum for the purpose of establishing reserves to reduce the possibility of a shortage this winter?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is possible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: How much petroleum is the corporation prepared to buy, how much has it bought or has it been instructed to buy, and does this relate to distillates such as home heating oil? How much has the corporation been instructed to acquire?
[ Translation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, this is a subject which is being discussed between the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and my department, and the discussions have not yet reached a stage where it is possible to say how much oil can thus be stored in Canada or to reveal the costs involved or the marketing and delivery conditions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope somebody will instruct the Minister of Supply and Services as to what he should be doing. I wish to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who has told us the government has a mission in Venezuela. Has that mission in Venezuela informed the government of Venezuela that the Canadian Commercial Corporation is empowered to act as a Canadian government oil purchasing agency and, if so, has the government of Venezuela indicated that it is prepared to sell crude, if it has any, to this agency?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Canadian diplomatic mission in Venezuela has indeed been in touch with the government of Venezuela in this regard. I mentioned to the House the possibility that Venezuela might take its 16-2/3 per cent royalty in kind. I gather this is something which is in prospect only at the moment. But the interest of the government of Canada in securing additional supplies through government to government arrangements has been made known to the Venezuelan government.
Oral Questions


OIL-STOCKPILING OF SUPPLIES-DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS FROM SALES-NATURE OF POSSIBLE NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION
David Lewis: On the same subject, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether the government has made a decision on the quantity of oil to try to buy and stockpile, at what price, where any surplus or profits would go and how they would distribute it? If this question requires too lengthy a reply, would the minister be prepared to make a statement on this subject since it seems to me an important one?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The authorization is to buy whatever "opportunity oil" may be offered around the world, particularly in the refined products area. A number of contacts are being pursued through the combined efforts of my own department, the National Energy Board and the Canadian Commercial Corporation. I cannot say what the prices will be, except that prices for spot sales are considerably above normal current prices, in the Ontario market in particular. The intention would be to acquire these supplies on government of Canada account, and naturally every effort would be made to recover the government in them.


David Lewis: On several occasions we have asked the minister, and on one or two occasions the Prime Minister, questions with reference to the establishment of a national petroleum corporation. Can the minister inform the House whether he is considering a corporation which would be merely a purchasing or marketing agency or whether he is considering setting up a corporation, such as is needed in our view, which would become involved in the entire field of the oil business, including exploration and production as well as distribution, in order to protect Canadians against the multinational corporations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have indicated to the hon. gentleman that this is a matter that is before the government and until a decision has been taken I feel I cannot say anything further to the House.


PROPOSED OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL- POSSIBILITY OF PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
David Lewis: The other day when questions were asked about extending the pipeline from Sarnia eastward at least to Montreal the minister indicated there were some difficulties about financing. I should like to know whether the government has given consideration, as should have been done many years ago in my view, to building this portion of the pipeline under public ownership through a public corporation so that we would not be dependent on the result of negotiations with Interprovincial or any other such outlet?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I believe I said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that one of the questions which arises in relation to the pipeline is whether excess capacity should be built in, whether the cost of that capacity should be borne by the general taxpayers and, if so, whether the interests of the general taxpayers should be

Oral Questions
incorporated in a special corporation for the purpose. This matter has not been finalized. I would make the comment that on the whole, if public funds are to be used in this area, it seems to me they would be more wisely expended as in Panarctic where a substantial capital gain is possible rather than in a purely service industry.

[ Translation]


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In view of the increasing importance of the Local Initiatives Program, can the minister say if Indian reserves can count on the Department of Indian Affairs instead of taking up part of the funds allocated to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Indians, like all other Canadian citizens, have a right to take advantage of all of this government's good programs.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not ask the minister to speak of projects value, but simply whether his department can process important projects submitted for his approval by Indian reserves.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: A number of these projects can be dealt with by my department, but there will always be some that cannot be financed by my department, and I am not against some support from other departments.

[ English]


TRANSPORT
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister reveal the government's contingency plans to keep the railroads, airlines and truck transports moving this winter?


Jean Marchand: I think they are moving and I have not heard they are likely to stop.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have a further question to the Minister of Transport, the Pere Noel of Quebec. Is it true as outlined in Walter Stewart's book that he has directed $270 million in DREE grants-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).J


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. It has been the minister's contention in the past that the greatest part of domestic inflation is international in origin. A corollary to that might have been the minister's statement as to the need for international co-operation in the fight against inflation. Does the minister believe that the $1.90 export tax on crude oil is a positive contribution to the fight against inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has serious doubts as to the form of the hon. member's question. Perhaps the minister might reply, in fairness to him, but it seems to me the question is more in the nature of an argument than an inquiry.
The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo.


Mr. Beatty:: I had merely stood up for a moment, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought the hon. member would recall the undertaking I gave the other day that he would be given a chance. The hon. member for Calgary North.


HOUSING
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It is related to the undertaking given by his parliamentary secretary as recorded in Hansard at page 5872, part of which I read and part of which the hon. member for Peace River read. Is the minister now prepared to table the report of the inquiry into certain cooperative colleges and the scandal involving the developer, the contractor and the architect?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The report is a report to me on the granting of those five loans. It has, in accordance with my undertaking of July 13, been referred to the proper authorities which include the Association of Architects of Ontario and, of course, those responsible for law enforcement. If I might say so, Mr. Speaker, it would be grossly unfair to publish a report which is not based on evidence or the cross-examination of witnesses. It would be grossly unfair to the people involved.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe I can assist the minister. Bearing in mind that the minister has now gone back on his word, would he be prepared to hold a judicial inquiry so that the witnesses in question could be examined and cross-examined in accordance with his wishes and the public could be made aware of the scandal that went on involving not only the colleges but the Trefann Court project in the city of Toronto?
November 7, 197a


Stanley Ronald Basford: Without accepting any of the premises in the question, I repeat that the report has been referred, in accordance with my undertaking, to the proper authorities for whatever action may be deemed appropriate by them.


APPROVAL OF LOAN FOR TREFANN COURT PROJECT, TORONTO
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Since the report is now in the minister's hands, would he answer this question? Has CMHC approved a $412,350 loan to Trefann Court Homes Corporation for the construction of 17 houses in the first phase of a five block urban renewal project in the city of Toronto?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, it has, Mr. Speaker. A loan of $412,000, which is a 100 per cent loan plus a 10 per cent grant, was made so that this phase of the very important Toronto urban renewal scheme the hon. member has mentioned can be carried on. I am pleased that the corporation has made this loan. It is subject to the city of Toronto approving a contingency grant to cover any increase in costs so that if there are any cost increases they will not be passed on to the residents in these houses. Through this method we can provide low-income housing in the centre of Toronto. I think this is a meaningful, worth-while project-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that with the co-operation of all hon. members the Chair be given a chance to recognize some hon. members who have been trying to be recognized for a while. It was brought to the attention of hon. members and the Chair yesterday that when I called orders of the day there were a large number of members who had been trying for a few days to ask questions. I hope hon. members will take that into account, for the moment in any event. Perhaps I should recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


OIL AND GAS-REDUCTION OF EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES IN EVENT OF SHORTAGE IN CANADA
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not often do this, but I want to commend the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for the manner in which he has answered questions during the last several days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: It is worthy of the best traditions of parliament. Because of that I ask him this question, which arises out of answers that he gave yesterday in respect of the export of oil or gas. Did he intend yesterday to have the House and the country believe that, in the event there was a shortage of oil or gas within Canada that would be serious for consumers, to the extent necessary exports from Canada to the United States would be reduced?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, basically the position that has been taken by the government during the year through the various export control mechanisms we have put in place is that first priority should be given to meeting the requirements of the Canadian market. I might say that while we will make every effort, of course, to meet the requirements of the Canadian market, we do recognize that we have had longstanding commercial relationships with the United States and we will do our best to try to minimize any effect that such redirection might have on the American market.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the right hon. member for a supplementary, then the hon. member for Brant, and I will return eventually to the hon. member for Trinity.


John George Diefenbaker: I take it therefore, that, as far as Canadians are concerned, to the limit this government can go it will go, while preserving our trade relationships with the United States, so as to prevent Canadians facing a cold, difficult and dark winter ahead?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The limitation is one of physical facilities rather than the decision as to where the product will be directed.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that Formpac Canada Limited in Brantford, Ontario, was completely destroyed in a $5 million fire yesterday, throwing out of work approximately 220 workers and office personnel, will the minister waive the two-week waiting period so that employees can receive UIC benefits as quickly as possible?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether it is within my authority to do so, as sympathetic as I would be to the conditions caused by this disaster. But I will certainly do everything else in my power to alleviate the situation, including having Manpower and Unemployment Insurance Commission people talk to these workers on an emergency basis.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Has the minister defined the agenda for the important meeting of ministers of communication set for November

November 7, 1973
Oral Questions
26, and what the agenda might be? Has the composition of the group been decided; is it strictly to be government to government, or will there be any parliamentary observers or other observers, such as from the CRTC? Also, has the federal government any specific proposals to present to the meeting, other than the generalities contained in the green paper published last February?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I admit that the number and speed of questions are beyond me and I make my apologies to the hon. member if I do not remember them all.
The meeting will be held on the 29th and 30th of this month. The provinces gave us an agenda in very indefinite terms but I could nevertheless describe it to the hon. member. Each province will state its position once they have outlined the common matters on which they already agreed at their own meetings, then there will be an exchange of views. Provinces prefer not to specify further the agenda although we have pressed for more details.
As for the last question of the hon. member, I sent a letter this morning asking the provincial ministers to explain their views in more detail. The provincial ministers have passed behind closed doors a resolution asking that the federal-provincial meeting be entirely held in public. We are prepared to comply with that but as the secretary of the council of communications ministers committee told me he would admit only the media, I asked him if this included also some observers which we would like _


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister and I remind the ministers and hon. members who are asking questions that the question period will soon be over.



FISHERIES


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. This has been a disastrous year for sports fishing in the waters off Vancouver Island, the commercial netting of fish in the Strait of Juan de Fuca being the main reason. Does the minister plan to do anything to help restore sports fishing in that area?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it has been a very good year for the commercial fisherman. Unfortunately, the runs of species that sports fishermen rely on, namely the cohoe, are down. We have, as the hon. member knows, been building hatcheries and we hope to improve cohoe runs in that way.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to do anything to curtail the netting of fish before they get to sports fishing grounds?


John (Jack) Davis: Discussions along those lines are proceeding, Mr. Speaker.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, my question also is for the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. In view of increasing oil spills along the British Columbia coast, and in view of the recent one near Powell River in British Columbia two weeks ago which has yet to be investigated by Environment Canada, can the minister advise the House when his department intends to investigate this spill?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada is on the job within minutes after each spill is reported.


Harry Magnus Olaussen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. After the Arrow spill Dr. McTaggart-Cowan recommended that clean-up task forces be located on both coasts. When can British Columbia expect the minister to do something about staffing, facilities and equipment, and to reveal his contingency plans to protect the shorelines and beaches from oil despoliation?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we already have staff on the west coast which is being expanded, but our basic approach is that the polluter or polluting agency bears the cost and provides the men and equipment to contain oil spills and to clean up any oil that gets away.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin on a further supplementary, and immediately after will recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix, the hon. member for Provencher and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Harry Magnus Olaussen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister how large is the staff on the west coast that has to deal with these particular oil spills?



MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-SALE OF COINS- MEASURES TO AVOID A DEFICIT

Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Last night on the CBC there was a report on the Munich Olympic Games one year after that event. Could I ask the Postmaster General, in order to avoid in Montreal deficits such as those incurred in Munich, by what date he intends to bring out the Olympic coins?
November 7, 1973


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the first coins should be on sale in the first week of December.

Mr. Speaker, may I add that a very charming and attractive Canadian athlete from Saskatoon, Miss Diane Jones, who is helping us with the Olympic coins program, is with us today in the gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the minister's statement today regarding the 1974 program for the unemployment insurance fund, would he indicate what steps have been taken and what instructions have been given to officials of his department in order that there be closer co-ordination between job openings and those seeking employment who are now unemployed.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I indicated previously in my statement that this closer co-operation is the objective and that it was being met. I think it would take considerably longer than the question period to elaborate. But I would be glad at the first opportunity to do so and can say now that our best efforts are being committed to that end.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister indicate whether a specific instruction has been issued by him to the officials of his department to give specific job opportunities to those presently receiving UIC benefits?


Robert Knight Andras: Not in those precise terms, Mr. Speaker. The co-operation and the measures by which co-operation can be effected are constantly being examined and improved. However, the Manpower Department has an over-all obligation to assist all people whether they come off unemployment insurance rolls or from other sources for counselling and job placement, and we must consider that too.

[ Translation]



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Oral Questions
In view of the fact that the departmental working paper published last April suggested among other things that the petrochemical sector in Quebec seemed to offer great economic development potential and the desirability of developing that potential can the minister say whether the recent steps announced by his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, represent a change in the policy contained in the DREE working paper as it affects the province of Quebec in particular, or even affect the negotiations between Quebec and the federal government with respect to the signature of an agreement in respect of the new economic expansion program for the province of Quebec?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There has in fact been considerable discussion with the government of the province of Quebec and also, of course, interdepartmentally between the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
I think the expressions by all three are consistent, and I see nothing in any of the comments from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that would in any way detract from the observations in the working paper on DREE.


Claude Wagner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us when the terms of the agreement on the new regional economic expansion program will be disclosed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that the timetable is quite a bit more firm than when the hon. member asked the question before. I would anticipate that the federal draft will be completed by November 25 or 26. If that timetable is achieved, then I will be inviting the province of Quebec to sign early in the month of December or by the middle of the month.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour arising out of events this morning on the Halifax waterfront involving a disagreement between the Maritime Employers Association and the International Longshoremen's Union about the appropriateness of discussing five points in connection with the agreement. I would ask the minister whether he would use his good offices to provide mediation or some other appropriate service leading to an agreement in a port that has never yet had a longshoremen's strike.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the long record of lack of any work stoppage at the port of Halifax. We want to keep that
7626

November 7, 1973
Oral Questions
record intact so the answer to the question is yes, we will provide all services necessary.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. It refers to the International Conference on the Conservation of Polar Bears being held in Oslo, Norway, from November 13 to November 15 and the agreement to be signed by the five countries involved, of which Canada is one. Could the minister tell the House if the Canadian position takes into consideration the recommendations and the proposals made to him by the Inuit people of Canada, the people most directly affected by this agreement? Also, will the minister indicate whether Canada will press for a postponement of the signing of the agreement until such time as the representations made by the Inuit people about the sports hunting of polar bears have been agreed to by all signatories?


John (Jack) Davis: The
answer to both those questions, Mr. Speaker, is yes.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Have the minister or his officials yet had an opportunity to assess the magnitude and effect of the crop losses caused by adverse weather which has curtailed harvesting operations and resulted in some 5 million acres of grain crops being snowed under in Alberta? Also, can he advise us whether the federal government is considering any form of assistance program such as a cash payment similar to that announced last year under similar circumstances?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the government is having a survey made of the damaged crops. It is working very closely with the Alberta officials. I spoke to the Alberta Minister of Agriculture last Friday and discussed the problems these people were facing. As soon as all the information is compiled and we receive an official request in writing from the province of Alberta, we will consider it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As a supplementary question I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the intention of the government to amend the regulations under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act in order that advance payments may be applied for in respect of a crop that is unharvested.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of the act now, it allows the minister to make advance payments

for grain that is unharvested, covered by snow. We did that last year. Of course, we all realize that the whole act is going to be amended. Whether the farmers in this situation can wait that long, because of the higher costs involved and the need for more money this year, remains to be seen.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Have the recommendations of the advisory committee which studied the salaries of senior civil servants and recommended a top salary of $60,000 a year for senior deputy ministers been implemented and, if so, what were the reasons for this decision?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think that some time ago an announcement was made relating to the implementation of that report and the adoption of the ranges recommended by the advisory committee for implementation not in a one-year but in a two-year sequence.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question to the one asked to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could the minister tell us whether the pipeline extension to Montreal could result in the establishment of additional refineries in Montreal?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer that question in specific terms. However, I think it is fair to say that the provision of a pipeline from Toronto to Montreal would probably considerably enhance the petrochemical projects to which I referred earlier.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It centres around stage B of the recent 60-day amnesty period wherein the RCMP do a security check on the criminal activities of immigrants to
November 7, 1973

this country in their country of origin. Is the minister aware of a confidential directive sent by the department on September 17, or thereabouts, instructing immigration officers to grant landed immigrant status to certain applicants before clearance was received from the RCMP?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there are circumstances in which the stage B performance to which the hon. member referred is not absolutely necessary, and judgment is made in those cases. I do not think the incidence of error is significant. If the hon. member has any specific problems, or names, places or facts to put forward, I would be delighted to investigate them.


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, there are many instances of illegal immigrants being granted landed immigrant status and this is in direct contradiction of the statement made by the minister when he announced the 60-day amnesty period. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to clarify his earlier statement, that before they were given landed immigrant status there would be a security check and the results-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Duncan M. Beattie: -from the RCMP-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister might be allowed to rise on a point of order.


Robert Knight Andras: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would be very grateful to the hon. member if he would identify precisely where there was a commitment to do a security check of everybody, and precisely the particular cases that seem to be bothering him, rather than making these general allegations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might like to ask a further question and the minister will be allowed to reply briefly.


Duncan M. Beattie: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I put this question to the minister. Is he suggesting now that landed immigrant status would be granted to illegal immigrants without an RCMP check?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a point of order. I believe the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has a supplementary, following which I will recognize the hon. member for Bruce.



ASIANS REFUSED IMMIGRATION TO CANADA

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I address a brief supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Does he have anything further to report on the Asians who were apprehended at Gander over the weekend and apparently were refused admission as legitimate immigrants to Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: 

FINANCE


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. We have heard this afternoon that the estimated payments for the year 1973 from the unemployment insurance fund are $2,050,000,000, with a substantial gross deficit. Has the minister any estimated figure of the amount of money that will be collected in income tax from payments from this fund which will allow us to calculate the net government deficit for the year 1973?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, for 1973 it would be in the order of $224 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for New Westminster, the hon. member for Trinity, and there are other hon. members who are seeking the opportunity to ask questions. I will try to recognize as many as I can.



ABORTION


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the answer given by the Minister of Justice to this House yesterday, that he is now taking steps to encourage a more strict interpretation of those sections of the Criminal Code dealing with hospital committees and therapeutic abortions, and in view of the fact that out of 1,022 hospitals in Canada only 247 have abortion committees, would the minister encourage those hospitals which do not have abortion committees to form committees so they can also have an opportunity of looking at the minister's directive on interpretation of the Criminal Code?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and myself are of the same mind, as are all members of the cabinet, on this matter.
7628
Oral Questions HOUSING

November 7, 1973



TREFANN HOMES CORPORATION, TORONTO-STATUS OF JOHN JORDAN-CMHC LOAN TO CORPORATION

Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is John Jordan still an officer of Trefann Homes Corporation or connected with the project in any way?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that he is only a consultant for the association, but I will determine this. My knowledge is that he was a consultant. I will determine whether he has become an officer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister say if this is the same John Jordan who signed a lease to a private company for the first floor commercial space at Rochdale College for $1 a year for 30 years, as a consequence of which tens of thousands of dollars are siphoned off which otherwise would have been available to repay the principal and interest on the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation mortgage?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to comment on whether that is the case with respect to the lease and the circumstances as reported by the hon. member.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Isn't it in your report?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I cannot comment whether the man the hon. member is talking about, a consultant for Trefann Homes, is the same man who was involved as an officer with the co-operative colleges at one point.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have one final supplementary. Is the minister satisfied with the explanation for the difference of $110,000 between the lowest bidders and the ones he will be financing who are the pre-selected friends of Trefann Homes Corporation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the loan that has been made to Trefann Homes Limited has been examined very carefully by the officers of the corporation and has been made-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: After you punched them on the head.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -subject to the city of Toronto approving a contingency grant. I only hope that hon. members opposite could be of like minds. The hon. member for St. Paul's criticizes me for not approving the loan; the hon. member for Trinity, and other Conservative colleagues of his, for the last few months have done nothing but harass the attempts of Trefann Homes Corporation and nothing but harass a group of people in Toronto.


Mr. Speaker:: I was hoping we would have-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member if he will be patient for just a moment. I was just saying that I was hoping we could have one question period without getting involved in questions of privilege,

but now we are arguing this matter and I will recognize the hon. member for Trinity.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the
innuendoes of the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -because what this party has been trying to determine, without the co-operation of the government which obviously is trying to hide the facts and keep them secret from the public, is whether or not the people of Canada are going to get value for public funds expended on this project-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -whether or not in fact the applicants and the manager of this project are competent people to manage it in the public interest, and whether or not in fact their record, the record of some of them in particular, in previous projects with which they have been associated is such that under no circumstances should they ever again be trusted with public funds raised from the taxpayers of Canada. These are the things we are trying to get at, and frankly I am surprised that the minister would go ahead and adopt the unique procedure, unheard of in the history of the corporation, in asking the corporation of the city of Toronto to guarantee any overrun.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is just unbelievable.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



CENTENNIAL OF ALEXANDER MACKENZIE BECOMING PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA

Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, before we take up the next item of business I think it would be remiss of me as the member for Sarnia-Lambton if I did not remind the House that 100 years ago today a stonemason from Sarnia, a true Grit, became Prime Minister of Canada. I refer to the Right Hon. Alexander Mackenzie.


Thomas Miller Bell: True Grit? You mean John Wayne.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 7, 1973



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 6, consideration of Bill C-132, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-132, to control foreign ownership in Canada, I followed with much interest the remarks made yesterday evening, especially those of the minister and members of the Conservative Party. Although I listened intently to the members of the Conservative Party, for the life of me I could not figure out their position on this bill. Many said that the bill went too far, and a number of others said it did not go far enough. Over the past month in this House I have noticed that the Conservative Party speaks with many voices and it is hard to understand their position.
I asked a member of the Conservative Party how a new member finds out what that party's position is. He said that their lead-off speaker is the official spokesman for the party and that he voices party policy. With regard to this bill, Mr. Speaker, we have two critics, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), and they do not agree.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: How do you know; neither of us has spoken?


Reginald Cyril Symes: The minister looked at our amendments and rejected some very crucial ones. Later I should like to go into his arguments and comment on them, as well as some of the Conservative amendments. We proposed amendments to this bill with a view to strengthening it because we find that it does not go far enough in certain areas. The minister tried to give us the impression last evening that he is concerned about foreign ownership in this country and that he would look at some of our amendments and accept them. Our amendments are based on what is happening in this country with regard to foreign investment.
For years the opinion has been held by many Canadians and many members of this House that foreign investment is a blessing and will always be so. I agree, Mr. Speaker, that in the past as a developing country Canada did need foreign investment, but the position has changed. Look at what foreign investment has done over the years. Although it has provided some jobs for Canadians, it has developed the kind of economy that is now working in the interests of the multinational corporations rather than in
Foreign Investment Review Act the interests of the Canadian economy and the Canadian worker.
When we look at the pattern of foreign investment in this country, we see that it is mainly oriented toward resource industries and exploiting our raw materials for the benefit of another country which will refine and process them. If we become locked into that kind of economic development, not only do we export resources but we export jobs because the job-intensive areas of an economy are where the raw materials are refined and manufactured. That is not what is happening in Canada. As we ship our iron ore, pulp and other minerals out of the country we are exporting both resources and jobs. One has only to consider the oil and energy crisis today to know what that means. We are now locked into the position of a shortage of oil because of a resource-based philosophy of exporting oil via pipeline to the United States rather than having a pipeline that would be reversible and would bring western oil to eastern Canada or vice versa if need be.
Because we depend so much on foreign investment, we have been in the position of having economic decisions made outside the country. In the second reading debate I gave detailed examples of . how American corporate laws apply to industries in Canada and how American corporations' policies have caused closure of branch plants in Canada when an industry slackens in the United States in order to protect American workers as opposed to Canadian workers. I do not intend to go into any further detail on that matter.
Mr. Speaker, I think we also need to toughen this bill because of the other disadvantage related to foreign investment. So much of the research and development for subsidiary companies in Canada is done outside this country that our young scientists and engineers are losing jobs. If the branch plants were Canadian-owned, or at least were forced to do some of their research and development in this country, then jobs would be available. In 1970 alone we lost 882 engineers and scientists from Canadian universities; they went to the United States because jobs in research and development were not available with subsidiary companies in Canada. When we look at our trade balance we find that most of the component parts that foreign subsidiaries use in Canada come from other countries; parent companies provide 70 per cent of the components used by their subsidiary companies. This reduces the number of jobs created in Canada for the production of components.
When we look at the other aspect of foreign investment in this country we see that the bill could be strengthened by following some of this party's amendments. Canadian companies have been bought up at the rate of 170 a year, and there are loopholes that will allow this to continue. I shall deal with them in detail, Mr. Speaker, when I deal with the amendments. We now find that because of foreign investment we export more money than we bring in. The old argument for foreign investment was that we needed foreign capital. One has only to look at the statistics to see that between 1960 and 1969 we had a net export of $2 billion. In other words, taking into account the amount of capital that enters the country as opposed to the amount that went out in dividends and profits, we ended

This is a most crucial bill. If the minister is really serious about doing something with respect to foreign investment in this country, he should know that he will not accomplish his aim by accepting the bill as it now is. He should re-examine it and accept some of our amendments. I urge all hon. members of the House who really believe in the Canadian economy and in the Canadian ability to move ahead and plan our future to look seriously at our amendments and accept them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take part in the debate on the report stage of Bill C-132 let me first put on record the title of the bill. According to the order paper, it is "an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons".
The amendments which I shall discuss deal with consultation with the provinces and, of course, certain notice to the provinces. I might say that in dealing with the control of our economic environment in Canada the subject is not an easy one to discuss. It is not a matter about which one can be glib. All of us agree that Canadians must control their economic destiny if they are to maintain and sustain their national identity and national sovereignty. I use the phrase "national sovereignty" in the context of our approach to national and international affairs.
How is this to be accomplished? Can we accomplish it and still maintain our standard of living? The answer to these two important questions will differ not only as between parties in this House but as between members who make up the various parties in the House. I have said before in this House that the differences between the men and women in the House stem not so much from differences in party philosophy as from regional differences. For example, members from the Maritimes discuss the problems of the Maritimes and how certain amendments to a bill will affect the Maritimes. I say again that differences in viewpoint stem not so much from party affiliation as from differences in the regions which the various members represent.
Today I wish to discuss a matter pertaining to my home province, Alberta, and to Calgary. The whole economy of Alberta is geared to ranching. That includes farming of all kinds. That industry, really, is our primary industry. Our second most powerful industry is the resource industry which brings about the secondary industries, known as the tertiary industries, all of which depend on the two main industries, farming on the one hand and the resource industry on the other, or energy and food. We in Alberta are fortunate enough to produce both food and energy in large quantities. I shall deal for a few minutes with energy.
I do not believe, and I hope I will be able to prove this before I am through, there is actually a shortage of energy in Canada. We in Alberta have enough crude petroleum and natural gas to supply the needs of Canada this winter and for winters to come. One of the great troubles has been lack of planning, particularly by this government, in the transportation of that energy from its source to urban
Foreign Investment Review Act
and other centres. I will have something more to say about that later. When we wrap it up, it may be a case of scarcity on the market but not scarcity at the wellhead.
When dealing with this subject we have to ask ourselves a second question. How do we encourage more Canadian dollars into our two industries, agriculture and the resource industry? These are some of the suggestions that I have. I have said this before in this House but the government has paid very little attention to it in dealing with the question of taxation. First, we should make certain the Canadian tax law that affects agriculture and the resource industry is such that enough dollars will be left in the command and control of people in Alberta and, indeed, the people of all Canada so they can invest in their own industries.
The new tax act places the Canadian investor in Canada at a disadvantage to foreign investors. We hear a lot about United States dollars in Canada. We hear very little about the amount of money that Japan has now invested in Canada. We hear very little about the amount of German money invested in Canada. I am told that Japanese money is coming into the Pacific coast for the hotel industry, and so on. Too often when dealing with this subject we speak about American dollars. It may be because there seems to be a group in Canada that is anti-American. If they can use a club on them, even through this bill, they seem to get great satisfaction.
There appears to be in the House panic and a crisis with regard to the supply of crude petroleum and natural gas. I repeat, there is no shortage. It is a question of transportation. We have interrogated this government since 1968 in reference to a national energy policy, transportation and pipelines, but nothing is done until there is a crisis. When this government, which is now withering on the vine, was elected in 1968 they said they were pragmatists. They are pragmatists. They go from crisis to crisis. If anyone is cold in his bed or living-room this winter, the responsibility will be on the shoulders of the government.
Guaranteeing large Canadian participation in the development and ownership of Canada can only be done by equitable and reasonable tax incentives so that Canadian developers and the resource industry can compete with foreign investors. Let me direct my attention for a few moments to the resource industry in Alberta which is continually under attack by this government and the people who like to kick hell out of the United States because it sounds good on the hustings and is more political than logical and sensible. First, I want to refer to the source of funds for independents. Resource industries, Canadian corporations and Canadians must be given, within Canada, a greater tax advantage and incentive than our foreign competitors. Then Canadians will soon own and control their resource industry and resource development.
I listened to my friends on the left who joined the government. They endorsed the new tax bill. When foreign investors come into this country, they have large depletion allowances and large write-offs. The same does not apply to Canadian investors. I recall a bill that was brought in not too long ago which permitted pipeline companies and other corporations to drill wells, but individuals forming a syndicate in Canada who might want to put their savings

November 7, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act into drilling a well cannot get even the same allowances or incentives as Canadian-owned corporations. That kind of tax law is drying up the funds for the development of our resource industries. Because of the high degree of risk inherent in the search for oil and natural gas, funds required by exploration companies cannot be borrowed.
Why, I might ask, have American dollars found their way into the resource industry? You cannot go to the bank and get a mortgage to drill an oil or gas well. Out of every ten wells drilled in the province of Alberta for oil and gas, I am told that nine are dry. Any capital that finds its way into the resource industry is high-risk capital. That is why tax incentives are necessary such as higher depletion allowances and higher write-offs. These will encourage free enterprise-I am not afraid to use that expression-to drill for oil and gas.
If it had not been for American dollars which came into Alberta and brought in Leduc No. 1 and developed the first field, there perhaps would not be any oil and gas industry in Alberta. I do not say that as a complaint. We did not find that the people of eastern Canada, who have the large pools of capital, came forward in the forties and fifties to invest in our resource industry. Therefore we had to rely on foreign investment. That is how foreign investment gained control of the resource industry of Alberta.
I want to compliment a government that was defeated by the Conservative Party, the government of Premier Manning. This is where you can differentiate from Saskatchewan. When the leases were let to developers, that government set up a royalty system which was copied by other provinces, including the province of Saskatchewan when Mr. Douglas was premier, whereby pools of money found their way into the treasuries. Because of those agreements and plans made by our former premier, now a senator, Alberta is the only province without a sales tax. We are proud of that record. We have to take that into consideration when dealing with this bill.
As one who was born in western Canada, I would be very happy if all the dollars in all our resource industries were Canadian. The only way to get Canadian dollars in there is to have an incentive and taxation plan to leave the money with Canadians. Unfortunately, that has not been the plan of this government. In history they will be written up as a giveaway and high tax government. I hear my socialist friends groaning. They ought to groan, because while we are drilling for oil and gas in Alberta and developing our resources, the same drilling rigs left Saskatchewan because of the socialistic philosophy of its government during that period.


Marc Lalonde: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) say "Shame". As a general rule, Canadian independents do not have sufficient internal cash flow to undertake required exploration programs. They must rely on the continued inflow of new risk capital from investors, both Canadian and foreign, either through the form of new equity issues or through drilling fund types of arrangements. It is estimated that in excess of 50 per cent of the funds expended on wildcat drilling in Canada by independents

come in the form of new risk capital obtained each year by the independent companies.
There is a need for consistency of government policies. According to recent technical papers, Canada, at current rates of production, is considered to have undiscovered reserves equivalent to 100 years of supply for oil needs and 250 years of supply for gas needs. In addition, the Alberta tar sands are estimated to contain 250 billion barrels of oil, of which 26.5 billions barrels are recoverable by current processes. As I see it, the government is bound to depend on foreign crude because it has scared off the parties ready to participate in the great Syncrude project or, if it has not, only the integrity of the government of Alberta has saved the situation. Without consultation, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) imposed a surtax, first of 40 cents and then of $1.90.
We know from all the reports on the Syncrude project that the extraction of the oil is an extremely expensive process. The cost of processing and extraction is very high. The move the government has made will, I am sure, hamper the prospects of development. I remind hon. members that we should be considering not only our present needs but Canada's needs in the future. Foresight and vision are required, and these qualities cannot be exercised without capital. On November 5 I directed the following question to the minister:
In view of the cabinet leak to the effect that the government intends to nationalize or is considering nationalizing one of the corporate parties to the Syncrude project, is the minister now in a position to encourage or to discourage the immediate development of the Syncrude project to assure supplies of crude petroleum for all Canadian needs now and in the future? That is the question today; we are all talking about supply.
To which the minister replied:
I should like to confirm a statement made outside the House, namely, that a Globe and Mail report of a proposal to acquire either Gulf or Shell is totally without foundation.
At this point an hon. member, not named in the report, interjected "Oh, yeah?" The parties to the Syncrude agreement are Imperial Oil, Canada-Cities Service Limited, Atlantic Richfield and Gulf (Canada) Limited. At the same time, it does seem strange to me that a newspaper as well-known nationally and internationally as the Globe and Mail would print a story unless there was some foundation for it. I believe there is a fight going on in cabinet at the moment over that situation. In such a climate of uncertainty, how can we be assured that a development so important to Canada's future will continue in order that our energy reserves may be maintained? The minister went on to say:
With regard to the Syncrude position, I would point out that it is a rather fundamental matter of taxation policy whether a special change should be made in our taxation law affecting the Syncrude project, and this is a matter which the Department of Finance now has under study.
Well, I hope it does not keep it under wraps for years like the government's national energy policy. This project cannot wait. It is very well put together. Eventually, 60 per cent of the profits will go to the people of Alberta. And I should like to remind hon. members, especially those from Ontario, that we spend between $100 million and $200
November 7, 1973

million a year buying from the tertiary industries of Ontario. These huge amounts are spent in the purchase of steel, tubing, facing and all the other equipment required to drill for oil and maintain the wells. We should remember, too, that if it is kept healthy this is an industry which will help solve the problems of unemployment in the future.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said no tax incentives had been provided in connection with the project. Some hon. members interjected with cries of "oh!" and then the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) answered:
Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I said to the Alberta ministers that it was in the interest of this country that the Syncrude project go forward. The problem is not only how to reconcile the Syncrude project, or the agreement between the consortium and the Province of Alberta, with the existing tax laws, but of developing and announcing guidelines for federal tax resources policy. To that effect we are reviewing our position and, indeed, in the light of information supplied to the Alberta ministers, they are also reviewing their position. I will be meeting with the Syncrude people later this month.
The ministers from Alberta were down here. They visited the appropriate ministers of this government. They had hardly got on the plane home and taken off their coats before a new tax of $1.90 was imposed. What effect did that action have on the prospects for development? I see the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) present in the chamber. I understand he will speak later and I hope he will answer some of these questions. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) put it very well, I thought, as reported at page 7515 of Hansard. He said:
In view of the fact that the only secure source of oil supply to Canada must lie in the Canadian oilfields and that Canadian oil reserves at present are down to somewhere in the order of a 12-year life, will the minister say why all the government's recent policies have aggravated the Canadian oil supply problem and why no consideration has been given to security of future supply by way of stimulating the search for and development of energy reserves in Canada?
My comment is this: you can only stimulate the search for more energy and the development of more energy through appropriate tax incentives operating in a proper atmosphere. The minister began his answer by saying he would not accuse the hon. member for Calgary South of a conflict of interest in the situation. I assume he said that because the hon. member for Calgary South was at one time an entrepreneur in one of the drilling companies. I might say, in passing, that 95 per cent of the drilling companies in Alberta are owned by Canadians, financed by Canadians and drilled on behalf of Canadians. The minister went on:
I would point out that in July and again in discussions the government has held with the governments of both Alberta and Saskatchewan we have pointed out that substantial funds can and will be made available for the purpose of developing non-conventional sources of oil particularly and, in addition, for the development of other sources of oil and natural gas, and it is our intention to have this development by and for Canadians.
The hon. member for Calgary South went on to ask a further question:
The minister has made some vague statements about the federal government trying to find ways of directing the $70 million a month that is being creamed from the western provinces into heavy oil development. In view of the fact that the National Energy Board projects production from the Alberta tar sands in
Foreign Investment Review Act the amount of some 500,000 barrels a day by 1980, which is an almost impossible target date, will the minister promise that before the end of this year the matter will be concluded so that private enterprise can get on with this job?
This is why there is an energy crisis today. It is because we have a government which believes in high taxation, a government which believes it can handle other people's business better than they can. The other day we asked the minister whether it was his intention to set up a national oil corporation. I think this was two days ago. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said later that the idea was being considered. Are they going to take over some of the companies in Alberta?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may, however, continue if there is unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thank hon. members. Continuing his answers to questions on November 5, the minister replied:
I think it would be desirable to conclude it as soon as possible and I look forward to early conversations with the government of Alberta in an attempt to nail this down.
Mr. Speaker, the government of Alberta must be frightened to negotiate with the federal government. On the last occasion when the ministers left for the west, no sooner had they done so than the whole plan was changed. I want hon. members to consider this question carefully. If the development had not taken place in Alberta, where would Canada be this winter? It would be depending entirely on supplies of oil from Venezuela and from the Middle East, where the trouble is.
In the past year the government has done everything in its power to discourage the development of the industry. While the potential reserves postulated by the various geologists are large, they will only become a reality as a result of exploration. Only through risk exploration can Canada become assured of a lasting supply.
In undertaking this risk exploration, it must first be recognized that compared to Middle East supplies, or in fact any other reserves worldwide except those of the United States, Canadian oil and gas are high-cost in terms of finding, developing and transportation costs. This is why energy is an expensive item. Some of our wells produce only 100 barrels a day, where the same sized wells in the Near East may produce 10,000 barrels a day. Yet it takes the same capital to sink the same kind of shaft. You are dealing not only with high-risk capital but with high-risk projects.
Secondly, it must be recognized that these risk investments are generally of a fairly long-term nature, in that there is a long lead time before an idea is transformed into reserves and possible return. In settled Canada, it probably takes five to seven years to do the necessary geological and geophysical work and the drilling required to develop a specific play and start selling oil and gas. In the frontier areas the lead time is even longer.

November 7, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
Gas was found at Sable Island in 1967, the year before this government took office. Close to 70 wells were sunk. Six years later this gas is still a considerable way from being produced and transported. Is this foresight? Is this the kind of government thinking and government direction that is going to guarantee us an energy supply? Of course it is not.
Gas was found at Drake Point in the Arctic in July, 1969, and it is unlikely that any gas from there will be marketed before the 1980s, if at all. Day after day I personally, as well as other members from Alberta and western Canada, have asked the Prime Minister and various ministers of energy, mines and resources whether they are negotiating with the United States to build a pipeline down the Mackenzie delta. During the last election it was almost built, with a highway alongside. We have action on the hustings but inaction in parliament.
The industry needs to work in a climate of relatively stable legislative and regulatory conditions. It cannot operate in a legislative vacuum, under conditions where great uncertainties exist, or in circumstances where legislative or regulatory guarantees are unilaterally changed without regard to the guarantee, or where legislative changes are made retroactively, or where legislative changes are quickly made without allowing for a phase-in period to allow industry adjustments.
I do not trust any government-and this is what I worry about in connection with this bill-to be the determining factor regarding where and when money should be invested, particularly in the resource industries where risk money is needed. Here I quarrel with my friends the socialists. They say that we can improve the bill. When they drilled the first well in Alberta, they took a chance. They drilled many wells at Turner Valley and other areas and finally they found oil. After finding one field they took further chances and made other discoveries and went from field to field. In this way you develop your pools of energy.
Has the government the vision to do this with taxpayers' money? That is the thought that I want my good friends to my left to think about when they talk of a national corporation that will be financed with the taxpayers' money. We talked today about CMHC and the fact that the government has been putting its hands in the taxpayers' pockets. Even though there is corruption, you cannot clean it out. Do we want the same thing to happen in the resource industry, particularly when it relies on risk capital?
If Alberta had depended on certain Toronto or Montreal investors, we would have no surplus of oil and gas today in Alberta. Those investors preferred to invest elsewhere. That was their privilege and their right, and they developed one of the greatest industrial triangles anywhere in the world. I am told that the industrial triangle of Ontario is one of the most wealthy areas anywhere in the world. Ontario has built within 100 years a powerful industrial base, and they are to be congratulated for that. I find no fault with them for not coming west and putting their money in our gas and oil wells. But had we not had money from elsewhere, there would not be the gas and oil wells in Alberta today to supply energy to the industries of eastern Canada.


Mr. Nesdoly:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Several minutes ago when the hon. member had permission to speak beyond his time, I yelled out "No," but apparently I was unheard. He has now gone beyond his time by about eight minutes. I think it is time to call a halt.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did not hear the hon. member say no. If I had, I would have done what I have not had to do with any other participant in this debate; I would have refused to permit the hon. member to continue. The hon. member has been given the right to continue and the Chair assumed that it had the right to extend this courtesy to the hon. member, as it has to others. Having made a mistake, the Chair will do what it has done in other cases where people have been allowed to continue, and that is wait for the end of the hon. member's speech.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I might say this, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to argue with my good friend who rose, but I must be saying something that bothers him or he would not want to turn off my voice.
We are developing a strong energy base. I say that what makes confederation is to have Ontario and Alberta scratching each other's backs. I hope this government does not try to stimulate an election issue by leaving the impression that instead of scratching each other's backs they are scratching each other's eyes. The energy pool complements the industrial pool. I hope that Canada's nationalism does not boil down to the price of a barrel of crude petroleum.
What do I mean by that? When we could import crude petroleum from the Near East and Venezuela and we had the Ottawa Valley division line, with imported oil coming as far as that and west of the Ottawa Valley being supplied with oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan and other places where resources industries were developed, they did not want a pipeline. Now there is a shortage, they do want a pipeline.
I say on behalf of the people I represent-and I have represented the province of Alberta in this House for 14 years-that they take the position of Canada first for Canadians. We think we are part, and a big part, of Canada and have a great contribution to make to this nation. That is why I support the amendment. We believe that this all-powerful government-it is really a majority government; both parties are together-surely could consult with the provinces and give them sufficient notification. I should not like to hand over our resource industry, financed by high-risk capital, to a government that says, "No, you cannot put money into Alberta; we don't like their premier or their government". I like a society that is governed by laws rather than by people. I am frightened when people make decisions that are made outside the rule of law. This is why I think our amendment should be supported, and I ask the government to take a hard look at it because it is to the government's advantage.
The government put a surtax on our crude petroleum. What would have been the reaction if they had put a
November 7, 1973

surtax on steel in Ontario, or on Ford or General Motors' cars? What would happen if the resources of some other province were taxed, such as the good province of Quebec or the maritime provinces? Why was poor old western Canada picked out? I say this because our resource industry and our wheat and cattle industries have been discriminated against.
I might say that not only Alberta but Saskatchewan also is losing millions of dollars through the tax. I am surprised that the Premier of Saskatchewan has not spoken up about that. Is it because there is some relationship between the party national leader and himself? I do not know.
To be fair to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I must say that he said Ontario did buy our crude when it was more economic to purchase it elsewhere. Ontario did that for years. Everywhere west of the Ottawa Valley really did pay more. That was worked out as the national oil policy. It was introduced by a Conservative government and carried on by the Pearson government and by the present government.
Recent actions by the Canadian government have created uncertainties in the petroleum industry which may erode its ability to attract sufficient capital for the longer range development of oil and gas in Canada. Policies should be developed to provide consultation between the federal government, the provincial government and the petroleum industry, and to establish a political climate conducive to the reinvestment of funds generated from the production of our remaining proven assets of oil and gas, and as encouragement for new investments in the development of oil sands projects, exploration plays and technological research into recovery methods.
As I said, we are reluctant to the turning over of our risk capital to a group who will oppose our interests. Nor do we want to operate in a climate where it is harmful for the country to have U.S. dollars but investment by the Japanese is not questioned. Here I would also mention West Germany and Britain. Just remember that companies like the Ford Company of Canada and General Motors are under the control of the United States, but I never hear our friends in the NDP complain. Maybe the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) does not want to rock the boat in his constituency in that regard.
I am told by the hon. member for Calgary South that the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors is comprised of 187 companies-83 contractor companies, and 104 service, supply and manufacturing companies related to drilling operations. Member companies employ 10,000 taxpaying Canadians, providing an annual payroll in excess of $90 million to employees located throughout Canada. As a direct result of drilling operations in Canada, an annual payroll of $188 million is generated for drilling and service rig crews, employees in manufacturing, service, supply, transportation, construction, and for field consultants. Contractor members of the association are 95 per cent Canadian-owned and operate 341 drilling rigs and 205 service rigs.
Any reduction in exploration or development drilling has an immediate and adverse impact on the number of
Foreign Investment Review Act persons employed in the contracting industry. When drilling rigs are not operating, income is not generated and personnel are laid off. We know that the Syncrude project will give immediate employment to an estimated 10,000 Canadians. That is how important this industry is to Canada. Oil and gas well drilling has been carried out in every province, including the Territories and the Arctic, within the past year, creating jobs in these regions and adding economic benefit to the local, provincial and federal economies.
I am concerned that recent federal policies in respect of the crude oil price freeze and the imposition of an export tax on petroleum have created uncertainties in the Canadian petroleum industry. Today a question was asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) as to whether exports to the United States would be cut off in the event that supplies were not enough for Canada. The minister replied that certainly exports would be reduced in such circumstances. I endorse that. I think the industry endorses it. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, when those decisions are made, either with the provinces or with our neighbour to the south surely consultation is not out of the question. Surely we are neighbourly enough to go to the United States and say, ' We are having our troubles." Negotiations could then take place in an atmosphere of good will on both sides of the border.
While I am vitally concerned with the maintenance of a viable drilling industry and the retention of our highly skilled Canadian labour force, I am also deeply concerned that the application of the recent policies will severely limit the discovery of additional hydrocarbon reserves, to the long-term detriment of all Canadians. I would hope that the minister or the Prime Minister would sit down and consult with the provinces before making any longterm decisions. They announced a pipeline. Quebec said no. Surely they should have first gone to Quebec and talked it over. The government has a national responsibility to supply energy across the country, but it also has a national responsibility to keep confederation together.
Our proposed amendments will tidy up a very bad bill, a bill which will cause the drying up of risk capital, capital that is necessary for the economic health of the provinces, of my province in particular, and of other provinces which depend on it for the energy they use in the manufacture of goods and the provision of services.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this has been such a wide-ranging debate that it would be quite impossible to touch on all the matters that have been commented on by hon. members, even if I were to get the extra allocation of time which we so generously gave to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) to wind up. But looking at the clock I find his wind-up was a heck of a sight longer than his pitch.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I propose to spend the majority of my time dealing with those aspects of this bill which relate to my special responsibilities in the field of regional economic expansion. But I cannot resist commenting on the speech of the hon. member for Calgary North, which for

Foreign Investment Review Act one reason alone I suggest is historic in this chamber. He is the only man I ever heard who sang "O Canada" to the tune of "God Bless America."
When the hon. member gets an opportunity tomorrow to look at his speech in Hansard, I suspect he will find it is a remarkable mixture of non sequitors, cliches, a fair amount of patriotism and a lot of dangling participles, because he has the habit, which we are getting accustomed to now from a certain group of members of this House, of saying, "We would dearly love to have everything under Canadian control and owned by Canadians" while the damning thing we never hear is the great big, capital letter "But," because in the rest of their speech they go on to say why this cannot be done and why it is impossible to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I must say, too, that when the hon. member's remarks are transcribed for history they will lose all credibility when the reader comes to the line which says of a minister of the Crown who, after all, is entitled to some respect, even from the Official Opposition, that his word is not to be taken because in fact a rumour to the contrary appeared in the Globe and Mail.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Therefore we have government by rumour, presumably, or by any other kind of speculation. The hon. member certainly illustrates how weak are the bases of many of his arguments when he says the minister is not to be believed because the Globe and Mail says it is not true. I call attention to the fact that that newspaper did not go that far in assuming they were omnipotent and omniscient in that regard. In fact, I will send the hon. gentleman a large package of clippings of items which have appeared in the Globe and Mail and which appear every day under the heading "Our mistake."
Lest I fall victim to the temptation to try to respond in detail to what was essentially a legitimate but of course special pleading on the hon. member's behalf in regard to the oil industry, I return to my first theme. I feel my responsibility is to talk about what is a legitimate problem in all of the underdeveloped regions of Canada with regard to this whole question of investment of a foreign nature or non-Canadian nature.
I have read with considerable interest the comments made not only before the parliamentary committee but also those of some of the premiers of the Atlantic provinces-I believe they were all aligned on these things- and those of certain of the other so-called have-not provinces who expressed some fears and concerns about the possibility, or at least the threat or the danger that a more positive national policy with regard to control and ownership might be harmful to their developmental efforts.
As someone who comes from one of those have-not regions of the country and who has spent a great many years involved in various forms of developmental activity, I appreciate this concern. I have no hesitation in saying that it is important in those have-not regions of the country that legitimate developments are not hampered by a

failure of Canadian capital and Canadian initiative. I would rather put it in that context than say it would be important that these fail because there is no foreign investment. I should like to develop that point as I go along, Mr. Speaker, but before I do let me point out to people who are so very much concerned about the threat of foreign ownership in the underdeveloped parts of the country that even in these have-not areas it has been a mixed blessing to have such a heavy emphasis on foreign control and investment in industry.
In the region that I know best, the Atlantic provinces, the whole area-all four provinces-are littered, quite literally, with the remnants of foreign-eontrolled industries that milked the region for whatever they could get out of it and then departed and left us to clean up the mess.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have merely to point to the iron mines of Belle Isle or to Devco Corporation which was established in Cape Breton when a foreign-eontrolled organization abruptly decided to withdraw. I could give many other examples throughout Atlantic Canada of this danger that has existed all along, of the domination of the economy of the Atlantic provinces and other have-not regions by foreign-eontrolled corporations. To those who would say, in what has now become something of a cliche, that we have to embrace developers and entrepreneurs from wherever they come in the world simply because they hold out some hope of development of our resources, I say that they ought to qualify that against this history.
There is another reason why even in the have-not areas of this country it is not always wise for us to welcome every foreign investor who comes along.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Like Joey Smallwood.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: My hon. friend from Calgary North says, "Like Joey Smallwood." Well, I do not use it in the same context as he, but I would say that the Newfoundland experience in the first 20 years of confederation shows that in your enthusiasm for development you can frequently be too generous in the concessions that are made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I repeat, therefore, that the whole question of development has to be measured in terms of what the trade-offs are, because you could wind up making enormous concessions with insignificant benefits to the people of the region or of Canada as a whole.
The third reason this whole question of open-handedly accepting foreign investment ought to be examined is the fact that experience shows that it sometimes leads, particularly in the have-not regions, to excess interprovincial or interregional competition. This, of course, reflects on the second reason that I gave, which is that in those kinds of circumstances the promoter can play one against the other. The only winner in the long run, in many instances, is the promoter. The ultimate loser is probably the public purse which comes in and tidies up after the cream has been skimmed by those people who have no further interest in Canada or Canadians.
November 7, 1973

There is another reason why this question needs to be examined with a degree of caution. As long as we have this almost total dependence upon foreign investment in the have-not regions of the country, there is the danger, and frequently the reality, of a somewhat less than total development of the resource. The reason for this is that the international or foreign company is usually concerned with getting the basic raw material from Canada. We can see across this country, whether it be northern Ontario, Atlantic Canada, Quebec or British Columbia it does not matter, outside of the built-up regions that once foreign investment comes in the resource is usually taken out in the most raw state possible for transportation and is upgraded at some other point where the jobs are created. We can see that not only in the mining industry but also, in my own province, in the fishing industry where the basic thrust of what might be described as an international interest is to get the raw material and process it elsewhere.
We have very short memories, Mr. Speaker, if we do not recall that as recently as three or four years ago there were two or three large international corporations that were hailed when they moved into the Atlantic provinces in the fish processing business. But they disappeared from the scene the instant the price went down to the point where it was not profitable for them, at precisely that moment, to keep going. That reminds me of the Newfoundland fish merchant, Mr. Speaker, who during the depression went into his bank and asked his banker, "What do you know about the fish business?" The banker replied that he knew nothing, to which the merchant responded, throwing his keys on the desk, "You had better start learning, because you are in it."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Time after time foreign companies have come in at the height of a market or a demand and then provincial governments, or in some instances the federal government have found themselves caught with that expression, "You had better start learning, because you are in it." We ought to differentiate between sound foreign or international investment and those problem areas which are inevitable unless we keep a close eye out for them and unless we have an alternative.
Mr. Speaker, I have made what I hope will be recognized as jesting remarks with regard to the hon. member for Calgary North, but there is one thing about which he is absolutely right; that is, we can join hands from the Atlantic provinces to the west and say that the biggest failing, in terms of Canadian control of the Canadian economy, over the past 50 years or so has been the lack of initiative and entrepreneurship and the timidity of a great deal of Canadian capital.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: This has been one of our real errors, Mr. Speaker. It is all very well to spar back and forth in adversary debate and to talk about government policies and what they might or might not have done to maintain control of the Canadian economy. But the facts speak for themselves; the evidence is there, that indeed in what might be described as the perimeters of the country, the
Foreign Investment Review Act parts away from the heartland, there has been a woeful lack of enterprise and a woeful lack of guts on the part of well-heeled Canadian investors to do something to develop other regions of the country.
My hon. friend from Calgary North spoke of some of the things that did not happen in the west or would not have happened in the west because of the failure of Canadian investors. We can point to the Atlantic provinces or Quebec in the same way. The whole fishing industry had its genesis or growth through the interests of various foreign operators. Many of the Canadians to whom I have spoken personally on many occasions, who simply could not get themselves excited about the prospects, now that prices are about four times what they were three or four years ago are falling all over themselves to get into the business. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot blame any resident, any premier or any leader in any backward part of this country for saying that he is going to get capital wherever he can lay his hands on it. What he is really saying is, "I cannot get it from Canadian sources." So it is important that we find techniques and means by which we can induce the private sector to put money in, and perhaps we could include public moneys as well, as a means to offset this negative attitude toward the regions to which I have referred.
In summary on this point, I say that it is not merely a question of saying that we do not like an overdose, as it were, of foreign investment; I think I have shown that there are dangers in that. There is no point in making that kind of case unless you point out the other flaw, which is this: Canadians, by and large, until fairly recently at least, have not been prepared to invest as they should in their own country. Lest, by the way, that is taken as a criticism wholly and solely of what might be described as the financial establishment of central Canada, let me say that within the have-not regions of this country there is every bit as much of this chicken-hearted approach to investment in Canada as there is in the big financial centres.
There are in this day and age a lot of people in the have-not regions of this country who are making good incomes, by which I mean profit incomes, from those regions. However, time and time again, as the record shows, their investments flow back to the centre. So instead of building up the have-not regions of this country, what happens? A man makes his pile, say in the Atlantic provinces, and then decides to get into something lucrative and he invests in a venture in the good old province of Ontario. That is something for us to consider. Therefore I say it is not merely a question of criticizing lack of entrepreneurship on the part of those who might be described as the well established; we must also consider the lack of entrepreneurship of those in the regions.
Another point which worries me considerably about the present state of affairs-and we hope to be able to correct this through the policies of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion-is this: speaking in terms of regional development, whether it be undertaken by foreign investors or by Canadian investors, by established companies or by new companies, I say that it is absolutely essential that the provinces themselves and the federal government, to the extent of its involvement, are satisfied

November 7, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act that enterprises undertaken are sound and that they have a degree of viability that gives them at least a reasonable chance of success.
A few moments ago I spoke about the areas of deprivation being strewn with the failures of certain economic undertakings. Those failures have arisen because a good, hard look was not taken at each and every case and no one determined adequately whether the project could safely be put in hand with a reasonable chance of success. As long as you depend either on foreign entrepreneurship, which almost inevitably is going to be opportunist by the very nature of things, and there is nothing wrong with that, or on domestic entrepreneurship, there will be a need for us to do what we are now trying to do, work with the provinces in order to establish what are the major developmental opportunities in each of those regions and which of those opportunities has a reasonable chance for growth and development.
If I may speak in terms of the bill, let me say that the concerns which have been expressed about the concept of our working with the provinces are, in my judgment, the best assurances that can be given that this measure is not going to work against the interests of the have-not or less developed areas of the country. I point out to hon. members and to you, Mr. Speaker, that the entire regional economic expansion program, as we visualize it now, will be implemented on the basis of an agreement with the provinces. Furthermore, no enterprise will be undertaken under this plan unless it is the subject of a further federal-provincial agreement of a subordinate nature.
The implications of this are, first, that it is a commitment on our part to reinforce provincial priorities; that is, how a province uses its resources or, in the general scheme of things, how those resources are to be developed is something that the province will need to decide in the first instance. Second, once we have identified a major developmental opportunity on which we are prepared to work, the very fact that the federal and provincial governments agree on that and sign an agreement to that effect will, of course, be as strong an assurance as you can get that that enterprise is going to be acceptable within the criteria set down in this bill.
As I am not aware of many, if any, provincial undertakings that have not involved in one way or another some type of federal involvement, some type of federal financial contribution, it seems to be axiomatic that the more major developmental opportunities of any significance that are covered by this bill will be ones in which the federal government will have not only a strong commitment but will require a considerable amount of federal contribution.
The hon. member for Calgary North referred to Alberta. What he said sounded familiar, as I have had the same sort of experience with other provinces as well. There is no reluctance so far as the federal government is concerned to discuss these matters with the provinces. Furthermore, it seems to me that 99 times out of 100 the shoe is on the other foot. I have never yet heard any member get up in this House and say he was deeply upset because some province had moved unilaterally. Yet I can say to hon. members that it has been my experience, and I am sure this is true of many of my colleagues, to hear on the radio or television, or read in newspapers even as reliable as the

Globe and Mail that a province has taken a significant initiative involving the federal government but has not bothered to advise us that it was even contemplating such a step.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Let us remember, therefore, that this is a two-way street. Furthermore, let me say this. I doubt very much if there is an exception to this well established rule involving federal-provincial relations. Let a province start out on its own on that project and, regardless of its feelings about wanting to act alone, or regardless of its feelings of wanting to wrap the whole thing up in a provincial package, within a few months that province will be here knocking on the door of some federal department. This applies, for instance, to Alberta with its oil development, to Quebec with its steel development, to Nova Scotia with regard to its development of deep water ports and to Newfoundland with regard to its fisheries plan. Say what you like, I think it can be recognized that the provinces recognize the necessity of doing these things in some federal context.
We, for our part, are glad that this is so because it seems to me that without some kind of overview which only the federal government, only the federal parliament, can provide not only will Canada become a balkanized country but there will be so many economic distortions in the total scheme of things that only the federal government will be able to extricate all kinds of subsidiary provincial undertakings, wherever they may be, from their difficulties. The provinces may not be able to extricate such undertakings for themselves, naturally. So the underpinning to my own approach to regional economic expansion and development is that this must be done in total concert with the provinces, but not with their imposing measures that would be harmful to our objectives. We are really saying to them, "Tell us what you want and we will try to put a federal input into it, in our attempt to make it successful."


An hon. Member:: It will not work.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: An hon. member says that it will not work. I say to you that if it will not work, confederation is in a heck of a sight more trouble than I think it is. This has to be made to work. I am very pleased with the co-operation we have had from provinces with regard to general development agreements and the identification of major developmental opportunities. I repeat, because I think this is essential to the concerns which have been expressed, that by working with us through these agreements in order to develop the various economic prospects in the regions of Canada, the provinces are given strong assurance that provincial interests and provincial rights will be taken into account.
I am not suggesting, of course, that this is the whole answer. I am not saying that regional economic development will solve all the economic and all other difficulties in this country; that would be naive and would be flying in the face of history. However, I do not think there is the slightest doubt that we can get a great deal more Canadian investment into the underdeveloped parts of this country. This will not necessarily be done through tax policies and the like, although these have their place, or through trans-
November 7, 1973

portation policies. We have been tinkering with these for 50 years.
The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) is mumbling something. We have now put it at the stage where we have 50 per cent of the freight rates, for instance, on manufactured goods coming out of Atlantic Canada. If we put it at 100 per cent, it would not be the total solution to the problem unless we did other things as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Therefore, while these one-dimensional solutions may be appealing in the long run and may be great things on the stump in an election, they nevertheless ignore the fact that if we are going to get development in the perimeters of this country, the slow growth regions- and that constitutes by far the bulk of our geography- and if we are going to ensure there is a greater Canadian input into this kind of development, we must take a multi-dimensional approach. That, I believe, is what members will see the Departmentof Regional Economic Expansion doing. I believe it is in complete concert with the bill now before the House.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister a short but serious question. I was impressed with some of the minister's comments about the underdeveloped areas of this country. In view of the fact Canadian banks and financial institutions lend half of their money to foreigners either in Canada or outside the country, and 38 per cent of our Canadian mutual funds are invested in the United States, I wonder whether the minister, to achieve some of his ends, would recommend foreign exchange controls or some mandatory investment controls, so that the banks and financial institutions would be required to invest more of their money in Canada and perhaps more in the areas which really need it. I would like to hear the minister's comments on this suggestion.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious I cannot answer all of the implications of that question in short order. I can say this. If our federal system permits it in some way or another, I believe we have to find some means to make capital more available. For the past several months we have been carrying on a study to discover whether in fact it is true there is a shortage of capital from the lending institutions in the slow growth regions. At the moment we are getting some rather conflicting stories.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Surely you do not need a study to know there is a shortage.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think if I had said that off the top of my head, the hon. member would have asked how I could say something like that without having a study. In trying to answer the hon. member and not take up the time of the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly), all I can say is that this is a matter about which we are certainly very concerned. We are trying to find techniques to get at some of the things he mentioned. I will be glad to talk to the hon. member about this later.
Foreign Investment Review Act


Reginald Cyril Symes: Would the minister permit a further question?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not mind, if your colleague does not.


Reginald Cyril Symes: The minister pointed out that as far as his department is concerned, the province would set the priority and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion would work with the province in fulfilling that priority. If in a province such as Ontario, the provincial government set a priority such as the Toronto centre region plan which discriminates against regions such as northern Ontario, would the federal government take the initiative in doing the kinds of things which would give us the kind of development our people deserve?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Until I see evidence that that is so, I think the question is hypothetical. My negotiations are still going on with Ontario. I can say that I see no indication at the moment that they have a lack of interest in northern Ontario. There are, of course, some projects which we can undertake unilaterally under the incentives development act and things of this kind. There are others purely within provincial jurisdiction.
Without a specific example I could not say whether we could move on this or not. My opinion is we would not be able to do that. Nevertheless, there are tools that we have for encouraging industry and the like. If it was our conviction there were good programs and they did not conflict with provincial autonomy or the constitutional rights of the provinces, we would go ahead. We could not, for example, build roads in northern Ontario unless there was some agreement with the province of Ontario.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the comments made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson). I hope his department will see fit to be a little more generous with Saskatchewan and the other have-not prairie province, Manitoba. I am getting a bit sick and tired of Saskatchewan being referred to as the poor socialist province, and all the rest. I will have more to say about that later.
I also hope that all of Saskatchewan will come under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and qualify for grants, particularly the small cities and towns which do not qualify at the present time. In this way we could start to build up Canadian equality and maybe gradually overcome some of the effects the multinational corporations have on us. I also hope that in the future this department will not hand out money too readily to foreign-owned corporations.
I listened with interest, and sometimes impatience to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who represents Imperial Oil interests. He made an interesting speech. It was the Alberta lobby at work. I do not blame him. Yesterday the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) praised the Conservative government of Ontario. He took a swipe at Saskatchewan. I wish to quote from an article entitled "Foreign-ownership Rule Broken?" which appeared in the May 5 edition of the Financial Post.
Effective control of another sizeable financial institution has passed out of Canada-right under the noses of Ontario Premier William Davis and his cabinet.

November 7, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
It's Ontario Trust Co., the tenth largest trust company in Canada. While by no means a giant in the industry, Ontario Trust nevertheless has assets of $141 million and is an important trust and loan company in Ontario, where it does most of its business.
The article goes on to state who acquired it, who has the controlling interest, and so on. It further states:
Yet six months after control of Ontario Trust has left Canada, the Ontario government has done nothing about it, even though the change clearly violates the intention of its Loan and Trust Corporation Act. . .
One reason for Davis' lack of action, some observers surmise, may be the apparently friendly associations he and his cabinet have with the Ontario Trust group:
FP has learned that legal business generated by Ontario Trust is referred to Davis, Webb, Hollinrake, the Brampton law firm in which Davis was a partner.
It elaborates much more, but I think that is enough to indicate the gist of the article. What I am trying to say is this: very often governments and people in high places have deliberately sold Canada out to foreign interests.
A number of speakers have talked about the inefficiency of Saskatchewan's socialism. I want to remind those hon. members who have been taking potshots at socialism in our province that we own more of our province than is the case with most of the other provinces. For example, we have no natural gas problem in Saskatchewan right now because our gas resources and our distribution system are provincially owned. It has been that way for 20 years. If other provinces had adopted similar long-term plans, perhaps we would not be faced with the prospect of a fuel crisis in Canada today. We set up an auto insurance plan and used the money which flowed from it to build schools and hospitals and to help local industries, instead of exporting those funds to Winnipeg or Toronto or New York. The plan was successful and other provinces are now in the process of copying it. I believe hon. members should be reminded of this once in a while.
Several months ago there was a danger that one of the meat packing plants in Saskatchewan would pass into United States' hands. The Saskatchewan government bought a 45 per cent interest in it.


An hon. Member:: You got sucked into it.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: An hon. member says we got sucked into it. I would point out to him that after we followed through with this plan two other Canadian companies indicated an interest in setting up packing plants in the province because we had indicated we were not interested in exporting our beef to Winnipeg and elsewhere. A lot of people say we got sucked into things, but time is proving us right. Someone mentioned the box factory, a socialist enterprise which was a complete flop. But the type of government we had in Saskatchewan between 1944 and 1964 was experimenting, and not all its experiments were successful. Some of them were flops. But over-all, the Crown corporations of Saskatchewan have earned more than they have ever lost, and they operate for the benefit of the people.
We have been accused by some hon. members to my right of not possessing much business experience, and the conclusion they draw is that we should not be talking

about the corporations. Heaven help our country if we leave the destiny of the nation strictly to businessmen and presidents of corporations. A multinational corporation is not guided by philosophical considerations or love of country. Such corporations have sold Canada down the river on more than one occasion. They have no pride in our country, no national purpose or vision. Yet this is what we need. We need a sense of direction, a sense of destiny in this country. We need a national purpose, and I think the Canadian people have lost it because we are so split up into regions and ideologies.
Multinational corporations are inhuman. They are formless figures which can break the law with impunity as, apparently, Ontario Trust did when it sold out to a foreign corporation with the help of the government of Ontario. Multinational corporations are very often beyond the laws of any nation. They know no national boundaries. They operate quite often in areas where labour is cheap, pay taxes where taxes are low, and sell when the price is right. They are able to switch their huge assets and resources from one country to another, thereby frustrating government policies and even altering the value of currency. Multinational corporations have to accept a great deal of responsibility for the inflation we face in this country as well as for some of the unemployment.
Multinational corporations have blamed labour for many things. I am not saying labour is all saint and no devil; it is a mixture of both. However, one can understand the concern which is expressed when wages received by labour increase by 7 or 8 per cent, and this is denounced as an inflationary trend, whereas salaries paid to executives in 1972 went up by 8.4 per cent-and 8.4 per cent on $100,000 represents a great deal of money, in addition to bonuses. That is one way of rewarding executives. They fly them to Hawaii and see that they get extra bonuses. In 1972 their bonuses were up by 34.2 per cent. This is something people in Canada do not often think about.
Several days ago mention was made on one of the networks of the Columbia River sell-out. I do not know when that happened, but I believe both Conservative and Liberal governments were involved. It was stated that the people who were negotiating this sell-out of the Columbia River were people involved with Canadian Pacific and Cominco. They were negotiating because it helped their own self-interests. They were not interested in Canada but in the welfare of Canadian Pacific and Cominco.
Crown corporations have come in for a lot of criticism in the course of this debate, but I believe that if properly run they can be of great benefit to the country, especially when no conflict of interest arises among the people who control them. Very often, however, conflicts of interest have arisen affecting the directors of Crown corporations. One example which comes to my mind is that of Eldorado Nuclear. I know that the directors of Eldorado Nuclear are also involved in some private companies. When Eldorado Nuclear left Great Bear Lake, it left behind equipment which I am told was worth over $1 million. They sold it to a private company for $150,000. Not only that, Eldorado Nuclear was sitting on top of a rich silver mine and did not even know it. Even more suspicious is the fact that after Eldorado moved to the Lake Athabasca area, within several years some of the key figures resigned and joined
November 7, 1973

the Echo Bay mines group and went back to the Great Bear region and became involved with this silver mine. So it is not only a question of conflict between Canadian corporations and foreign corporations. We have to be very careful, when we set up Canadian-run agencies, that there are no conflicts involving those who control these government-run agencies vis-a-vis private corporations whether Canadian-owned or American-owned.
I intend to support this bill. It is unfortunate that the government did not see fit to extend the screening process to apply to the expansion of existing foreign-owned companies. We tried to get this done, but it appears we have lost that battle. We shall wait for another day. I feel confident that some day we shall win this fight. Many nations are concerned about the whole question of foreign domination of their economies. Sweden, only 60 years ago, was controlled to the extent of 60 per cent by German and British companies. Yet I understand the government of that country has taken steps which have gradually brought back the whole of the Swedish economy into the hands of the Swedish people. It took 40 to 50 years, but they are there now.
We are not saying as a political party, as New Democrats, that we will be able to do this overnight, as it were, in a matter of two or three years. It will probably be a 50-year process. But as I said in one of my speeches earlier this year, we will wait patiently. Even the United States is getting a little concerned about the multinational corporation and foreign investment in the United States today. An interesting article appeared in the Financial Post for September 22, 1973, the headline of which is "Dark U.S. threats about foreigners buying up firms", The article reads:
Incredible as it may sound to the rest of the world, the U.S. is beginning to talk about restricting foreign investment in its own country.
In what must rank as one of the great reversals of modern times, some U.S. Congressmen are suggesting that Canadian, Japanese and other foreigners should not be allowed unchecked freedom to enter the U.S., take over U.S. companies, and run them in their own way.
The example of the Canada Development Corp. takeover bid for a major interest in Texasgulf Inc., is being cited as the very kind of investment which poses potential dangers to U.S. jobs and contains other economic or political dangers.
One bill has already been introduced in Congress that would virtually prevent any foreigner from gaining control of any U.S. firm.
It seems to me we have been talking about this matter for the last 15 to 20 years, yet the United States, which apparently had not been plagued with this problem hitherto, is further advanced than we are and prepared to take more drastic measures than we are.
Other less extreme bills, which would nevertheless restrict and control the growth of foreign investment in the U.S. are being considered, FP was told.
I was born and raised in a have-not province. I suppose my own personal philosophy of life has been partly tempered by poverty in my younger days, though I must say that I am fairly comfortably off now. But we hear a lot of talk about welfare funds, unemployment insurance funds and everything else. As an individual and citizen of this
Foreign Investment Review Act country, I have never received a handout from any government, any province or any other person in this country, and I am proud of it. However, I am always willing to pay a few extra bucks in taxes and to give a few dollars here and there if somebody needs it, and I do not begrudge it at all. That has always been my philosophy. Canadians are selling out their own country. And worse, they are very often financing their own sell-out. If we do not reverse the trend soon, we are not going to have a Canada and my children are not going to have a Canada that we all love so dearly.
I should like to quote several paragraphs of a report of remarks made by the president of the Committee for an Independent Canada, a chap by the name of Hurtig. I was rather impressed with his ideas. I think there are some former Liberals and Conservatives in this group; it is a sort of an all-party committee. It is a pressure group, the one pressure group I listen to with interest. Some months ago he spoke to a group of teachers in the province of Saskatchewan and cited the following percentages of foreign ownership and control in Canada. Undoubtedly the House has heard these figures before. Manufacturing, 60 per cent foreign-owned; mining, 60 per cent; petroleum refining, 99.9 per cent foreign-owned-I ask my hon. friend from Calgary North to write that figure; the oil and gas industry, 83 per cent; primary metal smelting and refining, 87 per cent; the automobile industry, 97 per cent; rubber industry, 90 per cent; chemical industry, 78 per cent; the computer industry, 90 per cent; and the aircraft and aircraft parts industries, 92 per cent.
According to Mr. Hurtig, these statistics prove that Canada has a branch plant economy. With that assumption he developed the following syllogism:
A branch plant economy produces a branch plant society, which produces branch plant social values, which produce branch plant culture, which produces branch plant mentality.
This is what we have in Canada today, a branch plant mentality. Our news media, radio stations and television stations have the mentality of a branch plant. Our approach to investment has a branch plant mentality about it. Our people have no faith in their own country as a result of this branch plant mentality. It is time we took stock of our resources and made up our minds that we are going to get Canada back in the hands of Canadians. It could be done if we put our will to it.
Several years ago the government of Saskatchewan introduced legislation to prohibit foreign ownership of Saskatchewan land. There was a real outcry about it and the legislation was withdrawn, but I hope they will be bringing the bill back again. It is not only a question of foreign ownership of Saskatchewan land, but even Toronto and Vancouver ownership of our land bothers us. In one area of Saskatchewan, 50 sections of prime farmland is owned by Ontario interests. All of the profit derived from that farmland goes back to Ontario-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.

November 7, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to the hon. member continuing his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On two previous occasions in the House I was not permitted to complete my remarks, so I appreciate this very much. This is a "first" for me.
Hurtig went on to say that it is not too late to do something about it, but time is running out. Unless we very soon turn our country around, and in a dramatic manner, the future of our country is in danger, he said. He claimed that in the decade from 1961 to 1971, foreigners had bought up Canada to the tune of $21 billion but only 19 per cent of that money was foreign money; 81 per cent of the amount was borrowed from Canadian sources. The article continues:
During the Trudeau years, said Hurtig, American firms sent back to the U.S.A. over $8 billion more than the entire amount of capital brought into Canada.
I believe reference to this was made earlier in our discussion. The article continues:
The sale of Ryerson Press was a specific example of Canadians financing their own sell-out, he said. The 140-year old Canadian company was sold to a U.S. firm for $2 million borrowed from a Canadian bank.
I feel the question asked by the hon. member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) about Canadian financial institutions financing our own sell-out is very pertinent at this time.
I should like to thank the House very much for giving me extra time so I could conclude my remarks. An hon. member has sent me over a poem, but I do not think I will read it. I understand parliament is supposed to recess some time in December and there will be a new session after January 1. I hope the New Democratic Party amendments are supported by all sides of the House. We are going to oppose the Conservative Party amendments because they would weaken the bill. I also sincerely hope that as a measure of good faith in the Canadian people- this is a very important matter for them; they feel Canada must regain its own independence-this bill will pass before the House recesses.


Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is one which I am sure all Canadians can endorse for its general principle, that is, preserving Canada for Canadians.
Perhaps I should call it six o'clock since we are so close to the hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: This could only be done with unanimous consent. Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member. Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 8, 1973