Personal Data

Fort William (Ontario)
Birth Date
January 11, 1895
Deceased Date
September 19, 1986
automobile dealer, manager

Parliamentary Career

March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
  Fort William (Ontario)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
  Fort William (Ontario)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
  Fort William (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works (May 14, 1963 - February 19, 1964)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (February 20, 1964 - September 8, 1965)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
  Fort William (Ontario)
June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
  Fort William (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 241)

February 21, 1972

Mr. Badanai:

Mr. Speaker, just before one o'clock I was pointing out what the Prime Minister had said about economic nationalism, namely, if it has the effect of making the country poor, he is against economic nationalism. And so am I, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce who said that any federal government move to restrict the influx of United States or other foreign investment capital into Quebec must provide for the replacement of jobs which might be lost because of it. Foreign investment is necessary not only for Quebec but also for my own constituency, Fort William, for the creation of jobs.

Referring to the committee for an independent Canada, I should say that for the life of me I cannot swallow the idea that Canada is not independent, contrary to the opi-

Speech from the Throne

nion expressed at this Thunder Bay meeting. The late Mr. Howe was more Canadian than those who were trying to impute to him an attitude of pro-Americanism for the purpose of serving their anti-Americanism. Mr. Howe was instrumental in urging great numbers of Canadians to get into production rather than have the country depend on importation of the numerous requirements for the war effort and for the reconstruction after the war.

In his great efforts, Mr. Howe was confronted with the same difficulties that have beset Canada from its very beginning, that is lack of venture capital and a conspicuous reluctance on the part of most Canadians with capital to get involved in projects entailing risks. This is the situation today. A shining example of this is the fact that American money came to save one of the oldest resorts in the province of Quebec, the Manor Richelieu at Murray Bay, noted as a convention centre. About a year ago its owner, owing to substantial losses in the operation of the great hotel, put it on the market. No Canadian bidders turned up. Canadian bankers were sceptical about the hotel's future. Then, a man from Cleveland stepped in. He rounded up some partners, formed a private company and kept the resort in operation. The new owners have ambitious plans for the old manor, including keeping the hotel open for a longer period each year. They deserve to make good, and good luck to them.

It will be a long time before we can achieve a position in which we will not need any foreign capital. Personally, I feel we will never be able to finance all the future industrial expansion we will require to maintain our standard of living without foreign investments. Our aim should be to retain the confidence of our foreign friends. Creation of a climate in this country that is hostile to the United States can only hurt us where we are vulnerable. Such an atmosphere could scare away investments, scare away tourists and create a resistance to Canadian goods.

Canadians are not stupid. I doubt whether they will allow themselves to be duped by the band that met in Thunder Bay, preaching more state intervention and socialism, without giving a clue as to how to replace foreign capital and foster continuous growth, without which there will be no hope of employing in Canada the expanding labour force which is increasing at a greater pace than in any other western nation. I am confident that this Parliament will continue to introduce measures which will have the effect of reducing unemployment in every region of Canada.

With regard to our relations with the United States, I wish to quote from an address Lord Thompson of Fleet delivered to the Empire Club of Toronto in which he referred to the various economies in the world. He said:

The Americans had been carrying vast international burdens, and in fact financing the world trade by their deficit.

He continued:

The monetary crisis could have been over sooner in my view, if the rest of us had shown more understanding. I would suggest that far from being hostile, or seeking retaliation, every Canadian should be eternally grateful and thankful for such a generous, friendly and enlightened neighbour as the United States.

Speaking of trade with the United States, about one quarter of the goods and services produced in Canada are exported, and almost 70 per cent of these exports go to the

February 21, 1972


Speech from the Throne

United States. It would, therefore, be disastrous if the Canadian-U.S. trade talks should fail.

I should like to encourage our efficient Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to be firm in one aspect of the negotiations. I refer to the 1965 auto pact which brought many benefits to Canada. I recall that when it was introduced the official opposition had reservations about its value and the NDP were lukewarm toward it. But now, having seen the beneficial results, they are clamoring for it. I would simply suggest that the United States should consider not only the present net advantage to Canada resulting from the auto pact but should bear in mind the advantages the United States has had over a long period of years. I am confident the government will not agree with the United States' point of view which requires a current Canadian deficit in the trade in motor vehicles.

Another area of national interest is our immigration policy, and the disturbing statement made by a Toronto lawyer at the Canadian Bar Association meeting. This man has twice examined certain aspects of immigration for the Canadian government, once five years ago when he inquired into the problem of deserting seamen and again two years ago when he was asked to report on the increasing number of non-immigrants applying for permanent residence. In his speech, he dismissed the traditional concept of Canada as a vast empty land. He said, and I quote:

Sure, we still have millions of acres with a negligible population, but many of those acres can never support more than a marginal population. Maybe, instead of blindly encouraging people to come to this land of opportunity, we should make a serious study to find out just how many people each region can reasonably support. It may be that natural increase would cause us to reach that desirable figure without any immigration.

The number of people which this country can support can never be reached by natural increase unless the women of Canada are bent on having no less than 10 children each, a preposterous proposition which no one takes seriously. At the time of Confederation, 105 years ago, Canada had a population of little more than three million. It has taken all that time to add 18 million to our present population of approximately 21 million. The second century is a good time, not to consider reducing the importance of the immigration department or reducing the number of immigrants, but to continue a reasonable policy of selection. By that I do not mean to let in only university graduates. I am referring to the artisan, the tradesman and laborer, of whom there is a definite shortage.

The development of a ribbon of civilization above the 49th parallel received the attention of our Canadian pioneers in the first century of our history. As this ribbon widened towards the north, unlocking vast treasures of timber and minerals, and settlements prospered on the Prairies, we experienced a period of great achievement, which the generous immigration policy at the beginning of the century made possible. Canada's history is enlaced with the story of people from many lands coming here in search of peace, freedom and prosperity. People from every country around the globe and from every walk of life came here to build a new life and to enrich Canada with character and tradition.

As to the criticisms which appear in the newspapers commenting adversely on the work of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, containing scathing remarks about the way in which immigration is being handled, I would point out that any deficiencies which may be apparent in the department do not extend to the immigration offices overseas. I have met some of the immigration officers and, believe me, I have never met people more dedicated, more industrious or more faithful to their trust than those in charge of our immigration services overseas. This is the case whether they serve in London, in Marseille, in Paris or in Glasgow, Scotland.

I hope the Prime Minister will consider, if not in the course of this session of Parliament then certainly in the next, adopting a new concept of the north based on a policy of encouraging and assisting suitable immigrants to settle in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. These regions cover approximately 1,400,000 square miles of land rich in minerals, gas, oil, iron, copper, gold, furs and fish, yet less than 40,000 people, counting all the Indians, the Eskimos and the whites, live north of the 60th parallel. The adoption of such a policy will take courage, but fortunately our Prime Minister is richly endowed with that quality.

Finally, may I say that my constituents in the City of Thunder Bay are very grateful to the government for its grant of $18,720 toward hiring a co-ordinator, a secretary and ten surveyors in connection with an initiative incentive program, the purpose of which is to evaluate the need of the community for an auditorium complex which would include a community cultural and sports centre. It appears to be the considered opinion of people in Thunder Bay, which is part of the constituency of my hon. friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Andras), that this is one of the city's most pressing needs. When a scheme has been approved, financial assistance from all levels of government will be required. I trust the federal government will favourably consider making a generous grant at that time.

The opposition characterized the Throne Speech as being without substance. Unbiased people will see in it a most inspiring legislative program, the like of which has not been often heard in this chamber.

Full View Permalink

November 19, 1971

Mr. Badanai:

The Prime Minister, in a recent message to credit unions stated, "Credit unions have experienced

November 19, 1971

Income Tax Act

enormous success because they encourage both regular savings and the wise use of credit." I would also quote from his message on International Credit Union Day. The Prime Minister said:

It can also be said that credit unions encourage self-help and mutual assistance. I look upon them as more than saving banks; they are also a welcome social force in the community, and the same can be said about co-operatives which have similar objectives.

The amendment proposed by the minister on November 10, which proposes that co-operatives would leave one-third of profits as taxable, affects all the members of these organizations. In other words, the tax now falls upon the members. The crux of the whole question, Mr. Chairman, is that the credit unions and co-operatives are asking, not for exemption from taxation but for this House to consider the most equitable way of applying it so that taxation as between these organizations and their members will be just and fair.

Mr. John M. Halliman, general manager of the Ontario Credit Union League, in a letter to the Minister of Finance pointed out that credit unions are organized for service and that they are simply vehicles by which man helps his fellow man by bringing together those who have a little money to save with those needing temporary financial assistance. The credit union itself is not seeking profit but is merely an intermediary between the savers and the borrowers. To the extent that those who contribute their savings for this purpose earn dividends or interest from the loan operation, they already pay tax on such income. Taxing the interest paid on loans in the hands of the credit union and then again in the hands of its members would be, I believe, double taxation.

At page 52 of the report of the Royal Commission on Co-operatives, submitted to the House of Commons in 1945-which is known as the McDougall report-is the following description of the special assistance rendered by credit unions. This applies equally today:

(a) It provides a method whereby people in poor circumstances are encouraged to develop a habit of thrift, since by pooling their savings they can provide a source of credit for themselves in times of need;

(b) The bond of association, occupation or other community interest on which the membership of credit unions is based tends to minimize the element of risk which has to be considered by another type of lending institution when considering an application for a loan from an individual with little or no collateral security;

(c) Accordingly, it provides a service for those who are either not provided with credit services from other lending institutions at all, or only at much higher rates because of the risks involved.

(d) The tangible material and other benefits which can be derived through the credit union from of activity enable and encourage the members to solve their problems through self help rather than by relying on government aid in times of emergency or depressed conditions.

The report reads, at page 52:

Credit unions return to their members a very high proportion of their surplus earnings. In some cases, however, they are retaining amounts which appear to be larger than are required for reserves against bad loans and losses on the basis of past experience. If they were to be taxed by the methods we have recommended for co-operative associations, additions to these excess reserves would be made subject to tax. However, the individual amounts to be assessed would, in many cases, be very small. Moreover, we consider that it is not desirable to discourage the accumulation of

reserves to protect the savings of members who, for the most part, receive small or very moderate incomes.

In that report, Mr. Chairman, the royal commission recommended that the income of credit unions should continue to be exempt from taxation. All this seems to indicate that the case for the credit union and co-operative is as strong today as it was in 1945. I therefore, with respect, repeat that this whole question ought to be reconsidered by the government.

Subtopic:   INCOME TAX ACT
Full View Permalink

November 19, 1971

Mr. Badanai:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on this section of Bill C-259 dealing with credit unions and co-operatives. I am very appreciative of the amendments introduced by the Minister of Finance which are designed to reduce the basic tax rate contained in the bill. The history of credit unions can be summarized by the experience of one operating in my constituency. I am referring to the employees of the Abitibi Paper Company which formed a credit union some years ago. The motivation of the credit union was the principle "not for profit but for service", which I submit is the philosophy behind the movement established to encourage saving and, when in need, borrowing. It is this principle which dominates all credit unions as well as co-operatives.

The money that members put into the credit union is already taxed; every dividend they receive is taxed. Section 135 of the bill is simply designed to tax the profits that credit unions have accumulated through the use of their savings. I urge the minister to reconsider this whole question and scrap the idea behind this section of the bill.

Subtopic:   INCOME TAX ACT
Full View Permalink

November 4, 1971

Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):

Mr. Speaker, as a North American country, it is inevitable that Canada has developed North American points of view on political, social and economic questions and possesses certain North American social and racial characteristics. Geography is an important part of the relationship between Canada and the United States, the customs and outlooks we have acquired, and also accounts for the constant flow of people between the two countries. It has been estimated that one-third of all the people of Canadian origin are now living in the United States, and a goodly percentage of American people are living in Canada. It is, therefore, natural that economic and financial relationships are closer and more extensive than those between two foreign countries.

It is because of this background that in the course of time United States capital began to exploit and develop our immense natural resources and provide a market for our nickel, iron ore, oil, gas and forest products, to name a few. This invasion of capital from south of the border has been exploited by various groups, and has initiated a wave of anti-Americanism, condemning any and all United States investments in Canada. It is not the government that is anti-American.

In an interview given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to a journalist last February, he was asked: "Do Canadians suffer because of domination of the economy by American business interests?" The Prime Minister replied:

They don't, I think, suffer in an economic sense or even for that matter in a technological sense. It is because of American capital investment, and the technology that came with it, that we enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world-that our resources, which are extraordinarily abundant, have been exploited to the extent that they are and have provided wealth for the people of Canada. So they don't suffer in that sense.

I believe that anti-Americanism in Canada stems from the fact that United States capital has successfully developed some of our major industries, hence the voices of blind nationalism which are heard almost daily in this very chamber. A few weeks ago, I listened to a panel discussion on the topic of American investments in Canada. It sounded as though the "taking over of Canada" by the United States was well on the way; and it ended with a good dose of anti-Americanism. There are reasons for this sentiment. Americans can be ruthless, hard-boiled, keen investors, not afraid to risk capital ven-

Economic Relations with United States

tures in the hope of making a fortune, and they often have. However, the fact is that we are forever tied to the United States by reason of geography, history and circumstances, so let us be practical and make the best of it.

The United States is a great and wealthy nation, with many good qualities and great achievements to its credit. It was born of revolution. It lives in, and on, crisis. But it has been, and continues to be, the most generous nation the world has ever known. It has contributed millions of dollars through foundations and in other ways to Canadian universities and organizations. Its colleges and schools have been freely open to Canadian students and scholars, and every year thousands of them take advantage of these opportunities for study and research. Its contributions to science and technology are almost fantastic. Do we want to build walls against this? Do we want to reject it, and refuse to permit its entry to Canada? As for United States investment and the often repeated cry of "take-over" by our nationalists, this is a matter of concern to every thinking Canadian. But we do need United States capital and United States know-how, and I believe we should continue not only to admit it but to go after it. At the same time we should and must take the necessary steps to ensure that actual control remains in Canada; and the government of Canada is doing just that.

Mr. Gordon Archibald, president of the Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company, speaking to a conference in Toronto, as reported in the Globe and Mail of October 8, made a vigorous plea for the benefits of continued foreign investments in Canada. He linked it with sharp attacks on anti-foreign investment arguments of the Committee for an Independent Canada, and said:

Businessmen must rally to convince others who oppose foreign investments on emotional and nationalistic grounds. Few, if any, practical businessmen oppose foreign investment, particularly in our resource industries. It would be fine if Canadians could control all companies doing business in Canada, but this is not practical. Until we can, let us be thankful we have a wealthy neighbour, whose citizens have the resources and are willing to take risks and to invest in areas where we Canadians, even when funds are available, are not so inclined to invest our money.

The Committee for an Independent Canada charges that Canada is being "bled", which is questionable indeed.

The basic inflow-outflow comparison ignores the over-all gains resulting from the foreign investment itself: in the form of various taxes and reinvested profits, the creation of exports, substitutes for imports, demand for imports, and other beneficial effects to the balance of payments.

In conclusion, he warned of the serious danger of adopting any kind of nationalism, or desperation measures, to save Canada from an imaginary, self-induced situation.

The "Business Review" published by the Bank of Montreal for October 27, 1971 carries an article by Mr. Leonard Walker, president of the bank, and I should like to quote a few paragraphs from it:

The Canadian attitude towards foreign capital has been described as a love/hate relationship and the description seems to me to be quite appropriate. On the one hand, as a matter of national policy we have from the beginning welcomed foreign capital with open arms, and even the most ardent nationalist will admit that we could not have got along nearly as well in the world as we have, or have enjoyed so many of the good things of life that come from a high and rising material standard of living, if we had not been able to use other people's savings for the development of our great country. On the other hand, there have over the years been waves of resentment about the degree of dependence on


November 4, 1971

Economic Relations with United States

foreigners which the use of their capital seems to imply, as well as ill-defined fears about the dangers in terms of loss of political sovereignty or the loss of a national cultural identity. However, as with any relationship as devoid of logic as the phrase love/hate suggests, realism has tended to be submerged by emotion.

Frankly, I am less concerned about the so-called "American take-over" in the sphere of industry, economics, and natural resources, than I am about unemployment. If American capital will develop an industry in Thunder Bay that will create jobs for our unemployed, I am all for it. I am confident that the Canadian government will continue to recognize the need for foreign investment for some time to come. Canada has the fastest growing labour force, relative to population, in the western world. The investment required to create a new job in manufacturing is around $25,000.

Job requirements and welfare costs are the main reasons Canada has a continuing need for foreign investment. The economic nationalists argue that Canada should be able to get along without foreign investments. Their argument fails to take into account the rising cost of new job creation, and social welfare. Recently, the Hon. Jean Marchand, Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, announced an incentive grant of $332,000 to Larson Woodlands Research Limited for a new plant to manufacture short wood harvesters in Thunder Bay. The new plant will empl oy 80 persons. The incentive is based on a rate of 15 per cent of the approved capital costs which are estimated at $.5 million, plus $3,200 for each new job created.

The President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Neil V. German, speaking to the Canadian Club of Toronto, a few weeks ago, said:

The goal of Canadian foreign policy should be to obtain some kind of special relationship with the United States imbedded in law and treaty, which could begin with selected free trade, industry by industry.

Since Canada has no major outlets for its manufactured goods, which employ more Canadians than any other economic sector, we may find ourselves obliged to seek and make special arrangements with the United States, so that they will give us some special treatment. Our bargaining power for such negotiations is substantial: they need our raw materials in the foreseeable future.

One fact of life is that it is clear that Canada is utterly dependent on the American market.

No one can deny that foreign capital has helped to keep Canada together, and prosperous, as a nation, beginning with the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway a century ago, down to the development of the Steep Rock Iron Mines in northwestern Ontario and the creation of a community of 6,000 people at Atikokan.

Another example is the export of Canadian coal to Japan, mined in the Kootenays of British Columbia, developed by United States capital which alone will contribute $324 million in labour income, and $210 million in taxes over a 15-year period, according to Mr. H. M. Romoff, Research Manager of the Canadian Pacific Railways. He made these statements before a Canadian Transport Commission hearing, which further indicated much greater loss than the sum of these two figures, if the area was not developed at all. There must also be taken into consideration all the jobs created; special railway equipment had to be designed and built in Canada; a new

superport, Robert Bank, had to be built; townsites had to be constructed to accommodate staff, with all that means in provisions of supplies and services, as in the case of numerous other developed projects. Whole new areas have been and are being opened from such simple beginnings as a single mine-from new homes to offices, beauty salons, bowling alleys, supermarkets, hotels and newspapers. The fact about this particular coal mine is that the coal which is now being mined would still be in the ground, unused and contributing nothing, if an American company with the necessary money and nerve had not undertaken to develop it.

Full employment is the key to prosperity and, although the employment picture across the country is one of concern, there has not, and it appears there will not be, any immediate danger of mass lay-offs in Thunder Bay. The manager of the Canada Manpower centre in my constituency said recently that we did have some lay-offs at the Great Lakes Paper Company. He said, however, that the economy in Thunder Bay in general is fairly reasonable. Construction has been booming. The shipyards and Canadian Car are moving ahead with work; and there will be no slackening of activities at the grain elevators. In other words, the Thunder Bay economy, I am pleased to say, appears to be better than in most Canadian cities.

In conclusion, I want to stress that my views on foreign investments are that I would much prefer to see greater encouragement for Canadian-owned industry, rather than discourage foreign investments.

Full View Permalink

October 6, 1971

How many unemployed registered at Manpower Centres in the following categories (a) age fourteen to eighteen (b) age eighteen to twenty-one (c) married women whose husbands are employed (d) married women over sixty years of age?

Full View Permalink