Hon. Hugh lohn Flemming (Carleton-Charlotte):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations on the motion moved by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). I shall confine myself to the motion. May I first point out what in my opinion is the effect of the motion and indicate how the clause entitled "Purpose of act" would read were the amendment to be adopted.

I agree in general terms with the phrasing of the bill and with the idea of enunciating the purpose of the bill in its provisions. I submit it is of great advantage in all legislation to have the purpose of a bill set forth, so that those who implement it understand what the government is trying to accomplish. The framers of the legislation, for whom the minister is, of course, responsible, provided in clause 2 as follows:

This Act is enacted by the Parliament of Canada in recognition by Parliament that the extent to which control of Canadian industry, trade and commerce has become acquired by persons other than Canadians and the effect thereof on the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment is a matter of national concern-

I agree with those words. I do not, however, agree with the hon. member for Waterloo that he is going to add anything to them by putting in the words "political and social" so that this would read in part "to maintain effective control over their economic, political and social envi-

June 26, 1972

June 26, 1972

Foreign Takeovers Review Act

So I find myself unable to agree with the motion of the hon. member for Waterloo for the reasons I have just given. The government has a mandate to set up the machinery, and I am sure we will co-operate in trying to see that the machinery which has been set up, as amended by the representatives of the people, will do the best kind of job, the job that it is designed to do. However, I find myself unable to support the motion.

Mr. Hugh lames Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's contribution was a remarkable contribution, although I am not sure to what. Certainly, it was indicative of the style we may expect the hon. member to use time after time in his campaign; however, I remind him that this is the House of Commons and we are debating a specific motion. Perhaps he followed the questionable example shown by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) who showed, I suppose, some sort of political acumen in avoiding the whole question.

The motion is specific. It says that the government's incentive programs have failed.

Mr. Pugh:

That is ridiculous.

Mr. Pugh:

Mr. Chairman, when the Solicitor General was speaking just now I gathered from his remarks that he felt we should go further in handling this problem, namely into the field of national health and welfare. I gathered from his remarks that perhaps talks are about to commence in this regard, because he referred to an increasing number of prosecutions, and so on.

I wonder if the Solicitor General would tell us whether he is paying more than lip service to the problem and that he has already approached the Minister of National Health and Welfare in order to arrive at some way of combating the pushing of drugs. Perhaps the minister is going so far as adopting the suggestion made by the last speaker, that a commission should be established so that there would be carried out an inquiry in depth as to the drug pushing and the use of drugs in Canada, including the effects of their use on the human system.

I am sure the people of Canada would be most happy to hear the Solicitor General's words on the subject, if he can give us some idea that more than lip service is being paid to the matter and the government is not just considering the problem but is actually doing something about it.

The doctor who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Simcoe East, suggested in the House of Commons earlier today that a commission should be set up. This has been the theme of many, many speeches that he has made not only in the house but in committee. He has said that the establishment of such a commission is an absolute necessity for Canada if we are to combat the pushing and use of drugs. It is not good enough to give

Supply-Justice

responsibility to just one department such as Justice or the Department of the Solicitor General. Our national health and welfare is involved in this question and it is an absolute necessity that this department be extremely active in combating the problem. Therefore, if the Solicitor General has anything to say on this problem, I would ask him to do so now.

Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether full and continuous consultation has been had with the government of the province of British Columbia.