1984-12-12

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, the economic statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought cuts to the industrial support program under Regional and Industrial Development even far more reaching than many at first realized. Such an action has amounted to withdrawing large amounts of direct investment by the Government in industrial development, job creation, and the economic development of less affluent Canadian regions affecting, in particular, small community Canada.
Regional development grants represent direct assistance for the location of new industries in various regions where industrial development lags behind the primary industrial zones of southern Ontario and Montreal. The grants represent an opportunity for communities in all parts of Canada to participate in the development of Canada's economic potential. Such grants help to reduce regional disparity and make all Canadians feel part of the real nation.
Admittedly, regions receiving industrial development grants do not represent areas of economic power and influence, nor do they represent political numbers in Parliament. That is an important reason why industrial development efforts must be maintained in all regions of Canada.
The cold-hearted cuts to regional industrial development funding exposes the heartlessness of the Conservative Government and its new policy. The Government promised tens of thousands of jobs the day after it was elected. The law of the jungle is at work. The Government's new political philosophy is to let the strong survive.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member his time has expired.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians concerned with economic recovery and full employment must be impressed by the implications of the separation of the Canadian section of the United Auto Workers from its American parent union. The possibility of this union's reorganization adversely affecting the Canadian auto industry has become clear. Already spokesmen for major auto makers are indicating it could encourage a reshaping of their corporate structures. This could mean possible changes in the role of Canadian plants in their production plans.
The auto industry's extraordinary recovery since August, 1982 has been a major reason for the measure of recovery Canada has enjoyed, especially in Ontario. In the constituency of Scarborough West, for example, the auto plant of General Motors employs 2,500 people. Any factor that can mean a production cut, or a plant closure, must be seen as a major threat to our economy. Government, management, and labour need the fullest co-operation to make sure internal re-organization plans in the industry do not threaten the livelihoods of many thousands.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister failed to answer my question on how he could possibly be creating jobs by abolishing the FIRA review of direct take-overs of firms valued under $5 million. It is even more absurd to justify abolishing FIRA review of indirect take-overs of firms valued under $50 million as a way to provide more jobs.
Black and Decker's recent announced closure of its Barrie, Ontario, plant is a good example. It will result in a net loss of over 400 jobs in Canada. Workers fighting to retain their jobs have had only FIRA to turn to for recourse.
The Prime Minister seems more committed to making friends with Ronald Reagan than he is to safeguarding Canadian jobs. Ads like this 10-page spread in the New York Times yesterday-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!

December 12, 1984


Steven W. Langdon: -will not give us a possibility of jobs in Canada. We should be safeguarding Canadian jobs.


INVESTMENT CANADA
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the Members of this House and all Canadians must be very happy about the speech made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister before the New York Economic Club. The Prime Minister's words were received with enthusiasm by the financial and industrial elite of the United States. I was particularly pleased with the reference to Quebec which provides excellent opportunities for foreign investment and is getting in step with the broad movement towards national reconciliation undertaken by our Government.
Mr. Speaker, it was an historic moment on the evening of December 10, putting an end to twenty years of confrontation, twenty years of coldly sterile relations under the previous Liberal administration.
Mr. Speaker, when two free and democratic countries live together, it stands to reason they do business together. Thus, the abolition of FIRA and replacing it with Investment Canada will have a very positive impact on Canada and create the jobs we so badly need.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a black day for the more than 1,100 employees of the CBC who now face early retirement or lay-offs due to the knife-wielding approach of the new Government to the federal budget. These people represent the direct human cost of the actions of an insensitive Government. The inability of the CBC to undertake the development and production of new dramas, children's programs, and informational programs which have gained international renown, is a cruel cut to Canada's cultural and social development.
The CBC is a national institution. It has an ongoing role to play in the development of Canada's national identity and in strengthening national unity through communication. The budget cuts imposed by the Government demonstrate the ignorance of the new Government in recognizing that sometimes there are costs which simply must be borne by a Government if we are, as Canadians, to have a nation. The CBC is one of those costs. Canada, and Canadianism, are not
a commodity. Unfortunately, that is how the new Government sees Canada.
The budgetary cuts inflicted by the Conservative Government will lead to an even greater cost in lost cultural development and communication among Canadians in all regions for years to come.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a vast inequity to the attention of the House. While urban Canadians enjoy the luxury of daily mail delivery to their doors and are usually able to purchase postal services such as money orders, registered letters, and special delivery, within a five or 10 minute drive, rural Canadians are having their services reduced, or even cancelled, and must travel as far as 30 miles to reach the nearest post office.
In the meantime the President of Canada Post has made several speeches lauding his success in reducing the corporation's deficit and in meeting the objective of improving service. The deficit may be reduced, but I think the President is sorely mistaken if he believes that there is a renewed consumer confidence, as he puts it.
Since my election to Parliament just a few months ago, 1 have been contacted by an alarming number of constituents from my riding in rural Manitoba. So far, five separate cases have been brought to my attention where postal service has either been reduced or eliminated altogether. The residents of these small rural communities feel that they are paying the price of Canada Post's program of restraint.
I would suggest that the President of Canada Post should take a second look at his level of customer confidence, especially in rural areas, because I firmly believe that Canada Post's deficit reduction program is being borne on the backs of rural Canadians.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to call the attention of the House to the verbal gymnastics and contradictions which attend the question of where the Liberal Party caucus stands on the nuclear freeze proposal. The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) says that there has been a change in policy. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) will not confirm that there has been a change in policy. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) says that they have a different position
December 12, 1984

now because they are in opposition, thus admitting the moral bankruptcy of Liberal politics.
The fact of the matter is that the Liberals have not changed their policy on the nuclear freeze. They went out of their way the other day to make an amendment to our motion so that they could appear to be for the nuclear freeze by removing from the motion that which would have made it a concrete recommendation. The Liberals are still against the nuclear freeze, and people who support the nuclear freeze should have their heads examined if they believe otherwise.


INTERNATIONAL YOUTH YEAR
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, International Youth Year will start officially in 1985. Unfortunately, many non-profit agencies and youth groups will not be able to develop their projects because they failed to receive on time the information on special grant programs.
Mr. Speaker, the previous Government did not put enough emphasis on this international event which is aimed at giving young people a say and a share in the economic, social and political life of our society. How could we forget that the previous Government always neglected young people, that it has done nothing to reduce unemployment or support training programs for, and projects by, Canadian youth?
Mr. Speaker, we must condemn the previous Government's lack of consistency in its youth policies and programs. I would therefore urge our Government to try as much as possible to correct the mistakes made by the previous Government by extending the expiry dates of certain special grant programs provided within the framework of International Youth Year.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the CBC cuts announced yesterday as a result of the policy of the Government are emasculating the corporation.
It is not the high profile national news identity that forms the raison d'etre for this corporation. It is its promotion and encouragement of cultural identity and opportunities for Canadians in the local things done at each CBC outlet that make this corporation worth-while.
The CBC has announced the closing of Radio Station CGB in Gander, Newfoundland, one of its first stations in the province. It has the highest area ratings in listening audience
of any CBC radio station in Canada. This announced closing is uncalled for, and makes no economic sense at all.
I am asking the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) to use the authority given to him under the Broadcasting Act to reverse that decision. The Government, in forcing the CBC to cut, has handed it not a paring knife but a chain-saw.
During the election campaign we heard from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) a kind of inverted snobbery toward the CBC, to pooh-pooh everything the CBC does. This should not be allowed to translate into irrational and cruel actions such as the closing of CGB Gander.
Blinded by the deficit, the Government is crippling the people, crippling the environment, crippling the economy, and now it is crippling our cultural heritage.


FINANCE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that more and more Canadians are greatly concerned about the size of our national debt. Although the official debt has been expressed at some $190 billion, this amount does not include the accumulated debt of all the federal Crown corporations, some $60 billion. It does not include some $50 billion collected by the Government in contributions made to the Canada Pension Plan, the Public Service Superannuation Pension Fund, the Armed Forces Pension Fund, and the RCMP Pension Fund. The money collected in pension contributions goes into general revenue and is spent by Governments to pay current bills.
[DOT] (MIS)
All in all, Mr. Speaker, our national debt in reality is some $300 billion.
This is the unfortunate legacy that our Government has inherited from the former Government.
This huge debt is one reason why all Canadians have been asked to bite the bullet, and for each and every one of us to sacrifice and work together in an unselfish way to get Canada out of the economic mire and back on track again to full employment and economic growth.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we make every effort now to make the necessary changes and the necessary sacrifices to curb this debt if Canada is to survive.

December 12, 1984
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. When he was in New York declaring in his own rhetoric that Canada was open for business, did the Prime Minister have in mind statements made to a New York newspaper by executives of General Motors and Chrysler that, in view of the decision of the automobile workers of Canada to set up a separate union, which is certainly their fundamental right, these key executives felt that that decision threatened American investment in Canada in the automobile industry, and thereby threatened Canadian jobs? Is that the kind of business climate he had in mind in New York city?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: I think my right hon. friend is perhaps confusing two statements that were made, Mr. Speaker. First was my statement that, indeed, we welcomed foreign investment to help us create the jobs we need. But a question was put after the dinner, when I was asked what I thought of the decision by Mr. White. I said that I thought Mr. White was a thoughtful and able union leader, and if he believed it was in his interest and in the interest of Canada to proceed that way, he did so with our encouragement and our good wishes.
members, and that Members of this House would encourage them in doing precisely that.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we share this view, and I was more interested in discussing the promised conversation between General Motors and the Prime Minister.


REPORTS OF CANADAIR AND DE HAV1LLAND PURCHASE BY FOREIGN INTERESTS
John Napier Turner: On
the same subject, of relations with the United States, Mr. Speaker, rumours are persisting that de Havilland and Cana-dair will be purchased by foreign companies. In my reply to the Speech from the Throne, I expressed several times my concern about this possibility.
Could the Right Hon. Prime Minister give the House the assurance that if these aircraft companies are bought by foreign investors, the House of Commons will have an opportunity to make a full examination of the purchase transactions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: As far as I
know, Mr. Speaker, there are no groups or great numbers of companies or corporations, either Canadian or foreign, lining up to buy the assets in question. If there is any change, I shall certainly let the Hon. Member know.


GENERAL MOTORS' INVESTMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the very first Question Period on November 7 I put to the Prime Minister a concern that I had about an investment of General Motors in Canada as a result of the difference in union perspectives between Canada and the United States and the automobile industry. At that time the Prime Minister promised, and let me use his words: "I will take this up with the management of that corporation".
Has the Prime Minister fulfilled that promise? Has he talked to the senior executives of General Motors? What would his reflections be as a result of those conversations, and the recent threat by General Motors to curtail investment in Canada as a result of a separate union being set up in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have not seen what my right hon. friend has referred to as a threat, Mr. Speaker. I have not seen that. I assume I would be as dismayed as he would be with that kind of rhetoric, if it were the case. Concerns have been raised as to the status of the auto pact in the event of a separation, but I still hold to the view, which I think would be endorsed by all Members of this House, that Canadian trade unionists are quite entitled to take whatever decisions they believe are in the interests of their


UNITED STATES BARRIERS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As he probably knows, the United States and many other countries have a very highly complicated set of prohibitions and controls against foreign investment in their own countries, and trade. When the Prime Minister speaks about good friends and neighbours, I presume he means that is a reciprocal relationship. Has either he or his Ministers made any effort, or taken any initiative with the United States or other countries, to ask them to change their barriers and to eliminate their controls and prohibitions against both investment and trade, in light of the dismantling of FIR A which the Government has undertaken?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in my speech in New York, and on many other occasions, I specifically referred to the fact that protectionism is our mutual adversary. I pointed out the problems inherent in attitudes in the American Congress which would give rise to protectionism that would, inadvertently or otherwise, harm
December 12, 1984

Canadian interests. I said that Canadian interests are privileged ones and that we must have that kind of reciprocity. In fact, I went further. I said that if I were the President of the United States I would wake up in the morning and say: "Thank God for Canada. What can I do for Canada today? It is the best friend anybody could ever have".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


VISIT TO CANADA BY UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that is what the President in fact says, because it is not every day that he can sell the Brooklyn Bridge to a Canadian Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Considering that the debate and discussion on Investment Canada will take some time, will the Prime Minister undertake to take those initiatives with the United States and ensure that when President Reagan visits here in March he will be able to announce, as the Prime Minister did in New York the other day, the same kind of dismantling reduction and elimination of those kinds of barriers in his country as the Prime Minister announced as benefits to Americans?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can see why my hon. friend is somewhat unnerved today. There was a statement earlier today by the Leader of the Opposition which says Liberal Cabinet Ministers responsible for excessive spending should be terminated, should be held responsible. I can see why my hon. friend is somewhat perturbed today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I am not perturbed. I am asking you a question.


John Napier Turner: When was that statement made?


Mr. Chretien:: When and where?


An Hon. Member:: Table the document.


Mr. Speaker:: I know it is Wednesday. If I didn't know, I do now. Would the Right Hon. Prime Minister care to finish his answer, please?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition was improper procedurally. If he would like to consult with me on my vast parliamentary experience, I would be happy to be helpful.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: When was that statement made?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The statement was made this morning by Canadian Press. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, I believe everything-


Mr. Waddell:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Well, I think we will leave it at that. The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last Monday when I asked the Government if it would make available to the Auditor General certain cabinet documents which he deemed to be essential in his assessment of the Petro-Canada take-over of Petrofina, the Government said no. Specifically the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said:
-the Auditor General wants from me what the law does not permit me to give-
The Government has now changed its mind.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister a straightforward question. What was illegal last week that has become legal this week, or will he tell us what law he is now breaking?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the only change between this week and last was when the Hon. Member for Burnaby was asked on "As It Happens" if he would divulge the confidence of a conversation with his Leader, and he said: "No, that is privileged". That was the only difference this week. My hon. friend will acknowledge that we have always taken the position, and I have defended it in the House, that cabinet conversations-


John Edward Broadbent: It is not conversations that he is talking about.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I quite agree. The Auditor General stated yesterday that he is not seeking political information or communications between cabinet Ministers. That assurance or that clarification having been given, I am now working with the Auditor General to provide to him all of the information that he requires to make value judgments on behalf of the people of Canada. His report yesterday is exemplary in this regard, and the analysis that it made of our predecessors. We want him to continue that same analytical judgment and we will provide him with all of the information that we have.

December 12, 1984
Oral Questions


DEPARTMENTAL AND CROWN CORPORATION DOCUMENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows, as the Minister behind him knows, that when she said last week that what the Auditor General wanted was illegal, she misinformed the House. It was not illegal last week, it is not illegal this week, and he ought to be getting that material on a regular basis.
If the Prime Minister has now agreed to provide to the Auditor General information concerning the Petro-Canada take-over of Petrofina, which includes documents which were heretofore regarded as secret under the cabinet confidentiality rule, on the understanding that the Auditor General does not want conversations about cabinet meetings, will he assure the House, and, more important, the people of Canada, because hundreds of millions of dollars were involved, that this rule will be applied to all Departments and Crown corporations without exception?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to give my hon. friend the assurance that all of the information available to the Government of Canada that is consistent with the point he has just raised will indeed be provided to the Auditor General of Canada so that he can make the kinds of decisions that he has to make on behalf of Parliament.


COURT ACTION LAUNCHED BY AUDITOR GENERAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that. If the Prime Minister had said that a week ago, we would have saved a lot of time in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister shakes his head, but he knows that in private meetings as well as in public statements that what I say is the case. If this is now the case, and the Government of Canada is going to honour its obligations under the law to the Auditor General, will the Government make it clear to the Auditor General that it is unnecessary for him to wage a costly court battle against the Government of Canada to obtain, as a matter of right, what he ought to have?


Martin Brian Mulroney: May I say
with respect, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend makes a compelling point, but I made it yesterday. He is a day late. I had the Auditor General in precisely to explore that point. I thought it was offensive to the customs of this House that the servant of Parliament should have to initiate litigation, as he did against the previous Government, to seek information which was rightfully here in this House. I met with the Auditor General in a spirit of openness to attempt to find, with him, a formula that would enable us to do that. He appears to be satisfied with the talks as initiated.
I want to give my friend the assurance that I intend to follow through, consistent with that spirit that he mentioned, because our obligation is not to the Auditor General; our obligation is to the Auditor General as a servant of Parliament.
[DOT] (M30)


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Can the Minister confirm to the House that a foreign company has actually expressed its intention of buying Cana-dair? In reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister just said that he was not aware of any companies that would be interested in buying Canadair. However, when the Minister tabled his Bill to do away with FIRA, he said this would allow foreign companies to purchase Canadair. Is there or is there not a company that is offering to buy the Canadair firm in Montreal?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member I would remind him that the Prime Minister said that there was not a long list of companies lined up to buy the aircraft firms. The statement that I made is quite correct. There is at least one company that has expressed an interest. However, I think until that company puts that interest into a firm offer, or at least is more inclined to talk in specific dollar terms, it would not be in anybody's interest to reveal its name.


POSSIBILITY OF SELLING CANADAIR-GOVERNMENT POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is particularly important since the Minister seems to be preparing us for the end of the aeronautics industry in Canada, unless the Government makes a definitive commitment. I would ask the Minister first of all, whether he is prepared to make the commitment that Canadair will not be sold unless the buyer offers guarantees that all existing technology at Canadair will remain in Canada, and second, I want to ask whether the Minister is prepared to commit the Government to not selling Canadair if the buyer cannot guarantee existing jobs in Montreal.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will be pleased to hear that, if a deal is arrived at, it will certainly cover the points to which he was referred. It will certainly receive cabinet approval and it will certainly receive the House's approval if necessary under the Financial Administration Act. In any event, if the Hon. Member knows of any Canadian would-be purchasers for Canadair, or any Canadians who wish to become a partner with a foreign concern, he can come over and see me this afternoon. I will be in my office all afternoon waiting to talk to him.
December 12, 1984


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and deals with the continuing difficulties of the Auditor General to evaluate satisfactorily the $3.5 billion overrun on the F-18, and other major expenditures of the Ministry of National Defence. Is the Minister aware that under a directive given by the Chief of Defence Staff in September, 1983, under Section 23, his Department was specifically told that the Auditor General should have no more access to information about his Department than would be available to the general public under the Access to Information Act? Will the Minister confirm that that is currently the departmental policy?


Hon. Robert C. Coates (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that in August, 1983, certain instructions were given to th e Deputy Minister and the Chief of the Armed Forces to the effect that certain information should not be passed on to the Auditor General as he requested. That situation has now changed. The Hon. Member has heard what the Right Hon. Prime Minister indicated today. My officials have received that same message from me, and the information the Auditor General seeks will be provided as outlined by the Prime Minister.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Are the directives issued on September 1, 1983 departmental policy or has this policy been dropped?
What instructions have been given to your departmental officials, and has this document now been cancelled, yes or no?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Hon. Member cannot understand it in either English or French. I would like to tell him, as kindly as I can, that the officials of my Department have been instructed to adhere not to the directives that were given by the former Government but to the directives given by this Government, a Government that believes that the Canadian people have a right to the information the Auditor General seeks to provide them.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multicultural-ism. As the Minister knows, in 1942 over 17,000 Canadian citizens who were of Japanese origin, even though they were born or naturalized Canadian citizens, were uprooted from their homes, and their businesses were expropriated. When will
Oral Questions
this terrible abuse of cabinet power under the War Measures Act be acknowledged and put right?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question and his interest in this very important subject. I can say, subject to the House Leader's discussions and confirmation, that I would hope to have this important matter dealt with early in the Session after we return from the Christmas recess. I would also indicate to the Hon. Member that officials in my Department are at present discussing matters of concern with the Japanese Canadian community across the country. I may just add that the main point that we are trying to stress is that we want full consultation with that community so that this matter can be dealt with in an honourable and just fashion.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. WILLIAM MARSHALL, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR ENERGY MINISTER
Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the proceedings to bring to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery today of the Hon. William Marshall, Minister responsible for Energy in Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


EMPLOYMENT
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, we all know how quickly the Minister of Employment and Immigration reacted when the problem was not just closing down an industry but a whole town, the town of Gagnon, and I wish to congratulate her. Today I would like to ask the Minister what she intends to do to help 1,150 CBC employees, especially the creative artists and writers who will not be eligible for preretirement and also the clerks and other "small fry" who were severely penalized as a result of yesterday's announcement by Mr. Juneau, the President of the CBC.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question might interest the Minister of Communications.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I shall put my question to the Prime Minister tomorrow. It is about employment. I think it is directly concerned with . . . But perhaps I was too hasty. I would therefore like to ask, and my question is a very simple one: Does the Minister of Employment and Immigration intend to help 1,150 CBC employees, especially the

December 12, 1984
Oral Questions
creative artists, writers and clerks who are not and will not be eligible for pre-retirement? I do not think this comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Communications, since it concerns employment.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take the Hon. Member's representations about this important cultural community under notice, but I would also assure him that in a country such as Canada, where there is so much opportunity and where there is confidence in the future, there is a place for writers, for the cultural groups, and for all of those who want to make a contribution and can make a contribution to the future of Canada.


FORESTRY
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Forestry. Vancouver Island communities with unemployment rates of 15 per cent are worried that the proposed federal-British Columbia forestry agreement will be directed toward replanting in the interior and will do nothing for the prime forest lands of Vancouver Island. I would like to ask the Minister if he will agree to the request of Vancouver Island mayors for permanent funding of intensive forestry on Vancouver Island that would create 1,100 permanent and immediate jobs, and provide long-term economic stability for the Island?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that I have personally visited that particular project on the Island. This afternoon at 3.30 I will be meeting that group and will listen to its representations. I do know a little bit about the magnitude of the request. It is a very interesting one. I think the project is an interesting one, and we will attempt to try to respond to its needs as the money becomes available.


REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. "As the money becomes available" is a very problematic situation. The money is needed now. Will the Minister tell the House whether the proposed agreement discriminates against Vancouver Island? If it does, will he make a commitment to secure additional funds in order that the hard-hit Vancouver Island communities will get their fair share?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, I have visited various parts of B.C. and I do know that there is a great need. My cabinet colleagues are presently dealing with a variety of requests for assistance, and we will deal with that matter in due course.


ETHNIC AFFAIRS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. Canadian ethnic leaders and organizations have been dismayed over the cancellation of the 1986 census, largely because for the first time in its history it was to collect data which would be used in implementing equal opportunity programs for visible minorities. Was the Minister consulted prior to the cancellation by his colleague, the Minister of Finance?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, Cabinet collectively dealt with the material which was put forward by the Minister of Finance. I do not share the Hon. Member's concern in terms of the various ethnic communities in this country.


COLLECTION OF DATA
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, if he does not share those concerns, he does not share the thousands of concerns which are pouring in from ethnic groups across the country.


An Hon. Member:: Me too.


Sergio Marchi: The Minister of Defence should listen and learn.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sergio Marchi: I would ask the Minister, given that both the Abella Commission report and the Equality Now report support the 1986 census, what he proposes to the House with respect to collecting that data base, so that Canadians from all parts of the country and all backgrounds can have equal opportunity programs for jobs in Canada.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that a labour force survey will begin in a very short period of time. The information gathered through the labour force survey will be utilized by the Ministry of Multiculturalism.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. He will know that the President of the CBC announced yesterday that 750 permanent employees of the CBC will be laid off in the next couple of months. However, the President did not deal with the thousands of Canadians who work on a part-time or contract basis on particular programs-the writers, actors, musicians, and dancers. What studies, if any, were done by the CBC, or the consultants whom the minister employed to
December 12, 1984

determine what the effect would be on these thousands of people?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, last week I informed the House that after serious and thorough consultations with CBC officials within the framework of our respective jurisdictional and regulatory responsibilities, we agreed that budget cuts would be applied mainly to the CBC's administrative areas so as to safeguard creativity and production in the cultural departments, both within the network and regionally. I think these consultations have born fruit, and today, we can see that the CBC has made an effort to restrict the necessary budgetary cutbacks almost totally to administration and capital investment.


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary question.


EFFECT ON INCOMES
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister knows that Hon. Members who represent areas where the CBC has operations have already heard from their constituents that regional and national programs are being cut-back despite the protestations of the Minister. Considering the fact that spokespeople for the cultural community have made the case over the last couple of years that their people are now living on very small incomes, what effect will this have on those people whose incomes will really be sharply reduced by the cut-backs by the CBC?
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the CBC will do everything in its power to see to it that the cultural sector will suffer as little as possible.


FORESTRY
Ms. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Forestry).
Has the present Government made representations to the U.S. Government objecting to the tendency to impose quotas on Canadian lumber imports?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, having just had consultations with the industry in the United States, I can tell the Hon. Member that it is a matter of concern, and that there is talk in the United States forest industry about quotas and countervail. I am sure it is a matter which concerns my colleagues in External Affairs and
Oral Questions
DRIE. We are presently dealing with the matter. We are monitoring the situation. I think the kind of comment that was made by the Prime Minister, and the kind of atmosphere which we are trying to develop between the United States and Canada, will possibly curtail that kind of talk in the United States.


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I have in my hand the factum, that is, the written argument, of the Attorney General of Canada before the Supreme Court which rejects the position of Duncan Macdonald of Montreal that he has the right to a court summons in English. The factum is dated November, 1984.
When questioned about this, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada first said that he had not read the factum, even though it bears his name. Later he said that it was prepared by his officials and he had no responsbility for it.
In Supreme Court cases which involve a sensitive political issue, is it the position of the Prime Minister that the chief legal officer of the Crown, the Attorney General of Canada, has not only the obligation to scrutinize closely any factum which goes to the Supreme Court in his name, but that he has full responsibility for its content? What is his position on that?
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, given the importance of the matter which is inherent in the question raised by my hon. friend, and not having had an opportunity to read the factum, I hope that he will allow me to consult with the Minister of Justice and get back to him as quickly as I can.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR FACTUM
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, this is a question of government policy. The Right Hon. Prime Minister was a learned lawyer and he should be ready to answer the question. We have a factum, under the name of the Attorney General of Canada, which has been submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Member have a supplementary question?


Mr. Allmand:: I am simply asking the Prime Minister if it is the policy of his Government that a factum can be placed before the Supreme Court of Canada under the name of the Attorney General of Canada, and that the Attorney General can renounce responsibility for the factum and slough off that responsibility to the public servants in his Department. Is that the policy of this Government?


SO 162-37 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
December 12, 1984
Oral Questions
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the policy that my hon. friend has described is the policy of the preceding Government. It sloughed-off ministerial responsibility. Any time it got into trouble, it consistently blamed it on the officials. That is what happened in the previous Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the Prime Minister wish to finish his answer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I do not want my hon. friend to get any more exasperated than he is.
1 can tell my hon. friend that this Party has stood for the defence of Anglophone rights in Quebec and Francophone rights outside Quebec. We believe in the defence of minority rights. We have no lessons to take from the Hon. Member in that regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).

[ Translation]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to She Minister of Communications and has to do with the CBC cut-backs.
English-speaking listeners have ready access to American networks such as PBS, but French listeners have no such radio and TV services, Mr. Speaker. Here is my question to the Minister: Given the cut-backs imposed by the Government, how can the CBC fulfil its mandate on behalf of French listeners?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the CBC is the only one responsible for French programming in this country. I will take this opportunity to explain that the private sector has some responsibility for that. If it is possible for us to improve the quality of our products, improve the exportation of our products, we will have better production in Quebec because the market will be stronger than it is now.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: But, Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister said something about improving CBC program services, so my supplementary question is this: How can he now account for
the contradiction between his promise of last week to improve services, on one hand, and his budgetary cutbacks at the CBC, on the other?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I explained a few days ago in Montreal that we must enlarge the range of French language programming throughout the country. We must give greatly increased emphasis to marketing, both national and international.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is the contradiction right there!


Marcel Masse: I have new problems-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The contradiction is right there!


Marcel Masse: -and you know those problems-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That was not my question!


Marcel Masse: -have been created by the new environment-


Ms. Jewett:: Go on, go on!


Marcel Masse: -over the past decade.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is the contradiction!


Marcel Masse: There is a growing competition from Anglophone programming in this country, both domestic and foreign.
t Translation]


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That was not my question.


Marcel Masse: It is not just the situation in Quebec. It is not a case of taking from the English to give to the French. That is not the way this problem should be perceived at all. That is not the solution at all.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect to the Minister. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.
December 12, 1984

[ Translation]


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
As many people in this country, we believe that under section 133 of the Constitution, the courts in some provinces are required to serve the people in both official languages. Mr. Duncan MacDonald's case, and the point which we want to stress for the information of this government, is that neither the Societe franco-manitobaine, nor Alliance Quebec, nor a number of Canadians share the views of your Minister of Justice in his factum rejecting that position, which is restrictive of language rights. Is the Prime Minister ready to withdraw that factum, read it closely, bring it to his office and take a sensible decision on the matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think my hon. friend will agree with me that my position, my government's position is quite clear on the issue of minority rights. Fortunately, the courts in Canada have always been there to rule on the major current issues which have been referred to them in that area. There is no doubt that the Parliament of Canada and this Government fully support the rights of our linguistic minorities across Canada. Those are vital rights, and we are going to continue that support to our English or French-speaking minorities across the land.


REQUEST THAT FACTUM BE WITHDRAWN
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short supplementary. Will the Prime Minister withdraw the factum, read it, study it, and come back to this House with it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if I may say, when the issue came up regarding the protection of minority rights in Manitoba we took a clear cut position which was not shared by the Leader of the Opposition and some of his colleagues. So I may say that we have been consistent throughout the piece and, as I indicated to my hon. friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, the Minister of Justice is not here but I would take notice of his question and advise the House at the earliest possible moment.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He promised consultation. The Minister of Finance failed to consult with CBC management in advance of applying cuts to
Oral Questions
the CBC. The Minister of Communications failed even to respond to a communication requesting consultation, from members of all three Parties from the Windsor area. Is that to be considered typical of that kind of consultation? Or will his Government agree to engage in real consultation with the people with a view of seeing whether there cannot be some correction in what are obvious errors in determining where the cuts should be applied in terms of their effect on Canadian content and sufficient recognition of the concerns of regional areas?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that had the Minister of Finance consulted with the President of the CBC prior to the event, my hon. friend would have accused him of political interference. All that has transpired is that the Minister of Communications and other government officers have dealt with the CBC in an acceptable way largely pursuant to a request from the President of the CBC. We are satisfied that the arm's-length relationship that must exist was respected and that the CBC Pesident and officers brought forward a new expenditure program they believed was in the best interests of the corporation. We did not interfere beyond that, and we try to respect what the President of the CBC and his colleagues decide.


IMPACT IN WINDSOR, ONT.
Howard Douglas McCurdy: With all due respect to the Prime Minister, you cannot have it both
ways.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Neither can you.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect, the Hon. Member cannot have a long first question and a preamble to the supplementary. The Member cannot have it both ways. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, how can we believe the assurances that the cuts would be applied to overhead and administration, when in Windsor all the cuts have been applied to programming?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The decision, Mr. Speaker, was of course that of the President of the CBC. I may tell my hon. friend that if he feels there has been an injustice in the greater Windsor area, I will be happy to consult with my colleague in Communications and bring that to the attention of the President of the CBC. I am sure that both he and I want the people of Windsor to be treated with the ultimate fairness as well.

December 12, 1984

Oral Questions


FORESTRY
Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Forestry. Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made in the negotiations with Quebec on a Federal-provincial agreement for forestry?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: 
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. First, I want to welcome him back to the House from his NATO meetings and other various on-the-the-job training programs.
The Acting Defence Minister was not in a position to give me an answer to a question last week because he did not know what the Minister had said at NATO, even though he said they had very close communications. At the same time he did inform us that what the Minister had said "made a great deal of sense", even though he had not heard it.
When making statements about the CF-18 fighter aircraft and the six new patrol frigates, among other items, was the Minister simply not making several promises to our NATO allies that were based on commitments which had already been made and were already under way to a degree, by the previous Government?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, one of the real points of interest in the Auditor General's report is that the former Government told the Canadian people that the CF-18 program and the Canadian patrol frigate program were real programs. We found out from the Auditor General that they were half programs. They were buying half a plane and half a frigate. We are now carrying out the total program by putting the other things in the planes to make them real fighting planes, and putting the other things
in the frigates to make them real fighting ships. That would not have happened under the budget proposed by the former Government. As a new Government we are saddled with delivering to NATO and NORAD-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect.


Robert Carman Coates: It was promised by them and will be done by us.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Brian White: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour today of presenting four separate petitions, all dealing with the issue of telephone deregulation. The petitioners from the Birdtail Valley New Horizons Club, the Green Valley Senior Centre, and the Onanole Cheery Chirpers Seniors' Club and many citizens of southwestern Manitoba total 1,041.
Their concern is that telephone deregulation could undermine the tradition of affordable, universal service which we enjoy in this country. They ask that Parliament refrain from enacting legislation which would lead to deregulation.


Mr. Speaker:: I have another petitioner, but I do feel duty-bound to ask Members either to take their seats or leave the Chamber, please. Hon. Members are petitioning the House of Commons and it only seems fair to me that they get a chance for the House to hear what they say. Order, please.


Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, as the Member of Parliament for London West it is my duty to present a petition signed by over 2,000 residents in my riding.
The petition will be familiar to the House. It calls for Parliament to declare Canada a nuclear weapons-free zone, to work actively for a multilateral de-escalation of the arms race, to divert arms funding to peaceful purposes, and to conduct a free vote to cease the testing of Cruise missiles in Canada.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from the residents of the City of Vernon in Okanagan North who are concerned about the lack of protection and effective legislation to reduce the carnage and destruction caused by drunk drivers on our roads and highways.
December 12, 1984


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 30 and 73.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed by the Treasury Board?


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: There are nine lawyers assigned to the Treasury Board from the Department of Justice.
Courts Amendment Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, last November 16, 1 had a question about the court challenges program placed on the Order Paper. That was a month ago. I therefore want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether we can expect an answer soon since, one month later, this matter is now making the headlines and the Prime Minister could perhaps use the answer to understand what is going on in the MacDonald affair.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Soon.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	On March 31 of (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983 (d) 1984, what total amount was at the credit of the Public Service Superannuation Account?
2.	In the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 (c) 1983-84, what (i) average rate of interest did the government pay for the use of the money in the Account (ii) total amount of interest was paid into the Account (iii) total amount was paid out of the Account?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: 


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
I. (a)	March	31.	1981	-(b)	March	31.	1982	-(c)	March	31.	1983	-(d)	March	31.	1984	-
Balance in Public Service Superannuation Account


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
2. Public Service Superannuation Account
Average Rate of	Interest Paid	[DOT]Additional	Amount paidInterest	Into Account	Interest	Out of Account%	$	$	$(a)	1981-82	(i)	9.4	(ii)	837,312,392	354,933,154 (iii)	531,289,142(b)	1982-83	(i)	10.3	(ii)	980,893,935	544,128,465 (iii)	569,387,908(c)	1983-84	(i)	10.6	(ii)	1,260,717,401	481,706,400 (iii)	618,483,100
* The account earns interest quarterly at a rate determined as if the excess of receipts over disbursements each quarter since the account was established had been invested in Government of Canada 20 year bonds. In effect, the quarterly rate is based on the weighted average yield of all investments over the previous 20 year period.
Some interest earnings in excess of the rate used in the most recent actuarial report on the [DOT] account (6.5% per annum) have not been credited to the account, but rather have been used to offset the cost of amortizing actuarial deficiencies that arise mainly as a result of annual salary increases. These amounts are shown in the additional interest column above.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-3, an Act to amend various Acts as a consequence of the reconstitution of the courts in Ontario and Manitoba, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.

December 12, 1984
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT


MEASURE TO AMEND
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Mel Gass (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am fairly confident at this time that Hon. Members are familiar with the intent of Bill C-5. In a nutshell, it is an amendment to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act to increase the permitted borrowing limit from the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation to $30 million from the present borrowing ceiling of $20 million which was set 10 years ago. In the fishing industry, as is the case in most businesses over the last 10 years, market prices have risen along with operating costs, the cost of fuels, wages and so on. This certainly holds true with the FFMC which has seen its operating budget escalating steadily.
A recently prepared five-year plan of the Corporation shows that its working capital and fixed assets requirements will exceed $20 million in the fiscal year 1985-86, and within a year will be in the region of $24 million. It is significant that the initial payment of the Corporation, that is the amount of money paid out to the 3,500 fishermen in the FFMC area at the start of the season, based on predicted market prices, has risen from a total of $9 million in 1974 to more than $20 million in 1983. As Hon. Members may have noticed from a recent press release, total sales of the Corporation in 1983-84 were in excess of $44 million, which is a record amount.
Perhaps we should point out that the FFMC draws its working capital through loans from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). It is, of course, not allowed to borrow more from that or any other source than that set out in the Act as its permitted borrowing limit.
Another point I would like to stress is that under the Corporation's mandate it is obliged to purchase all the fish offered to it by the fishermen who operate in the five million square kilometers of territory comprising the area covered by the FFMC. Most of these fishermen are native people who, in most instances, have no alternative means of making a living. It would be most unfortunate if these hardworking Canadian citizens had to suffer as a result of the FFMC having insufficient working capital. That situation could easily arise in the coming year if the credit ceiling is not raised as proposed in this legislation.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. There is some urgency to pass this Bill today. We on this side of the House certainly agree with Bill
C-5 because there are 3,500 fishermen, many of whom are native fishermen, who require this borrowing authority increase.
This Bill was previously introduced by the Government of which I was a member back in 1980. I recall that the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) did not have many favourable comments about this corporation during second reading stage of this Bill. He felt that it was extremely monopolistic in regard to the private sector in that part of the region. He went on to say that he supported the Bill because he is a good Party supporter, but I think the Hon. Member's remarks might give us cause to believe there is something in the Bill that we did not understand.
Although I am reluctant to bring that up, I would suggest to the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry that witnesses should appear on behalf of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Agency so that we can delve into those accusations a little further.
I am extremely pleased to see the progress of the corporation this year. A recent news release on December 6 stated that there would be a final payment for 1983-84 amounting to almost $6 million, of which the single highest pay-out to an individual fisherman was $78,000. That fact reflects what we have thought about the corporation over the years. However, due to the reservations expressed by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, we should question witnesses from the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in the committee to see if there is any justice to those accusations.
There are no more speakers from the Official Opposition and we are prepared to see this Bill passed as soon as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) wishes to speak before me, I would yield the floor to him.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say how pleased I was with my colleague, the Hon, Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson), in the few remarks that he made. I appreciate them very much.
He made two points. First, he said that I in particular-I reflect the views of my constituency-have no great love for the FFMC in its present form, especially the way that it enjoys a monopoly in which no one else is allowed in the business. He also said that I was a good Party supporter. He was absolutely correct on both counts.
He also suggested that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans should delve a little further into the problem of the marketing of freshwater fish. I agree with him wholeheartedly on this point. Let's face it, the committee hearings dealing with the Bill that is before us today were just a little bit of a railroad job. More time could have been devoted to the proper study not only of FFMC but the whole system of freshwater fish marketing and alternatives to the FFMC.
December 12, 1984

As I said at second reading, the problem is that the FFMC enjoys a monopoly. No one else is allowed in that business. The fishermen cannot sell their products to anyone other than the Crown corporation FFMC. In return, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Gass) pointed out, FFMC is obligated to take all the fish that the fishermen make available to them. However, there is nothing mentioned about the price that it has to pay. Therefore it can say that it will take the fish but only pay five cents a pound for it. The provision in the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation Act which states that, in return for granting FFMC a monopoly, it must take the fish really does not make sense. There is an easy way for FFMC to avoid that.
Those who have studied this matter independently have found that in all probability alternative methods of fish marketing could be established. People could go into that business, buy fish from the fishermen and take it across interprovincial and international boundaries in order to develop markets for that fish for the existing species that are marketed and for species that are underutilized or not utilized at all.
If the monopoly was revoked, I believe the enterprise within people would work wonders for the fishermen. It has and continues to be the policy of the Progressive Conservative Party that Crown corporations such as the FFMC should not enjoy that monopoly. This was well thought out prior to the last election campaign. It was an election promise made to fishermen in freshwater country that when we took over the reins of government that monopoly would be revoked.
This issue must not be allowed to go to the bottom of the heap. Perhaps it is not a great national issue involving all of Canada but it is certainly important in certain areas of the Prairies and certainly in the Northwest Territories. We owe it to those fishermen to carry out our election promise.
I hope that in the near future the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) and his Parliamentary Secretary, whom I know shares a keen interest in this problem, will confer with the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to see that new legislation is brought in which would amend the FFM Act to revoke that monopoly and enable the Fishermen to sell their fish at the highest price to whomever wants to buy it.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask a question of the Hon. Member who just spoke.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You may, by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, I hear a no.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, as the fisheries critic for the New Democratic Party, I would like to wind up the debate if there are no other speakers on this matter.
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) stated that we wanted to pass this Bill previously but it was delayed as a result of controversy with the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). Apparently, the reason for that delay is that the Conservatives are divided on their own Bill. I find that quite extraordinary. Bill C-5 is one of its first Bills and the Government is already divided among itself in its large caucus.
I listened carefully to what the Member for Western Arctic said. He aroused memories I have of seeing fish coming out of the water at the north end of Great Slave Lake at this time of the year when I lived up there approximately ten years ago. I remember how important it is to the people. It is very interesting to see that when the fish come out of the water they freeze instantly. You do not have the problem of putting them into anything; the temperature is so cold that it instantly freezes them.
There are some problems with what the Hon. Member for Western Arctic said. As I understood what he said, he objects, and his Party objected in the campaign-but not as it brings the Bill into the House-to a monopoly situation. I am confused about this, Mr. Speaker. How far would the Member go? Would he get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board? That is a monopoly marketing organization, is it not? Does the Hon. Member believe in orderly marketing? The concept of orderly marketing was to try and give the producer a decent value for his product.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Maximum return.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: As my colleague has said, the maximum return for the product. We have great experience on that in Canada. We fought those battles 30 or 40 years ago. In the so-called free market, which turned out to be not so free, producer kept undercutting producer and the prices would go down and down and down. Does the Hon. Member honestly believe that if this were a free market for fish or for selling to a private buyer that the fishermen would have any more control over the fish? I am not so sure they would. I think they might be better off with a freshwater fish marketing board.
I accept the fact that the Hon. Member represents and speaks for his area. Obviously he is reflecting problems of the fishermen in his area, in the Arctic, an area which I have already said I appreciate and love a great deal. If they are having problems, perhaps we should have a further look at this situation in committee. The Hon. Member said the Bill was railroaded through the committee. To use his words, "it was a railroad job". I remind the Hon. Member that he is a member of the governing Party. The Conservatives control the committees. I hope he would have a little more influence with his own Government not to have a Bill railroaded through the committee. If there is a problem, it seems to me the committee should have another look.
The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) had a quite genuine suggestion, and I would be prepared to go along with

December 12, 1984
Investment Canada Act
what he said. I do not think it is in this Bill. This is a minor Bill in the sense that it just increases the credit ceiling so that the marketing board would have adequate working capital. Now is not the time to do it but the Member has flagged the problem.
I am not sure I agree with him. I think there are problems when you start departing from orderly marketing from the experience we have had in Canada. I would remind the Hon. Member that the reason the freshwater fish marketing board was set up-and I remind his colleagues too-is because the private sector failed. The fishermen were in desperate need. They had to get together and set up a board. It is similar to the other Bill we debated the other day on saltwater fish marketing. The Hon. Member's colleagues, in their great ideological pursuit of the holy grail of private enterprise at all costs, should give pause, as my friend from Calgary should give pause, and ask themselves why was this thing set up. It was set up because of the failure of the private market. I am sure a wise man, as the Hon. Member is, would think about that.
We are prepared to let the Bill go through now. I draw the Hon. Member's attention to my speech on second reading of the Bill last week. I ask him to consider the remarks I have made today. Maybe in committee we should make sure that the Government Members can agree among themselves and we will get on and try to do the best thing we can for the fishermen of northern Canada.
Motion agreed to and the Bill read the third time and passed.


INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed Tuesday, December 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, when we concluded debate on this Bill yesterday afternoon at five o'clock, I was just about to open the question of benefits for foreign investment. That seems to me to be the crucial question that should be considered. I suggested in passing that the Government was bringing this Bill in with much of the Christmas spirit about it. Santa Claus will bring us good things if only we are good. We will throw the door open and foreign investment will come in and all sorts of good things will happen. It is precisely the question whether good things will follow from foreign investment which deserves to be considered.
I suggested also that proponents of foreign investment have never, in my opinion, subjected the process and its consequences to the sort of consideration that it deserves to have. That for governments is particularly serious because they have the means of clarifying the matter. One can to some extent in
a theoretical way open up the question and consider what some of the consequences are. That is what I want to do for a few minutes today.
First, there is concern about the need for capital in this country. It is probably not all that difficult an exercise to suggest gargantuan totals of capital being needed between now and 1990. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) suggested one of those totals. At the same time we are told that Canadians save at a world-leading rate. Given the levels of saving that occur here, one would not think the need for capital was actually as inordinate as is being suggested by the Government in bringing this Bill before us. One might recognize that when foreign investment is encouraged and when very large parts of the economic activity that occur in a country is foreign controlled, in Canadian manufacturing particularly and in large areas of resource extraction-it is overwhelmingly the case that so much of the activity is carried out in companies owned by people outside of Canada-the result year by year is an outflow of capital from Canada. There is no net gain at all.
When Government does not recognize that kind of reality, one begins to suspect it is being ideological and downright irresponsible in the economic policy which it puts before the country. On the score of capital for Canada, foreign investment can be an incredibly short-sighted gain. There are some other areas that are so enormously important to the economic development of this country. Surely what people mean when they talk about capital is technology, the bringing in to the country of knowledge presently not available. When we think of that kind of question and its ramifications, we have even more reason to be concerned about turning to capital investment for a simple answer.
The reality of the matter is that having technology imported into the country by reason of foreign investment can be an incredibly expensive gift to any people. If technology were not available, it would not be the easiest thing in the world but what would happen to Canadians, to the scientists, engineers and people involved in adapting technology and applying it? Canadian research and development would have to be done in order to fill those gaps. When we depend on others to bring the technology into the country, we close doors to our engineers and scientists. We shut off employment opportunities. If Government is ultimately concerned about foreign investment in order to ensure employment, again we have an incredibly short-sighted action in depending upon others to do these things for us.
If we think of employment in higher levels of management, New Democrats do not usually worry about that very quickly, but in terms of development and leadership of the country it is important too. When we depend on foreign investment to provide the capital and the technology, we are likely to get the skills and the management direction with it as well. It is a subject of the most profound importance to a country to consider what happens to it when the leadership and the direction of its economic affairs is coming from persons outside the country and when it is not Canadians who have the
December 12, 1984

opportunity to benefit. A few able or very fortunate Canadians may rise through the international structure and be lost to Canada. At a time when skilled management leadership of the country should have opportunities to work here on a large scale, we lose them as a result of foreign investment.
We should think about another area of economic activity and ask ourselves what happens in trade areas as far as imports and exports are concerned. What are the possibilities of having more extensive processing of raw material in Canada? In the past we looked to raw material, together with foreign investment; foreign investment in Canadian resources was the basis for Canadian prosperity. What happens in the case of foreign investment? All too often companies are established in the country with only one purpose, that is, to extract the product and get it out to markets in their home countries. Over the years it has been sent to the United States, especially since the Second World War and farther back into this century. When it is between a subsidiary in Canada and a parent company in the United States, we know that the pricing which occurs means low returns in Canada and high profits in the United States. Income flows and the bases for capital are lost to Canada as a result of the establishment of subsidiaries in this country. We worry about imports, about Canada having such an incredibly high level of imports, particularly in manufactured goods. Opportunities are closed off. When we think of those things, we realize that it is American and other foreign subsidiaries which are overwhelmingly importers of manufactured goods.
On point after point I suggest that the Canadian economy suffers and employment opportunities are lost. The future of the country is blasted when we look to foreign investment. For those reasons I feel a deep anxiety about the Bill before us.
Once upon a time George Grant in Lament for a Nation talked about the Conservatives having a sense of the country's future. These days when debating Investment Canada, that becomes the fiction many of us felt for years that it was. Conservatives are betraying their heritage these days in bringing this legislation before Parliament and presuming to turn Canada in that direction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments in regard to the Hon. Member's speech? There are no questions or comments. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is as follows: Mr. Stevens, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-15-


Mr. Caccia:: No, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).


Charles L. Caccia: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Investment Canada Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) seeking the floor on a point of order?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I submit that from the moment you began to read the motion, that terminated the issue and you were calling the question. At that time it was too late for my friend opposite to rise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I did not see the Hon. Member, and I have now recognized the Hon. Member for Davenport.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your very thoughtful intervention. I deplore the intervention of the Hon. Member opposite who thinks that with a cheap intervention of that kind he can cut off debate on such an important measure. Where does he think he is, at the fish market? This is the Parliament of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you for making that ruling because there are many Members on our side of the House who consider this Bill to be a very important one.


Blaine Allen Thacker: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please be seated.


Charles L. Caccia: The Hon. Member should sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I did not recognize the Hon. Member because I did not see him. I have now seen him and have recognized him for further debate in the House on Bill C-15. The Hon. Member for Davenport has the floor.


Charles L. Caccia: I thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Speaker. I have followed the debate thus far with great interest. As we all know, this is perhaps the most important Bill to be put before the House before the Christmas recess. The Bill will attract the attention of Canadians in every region from coast to coast because of its far-reaching and long-term implications.
I listened yesterday to the intervention of the Minister who is sponsoring this Bill. Quite frankly, I admit that I was startled by some of his statements. As reported at page 1090 of Hansard, he said the following:
-what we are saying is that with respect to new investment, as most of the Members realize from the kits we distributed, there will be no review other than in a very narrow sector.
Will it be to the benefit of Canadians to have no review other than in a very narrow sector? For some years we have had the benefit of the FIRA process which has thoroughly taken into account the desirability of acting in the interests of Canadians. This has been done in a way which has steered foreign investment in a manner that would be beneficial to our own long-term interests. Negotiations took place with FIRA and foreign investors in order to achieve the highest possible benefits for Canadians.

December 12, 1984
Investment Canada Act
In making his statement evidently the Minister is giving up a very valuable and important review process which has served us well. In that sense he is abdicating an important role on the part of the Government of Canada on behalf of all Canadians.
The Bill as presented to us will not only have a very limited review in a narrow sector, but it will give the Minister total discretionary powers. It means that he will be the sole emperor who decides whether or not certain types of investment will be admitted into Canada. Therefore he will not have the benefit of consulting with Cabinet or his own caucus. He will make his decision in isolation without perhaps taking into account the interests of the minister of industry, trade and commerce or other Ministers who have regional concerns and may want to have a say in the nature, direction and timing of certain investments.
Also in yesterday's intervention he indicated that if the Minister had not made up his mind after 75 days, a particular application would be deemed to have been approved. I find that very difficult to believe; however I have read it in the Bill. It is in Clause 22(3). I see the Hon. Member leaving. If he would stay in his seat, he would learn something. The net effect of Clause 22(3) will be that the Minister may use it when he does not want to make an unfavourable decision; he could let the time period lapse and the matter would be resolved that way. Is that a sensible and responsible way to govern and to protect the interests of Canadian industries or Canadian small businesses? They may be affected by the lapsing provision in the Bill.
I also looked in the Bill to find any reference to Canadian interests because, as was indicated in Clause 2, its purpose is to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians. Once one goes beyond Clause 2, where does one find a reference to Canadians in the Bill? The Bill is some 30 or 40 pages long. The only place I could find a reference to Canadians was under the duties of the Minister in Clause 5(b). The rest of the Bill makes reference to anything other than Canadian interests.
What is this Bill intended to do? If one looks at it in its totality, one cannot help but conclude, regretfully, that the Bill was conceived in isolation. It has been put forward without the benefit of an over-all industrial strategy. There is no provision to enhance research and development in Canada in order to enhance the capacity of our industry to expand, develop new products and, therefore, new markets and the creation of jobs.
There is no provision for the protection of our cultural identity and cultural industry for those Canadians who make their living in cultural activities in this country. This Bill could have very serious repercussions on our cultural communities and industries. They are struggling to survive against very difficult odds caused by nations that have much larger markets and, therefore, greater capacity to be competitive.
The Bill has no provision to offset a high deficit, into the billions, in the trade of technology-intensive products. It does not make provision for the development of high-tech industries
and the protection of fledgling new industries emerging in Canada. Their opportunities may be squeezed considerably or wiped out if a Bill of this nature becomes law without any consideration for the interest of this new high technology industry. In total, that industry is doing badly when we look at the trade figures and the deficit that we have accumulated year over year.
I have gone through this Bill with a fine-toothed comb on a couple of occasions. Another matter that I find surprising is that there is no provision to trigger Canadian savings into Canadian investment. We have a high percentage of savings in our economy because Canadians are thrifty. The savings do not find their way into the type of investment in Canada that this Bill wants to achieve. Where are the provisions to trigger Canadian savings in this Bill which purports in Clause 2 to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians? If that is to be part of the purpose of the Bill, there should be an arsenal of initiatives to give momentum to our own potential rather than develop an imbalanced kind of approach oriented toward attracting capital and initiatives from outside our borders.
I am puzzled because there is no provision for tax incentives for Canadians to invest in Canada.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Of course not.


Charles L. Caccia: You would expect there to be tax incentives. If the Hon. Member feels I am wrong in that, he can correct me at the end of my intervention and tell me which clause provides tax incentives.
Another puzzling aspect is that the Bill is put forward in isolation as to the future of our Crown corporations and their role in an investment strategy for Canada. What will be the role of existing Crown corporations? They are surrounded by uncertainty because of initiatives taken by the same Minister. If he moves ahead with an investment policy for Canada, he will have to indicate what is to be the role of Crown agencies that are owned on behalf of the Canadian people.
Debate on this Bill may not seem to be the proper place for a statement on the environment, but I was hoping that in his speech or in the press releases the Minister would have given an indication as to the environmental guidelines to be followed in connection with the signals going out from this ill-conceived Bill. There could have been some kind of warning or signal to foreign industrial investors that this Bill does not mean open season on the environment. That could be concluded by some foreign investors if they look at the abysmal performance of this Government with regard to the environment.
Members will recall the statements made last July and August by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as to what he would do with regard to acid rain. Our Prime Minister met with the President of the United States and there has been no action on acid rain. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) met with his counterpart and again there has been no action. One could say the same for the present Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier).
December 12, 1984

I submit I am within the terms of reference of this debate when I state that the Government proceeded with a number of cuts which indicates to potential industrial investors that the environment is becoming a second or third consideration in Canada. Otherwise this Government would not have cut the strength of the Canadian Wildlife Service or the National Research Council's environment program. Also it would not have cut a number of research and development initiatives that have to do with renewable resources. Experience has shown that foreign-controlled branch plants in Canada have been characterized by low levels of research and development, limitations on the ability of the branch plants to export and the fact that branch plants as a rule have short and inefficient production runs.
Many branch plants rely too much on imported technology. This has resulted in a lack of capacity in Canada for the kind of innovation which is an important prerequisite to developing products capable of meeting tough competition both worldwide and at home. These are probably the main reasons, coupled with the fact that, by and large, Canadians want control over their industrial and economic destiny, which led the Liberal Government to introduce the Foreign Investment Review Agency. It was a good measure, one that earned a lot of respect on the part of many Canadians.
What I do find disturbing about the Bill that is before us today is that it does not take into account the main concerns that led to the creation of FIRA in the past. It does not take into account that foreign ownership in technologically advanced industries may one day leave Canadians without participation in the most important growth sectors of our economy. The Bill is silent on that matter. That means that we may have very little, if any, participation in future investments in the advanced industries that may be launched and developed in our country.
The Bill does not take into account that a high level of foreign ownership may one day lead to Canada's future being decided behind the closed doors of corporate boardrooms outside of Canada. Is that what we want to have?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles L. Caccia: Hon. Members over there are moaning and groaning. Perhaps they want to participate in this debate and give us the benefit of their answers to these questions.


Mr. Kempling:: Read the Bill.


Charles L. Caccia: I have read the Bill. That is why I am raising these questions.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Read it.


Charles L. Caccia: I am glad to hear these interjections because it tells me that it hurts. Somehow Hon. Members over there do not like to hear what I am saying and that means that some of their sensitivities are being awakened to the reality of fact.
Investment Canada Act
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill does not take into account that Canadians have, over the development of our nation, reached the point where they do really want to have control over their destiny. Canadians no longer wish to be owned by outside interests. This Bill really turns the clock back rather than moving us forward to a more improved position vis-a-vis our own economy. Certainly Canadians do not want to see the development of the country left in the hands of one Minister who will decide when, where and how these investments will be allowed into the country.
This Bill provides no guarantee whatsoever for the destinies of individual workers and their families. It does not protect the livelihood of a worker who may have been employed by a branch plant for 10 or 20 years. We have experienced in Toronto on several occasions a situation in which one day a worker finds that his branch plant is closed because of a decision-


An Hon. Member:: So what?


Charles L. Caccia: So what? Who said so what? I would like to know who said that. That means that there has been a tragedy in the life of a family. It is tragic to lose one's job all of a sudden because somehow, somewhere, in a boardroom across the ocean, a decision was made to close down and one is left without a job. What does one do then? This Bill is silent on this most important social and economic consideration.
I really hope that the Minister will address himself to these shortcomings when the Bill eventually reaches committee stage. There is no answer to the question of what happens to the Canadian worker when a foreign owner decides that Canada's markets have dried up or perhaps that the economy is contracting and it is better to go to another country where the grass is greener.
All of this is in sharp contrast with the promise made by this Government to create jobs. The open-door policy for foreign investors that the Government is announcing will lead to the creation of new business ventures, but will it create jobs? This is the basic question that we would like to have answered. Foreign investment does not necessarily mean the creation of jobs.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are signalling me that my time is up. I thank you for your consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question. The Hon. Member was a Minister in the last Government and, of course, would have spent a great deal of time in Cabinet discussing foreign takeover problems. Perhaps he would be able to give me the answer to a question that I should have given to Sudha Karayi from my riding, someone who had an opportunity to become the chief Canadian technical person in a new company owned by LUXTEC Corporation of Massachusetts. LUXTEC was supposed to come to Canada-and perhaps we can get them to come now because of this Act-to do some

December 12, 1984
Investment Canada Act
high technology work in fibre optics. When Mr. Karayi sent the foreign investment review application to LUXTEC, it filled it out but got the application forms back from the agency with a request for more information. Mr. Kloots of that company told Mr. Karayi that, under the circumstances and because of the complications, under no circumstances would they even proceed to look at coming to Canada with fibre optics and high-tech.
If we did not have this statute, I was wondering what the Hon. Member would tell my constituent who had the opportunity to develop this product and work in Canada? Would he tell him that it is too bad and he should stay unemployed?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, it is a rather rhetorical question. The Hon. Member knows better than that. Perhaps I should direct him to the guiding principle of FIRA which he knows very well by now, having been in Parliament on several occasions. Under that principle an application would be approved if it were to be in the Canadian interest. That means that it would be approved if it is one that enhances and strengthens already existing industries or does not damage them in any way, shape or form. That is not a bad guideline, I would submit. Evidently, if the specific application for fibre optics manufacturing in Canada was not proceeded with, there must have been some good reasons regarding jobs already existing in Canada.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). In the last two years of FIRA's operation, 95 per cent to 98 per cent of all applications were approved. Yet less than one-half of those foreign takeovers that were approved tended to increase investment or provide new jobs. Could I ask the Hon. Member, who was a member of the Cabinet of the previous administration, what steps he took to change that so that there were some guarantees on a much greater percentage of the foreign takeovers?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, to be questioned by Conservative Members for having gone too far and to be questioned by Members of the NDP for not having gone far enough tells me that we were on the right track, the middle-one.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) will know that it costs the Government $6,000 on average to process a FIRA application, but he may not know that it costs the ordinary private applicant somewhere aound $20,000 for legal fees, briefs, accounting statements, undertakings and the like. Indeed, at least one former Member of this House once had his entire law practice financed on foreign investment application. That was fine stuff. I was wondering if that might not be the reason why this fibre optics application was thrown away. Perhaps the applicant said: "I'm not going to bother coming to Canada with new jobs and new technology. I will not come to Canada if they are going to make me go through all that hoop-la. I might as well go to Brazil or a dozen other places in the world where they want investment and jobs". That is the kind of thing we
are looking for. What is his comment with respect to new jobs for Canadians?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I am flattered by the persistence of the Hon. Member. He seems to be totally blind to the concern which I expressed at the end of my speech about protecting Canadian businesses and Canadian jobs. Evidently, the Hon. Member feels that an expenditure of $6,000 for an application is too much trouble if it ensures that the application will be screened, modified, or even rejected in the event that it affects the jobs of Canadians and the businesses of Canadians.
If the Hon. Member does not already know, I can assure him that Canada is seen as a highly-coveted country by investors abroad. Those who made applications which coincided with the interests of Canada in the long term, with the interests of the workers who are employed here, and with the interests of businesses and industries which were already active, are doing well for themselves as well as for Canada.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question based on his presence in the former Cabinet. With respect to foreign investment in Canada, was there an investigation undertaken of the Iron Ore Company of Canada with respect to its recent shutting down of its iron mining and processing activities because its parent company in the United States decided that it would rather invest in Brazil than continue its activities in Canada? Was there an investigation undertaken on those matters?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is expecting a degree of memory capacity on my part which I do not possess.


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Davenport (Mr. Caccia). Is it not true that the experience in Canada for the past decades has been that foreign corporations operating here have contributed positively to our economy and that for several generations Canadians working for foreign corporations have been able to raise their children, send them to university, which would have been impossible without those companies in their community? This is my first question.
I would also like to make a comment or give him some information. A foreign corporation has been negotiating with a company in my constituency in order to purchase it. If no foreign owner can be found, the company will close down, since nobody in Canada has the expertise and capital to overhaul that factory now. In his very impassioned pleas for economic nationalism, the Hon. Member seems to forget that there is a very positive aspect to the purchase of Canadian businesses by foreigners who will abide by our regulations and who will be good corporate citizens.
December 12, 1984


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the second part of the question because it is the one which I understand and with which I almost agree.

It is evident that the situation which has been described by the Hon. Member reflects the main principles that brought about the establishment of FIRA. FIRA was put in place to ensure that the interests of the community would be protected, that investment would not create chaos or disruptions in other Canadian communities, and that it would ensure that the potential growth of new industries which were in Canada would not be endangered by subsequent investment. Therefore, if the Hon. Member is in favour of investment which takes into account long-term Canadian interests, then we are saying the same thing.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are over. The Minister of Communications.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to certain aspects of the legislation respecting investment in Canada, especially those dealing with Canada's cultural heritage and national identity.
We all know, but it is perhaps good to refresh our memories, that new methods being used by the media-including cablevi-sion, pay-television, video-cassettes, personal computers-and by the cultural sector are becoming a focus for industrial, cultural and broadcasting policies. As countries recognize the important economic role of communications in the media and the arts, they have developed increasingly competitive industrial policies in those sectors. There is a growing world demand for cultural products and for new means of communication. This will result, and has already resulted, in an expanding international market for Canadian cultural products and opportunities for Canadians to compete for an increasing share of foreign revenue.
The cultural industries and the performing arts sector can therefore provide Canada with unique opportunities for economic renewal and future economic stability, as expressed in job creation and even trade. We must not forget that the cultural sector of our economy is one of the best ways to address the employment problem, since 60 per cent of each dollar generated is directed towards employment, compared with 20 cents in primary industries.
I believe that increased foreign investment would help us take advantage of and expand these opportunities. However, 1 also believe there is another dimension to foreign investment in Canada's cultural economy. Whether it is reflected in our cultural heritage, in music, films, art or the theater, it is a sector that is a central part of our own national identity. The ability to create, to express and to interpret artistic and social values is, I believe, just as important a measure of a country's
Investment Canada Act
viability. Canada has the advantage of having reached a point in its development where it has several ways of ensuring that this country will be strong both economically and culturally. Investment Canada is an example of this Government's commitment to creating employment and a free and strong industry, while at the same time ensuring that Canada's unique cultural identity will be enhanced.
In the past, the lack of directives and policies in the Foreign Investment Review Act to deal with cultural activities had created a climate of confusion and a lack of confidence that was most undesirable. I believe the Government has a responsibility to explain its policies and objectives in this sector, so that foreign investors will understand what Canada as a country hopes to accomplish in the cultural sphere.
That is why the proposed legislation provides that foreign investment in the cultural sector is to receive special attention and consideration. These guidelines would therefore help foreign investors to take advantage of opportunities in the Canadian cultural sector, while recognizing the fact that it is essential for us to preserve and develop our Canadian cultural identity.
Because of the impact of consumption and of the earning power of Canadian cultural products such as films, TV programs, recordings and editing on the cultural and social development of Canada, the profitability of Canada's cultural industries is a determining factor when reviewing proposed foreign investments in Canada. Both our culture and our economy are important sectors.
Film, video, recording and production industries now contribute $5 billion annually to the Canadian economy. In addition, they indirectly account for $4 to $5 billion in the related sectors of marketing and radio-TV broadcasting. A significant share of that economic activity comes from foreign investment firms and the distribution of foreign products on the domestic market. However, we note that the best opportunities with respect to employment and economic growth in sectors of cultural activities are offered by Canadian businesses. Apparently, that is due to the nature of the products distributed.
On the other hand, the economic activity stemming from films, recording and production is linked with copyright ownership. Indeed, if copyrights are foreign-owned, the revenues generated on the Canadian market will leave the country and create jobs abroad.
Thanks to the cultural intitiatives taken by the government in recent years-regulations on the Canadian contents of programming, the activities of the Canadian Film Development Corporation, known as Telefilm Canada, the assistance program for Canadian production development, the deduction program for film and video capital cost depreciation, and the postal grants program-Canadian cultural industries have

December 12, 1984
Investment Canada Act
been through a period of rapid development and growth these past few years.
That situation made it possible for Canada's cultural industries to explore new avenues so as to ensure economic growth and job creation to meet the ever increasing demand for our cultural products in an environment where new communication technologies are the last word.
Movie and record production has grown substantially thanks to new technological developments in films video digital recording and software for personal use. On the other hand, recreational medias such as television, AM and FM radio, pay TV, videocassettes and VCRs have increased the demand for programming. According to recent studies in the United States, by 1988, there will be a $5 billion market for video products alone, in North America. In addition, electronic publication and the use of computers for this purpose create new markets and new opportunities for the publishing industry.
Per capita, Canadians are the largest consumers of cultural products worldwide. Because of this great demand and of the proximity of the United States, the Canadian market will inevitably be invaded by foreign interests as development opportunities occur.
Direct investment in the Canadian cultural industry by foreign interests can bring in certain benefits if these investments contribute to the production and distribution of Canadian cultural products and if there are more joint ventures by Canadian and foreign companies to this end. During the next decade, this investment will be vitally important for Canadians if they want to take advantage of the market which now belongs to foreign multinationals, especially in view of the high cost of new technology, and greater competition thus resulting in more opportunities for us in Canada.
Investment Canada will play a major role in protecting the economic development interests of Canadian cultural industries. The provisions of the Investment Canada Act which deal with business activities related to the Canadian cultural heritage or to our national identity, such as publishing or distribution of books or periodicals and the production and distribution of movies, will create a healthy climate for Canadians to develop strong cultural businesses and will guarantee access to Canadian cultural activities and products. The review activities will allow for an easier assessment on the part of Government authorities of the economic and cultural implications of a proposed commercial activity.
A clear statement of Government policy objectives for the cultural sectors involved will be given to the investor and financial assistance will be provided with due consideration being given to the intentions of applicants as concerns these policies. This will guarantee not only a review of foreign investment opportunities, but also the development by Canada of its own competitive cultural businesses to meet the needs of Canadian artists as well as our cultural objectives.
That is all, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you that this Bill protects our national identity and will allow us to protect Canada's cultural heritage while providing investments which will create jobs. That is the purpose of this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Minister. I must admit he is a very fine communicator as Minister of Communications, but I wonder when he makes statements such as the cultural heritage being a determining factor for this investment. He made a very interesting point when he said that we have the highest per capita consumption of cultural products in the world. I am wondering how the Minister defines his role as it relates to maintaining the cultural heritage and the outlets for that cultural heritage which, in a lot of cases in rural and remote areas of Canada, are delivered through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I have been wondering since yesterday afternoon about the function of the Minister as it relates to maintaining that presence in Canada. I was particularly interested in that question because it was announced yesterday that the only radio station in my riding will be closed.
I am wondering what the Minister's role would be under the Broadcasting Act, or what he perceives it to be, as it relates to decisions made by the CBC in this regard.
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I would first assure the Hon. Member that if the previous Government in 1968 had not cut $71 million from the CBC's funding, there might now be a station in his constituency. I will add that for some years now, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-and as a previous majority government Member, you were certainly aware of the fact that the CBC was called upon to provide ever increasing services, to use or rather to develop new slots, to constantly enter into new fields-could not do all those things without the Government at the same time accepting the corporation's goals, without the Government providing it with the funds needed to carry out its new roles or goals.
Well, there were discussions between the corporation's president, its former president, Mr. Johnson, and the Government of the day. There was an agreement providing that the CBC would get a 5 per cent annual funding increase in actual dollars, so it could take up the new responsibilities assigned to it both by Parliament and Government. Well, the ink on that agreement had barely dried when the Government took away with one hand what it had given with the other, and then the Government never got around to respecting the agreement it had itself suggested to the corporation. But it never asked the corporation to curtail its services. Worse still, as I said earlier, in 1978 the CBC suffered a $71 million cut. Reviewing the corporation's situation over the past seven or eight years, we find that the cuts inflicted on the corporation in actual dollars
December 12, 1984

were of the order of $300 million, without the previous Government ever providing the corporation with the means to have the level of administration expected by Parliament.
Indeed, the current president himself was the first to recognize that the corporation's administrative and financial image was not what it ought to be. What this Government did was to require the CBC to review its administrative procedures, trim down its administrative set-up so that the taxpayers' money be properly used for the purposes intended, namely creativity, productivity and production.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member need not fear for the CBC's future. With this Government, and ever since the Bennett administration under which the original Act was passed, and the Diefenbaker era when a radio and television agency was established separate from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the days when former Prime Minister Clark appointed the Applebaum-Hebert Commission, and now with Mr. Mulroney, I can assure you that the CBC has a Government that is sensitive to its role and needs.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, this is very interesting. I mentioned that the Minister is a fairly good communicator. He is a fairly good communicator on his side. He just mentioned that the former Government had imposed restrictions on the CBC's increased mandate. I read in today's paper that this Minister says there will be even more spending on the French network. This is imposing again a mandate on the CBC after cutting it as extensively as the Government has done.
I asked the Minister a simple question. He said that the previous Government cut back on the CBC. Then he said that if it had not cut back on the CBC years ago, maybe I would have my radio station. Let me remind him that it was from the cut of this Government that I lost my radio station.
My question to him is quite simple. The former Minister of Communications would be acting if I had brought up in the House of Commons that I had lost the only radio station in my riding. What is the Minister's function under the Broadcasting Act? Is there an appeal procedure to the Minister, or do we have to accept the word of Mr. Juneau, who claims that it was on instruction from the Minister of Communication and this Government that he had to make these drastic moves with his chain saw? What is the appeal procedure? Do the people of Canada have any appeal to this Minister? Does he have any function under the Broadcasting Act as it relates to these cuts and possibly getting some of them overturned or reversed?
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, with his experience of Parliament which greatly exceeds mine, the Hon. Member will know that the CBC's annual report has already been tabled in this House, and that the Standing Committee on Communications has every chance of hearing the Corporation's officials if it so wishes. But as the Hon. Member is aware, it is not within my
Investment Canada Act
responsibilities to direct the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation concerning its day-to-day operations, in areas of its own responsibility.
I would also like to tell him that when I was in Montreal, I saw something which all French-speaking citizens inside and outside Quebec have already realized over a number of years, and that is the fact that among French-speaking viewers there is a tendency to switch from certain programs produced by both private or public television networks, to English-speaking or American TV stations.
That fact is evidenced by all the statistics, and it belongs-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Minister, but the period provided for questions and comments is ended.

Is there unanimous consent to let the Minister continue? I hear a no. I am sorry. Order, please. The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-15, which is the Bill with regard to investment in Canada, otherwise known as Investment Canada. It is a pleasure to speak because this is really the second part of the Government's program for economic recovery in the country. I believe we should all keep that fact in mind at all times. We should all remember why we were elected and sent here. It was mainly for the purpose of getting the country going again and producing some jobs. This particular Bill is aimed at just that.
Traditionally, since World War II the program which governments have followed to get the economy moving again in times of economic recession has been one of government spending to create jobs. Unfortunately, whether we agree or disagree with government spending, that particular option has been foreclosed to this Government and any government acting in the country at the present time. The reason it is foreclosed is that every time anyone suggests that the Government should start spending again we are immediately met with a great howl in the country asking, "What about the deficit?" That deficit really ties the hands of the Government and limits the options available to it.
Members of the Opposition have commented on the deficit regularly since the beginning of this session. They have indicated that the Government should ignore the deficit and deal with the question of jobs. They have been suggesting that the way to do that is through spending and more spending. That is not, of course, the way they attacked the problem during the election campaign. During the election campaign all Parties recognized that there was a problem with the deficit which had to be addressed first.
The Government has approached economic recovery in the country with the deficit as its number one priority. That was in the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) which was announced in the House early in November. The economic statement dealt with trying to limit growth of the deficit to

December 12, 1984
Investment Canada Act
allow us to put our own financial house in order and to restore investor and consumer confidence in the country.
The second part of the economic strategy, Mr. Speaker, is to encourage the growth of capital investment in the country once confidence is restored. Of course, that is what this Bill is all about. It is simply to encourage the growth of capital and capital investment in Canada because that creates jobs. I have not heard any members of the Opposition who criticize this Bill deny that investing capital does not create jobs.
Ideally, we would all like to see that capital limited strictly to Canadian capital but we realize that historically that has not been the case and that that is virtually impossible in this country. Historically, it has taken capital from abroad to develop and build the country.
Unfortunately, as far as risk-taking is concerned, and the investment in risk capital, Canadians are rather timid and have not been prepared to take the risks necessary to create that pool of capital to create those jobs. That was very obvious during the last two or three years when we have been in the throes of this economic recession. We have not had enough Canadian capital to produce the jobs to pull us up by our bootstraps and get Canadians back to work. Therefore, the Government has been faced with an effort to try to stimulate that investment from somewhere other than Canada.
What approach should the Government take? A number of Members in the House and many people in the country believe that the course we should be taking is an unrestricted course of foreign investment. They believe that the Government should take off all the restrictions and allow all types of foreign investment into this country without review.
On the other hand, there are many in the House who have great concerns about unrestricted foreign investment. These concerns which Hon. Members in the Opposition have been raising include concerns such as plant closures, no exports by foreign owned companies, and lack of research and development by foreign owned companies. I believe that these are all reasonable concerns, but in facing the reality of today and the problem of trying to build investment and create jobs, the Government has had to try to find a way to encourage investment in this country which is not taking place through Canadian themselves.
Therefore, I believe that this Bill represents a compromise, an acceptable compromise for those of us who are Canadian economic nationalists. It is a compromise which will allow further investment capital into this country and will allow that investment capital to create the jobs that 1,500,000 Canadians very badly need.
This does not represent an entire dismantling or elimination of the previous legislation but, in fact, it is a modification of the previous legislation. It is interesting to note that the tests by which foreign investment is to be gauged, in this Bill remain virtually the same as they were in the present Act. In fact, there have been two additional tests added. Those are the tests that concern cultural policy and international competitiveness. In that respect, the Bill modifies the present law and, in some respects, actually strengthens the review process.
It is also interesting to compare the effect the proposed legislation would have on the applications of foreign investors that were reviewed under the present legislation in 1983 to what is now the law, particularly with respect to the area of direct acquisition of Canadian assets by foreign investors, which concerns most people. According to the proposed legislation, 91 per cent of the total asset values that were reviewed under the present legislation in 1983 will continue to be reviewed under the proposed legislation. That is not a great modification but one which should encourage more capital to come into this country and thereby create more jobs.
That is part two of the Government's program for economic recovery. It is only the second part of other parts yet to come. One of those parts which I, other Members and most Canadians are looking forward to is the budget that is proposed for next year.
I believe that as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) approaches the development of that budget he should look to three other areas to help us on the road to Canadian economic recovery. The first area concerns the question that was quite properly raised by the Opposition about attracting and encouraging Canadian investment. I believe that we certainly should be looking at some measures not only to attract capital from abroad but also to attract some more Canadian capital into the risk investment area. I believe this can be done through some further tax incentives. We already have tax incentives such as the dividend tax credit, the tax incentives on housing, the tax incentives for the film industry, oil and gas and research and development. Obviously that has not been enough. All of those incentives so far have not been able to attract enough Canadian risk capital to put 1.5 million unemployed people back to work. In developing his budget, the Minister of Finance should consider that area to see what other incentives can be created for Canadians to invest in their country.
One such area, I would suggest to him, is investment in rental apartment buildings and rental apartment development. Prior to the Benson Budget in 1970, there were some tax incentives in our laws that encouraged people to own and build rental apartments. We must put that sort of incentive back into our Income Tax Act so that we can encourage the building of badly needed rental units rather than discourage them as is the case with the present law.
The second area which I believe the Minister should address is the whole question of foreign trade. That is the key to long-term viability, not only of foreign investment in this country but also of domestic investment. During the last few months I toured two industrial plants in my riding. Both of these plants are subsidiaries of multinational foreign companies. One company is IBM. The IBM plant in my riding is the largest IBM facility in this country. The other is Ortho Pharmaceutical, which is a subsidiary of the Johnson and Johnson organization. Each of them employs many thousands of people in my riding. Each of them has a global product
December 12, 1984

mandate and each of them carries on a great deal of research and development in this country. In fact, the IBM plant in my riding, which employs approximately 8,000 people, has a research lab which will employ approximately 1,000 people by the beginning of next year. Two years ago it employed 200 people and it has been growing by leaps and bounds. That is a subsidiary of a multinational company. That is the sort of thing we can do in Canada with foreign investment.
The people at IBM and the people at Ortho Pharmaceutical tell me that what we should be doing is trying to encourage world product mandates for all subsidiaries of multinational companies in Canada. They tell me it is essential for the foreign subsidiaries and they tell me that building and developing the foreign market is also essential for Canadian companies because, as we all know, Canada is a signatory to the GATT agreements. Under those agreements, the substantial tariff barriers that we once had are falling. One of these days very soon there will hardly be a tariff barrier here. It is not just a concern that foreign investors may pick up their assets and go home, it is also a concern that Canadian investors and Canadian companies will not be able to compete domestically unless they start to compete in the foreign market. What we should have is something in the forthcoming budget to encourage the development of foreign trade, not only by foreign investors but also by Canadian investors, and to encourage at the same time the concept of world product mandates.
The third area that I believe should be brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance is the whole question of consumer demand. It is fine to create a pool of investment capital. We need more of it and we know that investment capital will create jobs, but it is not going to create jobs and no one is going to invest unless consumers spend. Somehow we have to get consumers to spend. We know that we will be able to provide a little bit more of that with some of the pension improvements that have been promised in the Speech from the Throne that are coming soon. I believe we should also be approaching this problem from the same point of view that the United States has approached it. The Americans cut personal income taxes a few years ago, which put more purchasing power into the hands of the public. It allowed Americans to spend more and buy more of the products and the services produced in their country. As a result, manufacturers created more investment and put people back to work. That is the way we can help stimulate the economy of Canada. That is the way we can get people back to work again.
In summation, this Bill, as I have indicated, is the second step in a program of government economic recovery. There will be more, and all of them, including this Bill, will put Canadians back to work again and get Canada moving.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments?
Investment Canada Act

The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct a question to the Hon. Member. He said that the bill will provide employment for Canadians but I would like to know at what cost? How will the amendments to the legislation provide jobs for Canadians? I will give you an example. Last evening, on the television program Le Point, a business leader said he was pleased to see that the Prime Minister has opened the door to American financiers but that in 50 years from now Canada will have become the 51st American state. It may be interesting for businessmen, but not for Canadians who need to sure that the America corporations purchasing Canadian companies will not close them down as they have done in the past when the economy slows down. Canadian businesses could become warehouses responsible for the American products. Can the Hon. Member assure us that the bill will give real protection to Canadian workers?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member had been listening when I was speaking because I think he would have heard the answer to his question. A few years ago-a long time ago in this country-foreign investment would move in because we may have had some lower wage rates and we had tariff barriers to protect that investment. The barriers protected those companies so they could sell their products in the Canadian market alone. Unfortunately, that type of a policy has become obsolete. Those tariff barriers are coming down and have been coming down for a number of years. Very shortly they will virtually disappear.
Anyone coming to this country from abroad and looking for an investment opportunity is not going to come to look at the Canadian market alone. There is just not enough of a market here and there is no protection. When an American company or any other foreign company-and I might say we should not be just restricting this to American investors, we have many investors from Asia who are coming here at the moment- comes to this country, it is not only because it is looking at the Canadian market but because it is considering the advantages of having a company here that will allow it to compete in a broader market, particularly the American market. I have had discussions with the Ministry of Industry and Trade in the Province of Ontario. One of its programs is geared to bringing foreign investors to Canada. This Ministry tells me that it is achieving its greatest success in attracting foreign investors from Asia. The reason is that Asians can build plants here, develop and manufacture a product, and sell that product not only in Canada but in the United States without having to worry about the non-tariff barriers and the quota system which the United States has for products manufactured in Asia. The Americans do not have those same non-tariff barriers and quotas for products manufactured in Canada. Therefore, it is very attractive for that kind of foreign investment to

December 12, 1984
Investment Canada Act
come to Canada. That is the reason foreign investors come here. They are not coming here anymore to produce solely for the Canadian market because of our great tariff barriers, which may contract and dry up the market. They are coming here to produce for the world market, and that is the only way they will be attracted to this country.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on a supplementary question.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's remarks confirm that if we want not only the Americans to come here, but also Canada to do business with all the other countries, Canada must be different from the United States, for there are countries in the world which would rather do business with Canada than with the United States.
However, if Canada should become the 51st State of the Union, as the Prime Minister seems to wish, these countries will seek other markets. I suggest, therefore, that the Hon. Member's remarks confirm the fact that the Bill not only does not protect Canadians workers' jobs, but eliminates the factor which some countries found attrative in Canada, namely, it being different from the United States. And now a short question. If you have ever taken part-as a businessman, you have certainly taken part in negotiations or attended conventions-how is it that the Canadian side is always anxious to make concessions or amend legislation? The Prime Minister goes down on his knees before representatives of American financial circles and says: "Canada belongs to you", although he has no assurance that the Americans will change their protectionist policy with regard to Canadian goods. It seems to me that in any negotiation we should keep some sort of trump in our hand.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member would not try to misrepresent what is taking place here. Certainly the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has not gone to the United States to suggest that we become the fifty-first State of the United States. In fact, he went to the United States and said, "We welcome your investment into Canada" in order to create jobs and put 1.5 million Canadians back to work again. Certainly that is a protection for Canadians and for Canadian workers. It is not protection to continue the same course as the Hon. Member and his former Government followed, a course which did not attract any capital to the country, a course which did not create any indigenous Canadian capital, a course which did not create any jobs and therefore left us with 1.5 million people unemployed.
This Bill or this approach will attract some new capital that will create jobs. In that way it will put Canadians back to work
and protect them much better than the former Government protected them in any way, shape or form.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made specific reference to capital investment creating jobs. If he had a plant in his riding with 100 employees and assets under $5 million which was acquired by an American or European company, what guarantee would there be that that investment in itself would create any new jobs in that plant? What guarantee is there that that would occur?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any guarantee that an investment of that sort will create jobs. I must say that I have many businesses of that size in my riding. I have businesses ranging from the one-persons operation up to operations with many thousands of employees.
Of course, the question is: What would be the purpose of a foreign investor buying the variety of company which the Hon. Member suggested? Given the current economic climate, not only in this country but in the world, and given the current state of economic relations, particularly with respect to tariff barriers, no one from a foreign company will invest in this country at all, either by way of investment in a new business or by acquisition, unless there is some benefit to the company. Surely the benefit is to create a larger profit for the company. One cannot create a profit without increased sales. The way to increase sales is to increase business. Generally, by and large, increase in the size of business increases employment.
There is no guarantee that Canadians who invest in particular companies or try to establish their own businesses will create any real benefit. They may disappear within a few weeks. As a business person and as a lawyer, I have seen many of that variety in my time as well. There is no guarantee of anything in the world. We have to create a climate which will stimulate business so that they can invest and create jobs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now expired. Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), I should like to recognize the Government House Leader.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point in time to announce the business of the House for tomorrow. We will start the day with Bill C-10, an Act relating to tax interpretation; followed by Bill C-14, respecting foreign tribunals; followed by Bill C-15, the Bill we have been debating today.
As a result of consultations with opposition House Leaders, it is my understanding that we will deal with Bill C-10 and Bill C-14 in all stages including third reading tomorrow. We expect to make progress and then return to Bill C-15 and possibly even finish with it.
December 12, 1984


INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak today on what has to be one of the biggest snow jobs perpetuated in the last number of years. They say that Bill C-15 is "an Act respecting investment in Canada" and that its short title is Investment Canada Act. I suspect more appropriate titles would be: sell-out Canada act, warehouse Canada act, fifty-first state Canada act, or perhaps even harlot Canada act, as a harlot does not even begin to negotiate or to bargain for a price. It is simply a giveaway situation.
The other day when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was in the United States, he was saying that Canada is now open for business. I suspect he was trying to say that Canada is now for sale, that all those folks could now come in, that the floodgates have been opened once again, that we want to sell off more of our resources and that we want to give more of our industry to foreign control.
It is important for Members of the House to recognize that in the manufacturing sector alone-and we all know that it is the critical sector of our economy in terms of jobs-52 per cent is owned and controlled by foreign interests. I ask any Member to stand in the House and say what country in the world would tolerate 52 per cent of its manufacturing sector being controlled by decisions being made in another country. The decisions made in terms of our manufacturing industry are not made in Canada. They are made in Houston, Texas, New York, London, Berne, Hamburg, Tokyo and Hong Kong. This Government says, "Shucks, that isn't enough; we have to have 60 per cent or 70 per cent foreign ownership of our critical manufacturing sector". I have heard members of the Conservative Party say that this will create jobs or job opportunities in Canada.
I come from an area of British Columbia which not many years ago had a very viable agricultural sector. There were miles, miles and miles of large tomato farms. There were processing plants, apple orchards and asparagus farms. There were hundreds and hundreds of jobs. Then they decided that they should sell off these operations to foreign buyers. They said that it would be good for the local economy to sell that agricultural sector to foreign entrepreneurs because it would encourage development in that sector. When we drive through those same valleys today, there are no tomato farms, no asparagus farms, no producing orchards, no packing plants, no processing plants. Those foreign purchasers bought the land and the plants, closed down the operations, and now import into the area from the United States and other sectors outside the central British Columbia region. It has meant that hundreds and hundreds of jobs have simply evaporated.
Investment Canada Act
Just a few weeks ago one of the major employment centres in my constituency owned by a Florida firm closed down its Canadian subsidiary because it was in the best interests of the Florida-based operation. Now 450 people are collecting UI. That is part of the result of foreign control of the economy.
Today we are discussing in the House of Commons a Bill which the Government has the courage to call "Investment Canada Act".


David Orlikow: Audacity.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Audacity, as my colleague says. That is probably close to the truth. While we discuss this Bill to attract more foreign investment and more foreign control of the economy, as knowledgeable parliamentarians we all know that the manufacturing sector is 51 per cent foreign owned, the rubber sector is 98 per cent foreign owned, the agricultural machinery sector is 51 per cent foreign owned, the transportation equipment sector is 92 per cent foreign owned, the electrical apparatus sector is 70 per cent foreign owned, and the chemical industry is 71 per cent foreign owned. One could go on and on identifying each and every economic sector, only to find that between 50 per cent and 99 per cent of it is owned and controlled now by foreign interests.
If this were the United States Congress and we were debating the problem which the country faces, this Chamber and the Galleries would be jam-packed. We would be hearing some of the most emotional and intense speeches as Members of Congress rose to defend industries and jobs in their communities across the United States.
The Government says it has a great idea. It feels that if it makes more decisions regarding our economy in foreign capitals, it will be in the best interests of Canada and Canadians. The logic of this Bill escapes me, as does its approach to job creation and economic development. I will state a number of reasons why.
Something this country requires more than anything else if we are to compete in international markets and develop a viable manufacturing sector is more research and development in this country. This is a peculiar situation. The Government has just introduced measures to cut back on government sponsored and government encouraged research and development through to production. What happens when a great sector of the economy is controlled by foreigners? We need only look at the data. It makes it very clear.
For example, for companies with less than 50 employees, Canadian companies spent 11.2 per cent on R and D, whereas foreign companies spent 3.3 per cent. For large companies with more than 500 employees, Canadian companies spent 8.3 per cent on R and D over sales, whereas foreign companies spent only 2 per cent.
It is perfectly clear that foreign branch plants do not spend the same amount of money on research and development as do Canadian domestic firms. It stands to reason. In a trans-

December 12, 1984
Investment Canada Act
national operation, where is the likely place for most of the research and development to take place? In a distant branch plant or in the parent head office? Of course it will be back in the parent plant.
There fs a real need for Canada to expand its market opportunities. I would ask Members who are present a simple question: Where will the initiative to expand into new and, in particular, overseas markets originate? Will it originate in the branch plant in Canada or will it flow out of the parent company in the United States, Japan, Europe or wherever? The answer is perfectly clear. The branch plant is not here because this is the base of international operations. It is to serve a domestic or regional market within Canada, not as a major launching pad for foreign operations.
It is clear that research and development is not going to take place in firms that are foreign owned and controlled. In terms of creating more jobs, it is not there in terms of this Bill. FIRA is not something that somebody dreamed up one afternoon and decided to impose on the people and industries of Canada. For years and years in this country the problems of foreign investment were well known. Report after report documented the difficulties faced by a country which has so much foreign investment and foreign control over its economy.
In 1974 it was decided to put together a mechanism so that when an outside agency wished to enter Canada, participate and invest in the Canadian economy, it would have to demonstrate that that would result in some net gain to Canada and Canadians. As a mechanism, I do not think anybody could argue with that. If a firm wanted to come to Canada from which there would be no net gain to Canadians, why would we need it here? If it can demonstrate by entering Canada with its investment that there will be a net gain in terms of research and development, job creation and economic expansion, so be it.
That is why FIRA was introduced in 1974. Time after time we in this Party criticized that it had many shortcomings, that it was too secretive, too costly for some firms because of all the red tape through which they had to dodge and weave, and that the processing of applications was unnecessarily long. There were problems associated with it, but the response was not to emasculate this process. It was not to throw it out and put up a sign that we in this country are now for sale.
Let us recognize the problems and deal with them. The members of the New Democratic Party have often called for more appropriate foreign investment in our country. We said that if Japanese auto industries were going to come into Canada, sell vehicles, make large profits and take them to Japan, they should invest in this country. We said that if they were going to take profits out of Canada, they should create jobs as a result of investment in this country, building some Canadian content into those vehicles. We have been advocating that for a long time.
Since its inception in 1974, FIRA has received thousands and thousands of applications. In the last handful of years, about 98 per cent of those applications have been approved. I wonder how many legitimate mature firms have actually considered FIRA to be a major hurdle to their plans to invest in Canada. I do not think there is much hard data to indicate that there are large numbers of firms that would have invested in Canada if they did not have to go through this little streamlining system before they could enter.
Every industrialized western nation has its own version of FIRA, including the United States. As we stand here today and debate this Investment Canada Bill, there are 21 Bills before Congress, all of which can be called protectionist Bills. They are non-tariff barriers to restrict foreign investment in the United States.
The amount of Canadian production related to foreign controlled investment in Canada amounts to about 34 per cent on an annual basis. In the United States it is not 34 percent, but 3 to 4 per cent of American production as a result of foreign controlled enterprises in that country. The U.S. has all kinds of concerns about that 3 to 4 per cent. There are all kinds of protectionist measures that it is debating today. All sorts of groups are watching this foreign involvement in their economy.
We heard in this House today the concerns of the forest industry in the United States. They are considering imposing lumber quotas or countervailing duties on Canada. We have gone through the steel industry and the copper industry in terms of their concerns about foreign imports.
In the United States, 3 to 4 per cent of its production is from foreign owned firms, whereas in Canada it is 34 per cent. Our response is to throw open the gates even more. We want more foreign involvement, more foreign investment. We in the New Democratic Party are not convinced that this is in the best interest of Canadians. This will not create the 1.5 million jobs that are required in our country today.
I want to go through some specifics in terms of FIRA. A great many myths have been perpetuated in the last while. We have looked around for a bogeyman, something on which to blame our economic woes. Instead of blaming the past Liberal Governments' ineptness in terms of developing a sound economy that reflects the realities of the 1990s, we picked out FIRA as the culprit. This is going to be changed and we are going to invite more foreign investment than any single industrialized nation in the world, more foreign investment and control than in many developed countries. The new Government says this will work, creating the necessary confidence, investment and jobs. It is a little bit like Peter Pan. Peter Pan said: "Anyone can fly if he just believes it. If you believe it strong enough and long enough, you too can fly". The Peter Pan approach is a Conservative approach to economic development.
Let us look at some of the facts regarding foreign investment in Canada. The approval rate for FIRA applications over the past two years has been between 95 per cent and 98 per cent. Less than one-half of those approved foreign takeovers intended to increase investment or provide any new jobs. Since the beginning of 1984, 16 per cent of those approved takeovers
December 12, 1984

promised neither new jobs nor new investment. That is the result of FIRA: no new jobs and no new investment.
Canada has more foreign ownership and control per capita than any other industrialized nation and more than a large number of developing nations. Canada imports more duty-free finished manufacturing goods, excluding automotive goods, than the United States, Japan and the European Economic Community combined. That was indicated by a Science Council of Canada report that gives us an idea of the amount of finished goods that come into our country.
When there is a domestic Canadian firm and a foreign-owned and controlled firm, one finds that the foreign-owned and controlled firm purchases four times as many imported manufacturing goods for its operation than does the Canadian domestic firm. That is simply because that is where its connections are. They go back to their colleagues in the United States, Japan, Europe or southeast Asia. Canadian firms look to Canadian colleagues to find out where they can obtain parts and supplies for their operations. In other words, they have some sense of obligation, if you like, to source their goods and supplies from Canadian suppliers. Foreign firms have not demonstrated that in the past.
We in the New Democratic Party have faith in Canadians. We believe that Canadians ought to be given some priority.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: We believe that Canadians now have the highest level of savings that has ever been experienced in Canadian history.


An Hon. Member:: And the highest level of unemployment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is right. The observer says that we have the highest level of unemployment. We feel that the way to get Canadians back to work is to provide jobs in Canadian firms using Canadian money.
We have faith in Canadians. For example, we would like to look at RRSP money and find ways to generate that money into new investments. We would like to find a whole set of new mechanisms to provide Canadian savers with an opportunity to invest in Canadian entrepreneurial enterprises.
Government Members opposite say that Canadians will not solve our problems for us, we have to look to Hong Kong, Japan, Texas, the United Kingdom and Germany. We would like to look to those countries as well and we welcome their investment, but we have faith in Canadians. We believe that Canadian men and women can get our economy back on track. We have the knowledge, the expertise, the training, the capital and the entrepreneurial spirit. What we need now is a government that has faith in the people of the country and stops looking to some foreign country for the answer. We need a government that says to the Canadian people: "We have faith in you and we are going to provide the mechanisms to mobilize Canadian capital and not foreign capital to create jobs for Canadian citizens".
Investment Canada Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). His thinking is much analogous to that of a pocket gopher. He believes that if one piles the dirt high enough, one can believe that the rest of the world does not exist.
Since the Hon. Member used the United States as an example many times, I would like to ask him why it was that until 1886, the predominance of capital in the U.S. was European and mostly British. It was that investment into the United States that provided the base from which Americans could develop their industrialization and the ability to stand alone. Is the Hon. Member taking the view that it does not matter whether or not capital is foreign? Where can he raise the capital that does not come from some kind of process of development? Is he simply planning to tax from nothing to create something from nothing?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) that in spite of the best intentions of most cattlemen in his part of Canada, those pocket gophers persist and stay. They stay around for a long time, and I suspect the Hon. Member had better get used to that concept because they will stay for the next few years.
To reply specifically to the Hon. Member's question, I would say that I think it is perfectly clear that capital is required to get enterprises launched and under way. There has been and still is a role for the Japanese auto industry to play, and I think I referred to that specifically in my speech. My Leader has often advocated Japanese investment in the auto industry of this country. However, if they are going to take profits back to Japan, we would like to see them create jobs in this country. We have advocated that since the very beginning of the overseas auto industry.
There has always been a place for foreign investment in a growing economy. However, my concern is that there tends to have been a shift in understanding and emphasis away from Canada to the foreign markets. It perturbs me when I hear the Prime Minister of Canada, after having such an overwhelming mandate just given to him, going to the United States on bended knees begging American investors to come into this country and saying that we are now open for investment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I hear Hon. Members guffawing and laughing. Surely the Prime Minister is saying that Canadian enterprises are for sale to Americans more than they ever were before. When I look at the track record of what has happened in the country, I see that most of the purchases in the last number of years have not resulted in new jobs or new R and D, but have been in the form of mergers and takeovers.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Seventeen billion dollars left the country. What are you going to do about it?

December 12, 1984
Investment Canada Act


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, $17 billion left the country. We are very concerned about that $17 billion because the former Government created a climate that made it impossible for anyone with any sense-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With your help.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Our concern has always been that an investor in this country, large or small, had no idea where the country was going. Policies changed week by week, month by month. We are trying to build some sense of confidence and direction into the economy. Quite frankly, we do not need to have foreigners solve our problems for us. We do not have to go on bended knee to the United States and other countries asking for help. We in the New Democratic Party have faith in the people of Canada. We can help ourselves. We will need foreign support at times but we can do it ourselves and that is our first priority.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) what he would do under the following circumstances, a real example of what happened with a FIRA application. I know about it because my company was involved. We made contact with what I will call a northern European company from a northern European country that had some technology that we felt was usable in the Canadian market. In fact, everyone who saw the product said that it would be great, would help the environment, would help energy costs and would reduce costs in their operations. They said they would like to have it.
Representatives of the company came to Canada and we met with them here. Then representatives from our company went over there and we had meetings over there. We spent thousands of dollars between us. Then they heard about FIRA. In spite of the fact that I was a Member of Parliament and told them that more than 90 per cent of FIRA applications were passed, we could not change their mind. They said that they had spent all this money and that they knew what their technology would do. They said that it would work in the Canadian market. It was a joint venture which we were working on, but there was no way they would place an application before a bunch of bureaucrats who would make the decision as to whether or not it should go ahead. It was technology which had never been used before in Canada. It was a breakthrough. As well, negotiations had been held with respect to exporting the technology into the northern part of the United States. However, we could not under any circumstances convince that company to come to Canada. It would not come to Canada if it had to go before a government review board. On top of that, there was considerable cost involved. We had both spent several thousands of dollars on travel, engineering analysis, purchasing analysis and so forth. In spite of that, the company said that it would not put an application before a government agency.
I say to the Hon. Member that there are thousands and thousands of instances which are similar to this one that would
mean jobs for Canadians. We have not got all the brains in this country. We have a lot of them. But, there is technology in other countries which we could use. What would the Hon. Member do under those circumstances?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, to answer that question one would have to look at the co-sponsor of the application. I stand on the position which I mentioned at the outset of my speech. First, I do not think that the data he suggests exists or that thousands and thousands of legitimate enterprises were scared away by the FIRA process. I would like to see evidence. I have never seen any hard evidence. All I have heard are rumours and tell-tale. If there is evidence, I would ask the Hon. Member to present it to me.
If a legitimate firm were to enter the United States, Australia or other countries, it would go through a similar kind of process. Nobody walks into a country any longer and simply invests in that country. There are virtually no countries where that kind of behaviour takes place. If Members opposite can list those countries, I would ask them to stand in their places and tell me what countries would allow entrepreneurs to walk in without going through any screening process. I challenge them to identify those countries.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) continually tries to perpetuate the fear of foreign companies investing in Canada. I want to ask him- the same Member who talks of his great faith in Canadians- what fear he has with respect to Canadians investing in the rest of the world? Why is it that he wants this nationalist attitude, which would build walls around us and prevent us from getting out in the world? I come from a province which has one of the greatest exports. It is not a tangible product. It is the technology of thei oil industry. The Province of Alberta is one of the world's great marketers of oil technology. It not only creates jobs in western Canada, but it ultimately leads to the manufacturing industries of central Canada. Why is he so frightened and fearful of a world which has a bigger market, if at the same time he claims to believe in Canadians? Why does this Member believe that Canadians cannot compete in the international world and that we must build false walls around us? Why is he so frightened of the capacity of Canadians that he would give such a horrible speech about building walls? Are Canadians of no value?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear, as I did earlier, that we need research and development to allow Canadians to expand in international markets. The Hon. Member can read my speech tomorrow. Obviously he did not hear me when I mentioned that very fact. It is important to do that. If we are going to do that, we will need more research and development. The data tells us that the foreign firms which operate in Canada do not do the same amount of research and development as do Canadian firms. As a matter of fact, Canadian firms do four times the amount of research and development compared with that of their foreign colleagues. That is the point I am trying to make. If we are going to develop overseas markets and if we are going to look at
December 12, 1984

foreign opportunities, we must have more R and D through to production. We must also become much more aggressive. Branch plants, by definition, are not aggressive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated.
[Translation\


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, is actually the first piece of legislation introduced by this Government. Parliament, business, labour, in fact everyone has been waiting to see what this Government's trademark will be and what approach it will take to cope with our country's problems, and also what kind of legislation it is going to introduce to reflect the promises made during the election campaign.
Mr. Speaker, the first major Bill introduced by a government, any government, is always a sign of how it intends to keep its promises and meet its commitments, not only as a responsible administrator but also as a government that is prepared to meet commitments it has made to the people.
Before examining in greater detail the principles contained in this Bill, I first want to make my position perfectly clear. First of all, I believe that generally, foreign investment can make a positive contribution to economic development, job creation and the transfer of technology. Second, I also believe that in an economy like ours where we need foreign markets to sell our products or at least a substantial part of our national production, we cannot afford to close our doors entirely to investment, especially from those countries to which we sell a substantial part of our national production, which means jobs for Canadians.
Third, I believe that, generally, and in the long run, a market economy has a better chance of increasing the optimum use of available resources than a controlled economy, which always generates a bias, inconsistencies and distortions which, in the final analysis, are counterproductive.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that since the early 70's, 1 have always been rather impatient with nit-picking controls that tend to discourage bona fide investors from coming to this country. I am from a province that constitutes both a linguistic and a cultural minority in North American terms, and usually, the foreign investment we get speaks English. However, we have often noticed that investors from outside Canada are often more sensitive to Quebec's specific problems than investors coming from other parts of this country, unfortunately.
Hon. Members will therefore understand that I have a tendency to qualify my position on control of foreign investment, more so than many other Members in this House, even the Members sitting on your right. However, Mr. Speaker, I must say that after reading Bill C-15, I was no longer worried about this, and I may say I shall have no hesitation in voting against the passage of second reading of this Bill. My main
Investment Canada Act
objection to Bill C-15 is that it is a lot of window-dressing. It is a clear indication of how this Government, which makes a virtue of just about anything, intends to govern this country from now. The documentation that was provided and the scenarios around the tabling of Bill C-15 told us enough about the way this Government, and especially the Prime Minister, intends to lead the country. With all the publicity, the whole performance, the managing of information, the actual contents of this Bill have been neatly sidestepped.
The image is what really matters, and this had been amply demonstrated by their approach. The scenario is quite simple because it is two-sided. The first side relates to the image that must be projected outside the country and, in that sense, the Ministers-on the heels of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in New York and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) in London-will go traipsing right and left and say: "Canada is now open for business".
But there is a second side which the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonnette) unveiled in answering a question recently, and it has to do with internal consumption. The Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) again confirmed it this afternoon. That is internal consumption. Ministers and Government Members will address chambers of commerce, labour unions and boards of trade to tell them that Bill C-15 has been introduced in the House to protect them and safeguard jobs. That is the answer given by the Minister of State (Small Businesses) to a question asked by one of my colleagues-Investment Canada will protect them.
So we have a two-sided scenario: one for the outside world and one for Canadians. They say that Canada is open to foreign investors but, in the same breath, they add that the bill is designed to protect us.
Mr. Speaker, this two-sided scenario reveals to what extent the strategy was more important than the contents. The reality is quite simple: the Bill now under consideration-and many people will be shocked to hear this-is designed to control foreign investments. Hon. Members to your right and others on either side of us here claim that this Bill is not a measure to control foreign investments, but that is precisely what it will do. That is why I cannot understand the questions put to some NDP Members as well as to some of my own colleagues who have made speeches.
Fifty-one out of 52 clauses in this Bill provide rules to control foreign investments. And then they tell us: "Canada is open for business".
When are we told the truth? Well, there's the rub, and that is why, Mr. Speaker, because of this deception, of this strategy of communication and management of information, I will vote against this bill.

December 12, 1984
Investment Canada Act
They dare pass off this Bill as a measure designed to promote investment. But which ones of my friends opposite have read the Bill? I urge them to examine that 32-page Bill in English and in French. In a clause dealing with investment are set forth the Minister's powers. Five paragraphs refer to the promotion of Canadian investments. But, Mr. Speaker, what is the underlying principle of every paragraph taken separately, for instance:
5(a) encourage business investment by such means and in such manner as the Minister deems appropriate;
Mr. Speaker, as a pious wish, it is hard to beat.
5(b) assist Canadian businesses to exploit opportunities for investment and technological advancement;
Good heavens! Is this not already the responsibility of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). It should also be partly that of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who lays down the fiscal and tax policy.
5(c) carry out research and analysis relating to domestic and international investment;
What are they trying to tell us? It means that until 1984, before the introduction of that pompous Bill, nobody in the Government carried out any analysis.
5(d) provide investment information services and other investment services to facilitate economic growth in Canada;
Here again those are responsibilities that are well known and they already are outlined in the Statutes of Canada.
5(e) assist in the development of industrial and economic policies that effect investment in Canada;
5(0 ensure that the notification and review-
Mr. Speaker, I had already finished, and I kept going on. There is nothing left in this Investment Canada Bill, absolutely nothing that will have us believe that its title is anything but a scam.
Mr. Speaker, looking at all those questions, at the provisions of the Bill that refer to investment, I suggest this is nothing but statements of principle taking up about 15 lines, and not even full lines. Not even a third of a page, and that third of a page is divided between the French and English versions. Nothing else but general principles of that sort. Nothing in the remaining clauses of the Bill. They are nothing but a bill to control foreign investment. And I hope that our friends to your right, Mr. Speaker, will at least have the courage to say here in Canada what they will be saying outside our borders.
I submit that this legislation flies in the face of the messages, the signals-to use the favourite Progressive Conservative words-the signals sent outside, especially by the Prime Minister during his trip to New York.
I submit that this legislation also flies in the face of the comments made by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) when he spoke in this House on second reading.
Mr. Speaker, the signal sent out by the Prime Minister in New York is that of a false alarm. Those who have read or heard the New York speech will be under the impression that they can now come to Canada and take over a business without anybody asking them any question. Well, Mr. Speaker, such is not the case. Each one of those foreign investors will have to submit an application to that renamed agency, because somebody will have to consider whether this is acceptable or not. And if this comes under the new agency's regulations, additional forms will have to be submitted. And the questions asked earlier from our friend, the NDP Member, are of course pointless. Those people have not read the legislation. They know not what they are talking about.
Also, among the changes referred to in the legislation, there are some that will make the process less functional, and in one way because of them the new screening agency will appear to be more suspicious, and more ambiguous, and will turn out to be more vague, more difficult to administer. After being openly critical of FIRA, the Progressive Conservative Government reverses its position, as it has done in many other instances, and takes an initiative which suggests to the people that foreign investment control will disappear completely even though this is not the case.
Mr. Speaker, in most of their speeches Members of the Opposition have dealt to a large extent with the scenario, the message to the public, because, and I think this is easy to understand, in a public debate, those who read the newspapers and hear the speeches have not all read the Bill. It is our duty as Opposition members to reply to the public statements made by the Government and not to fall for the scenario put forward by our friends opposite.
The control of foreign investment will still exist. It will now come under the jurisdiction of the new tzar, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Changes have been made, but these are unexplainable major backward steps with regard to chapter 46 of the 1973 statutes. For instance, I quite agree that the waiting period should be shorter. However, how can we solve relatively complex problems if there is automatic withdrawal after 75 days, even in complex cases or for applications involving other areas? I took part in discussions on this matter, and once the 75 day period expired, the Minister will have no other choice but to say no, or else the investor will have to make a new application.
Here is another backward step. A single Minister will be totally responsible for saying yes or no to major investments. In my opinion, this is nonsense, especially in view of the fact the Minister responsible under the Act has not given any evidence of great judgement in the past.
This is also a backward measure when compared with the previous legislation on FIRA as it blurs the considerations upon which the Minister will base his decision.
December 12, 1984

Mr. Speaker, can this Government assure us that the application of sections 20 and 21 will be subject to the assessment of the Auditor General to determine whether the conditions under which a foreign investment was accepted were truly met in view of the fuzzyness of this Bill?
Mr. Speaker, I must conclude my comments as my allotted time has run out, but I wish to thank you and to say that I shall have no hesitation in voting against this Bill at the second reading stage. 1 do not want to be involved in such deception.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. I recognize the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the previous speaker what is going on in the Liberal Party. Are they trying to argue both sides of this question? On one hand they are opposed to the gutting of FIRA by the Conservative Party, and on the other hand they are putting up speakers to say that the Conservatives have not gone far enough. This was a problem during the last election. No one knew where that outfit stood. Their track record and performance was abysmally bad. I do not think that many Parties in the history of Canada have ever taken such a beating at the polls as this particular organization did. That was due to exactly the same kind of performance as the one we saw from the previous speaker. Some of the Members are arguing on one side of the question, condemning the Conservative Party for gutting FIRA and failing to provide protection for Canadians, and the Member who just spoke, who I guess represents the real conservative wing of the Liberal Party, says that the Government has not gone far enough.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has the floor.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I imagine that you will leave the strategy of the Liberal Party to us.
As this bill deals with domestic consumption on the one hand, and foreign consumption on the other, we have decided to denounce it on both counts. We shall not allow this imposture to be swallowed by public opinion in Canada, and there are certainly others among my hon. colleagues who have fought and will continue to fight against it by responding to the public relations job the Prime Minister has done in the House and the statements the President of the Treasury Board has made and the press releases he has published following his return from London, Germany and France, and I suggest we should respond to this aspect. There is also the technical aspect of the legislation on which I have focused my attention.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the comments of the Hon. Member in that they appear to agree with the comments I made during my intervention to the effect
Investment Canada Act
that this Bill does not eliminate the controls at all. It only modifies them. Almost all of the criticism of this Bill to date has misrepresented that concept and given the impression to the public and the media that this Bill is wiping out all controls over foreign investment. The Hon. Member has made it quite clear that this Bill does not do that. It only modifies the control system. It relaxes it somewhat, but leaves a control system in place to screen foreign investment.
What is the Hon. Member's view of this type of legislation?
I get the impression that he would like to see a complete elimination of all controls on foreign investment. Perhaps he could enlighten me if that is his view.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, if that were the objective of the Government, why did the Hon. Member not tell the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to tell the American citizens the truth? Why did he not ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) to tell the truth when he went to London? Many Members of the House have made that type of visit in the past. They have heard the questions. Why are the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board touring the world, with great publicity, making people believe that the controls do not exist any more?

As far as the second part of the question is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I for one believe that there should be controls of foreign investments in several areas of activities, especially those involving culture, high technology, key sectors of the economy, and I would certainly be outraged to see a corporation such as Canadair, in the riding next to mine, sold to foreign interests, because we have there a wealth of technology which has cost millions of dollars to the Canadian public to develop, and it would be a shame if it were to fall under the control of other countries which could eventually shut it down. I feel therefore that there should be controls in the areas of high technology which we have developed ourselves and where we have a comparative advantage. That is why I said a while ago that some of the amendments to the current legislation are major steps backward, compared with the provisions of Chapter 46 of the 1973 Statutes, and I could not support such amendments.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few things.
After listening to my hon. colleague, I realize-and I hope backbenchers opposite realize it too-that this two-faced government speaks with a forked tongue, for while the Minister of State in charge of Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) says one thing to Canadian businessmen, the Prime Minister says the opposite to their American counterparts in the United States.
I would like my hon. colleague to comment on this, Mr. Speaker. How is it possible to know when and where the government is telling the truth? It has been the same in all areas ever since it was elected and assumed power. The Prime

December 12, 1984
Investment Canada Act
Minister said something in New York, the "executioner" from the Treasury Board did the same in London, and we have here a bill that says something else . . . Therefore, how is it possible to know when the government is telling the truth?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the Hon. Member's question, but I am strongly against this legislation because the government has shown itself to be two-faced these past few weeks.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for his reaction to the following quote from the U.S. Senate Committee in 1981. It reads:
Much of our trade-
That is American trade.
-with foreign countries originates with orders placed by the subsidiaries of U.S. companies located overseas. For example, 75 per cent of our exports to the 300 largest companies in Canada originates from the subsidiaries of U.S. firms.
Could the Member comment on that kind of statement with regard to how it relates to his comments on the Bill?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that I have too much experience to comment a statement that is quoted out of context, and before I can state my opinion in this regard, I wish to read the whole document and make a judgment. Listen, I was not born yesterday.


Mr. Bissonnette:: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) says that we have no rights to examine investment such as Canadair, I hope that given the size of that investment, the company will sell at a price that will give us some rights. And when he quotes the Minister of State (Small Businesses) and deals with the impact on the small business sector, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that all Canadian small businesses will benefit from Investment Canada, because all new investments that will be made in Canada and that will develop new projects will benefit small businesses, whether in the construction or the service industry, and that is what we are looking for. Thus, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) must not be in the game, he must have improperly read his notes to realize-


An Hon. Member:: Will you repeat slowly, he will understand, he is here.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, given the wording of the member's question, it would be quite difficult for me to answer it because, in fact, it does not have any logical lead and I do not see how I could answer a question about small business that relates to Canadair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are over.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share some of my thoughts on the legislation before us today. The Bill before us today deals with an extremely important aspect of the Canadian economy. The rhetoric which the Government has put forward with respect to foreign investment is identical to that of the Conservative Governments across Canada that have been in power for some time.
I recall that when the Conservatives won the election in Saskatchewan, Premier Devine put out the call that Saskatchewan is open for business. Promptly, unemployment and the deficit went up and some very undesirable events occurred in the economy. That is a matter of record, not rhetoric.
The situation has been abysmally bad in British Columbia. Premier Bennett has used the same kind of rhetoric. He has invited foreign investors to come to British Columbia with a program very similar to what the Conservative Government here is attempting to put into place today. That province's economy is a complete disaster.
This is a serious situation and the Conservative Government should re-examine the program it is proposing today. Such a program has not worked at the provincial level because the Conservatives take an ideological approach rather than implement a clear program.
There have been some interesting examples of foreign investment given in the House today. Let us review the course that foreign investment in Canada has taken. For instance, Canada has more foreign ownership and control per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world. Our resources land our manufacturing is controlled by an outside agency and we cannot set our own goals or become involved in our own economic planning for the benefit of Canadians and our economy in the long run.
The Conservative Party has chosen to take a hands-off approach to the Canadian economy. It would rather have managers in the United States and other countries managing our economy than Canadian entrepreneurs who have ties to this country-


An Hon. Member:: You don't know what an entrepreneur is.


Raymond John Skelly: There was a quick shot from a Member across the floor who suggests we do not know what an entrepreneur is. I suggest to him that, as a result of the action of their soulmates from British Columbia, entrepreneurs in that province are desperately looking for an alternative to the Conservative approach. I suggest that in five years they will begin to wonder what an entrepreneur is because entrepreneurs will not support those Members as a result of these measures.
A number of examples have been given today, but one involves a number of small businesses in Vancouver that are involved in waste disposal. Those small entrepreneurs were handling the market, creating employment and buying equipment in Canada. When two large American firms were allowed into the waste management market through FIRA,
December 12, 1984

they immediately began to drive the small Canadian entrepreneurs out of the market. They gave long-term contracts at very low cost, with which the small entrepreneurs were unable to compete. Those contracts were so far below the cost of delivery of that service that complaints were made with Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Canada. However, FIRA had already approved their entry and it was too late to assist the small entrepreneurs.
Canadian businessmen are being driven out of business by foreign investment. There is a definite and identifiable loss of employment as a result of foreign investment.
Furthermore, the business practices that are being brought into play in that market are unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the Canadian entrepreneurs who have invested and employed people in Vancouver. That is just one example. Members opposite should be looking at protecting those entrepreneurs instead of introducing legislation that will gut Canadian businesses and put this country on the block.
Canada imports more duty-free, finished manufactured goods, even excluding automotive goods, than do the United States, Japan and the European Economic Community combined. That fact comes from the Science Council of Canada report. Of course, those products are not manufactured by Canadians. It sets up an extremely negative flow in the balance of payments from this country. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) has identified the problem, but the ideological fixation has prevented the Government from finding a solution to it. It is an extremely serious problem.
With an increasing number of branch plant foreign investment in this country, we will see those companies servicing a Canadian market with American and imported goods. That is a simple matter of fact. However, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) cannot go to the United states fast enough. Before introducing this Bill in Parliament, he is down in the United States to sell his wares.


Arnold John Malone: Hear, hear!


Raymond John Skelly: He is down on bended knee trying to sell out Canada. Of the top 50 companies in Canada, the greatest number of lost jobs over the past two years has been from U.S. owned companies. If they want to retrench in the United
Investment Canada Act
States in order to contain employment and economic opportunity in that country, they will certainly shut down the branch plant competition in Canada and attempt to pump their manufactured goods through their agencies.
It is purely a matter of re-inventing the wheel. The Government is going to go through this route once more, with the result that Canadians will not control their country and their economy. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) wants that to happen. He does not want Canadians to have control over their economy. He wants to sell this country out and cannot do it fast enough. He and the Prime Minister look good.
In 1983, Canada had a deficit of $9.4 billion in interest and dividend payments. Since the record began in 1926, Canada has been a net exporter of interest and dividend funds. This is the reality of this legislation. It reflects the attitude and philosophy of the Conservative Government in this country. It only makes sense that if foreign investors are allowed to invest here without scrutiny, they will attempt to maximize their profit and remove as much money from Canada as possible. They will be able to draw some rather exorbitant interest rates as a result of borrowing from the foreign parent corporation. In the pay-back to the American corporation, anything they take out of Canada will go into dividends.
One of the major scams that appears to have happened in the past is that if a foreign company can buy a Canadian firm in a captive market situation, it can produce the raw material in Canada. It will produce the raw material in Canada, sell it to the U.S. firm at or below the cost of production, and the Canadian company will continue to show a loss. Certainly, no tax will be paid. Ultimately, any loans paid out will have to be covered with interest payments to the United States. This means an outflow of Canadian funds.
I see you rising, Mr. Speaker. I will be more than happy to begin again tomorrow.
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned.

Thursday, December 13, 1984