1984-12-13

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (for Mrs. McDougall) moved: that Bill C-10, an Act respecting the interpretation of Canada's international conventions relating to Income Tax and the Acts implementing such conventions, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-10 is to enshrine in the Statutes a number of rules for interpreting Canada's conventions relating to income tax. The general rules relating to the interpretation of treaties are laid down in the Vienna Convention on treaty law. However, this Convention is concerned with treaties in general and does not deal with the problems peculiar to conventions dealing with double taxation. Most conventions entered into recently by Canada and other members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development are patterned after the OECD model convention of 1977 concerning double taxation. This convention is accompanied by an appendix entitled "Commentary" which also simplifies the interpretation of later conventions. However, it has now become necessary to provide for other rules as a result of the recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in Melford Development Inc. vs. the Queen.
In the Melford decision, the Supreme Court ruled that any terms and expressions in Canada's tax conventions that are not defined should be interpreted in accordance with the legislation existing at the time the convention was ratified and not according to the meaning they had at the time the taxable activity took place. In the case of older treaties, according to the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in the Melford case, taxpayers would have to know what certain terms meant at a given time, for instance in 1942, when the former tax convention between Canada and the United States was ratified. Furthermore, the same terms or expressions, but used in different conventions could, according to this interpretation, have a different meaning, depending on the date on which the tax convention in question was ratified.
The Supreme Court's interpretation was also contrary to the interpretation previously applied by Revenue Canada officials, who in the past had understood that, unless otherwise provided in the convention, the meaning of the terms used in our treaties would evolve with the changes being made in Canadian tax legislation.
This Bill is aimed primarily at ensuring, for the purposes of determining Canadian income tax, that the meaning of those terms and expressions in Canada's tax conventions that are not defined will evolve in terms of the changes made in Canada's tax legislation.
U0)
The Bill before the House today does not affect the interpretation of any terms that are already defined in a convention. It applies only when terms or expressions in a convention are not well defined or when the convention itself provides that the meaning of a term shall be determined, at least partly, according to the country's legislation.
Neither the OECD model convention nor the attached "Commentary" deal specifically with the issue raised in the Melford decision, that is, when the meaning of a term or expression is determined. The proposed legislation, however, does deal with this particular matter. It provides that, for the purposes of Canadian legislation, the terms used in a convention are to be interpreted according to the meaning they have in the Income Tax Act, as amended from time to time. For instance, if the matter concerns the income tax applicable to payment by a Canadian company, to a resident of a contracting country, of an amount that for the purposes of the Canadian tax system is considered to be a dividend, and if in the treaty the term "dividend" is to be interpreted as defined in Canada's tax legislation, the term "dividend" would, unless otherwise provided, be defined in accordance with the Income Tax Act at the time payment was made. The meaning of this term would then correspond to the meaning it would have under the legislation's provisions concerning dividends, as amended at that time.
The Bill provides that this interpretation rule shall not apply if other arrangements have been made, which would be the case, in the previous example, if the appropriate authorities of both countries had agreed on a specific definition of the term "dividend", as part of the mutual agreement procedure provided under most tax treaties. Nor will this rule apply if the

December 13, 1984
Income Tax Conventions
convention itself contains an exhaustive definition of the term "dividend". In that case, if there is a difference between the definition contained in the convention and that provided in the country's legislation, normally the convention's definition would prevail. Thus, the Bill would not affect the clause, generally designated as the treaty's notwithstanding clause or the incompatibility provision in the enabling legislation for all Canadian tax treaties, which provides that in case of incompatibility between the convention's provisions and the provisions of any other legislation, the provisions of the convention prevail. This rule is consistent with those applied by most other countries when interpreting tax treaties.
Bill C-10 also provides an interpretation rule for non-residents whose business activity in Canada is carried out through a permanent establishment. This rule will make it possible to ensure that non-residents determine their profits from a business activity attributable to that permanent establishment in accordance with the Income Tax Act regulations at the time of determination of income from a business activity. This measure ought to allay any and all concerns raised by the Melford ruling which states that non-residents may indeed claim that the meaning of profits under Canada's tax conventions does not include the meaning as defined in amendments to the meaning of benefits from a business activity under Canadian tax legislation passed after the adoption of the convention. This Bill will ensure that non-residents who do business in Canada will determine their profits the same way as taxpayers who do reside in Canada.
As well, Bill C-10 contains the meaning of certain terms found in most Canadian tax conventions. For instance, the meaning of the term "Canada" will be the same as in the Income Tax Act and specify that the term "Canada" includes the seabed adjacent to the Canadian coast which falls under the jurisdiction of Canada.
The Bill also defines the terms "immovable property" and "real property".
Most Canadian conventions include special provisions on immovable or real property. Generally speaking, they provide that the country where such property is located has the right to tax income from that property, including any capital gain from its sale. Those provisions will make it clear that, as used in the convention, the terms "immovable property" or "real property" refer to any royalty or profit from an interest in the property which, for the purposes of Canada's tax legislation, is considered to be a Canadian mineral asset. Those definitions are in accordance with those included in the new Canada-United States convention.
Finally, under Bill C-10, the preceding provisions will apply, in respect of tax deductions at source for non-residents, to payments made after June 23, 1983 when the former government first announced publicly its decision to introduce legislation on the interpretation of tax conventions in Canada. As for any tax other than the non-resident tax deducted at source, the provisions will apply to taxation years ending after June 23, 1983.
Mr. Speaker, the rules of interpretation contained in Bill C-10 are the same as the interpretation that Canada and the major countries with which it has signed conventions gave to conventions concerning double taxation before the Melford ruling.
Under the provisions of Bill C-10, there will be a standard interpretation of terms and expressions already used in many Canadian tax conventions. In other words, the interpretation will no longer be subject to change on the basis of the ratification date of a given convention. The Bill will also eliminate the need to renegotiate such conventions whenever an amendment is made to the meaning of a term under our tax legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the provisions of Bill C-10 have been the subject of long public debates. It was first introduced as a ways and means motion on July 23, 1983 and, after a few technical changes, on April 4, 1984. Those changes take into consideration the comments made by tax experts. Quick passage of this measure will remove uncertainties which still blur the interpretation of tax conventions.
I strongly urge all Hon. Members, concerned as they are with the efficiency of our parliamentary institutions, to support this Bill so that it may be adopted as quickly as possible.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to congratulate the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and my neighbour, the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier), for wanting to associate with a Liberal proposal. We have here a Bill that was introduced by the previous Government, and I understand that the Hon. Member is in complete agreement with the intent and the merit of this legislation.

There is not a great deal to say about this particular Bill. It is important in terms of allowing our domestic income tax to conform, on the one hand, to our international obligations and to ensure, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, that when there is an ambiguity or a lack of interpretation, no void is created; and, on the other hand, that international conventions are constantly kept up to date in terms of our current interpretation and the changes we may wish to implement through amendments to the Income Tax Act and laws in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, having said this, I would like to emphasize once more that this Bill and others now before the House are initiatives of the previous Government.
I simply want to encourage our friends opposite to tell the Canadian people that some of the Bills passed as a conse-
December 13, 1984

quence of the budget of the previous Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) were not only acceptable at the time, but are still valid.
In other words, the Budget of last February and the notices of Ways and Means motions which were tabled in this House pursuant to that Budget are obviously in keeping with what this current Government sees as being the requirements of the Canadian economy today. Obviously there will be some departures from the changes during the intervening period. What is significant here is simply that the Government of the day, and I deplore this, tends to be critical, to take positions and make representations in terms of its own rhetoric which are not substantiated by its actions.
Here we have an example of concrete action. It is not a particularly big Bill, but it is important. Again it is a Liberal Bill which was presented to this House as a Ways and Means motion. I would occasionally like to hear from the Government and spokesmen for the Government and acknowledgement of the fact that in nearly every area they are carrying through policies which were introduced into this House as matters of public policy by the preceding Government.
While we hear a lot of rhetoric from this Government in this area and many others, I want to make certain that the Government gradually comes around to ensuring that its rhetoric and actions correspond. If there is one thing that I and other members of our caucus have consistently noticed in the speeches not only in this House but outside this House, whether it be before the New York Economic Club, Chambers of Commerce in Canada or elsewhere, it is that more often than not the rhetoric we hear is not supported by actions. We hear a lot of criticism in this House about the economic policies of the preceding Government, yet the action that we see is the introduction of the same legislation and proposals which were part of the program of the preceding Government. I cite that as simply one more example in which the rhetoric does not correspond to the fact.
The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDer-mid) seems to agree with my point. If he does, I hope he will raise it in his own caucus and try to bring the rhetoric and actions of this Government into conformity.

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary. There is no reason to delay the proceedings this morning and I hope that this Bill will be passed today.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-10 and also to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on a very terse delivery, providing us with an overview of the points contained in this Bill, essentially urging us to give some hasty consideration to ensure that this Bill
Income Tax Conventions
passes as quickly as possible today. I can guarantee him that, as far as our Party is concerned, we will be doing just that.
I remind the House that this whole matter was first introduced in July, 1983 in a Way and Means motion. We have been waiting a long time to deal with something that presumably now requires some urgency. At that time it was also introduced with the indication that there was a necessity for passing this legislation quickly because of a number of problems associated with international tax agreements and understandings. It was brought forward again in the early part of this year and finally today we are dealing with Bill C-10.
Because of previous arguments, we certainly do not plan to provide any type of roadblock for this Bill. Basically it is a technical Bill. It is a Bill that in a sense attempts to approach the problem of the interpretation of international tax treaties and recognizes that, as times change and particularly as tax laws change, the need for updating these international tax treaties becomes rather paramount.
In the last four or five years we have seen a multitude of changes to the tax Act, particularly affecting non-Canadian citizens operating in Canada. They have been wondering and raising concerns with us over the last four or five years about a whole variety of questions. They want to know if they must deal with the tax laws as they are written today or with tax provisions as they existed when the tax treaties were introduced, be that 10, 20 or 30 years ago. There was an ambiguity and Bill C-10 attempts to sort out that ambiguity and provides as a law of the land that income tax laws which apply in the cases of tax treaties are the laws as they exist today and not on the day that the treaties were originally entered into. In a sense, this Bill clarifies for both the corporate sector and individuals operating here and abroad just exactly what tax laws are appropriate.
I suppose it was the Melford decision which brought this issue to a head and brought to the fore a whole variety of problems associated with international tax treaties. With that decision, the need for clarification became very obvious. Therefore, this new Bill C-10 will prevent confusion and disputes arising out of the interpretation of common terms such as "taxable income".
The part of the Bill that is most important in terms of future deliberations is the part which clarifies definitions, such as the definition of Canada. Presumably, many people would not find that definition to be particularly perplexing. However, the territories, the seas, the air space above the territories, the sea-beds and the subsoil resources are in fact categories of that definition which need to be clarified and specified. Bill C-10 clarifies beyond any doubt just what the definition of Canada is for the purpose of various tax treaties.
I would like to say that since July 23 when this issue was first introduced as a Ways and Means motion, we have been anxious to deal with this Bill. We look forward to its speedy passage through the remaining stages.

December 13, 1984
Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? There are no questions and comments for the first three speakers. Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) wish to speak on debate?


Mr. Fraser:: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to enter into the debate but I understand that there is a disposition in the House to move this Bill through all three stages.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Hnatyshyn for Mrs. McDougall, seconded by Mr. Fraser, moves that Bill C-10, an Act respecting the interpretation of Canada's international conventions relating to income tax and the Acts implementing such conventions, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Marcel Danis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-10, an Act respecting the interpretation of Canada's international conventions relating to income tax and the Acts implementing such conventions.
Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Hon. David Crombie (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-14, an Act to authorize the making of orders relating to the production of records and the giving of information for the purposes of proceedings in foreign tribunals, relating to measures of foreign states or foreign tribunals affecting international trade or commerce and in respect of the recognition and enforcement in Canada of certain foreign judgments obtained in antitrust proceedings, be now read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Marcel Danis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-14, an Act to authorize the making of orders relating to the production of records and the giving of information for the purposes of proceedings in foreign tribunals, relating to measures of foreign states or foreign tribunals affecting international trade or commerce and in respect of the recognition and enforcement in Canada of certain foreign judgments obtained in antitrust proceedings.
On Clause 2-Definitions


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I missed something. I thought that there would have been a government speaker on this Bill. I know we are now in committee, but I would appreciate hearing a government Member outline for the House the nature of the Bill. I believe that is the normal procedure.


Marcel Danis: We are now on Clause 2.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would like an explanation.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Chairman, I am rising to make two points. The first point is exactly the point made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. The Government ought to have someone at hand-and it is normally done at second reading-to tell the House about the Bill. Certainly I would echo the recommendation which came from my hon. friend on the other side of the House.
The second point is a point of order which deals with the reading of the motion. The motion on the Order Paper is to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. After the question had been put, Mr. Chairman, you said that the matter was referred to the Committee of the Whole. I suggest that someone is getting their wires crossed. In order to make this proceeding legal, the House should at some point unanimously adopt the motion saying that the matter should be referred to a Committee of the Whole rather than to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that we would appreciate hearing the comments of the Government about this Bill, and if I may suggest something in all humility, the House could perhaps adjourn for five or ten minutes to give the Government an opportunity to agree on this Bill so that it can explain it to us.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) tabled this bill and we are going to ask him for explanations on each clause, but there is no one here to reply to our questions. I would like the Government to make arrangements so that we may proceed logically.
December 13, 1984


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Chairman, as all Hon. Members have had the opportunity to read Bill C-14,1 feel that I only have to underline the importance of the Bill, not only to the Government but to all Members of the House and indeed the entire country.
As Members will note at the top of the first page, Bill C-14 calls for the authorization of the making of orders relating to the production of records and the giving of information for the purpose of proceedings in foreign tribunals, relating to measures of foreign states or foreign tribunals affecting international trade or commerce and in respect of the recognition and enforcement in Canada of certain foreign judgments obtained in antitrust proceedings.
Clearly, Mr. Chairman, for too long this country has been suffering as a consequence of not having the Bill in place. I believe the Minister of Justice should be congratulated, at such an early time in his career as Minister of Justice, for bringing the Bill forward. As the Minister has now entered the House, I know he would want to enlighten the House with further details.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (M40)


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Minister of Justice is in the House. I wonder if he could explain the import of Clause 2 to us, please?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could assist. Clause 2, of course, deals with the definitions and I am quite surprised that the Hon. Member would ask such a question. If he has not read the definitions, I query his serious understanding of the Bill.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a question. Under the definitions which he so kindly pointed out to us, a "tribunal" is mentioned. What sort of tribunal did the Government have in mind there? It mentions a court, body or authority, but what kind of tribunal did the Government really have in mind?


David Edward Crombie: The only kind of tribunal which one could have, Mr. Chairman, involves three people. If we wanted to have a "bi-bunal" it would involve two people. It is a tribunal; three people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, it is undoubtedly all right to be humorous for a time. However, this is an important matter. I understand that the Bill has been sponsored by the Minister of Justice, who is now in the House. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it would now be possible for the Minister of Justice to give us a proper, non-humorous explanation of what the Bill is all about.


Mr. Crosbie:: Mr. Chairman, as the Hon. Member has mentioned, this is a most important Bill and, of course, it gives
Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act
the lie to the canard that we are helpless in our admiration and love for another foreign nations and will do nothing to protect Canadian interests. This is a Bill which provides the Canadian Government with the possibility of taking avoiding action or blocking action if a foreign power passes legislation or its courts act in some way which interferes with our own sovereignty, or purports to exercise extraterritorial control in ways which might affect Canada.
The previous Government had a similar Bill before the House on several occasions but, as usual, it never got around to passing the legislation. It never had the courage of its convictions. It would not stand up to the United States of America and move the legislation through the House so it never did get to second reading or to Committee of the Whole. Now we have a Government which has the guts and the gumption to pass the kind of legislation which the previous Government threatened for years but did nothing about.
The Bill is a mechanism of last resort. It will come into effect if there are outstanding problems which arise principally from the extraterritorial application of U.S. law which U.S. and Canadian officials cannot handle in a satisfactory manner. We have an antitrust agreement entered into between Canada and the United States. It was signed on March 9, 1984. It provides a useful mechanism to manage problems which may arise from time to time in the antitrust area. That understanding provides for notification whenever U.S. antitrust investigations, or proceedings which affect Canada or Canadian interests, require the seeking of information located in Canada. Once there is notification, that may be followed by consultation.
Although this is a useful mechanism at the political level, it does not resolve the underlying jurisdictional differences. The United States antitrust law has not given up its claim for jurisdiction through what is known as the "effects doctrine". In other words, the United States may hold that a company engaging in conduct outside the United States may be subject to U.S. jurisdiction merely by virtue of the fact that that conduct has or may have some effect in the United States. That is not a doctrine, of course, with which we agree and it causes us problems from time to time. Therefore, we are asking the House to pass this Bill so we will have some muscle to back up our objections.
Another problem which is dealt with in the Bill is the question of foreign subpoenas issued for evidence located in Canada, particularly with respect to criminal matters. We are having discussions with the United States of America which will lead towards the conclusion of a treaty for mutual assistance in criminal matters. It is not concluded yet. That treaty will provide more extensive regular channels for the exchange of evidence between Canada and the United States in criminal matters. That being the case, once that treaty agreement is reached there will be less likelihood of subpoenas being issued in the United States which might have extraterritorial scope which we object to being exercised in Canada.
Another problem with which the Bill deals, Mr. Chairman, is with respect to export controls. I believe we all remember
1182

December 13, 1984
Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act
the Siberian pipeline regulations issued by the United States in 1982 which created problems. The issue here is that U.S. law purports to exercise control over foreign corporations which are U.S.-owned or controlled. We have no objection to having U.S.-owned or controlled foreign corporations investing in Canada. However, we do not want the subsidiaries ignoring our law or our policy and acting only in accordance with U.S. laws which purport to exercise control over subsidiaries in other countries. I think that particular episode demonstrated the necessity for the Government of Canada to have the necessary tools so that we can respond effectively should that be attempted again.
So what does the Bill do? It sets out a framework for Canadian governmental responses to foreign governmental measures or decisions by foreign courts which have unacceptable extraterritorial scope. Yes, we want foreign investment. Yes, we want a better relationship, and we have a better relationship with the United States of America as an example. However, that does not mean to say that we are not going to defend our own vital national interests or our own Canadian sovereignty, and that is what the Bill does. The Bill gives us some muscle to do that. The Bill sets out the framework for us to respond to foreign government measures, or decisions by foreign courts, which we find to have unacceptable extraterritorial scope.
Our domestic laws are not affected until the Attorney General of Canada issues specific orders under the legislation, Mr. Chairman. So the threshold which provides for the exercise of these powers is the opinion of the Government that the foreign measures or foreign court decisions are likely to affect adversely our commercial interests, or adversely affect Canadian sovereignty. The Bill is designed to enable us to protect our own national sovereignty in exceptional cases, after diplomatic efforts have been exhausted and irreconcilable policy differences remain.
I might point out to Hon. Members of the committee that the United States Government is aware of the introduction of the Bill and of the fact that this Bill is going forward. It accepts the fact that we have the right, of course, to ask the House to adopt such measures. I would like to point out as well that other countries-two examples being the United Kingdom and Australia-have passed similar kinds of legislation. In the United Kingdom it is known as the Protection of Trading Interests Act. It was passed in 1980. Earlier this year the Australian Parliament consolidated its legislation in this area which was passed first in 1976. It is called the Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Act. The Australian Parliament adopted it with all-Party support. Both the Australian and British legislation resembles the substance of what is now before the committee.
The legislation should be of assistance to our citizens or companies when there is a conflict between our law or policy and the law of a federal state. Where a foreign jurisdiction has a legal apparatus-such as this Bill will provide-enabling the foreign jurisdiction to issue an order that prevents compliance with U.S. law, the U.S. courts will generally recognize this as
a legitimate defence, which is known as "foreign government compulsion". We are one of the few countries which has a no legal apparatus at present, Mr. Chairman, to meet the challenge which U.S. court decisions have posed. In other words, those hon. gentlemen who were in power for most of the last 20 years left us, when they left power, with no legal apparatus to meet that challenge. We are meeting the challenge. We have the courage of our convictions to meet the challenge. We have the muscle and backbone to meet the challenge. We do not talk independence and sovereignty and do nothing, as the Liberal Party has done for the past 18 or 20 years. We are acting.


Mr. Dingwall:: Crosbie for leader.


John Carnell Crosbie: Cries of adulation will not stop me.


Mr. Orlikow:: Tell us what will; we want to know.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman has me stumped. I do not know of anything that can stop me, Mr. Chairman.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: How about an iceberg?


John Carnell Crosbie: Before I end, Mr. Chairman, there are three main provisions in the Bill. The three main provisions are Clause 3-


Ms. Mitchell:: Say it in French, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: Clause trois-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -which permits the Attorney General to issue orders that prohibit production from Canada of documents and related evidence to foreign tribunals which exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. So Clause 3 is an important clause.
Clause 5 authorizes the Attorney General to issue orders with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This Bill will be administered, of course, in co-operation with that Department, but under that clause the Secretary of State for External Affairs has to concur, and then an order can be issued to prohibit corporations in Canada from complying with foreign governmental measures with unacceptable extraterritorial scope. To make that provision more effective we can issue orders to Canadian corporations which are foreign-owned or foreign-controlled prohibiting compliance with directives they have received from their parent companies in cases where the parent company tries to implement the foreign government measure by issuing to them instructions.
Under Clause 8 the Attorney General would be permitted, if the House passes this legislation, to issue orders preventing enforcement or recognition of foreign antitrust judgments in Canadian courts where they have exercised unacceptable extraterritorial jurisdiction. The order can relate to either the full amount of the foreign antitrust judgment or to part of it.
December 13, 1984

As you know, in the United States of America you can get treble damages awarded in a private antitrust action, so the Attorney General might decide to block the enforcement of two-thirds of it. In any event, he can issue a blocking order for all or part of a judgment. Or, if the Canadian party has had to satisfy the foreign judgment in that jurisdiction, they can take action in Canada in a Canadian court to recover the amount paid abroad.
I must apologize for not being here, Mr. Chairman, when the Bill was first called, I was at an important committee meeting. Of course, as we all know, I cannot reveal the secrets of the Cabinet, at least not yet. It may be that in a few weeks' time we can all discuss Cabinet secrets wherever we may be. However, this particular item which affected my home province of Newfoundland was being discussed and I thought there was 10 minutes before the Bill was coming up in the House. But Members are moving so "celeriously" and with such efficiency and dispatch under the new administration that the Bill came up before the 10 minutes expired and I was not here when I should have been. I noticed the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in his usual capable manner, and being used to dealing with various jurisdictions across the country, was doing a splendid job. It is very appropriate that the Bill provides blocking orders because he was blocking for me down here.
If we enact this legislation, Mr. Speaker, the Government will have the kind of mechanism which will enable us to be effective in responding to foreign measures with unacceptable extraterritorial scope. As I say, similar legislation was prepared by the previous administration but it did not go through the House so I hope this Bill will be passed expeditiously. There are no current controversies under way at the moment, but in the past we have had several areas of considerable controversy where the United States in particular had taken some action with extra-territorial application in Canada and with which we have not agreed. So if Hon. Members pass this Bill we will have blocking mechanisms and will be able to support the principles we espouse with effective action. It points up the fact that while we are very keen on improving our relationship with the U.S., that does not mean to say that we are not Canadians first, last and always or that we are not concerned about Canadian sovereignty or our own country. We are Canadians first, North Americans next, citizens of the world after that and, of course, some Hon. Members go further than that and say we are citizens of the universe.
I have pleasure in asking Hon. Members to support the Bill and if there are any questions that I can attempt to answer, I will.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Chairman, I know the Minister wants the House to proceed "celeriously"-


Mr. McDermid:: That is easy for you to say!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -on this matter. Sorry, I only know the French translation for that, not the English word!
Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act
Would the kind of situation the Minister has in mind be something like this? Suppose a number of industries come to Canada as a result of Investment Canada. The American Congress or a tribunal or court makes a judgment in the future that American companies are not to trade with, let us say, Nicaragua. Does that mean the Canadian Government under this Act could force the Canadian subsidiary not to obey the American court or tribunal?


John Carnell Crosbie: The answer is yes, the Bill provides the power to the Government to prevent a situation where the foreign parent instructs its Canadian subsidiary to take action or not take action which is contrary to our own policy. For example, if the foreign parent instructed the Canadian subsidiary not to trade with Nicaragua but it was Canadian government policy that we should have normal trade relations with Nicaragua, then yes, we would be able to act and prevent the subsidiary from carrying out that instruction.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That does not go so far, though, as to require the subsidiary to trade? The subsidiary could still adopt the policy of its parent without really stating that as a policy?


John Carnell Crosbie: If there was any conflict between the Canadian law or policy in that situation with the foreign law or policy, our law or policy would be pre-eminent. Yes, they would have to trade or do whatever they were doing. Supposing they were already trading, if that company did not do business with Nicaragua, then I do not think we would say you have to do business with Nicaragua. But if they were already doing business with them, then they would have to disregard their parents' instruction not to do business with them.
[Translation}


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Chairman, it is truly embarrassing to see what the Government did this morning faced with a piece of legislation which is relatively serious and important, and I can understand that the Government backbenchers would be tempted to blush when they saw what happened. I also understand their complaints. They are ashamed of what happened and do not want us to talk about it. I therefore understand why they are moaning.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister responsible was not here; even though the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. Crombie) really tried to save face, we could see that the Government is not serious about this Bill. As usual, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) thought he had to give us a show and said that the previous Government had lacked courage. The previous Government tabled this Bill, and he, in his great wisdom, has suddenly had the courage to have it adopted. First, we could criticize his delay, his absence and his lack of knowledge about this Bill. I would like the Minister to tell us, clause by clause, what changes are contained in this Bill compared with the one tabled by the previous Government.
i 184

December 13, 1984
Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, there are no important changes of principle in this Bill, as I said when I spoke on the Bill. The difference is that we are asking the House to pass the Bill while the last administration never got around to doing that over a period of four or five years. There are no important changes in the Bill.


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Chairman, I would like first to comment on the suggestion made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) that the previous Government lacked courage. I would remind him that the American extraterritorial legislation only came into force a few weeks ago. And 1 do not see why one should hurry before ... I believe the previous Government introduced the bill intending to negotiate an agreement with the American government and ask them to withdraw the offending provisions in their own legislation, their own omnibus bill.
Besides, it is my view that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) should entertain a better historical perspective of the debate on extraterritorial involvement, rather than bragging about having solved a major issue single-handed. What he did was to recognize that the Americans could still have extraterritorial measures written in their statute books. And instead of enjoying their honeymoon and their increasing friendship with the Americans, and instead of asking them to withdraw such unacceptable measures, he sulks and says: Well, we will have in our own legislation the theoretical means to oppose the tendency of the Americans to meddle in the affairs of their Canadian subsidiaries.
But in fact, Mr. Chairman-and this I would like to hear from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie)-this is all very well between lawyers, and they could always say that it is in the law books. But in actual practice, even if the Canadian Minister of Justice says: American courts have no jurisdiction over subsidiaries in Canada, there is no reason to comply despite what the American head office might say.
Mr. Chairman, you know very well that one day the head office will get to its little Canadian subsidiary if it does not comply. And in my view, the problem is a lot more serious than what is implied by the Minister of Justice. I think the problem will be of increasing relevance in the coming months and years, once the American legislation is implemented, and there will be judgments with extraterritorial findings, and the only answer the Minister of Justice will be in a position to offer will be that Bill.
But to be practical, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice should have ensured that the United States will withdraw such a claim to extraterritorial action, rather than simply relying on that legislation. And I gather that the previous government had introduced the Bill to pave the way for negotiations. But when the American legislation was passed, our friends opposite
were happy instead of opposing the extraterritorial claims of the Americans.
I remember, Mr. Chairman, there were receptions at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, and there our representatives suggested they had achieved a great success. Well, if that had been such a success, we would have no need for this legislation, because the Americans would have been really pressured by their so-called friends opposite into withdrawing their extraterritorial claims. Why do they need laws in their books giving them the power to go sneaking abroad? And the response of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) does not amount to very much under these circumstances. 1 do not understand. I hope his position involves more than that. I hope our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), instead of consultations with the Minister of Justice, will have consultations with the American Secretary of State to ensure that Canada will never submit to the American extraterritorial claims.
Strictly speaking, this response is definitely not good enough in my opinion, and I would like to know what are the views of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) on this. Is this his final response to the United States' extraterritorial claims, or is it strictly part of the negotiation, or has he already thrown in the towel?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, I really cannot see how these comments require an answer. At the moment the position is that the Government has no legal weapons with which to block attempts by foreign countries to pass laws or use the courts in ways that have an extraterritorial effect here in Canada.
As a result of the passage of this Bill, the Government will have means by which to do that. Furthermore, at the present time there are no immediate issues that require us to have these particular powers; therefore, this is a very good time for the legislation to be passed, when there is no current controversy under way. We will therefore be reay if one does arise.
In the meantime, as I said in my earlier remarks, negotiations are going on in connection with the mutual treaty between Canada and the United States so that we can more effectively exchange information and evidence in the criminal area. Constant discussions are under way so that the problems will not arise. I hope that we will not have these kinds of problems in the future. If we do, this Bill will provide us with the means to take action to ensure that the extraterritorial effects to which we are opposed cannot occur in Canada.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) has not stated his position. Is it the Government's position at this point that it should let the sword of Damocles that hangs over the heads of all the American subsidiaries in Canada stand in the American statutes? Is the Canadian
December 13, 1984

Government opposed in principle and in practice to the extraterritorial provisions of the American Act? Does the Government intend to keep on demanding the withdrawal of the provisions in the omnibus bill, or is this his final answer? Will they keep on demanding that withdrawal, or will they simply respond with a kind of legislation that in the final analysis, will not prevent in practice the subsidiaries from crawling under the whip and control of the American head office?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, I must say that it is a bit confusing. If one could understand what the hon. gentleman was trying to get at, one could answer his question but it is a very muddled proposition. The hon. gentleman's question is quite muddled, but let me attempt to answer it. We have no power and no authority to stop the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the European Common Market or any country from passing laws that they wish to pass. However, we can object to certain laws if they have an effect on us that we find objectionable, if they attempt to have an extraterritorial effect on Canada, its citizens or corporations in Canada, or if they attempt to exercise some kind of control over subsidiaries of their corporations in our country. We can object to that and have done so in the past.
Now we are asking the House to give us some effective means of acting to prevent those effects from being carried out in Canada. This will be more effective than protesting and telling the United States or whoever that we do not want them interfering or instructing their subsidiaries in Canada to do things that are those countries' policies but are contrary to Canadian Government policy. We will have an effective means of stopping that and that is what the Bill provides.
The evil about which the hon. gentleman is concerned is one that we can address if this legislation is passed. We can effectively put an end to it rather than just protesting to the United States or other foreign countries. We will also have a means of blocking the consequences of the action in their own country. That enhances our sovereignty, which is our national identity. That is why we are asking the House to pass this Bill.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Chairman, what I am asking the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is this: Is it his view that the American extraterritorial claims are legitimate, yes or no?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, 1 suppose in the eyes of the United States they are legitimate. If we thought they were legitimate, then we would not be asking the House to pass this legislation. We believe companies that operate in Canada should obey Canadian law and policy. If Canadian law and policy is different in some respects from that of the United States, the United Kingdom, or France, the company, no matter where it is owned, has to comply with Canadian law
Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act
and policy. This Bill gives us some muscle to ensure that they do that.


Jean-C. Lapierre: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) has just said he does not consider them legitimate. Now, does he intend to let the Americans go on like this or is he going to continue to pressure them to remove them from their books? That was the position taken by the previous Government. We were saying: We are not only prepared to introduce a Bill to block the extraterritorial effect, but we also want you to withdraw the amendment. And that is what I am asking the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). Does his answer apply strictly to his own Bill or is he going to continue pressuring the Americans to withdraw the offensive provisions from their legislation? That is what I am asking the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie).
Like the Americans, we all remember the debate on the "back-in". They not only considered it illegitimate but they also asked the Government at the time to withdraw it. It is the same thing. Does the Minister think it should be allowed to stay on the U.S. statutes? Mr. Chairman, we all know that whatever the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) says, if he protects branch plants of U.S. companies by means of his Bill, the parent company will get them some other way. His own leader has always taken his orders from the United States. Even if the Minister of Justice of Canada had told him not to listen to the United States, everybody knew his job was on the line. It is the same in all branch plants. What I am asking the Minister of Justice is basically: Does his Government intend to go on pressuring Washington to remove offensive provisions from U.S. legislation on extraterritoriality?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, we believe it is wrong for the United States or any other country to pass laws that have extraterritorial effects in other countries. We will make that position clear to them whenever it arises in the future. In addition to making that position clear to them, if this legislation had passed the House we would have had some effective means of blocking what they are attempting to do. We cannot dictate, of course, to the United States Congress or the United States Government what kind of laws that country will have. We cannot dictate to their courts. We cannot force the Americans to change. We cannot force American courts to change their interpretations. But when it comes to Canada, with the help of this legislation we will have an effective means of blocking their attempts to have extraterritorial authority here in Canada. That is the whole purpose of the legislation.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice is throwing in the towel and saying that this Government has no influence on the American Congress. On the other hand, have the United States and the American Government had any influence on this Government, for instance as far as the National Energy Program is concerned? This Government is

December 13, 1984
Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act
on bended knees before the American Government. For Pete's sake, Mr. Chairman! We had the example of the back-in provision under the National Energy Program. We are well aware that the American Government and big American companies influenced this Government, but what I am asking is whether this Government has any influence on the American Government since they are supposed to be such great friends. Will this Government make use of this great friendship or is it just a one-way friendship which allows the Americans to ask what they want while we have to protect ourselves with this little Bill C-14?
We have no authority or influence on the American Government. This is what the Members opposite say in their bill: We are going to resist as well as we can, even though it might be uncalled for; we shall accept that this legislation remain as the sword of Damocles over the heads of the administrators of American branch companies in Canada, because the Act will still exist. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand why the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Crosbie) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) do not have more guts not only to protect themselves before this House, but also to go to the United States and advise them of the situation.
Instead of just saying nice things when he made his speech in New York, I think the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) should have said: "Of course, we are open for business, but there are some things that we find unacceptable, and one of them is extraterritoriality." Otherwise, his approach to Canada-US relations may be simply what he has done in the past, which is to keep the Americans happy and follow their orders. This is what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) seems to be doing.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman does not like this Bill, let him vote against it. If the hon. gentleman does not want to give Canada some muscle to deal with attempts by foreign countries to impose legislation with an extraterritorial effect on us, then I say to him that he should vote against the Bill. Let him show his true colours. That is all he has to do. We do not just talk a great game. We are not the Government that has been in power in Canada for most of the time since 1945. We were not the Government that came into power at a time when Canadian trade with the United States was not what it is now. It has now increased from something around 60 per cent of our foreign trade to 75 per cent. It was under the hon. gentleman's Government that we have become so dependent for our prosperity on the United States of America. But we are better at managing the relationship than the Liberals were. Even though we can get on much better with the Americans, we are still going to adopt, if the House and the majority agree, legislation that will give us some powers to counteract any of their attempts to impose legislation with an extraterritorial effect on us.
As far as the American attitude toward Canadian policies in energy or whatever is concerned, they did not attempt to pass any legislation with an extraterritorial effect. We agreed with many of the points they made. The hon. gentleman's Government wrecked the oil and gas industry of Canada because of its stupid and obtuse policy. The Liberal Government brought an industry in western Canada that was leading the country in economic growth and prosperity to its knees with its stupid confiscatory, retroactive legislation, a retroactive back-in and all the rest of it. We are still suffering the ill effects of that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The retroactive back-in was not in Alberta.


John Carnell Crosbie: The retroactive back-in was in federal lands.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Canada Lands.


John Carnell Crosbie: The answer to the hon. gentleman is to put his money where his mouth is, vote for the Bill and let us get this legislation under way.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Chairman, Members in my own caucus do intend to vote for this Bill. This legislation is virtually identical to legislation introduced on the Order Paper by the former Government. If the Opposition of that day had been as constructive and positive as the Opposition of this day proposes to be, this Bill would have been legislation many years ago.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There is something more to it than that, Mr. Chairman. It is not good legislation to bring forward when an antitrust action is proceeding before the courts in the United States against some entity and orders are being delivered across our border for implementation against interests which can be affected by the Government of Canada. Occasionally in the past, to my recollection as a Parliamentary Secretary and then as a Minister, some of the times when it was convenient to bring the Bill forward because of the parliamentary timetable, it was not exactly appropriate to bring it forward because of ongoing litigation initiated by the American Government.
I take it that the legislation is being brought forward by the Government now, although the Minister may not know it, because it is perhaps a quiet time in the antitrust field in the United States. This may well be a time when the legislation can be brought forward without reflecting upon any particular litigation or the activities of any particular corporation. I am glad to hear that this is a quiet time. In that spirit I am prepared to see the legislation move forward.
I wish the Government were bringing forward some of its own legislation. I know its Members were elected with very great expectations. It surprises me somewhat that they began by bringing forward Bill after Bill introduced by the former Government rather than the legislation which they should have considered as being part of their own mandate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 13, 1984

For example, I read about the Minister's trip to Newfoundland to meet with his counterparts from the provinces and the statement that he would get serious about drunk driving. Not only speaking for myself and my colleagues but I am sure for all Members of the House, if the Minister had been serious about it, as he said he was to the media, perhaps he would have brought that legislation forward in time for it to come into effect for Christmas or New Years, for all the parties which precede the holiday season when the risk of drunk drivers is a serious problem.


Marcel Danis: I would ask the Hon. Member to be relevant to the Bill, please.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I felt that I could be as relevant as the Hon. Minister was in his own remarks. Recently


Very recently, the Minister appeared before one of the Committees of the House, and he promised to table his bill, which he called a mini-omnibus bill-

He promised a mini-omnibus Bill. Perhaps it should have been called a "minibus" Bill rather than the mini-omnibus Bill he promised for today. That was the Bill in which I was expecting the drunk driving legislation to appear. Perhaps I am less relevant to the subject of the Bill. However, I am relevant to the day on which the Minister said that he would be bringing forward legislation on that subject.
I note one amendment to the Bill from the form in which it was brought forward by the former Government, and that is that orders emanating from tribunals of states were covered by the legislation of the former Government. In addition, this legislation covers in a way which is totally acceptable to us orders which emanate from international bodies composed of states. I am sure this is done in recognition of the growing significance of international courts in various parts of the world whose orders might otherwise be imposed against Canadian interests.
I thank the Minister for bringing forward this legislation for enactment. It was a measure introduced by the former Government. At the same time I urge him to start living in the future and to start delivering some of the legislation which Canadians must be expecting as a result of the election.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Chairman, I have a question about clause 8, but it would probably be better for me to wait until we get
to it.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, when one with a suspicious mind reads this Bill, the possibility that the Government might be trying to reactivate the uranium cartel springs to mind. I hope that would not be the case. With our present House Leader, who is very vocal on that issue, I suspect that is not to be the case. Anyway, we now have a legal way of enforcing the gag order should the occasion arise.
Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act
I have a couple of questions. I will ask the first one first.


An Hon. Member:: That is a good idea.


Dave Nickerson: If circumstances were to be in reverse and if a Canadian court ordered a Canadian corporation to present certain documentation with respect to its activities in, say, Australia and perhaps the Attorney General of Australia under the authority of legislation such as this issued an order prohibiting that from being done, would it be a defence in a Canadian court that the corporation would not be able to provide the required documentation because of the order given by the foreign Government? Would it work in reverse?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether I understood the Hon. Member's question correctly. The Canadian courts and the Canadian Attorney General have jurisdiction over Canadian companies in Australia. They will have jurisdiction over companies which are resident in Australia. They will have the power to make orders which apply to companies within their jurisdiction.


Dave Nickerson: Perhaps I did not explain my question well enough. In the initial presentation of the Minister of Justice, he said that it was a defence in courts in foreign lands, where a person was ordered to present certain documentation, to say that because of an order issued in another country it was not available and he was not at liberty to present that information.
I wonder whether that is the case in Canada. For instance, we were told that both Australia and Great Britain have similar legislation. There are many Canadian companies operating in Australia. If a Canadian court required a Canadian company operating in Australia to bring forth documentation relating to its Australian operations and it was prevented from doing so by an order issued by the Attorney of Australia, would that be a good and adequate defence in a Canadian court?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, I will have to make sure of my reply later, but my tentative opinion is yes. When I was speaking I pointed out that United States courts recommend as legitimate defences what they call foreign government compulsion. If we make an order here or such an order is made in Australia, it will be recognized in the U.S. courts. I will have to check to make sure about Canadian courts. I will get the Hon. Member the answer later when I have had a chance to check with the necessary experts in the Department.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, I shall deal with my second question secondly. I am pleased to see under Clause 9 of the Bill that where a judgment is made in a foreign court against a Canadian corporation resulting from an order issued under this legislation and damages are awarded-


Marcel Danis: I believe the Hon. Member is asking a question about Clause 9. Could I ask the Member to wait until Clause 9 is before the committee for consideration, if it relates to Clause 9?


Dave Nickerson: It relates to Clause 9 and to other parts of the Bill. I thought it would be an opportune time to raise it

December 13, 1984
Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act
under general discussion because it might overlap other clauses of the Bill. I might as well be given an opportunity to do it now and I will not raise it again under Clause 9.
When damages are awarded, there will be a recourse in Canadian courts against the person who collected damages in a foreign court. I am pleased to see that. However, a question springs to mind. What happens when a foreign court or tribunal fines a corporation for not complying with the wishes of that court or tribunal? What happens if a corporation is fined the equivalent of $10,000 Canadian, as mentioned in the Bill under the penalty clause, because of an order issued under this legislation? Is there any recourse that Canadian personal corporations might have against the Government of Canada on account of actions of the Canadian Attorney General where they have been found remiss in a foreign court and had to pay those damages or maybe even spent time in jail?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe so. This clause would permit you to recover damages paid, but I do not think it would cover fines imposed, say, by a U.S. court because those fines would go to the U.S. Government or the state government. I do not think this legislation deals with that. It would only enable you to call back, as the phrase has it, a damage award or part of it.


Marcel Danis: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 8-Attorney General may declare certain foreign judgments not to be recognized or enforceable
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice will know that I wanted to ask about this clause. I will read the beginning of clause 8:
(1) Where a foreign tribunal has, whether before or after the coming into force of this Act, given a judgment in proceedings instituted under an antitrust law and, in the opinion of the Attorney General of Canada, the recognition or enforcement of the judgment in Canada has adversely affected or is likely to adversely affect significant Canadian interests in relation to international trade or commerce involving a business carried on in whole or in part in Canada or otherwise has infringed or is likely to infringe Canadian sovereignty, he may-
Then there are a number of paragraphs as to what the Minister of Justice may do, including declaring that the order shall not be enforceable in Canada, restricting the money judgment. As the Minister of Justice said, you can get triple damages in antitrust actions in the United States. He might want to restrict that damage amount as it applies to Canada.
The Hon. Member for Western Arctic picked up on my question. I am wondering about the use of this clause to block, and I will quote the words of the Member for Western Arctic: "We now have a legal way to enforce gag orders if the occasion arises". He was referring to the problems with the uranium cartel. In the Minister's view, could this clause be used to block American antitrust actions that would have
indirect effects in the Canadian uranium cartel, recognizing that in the United States they really do pursue antitrust actions, unlike Canada? They had been after the Canadian uranium cartel, which the previous Government had gone to incredible lengths to gag and to bury, so much so that the then Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head, took legal action in the Canadian courts.
Do the Member for Western Arctic and I just have suspicious noses or is there really a possibility of using this to stop antitrust actions that would apply to Canada and put the gag once again on the kind of secrecy with which we shroud the nuclear industry in Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman. The gag so-called was a domestic Canadian action that was taken. It has no relationship to that. This simply deals with the consequences of someone paying a judgment in the United States regarding anti-combines. It has no connection with what used to be known as the gag order that prevented the publication of any of those documents or whatever. It is unrelated to it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Chairman, the clause also says "Where a foreign tribunal has, whether before or after the coming into force of this Act". Is the Minister aware of any cases that would be affected by this Act, because it would apply retroactively to cases that may be affected by this clause?


John Carnell Crosbie: There are none that I am aware of, Mr. Chairman. There are none that have been brought to my attention. It is always possible there could be some, but I can only answer no, not as far as I have any knowledge of them.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-14, an Act to authorize the making of orders relating to the production of records and the giving of information for the purposes of proceedings in foreign tribunals, relating to measures of foreign states or foreign tribunals affecting international trade or commerce and in respect of the recognition and enforcement in Canada of certain foreign judgments obtained in antitrust proceedings, be read the third time and passed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to make a couple of remarks before the Bill goes through. I think it should go through. This is an interesting


Marcel Danis: Shall clause 8 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed. Clause agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive agreed to. Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 13, 1984

debate. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) alternates between a buffoon and a statesman. I do not know which role I prefer, probably the statesman.
I congratulate the Minister on finally dealing with the Bill and also the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie). It is always a pleasure to hear him in the House. 1 know this Bill was a tall order for him, but he made short work of it.
Something that came up during debate on the Bill that I would like to talk about for a second is the matter of extraterritoriality. This Bill is a bit of a counterweight to the Government's efforts to open ourselves completely to foreign capital. We have seen this in Parliament in the past week with the changing from FIRA, an agency to look at foreign investment and make sure it was in Canada's interest in terms of jobs, research and so on, to a new agency called Investment Canada whereby we are wide open to foreign investment, too open in my view. Obviously the Minister of Justice disagrees with me.
In his remarks, the Minister mentioned that Members were trying to give examples of extra-territoriality and the difficulties that would be caused. I am not an expert in this area, but I know that in the area of energy, an area about which I know a little bit, the United States could pass emergency energy legislation during an oil crisis or could even pass legislation that anticipates an oil crisis. There could be difficulties in the Middle East or the Gulf states and Exxon, a large multinational corporation, might divert, as it once did in the past, oil that was bound for its subsidiary company, Imperial Oil of Canada, Canada's largest oil company, to the parent company in the United States. That is a broad example of extra-territoriality. Under this Bill, there is not very much that we could do about that. If Exxon were to ship its oil that was bound for Canadians to the United States, then perhaps we could do something about it on the order of an American tribunal.
I brought that example up to show why we in the NDP feel the way we do. However, we are not anti-American and the Minister did not say that we are, although I have heard it bandied about the House. We feel very strongly that we must be careful because we do not have an equal relationship with our great friends in the United States. The United States is a huge empire and we have become and are becoming more and more its colony. There was a book written by Arthur Lower, I believe, entitled Colony to Nation. It is a standard Canadian textbook on Canadian history and politics. It depicts how Canada has moved from a British colony to a free and independent nation. I am afraid that we are going to move from colony to nation to colony. I think that is the danger in the thrust of the Government when it says "ready, aye ready" to the Americans.
In the early part of the century, Arthur Meighen, a previous Conservative Prime Minister, said "ready, aye ready" to the British. The Conservative Party was a Party that wanted to keep Canada a British colony. The progressive forces in this country fought and won the battle and made Canada a nation.
Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act I would not like to see us go back to the regressive forces of the country as represented by an element of the Conservative Party which is saying "ready, aye ready" to another colonial power, the United States.


John Horton McDermid: You guys are paranoid.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I do not think we are paranoid. The whole thrust of Canadian history has been to fight for an independent country. Indeed, that is the whole point and I will sit down now. The whole point of this Bill is to try to make sure that American laws that apply extra-territorially do not apply to Canada.
I am saying to the Government that we support this Bill for the reasons indicated by the Minister of Justice and for the reasons I have just indicated, but I would warn the Minister of Justice, in his capacity as a statesman, to be careful. As Tommy Douglas once said, when you are dealing with the Americans, it is like having the elephant dancing among chickens; every fellow for himself. They are a little bigger than we are. We do not need to be paranoid, afraid or anti-American but we do need to be careful and we have to make sure that we do not become an American colony just like we were a British colony in the past. I will conclude with those remarks and with the hope that Bill C-14 can pass through the House today.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Like my colleague who has just resumed his seat, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise at the conclusion of this debate and say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) that the fact that he has introduced this Bill in the House and that Hon. Members unanimously support it reveals to what extent Parliament is fully aware of the danger that a country such as the United States may represent for the interests of Canada. I should think that, during the short debate today, the Minister of Justice must have realized just how much the messages sent to the Americans by his leader must always be dispatched with some reservations in his mind. He must be made aware that his good faith-and I am convinced that his leader is full of good faith-might cost a bundle to Canada if he is being overly naive. As we are debating extraterritoriality today, we know full well that, on the part of the United States, it has definitely been a lack of respect for Canadian sovereignty over our own land. No Member of the House would ever stand still before anyone encroaching on Canadian sovereignty, and I am pleased the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) has finally introduced the Bill for adoption by the House.
I would suggest, however, that this prudent approach will have to be maintained in the future. I rather doubt that the leader of the Minister would ever want to become governor of the State of Canada. Keeping in mind that no one wants to become a governor or a servant knight, his party, ours and the New Democratic Party will have to be ever wary of any American move.

December 13; 1984
Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act I hope as well that this era of allegedly warm friendship will indeed prove to be productive for Canada. We will have to remember that every time a measure is adopted, and 1 am thinking, among other things, about markings on steel pipes, something which may very well be to the detriment of Canada's industry. There is a series of other measures, and every day I see colleagues opposite who are interested in the pork industry for instance. But they very well know what is going on in the United States, and with that kind of discrimination they intend to handle Canadian pork. I could give dozens of other examples. I hope this legislation is the first in a series that will be introduced to ensure that our Canadian identity remains intact. Unfortunately, if the cultural aspect is any indication of that after the signals we have been getting these last few days, I am somewhat doubtful as to the preservation of an economic identity, let alone a cultural identity. And in that sense, 1 think that the legal and economic identity can be maintained, although this is a theoretical debate in my view because in fact the American influence on those subsidiaries stretches beyond judicial influence, and is a moral and financial influence that is more powerful than anything the Minister of Justice could do. But anyway this is a favourable signal, and I hope the Americans will perceive it as an opposition to any attempt at intervention in Canadian law and Canadian business.
Therefore, our party is very pleased in the first place, to have introduced the measure some years ago. But the fact that the discussions have not led to any withdrawal of the American extraterritorial claims is a great disappointment to us. Because in relations that are supposed to be serious, finally having to pass such a legislation certainly goes against a spirit of open trade, good relations and friendship. I think that when you shut the door in your neighbour's face, it is not necessarily a sign that you are getting along very well with him. In that sense it is a sad thing that we have to enact such a legislation, and I hope that this new friendship with our American cousins-philosophical cousins of course-will help us set aside such measures that are not very good for our relations. But anyway, we must remain firm if we do not want to be had in those relations.
And as my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) suggested earlier, this is an unbalanced relationship and to that extent, we must be doubly careful. Moreover, I am convinced the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie)-not that he wanted to get the credit for the legislation-is admitting with this Bill that negotiations between his Government and the American Government have failed, and that he had to resort to such a measure because he could not convince the Americans to withdraw the provisions in their legislation that were unacceptable to the Canadian Government.
I am sorry that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Prime Minister could not convince the Americans of our legal sovereignty. This is a bad start. However, he has honestly
recognized his error, his failure to convince the American Government, and he has finally introduced this legislation. We are happy to support it in the hope that in the future those special relations will preclude the need for similar bills, for the reason that, not the equality but the mutual respect of our two countries will be maintained. At any rate, it is not by kneeling before the Americans that we will achieve this in my view.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will not speak at any length, except to say that I remember reading Mr. Lower's book Colony to Nation, and one of our problems is that some people still have the fears that they had when Canada was a colony. Today we are a nation and I believe that we have less to fear.
The most important relationship in the world for us to manage is the one between the United States and Canada. It is largely a matter of attitude. At the moment there is a very healthy relationship between Canada and the U.S., but that does not mean that there will not be conflicts and differences of opinion, particularly in some of the areas which the House has been discussing. That is why this legislation is needed.
We are asking the House to pass this Bill in the absence of a crisis or a battle concerning the particular areas in which problems could arise at any time. We are satisfied that Canada will have a productive relationship with the United States in the next few years. It is a relationship which will benefit both countries. We are Canadians first, last and always. The passage of this Bill will serve to remind people of that. I thank Hon. Members for their contributions and their support for the Bill.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of letting some of the remarks which were made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) go unchallenged. When it comes to nation-building, if the Hon. Member would consult his history books he would find that it was Members of the Progressive Conservative Party- gentlemen such as John A. Macdonald-who did more than anyone else to create the nation of Canada.
I have a couple of comments with respect to the Bill. My first comment deals with the penalties which can be imposed under the Bill-a maximum $10,000 fine under indictment and $5,000 on summary conviction. It would appear to me, in light of some of the transactions and commercial dealings which might be involved under this Bill, that hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, might be involved. That small fine probably is not large enough. Possibly at a future occasion the maximum fines which can be imposed by this Bill could be increased. At the same time, we may want to examine the length of the maximum prison terms. They seem to be somewhat excessive.
The Bill is being passed by the House today because of the extraterritorial jurisdiction claimed by other nations with which we do not agree. If we look at subclause 7(2) we will
December 13, 1984

find that we are not entirely lily white in this respect. The subclause to which I have referred would give Canadian courts jurisdiction over offences under this Bill which are not committed in Canada but outside of the Canadian territorial jurisdiction. It may require the United Nations or some other international body to examine closely the extraterritorial claims of various nations. I can envision a case in which a corporation or an individual may be caught in between the tWo-can be fined by one side for not complying with the regulations of another country and vice versa. It may require an international organization to examine the extraterritorial claims of jurisdiction to try to bring some order to what could conceivably become a rather difficult situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, December 12, 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.
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: As it is
nearly one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 12.56 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government recently announced cut-backs to postal services in Prince Edward Island. While the post offices are small, the impact is not.
I would like to read to this House a letter I received from one concerned Islander. It states, and I quote:
The Victoria Village Council, on behalf of the residents and established businesses of Victoria and the surrounding community, vigorously protest the reduction of working hours of the Victoria post office.
The post mistress, Annie Craig, is a 60-year old widow with no other means of employment. This is her only source of livelihood. It is regrettable that government restraint can deprive people who have worked, raised a family and contributed to the welfare of the province, of maintaining a meagre living.
We trust you will use your influence in this situation and work on our behalf to retain Victoria post office at its present status.
Canada Post also announced cut-backs to the Richmond, Lennox Island, and Miminegash post offices in my riding. Will the next cut-backs take Saturday rural mail delivery away from Prince Edward Island? I hope that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet can assure us that this will not happen.



THE THIRD WORLD


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, a major obstacle to Third World development is military expenditure by both developed and developing countries. Some of the Third World's biggest military spenders are also the smallest achievers in social and economic progress. In 1980, for example, Ethiopia's military expenditures represented 10 per cent of its Gross National Product, its purchases being dominantly from the Soviet Union. Although each developing country has a right to provide for its own defence, it also has an obligation to give priority to its people's human needs.
As an aiding country, Canada can surely help improve this situation. We can review, for example, our own arms exports to the Third World. One estimate puts a $150 million figure on those shipments. We can also review our own aid policies and persuade assisted countries to limit their military budgets, for example, to perhaps 1 per cent of their Gross National Product. We can, as well, support creating an international arms register that would record the massive arms traffic around the world, including the Third World. Such measures, Mr. Speaker, would not weaken Governments in the Third World. I am confident that they can strengthen their people.



UNITED NATIONS


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians, and indeed people everywhere, must be greatly disappointed today. Despite the assertion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that peace was his dearest wish and that Canada would exert a more creative presence at the United Nations, and despite the assurances of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Ambassador

December 13, 1984
for Disarmament that Canada would play a leading role in the search for disarmament and peace, Canada has again voted against a nuclear weapons freeze at the UN. Yesterday we were one of only 12 nations to vote no to a superpower freeze.
In recent weeks, thousands of Canadians have tried to pursuade the Government to change its mind on this issue. Since Canada's "no" vote on November 20, Canadians from coast to coast have written to, and pleaded with the Government to support the UN call for a mutual, balanced, verifiable nuclear weapons freeze between the superpowers. Like the Liberals before it, the Government has ignored public opinion, public pleading, and the urgency of action to halt the nuclear arms race.
This week in the House the New Democratic Party tried to persuade the Government of the wisdom and need to support this UN effort. The Government did not listen. Instead, the Conservatives chose to take the same outdated advice, most of it emanating from the Pentagon, as the Liberals did before them. On this crucial issue of nuclear disarmament there is sadly no difference between those two old Parties, and nothing new about Canada's new Government-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.



PETRO-CANADA RETURN ON EQUITY QUESTIONED

Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in this day of financial restraint I rise to question the prudency of our investment of $4.2 billion in Petro-Canada. A recent analysis of Petro-Canada shows a 1.2 per cent return on equity versus a 9.9 per cent return for similar companies. Is part of this poor earning record due to paying too much for Petrofina and BP? Consider, Mr. Speaker, that the same analysis estimates that Petro-Canada's assets are overstated by about $2 billion. Further, I question some of its decisions.
The company has a huge inventory of unused office space in Calgary. For example, the Hanover building was rented at about $20,000 per day, starting in April, 1982. Now, 950 days later, it is still three-quarters empty. That is a waste of about $15 million.
The Petrofina takeover is only one portion of the question. One has to look at all operations, the takeovers, real estate, operating costs, and the management. I call for a parliamentary inquiry to ascertain if the taxpayers' investment of $4.2 billion was a prudent investment and if the company was, and is, as well managed as similar Canadian companies.


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



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, now that the Government, because of strong pressures, seems to be seeing a glimmer of light in its foggy perspective of its role in the environment, and has decided to continue monitoring the effects of forest pesticides on migratory birds, the effects of toxics in the Great Lakes on the herring gull, and the migration patterns of the caribou in the north, and is also making some positive noises about keeping the interpretation centres open. I urge the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), and the Government, to acknowledge at last that the environment is important, and to rescind the shameful decision to cut down the strength of the Canadian Wildlife Service.



WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in southwestern Manitoba, as well as in Saskatchewan and Alberta, drought conditions and a grasshopper infestation have damaged or destroyed much of this year's crop. As a result, many prairie farmers are experiencing serious cash flow problems. I know my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), are well aware of these problems, and I applaud the positive steps which have been taken to date. However, Mr. Speaker, I believe that more can be done.
Since many farmers urgently need cash in order to seed next spring, I strongly urge the Government to introduce amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. Farmers in my area are encouraged by recent indications that there will be a large pay-out from the stabilization fund next year. It is my belief that a significant portion of that money should be made available to prairie farmers prior to spring seeding. In addition, the Act should be amended so that the initial payments can be made during the spring of future years when a pay-out is to be triggered.
For too long the former Liberal Government waffled on this issue, while the fund grew and farmers became more desperate. I expect the new Government, therefore, to act quickly to bring forward the necessary legislation so that western Canadian farmers will have a fighting chance next spring.



FINANCE


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Winnipeg businessman, Albert Cohen, President of Gendis Corporation, who believes that large Canadian corporations should be paying higher taxes to
December 13, 1984

help reduce Canada's deficit. Mr. Cohen proposed that corporations should pay 2 per cent more in corporate taxes for the next three years, and has urged the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to support this idea.
Given the size of our deficit and the fact that, according to the Auditor General, the cost to Canadians in tax expenditures, most of which benefits go to these corporations, is somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion, I feel that the time is perfect to follow Mr. Cohen's suggestion.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, a recent Gallup poll has shown that 57 per cent of Canadians disagreed about the stupid decision of the Government to waste $36 million in public funds to change the colour of the Canadian forces uniform.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the members of this House, whatever their party, will have the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) come back to his senses and transfer those $36 million to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to prevent any discrimination against senior citizens who will be denied access to his program of spouse allowances merely because they are single, separated or divorced.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I am against the party which is being prepared in the House of Commons in view of the wasteful expenditures made on fir trees. I do not know if a friend of the Prime Minister had a lot of fir trees to sell but I think that money should have been used to help the needy.



ABORTION


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, the laws of our land are becoming a mockery in light of the outcome of the Morgentaler trial. I heartily commend Attorney General Roy McMurtry on appealing the Morgentaler case on the grounds that Dr. Morgentaler clearly admitted he broke the law, yet a jury saw fit to disregard the law and take upon itself the responsibility to judge whether a particular set of circumstances justified a specific law being broken. The job of the jury was not to decide whether the law was just or not; the job of the jury was to determine whether Dr. Morgentaler had broken the law.
Either the law of the land is to be adhered to, Mr. Speaker, or it should be abolished. Obviously the latter is not a logical choice. However, the outcome of this trial has set a dangerous precedent, one that cannot be accepted by the Crown or the people of Canada.
The jury selection in the Morgentaler trial made a mockery of that system as well. I urge our Attorneys General and Minister of Justice to make every effort to prevent this from ever happening again. The discrimination against upstanding, honest, hard-working Canadians, because they were churchgoers or occasionally attended church, was appalling.
I applaud Mr. McMurtry on making a difficult decision politically, but one that was in the best interests of all Canadians.

[ Translation]



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to suggest to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) that he should read the report of the Auditor General before describing the actions of this government as stupid.
When the Auditor General points out that there was a small mistake of $3.5 billion in the F-18 program, it is hard for my constituents to understand. When he says that the deficit was pratically out of control, he confirms what we were saying during the electoral campaign and he confirms that Canadians were right to think that it was about time to get rid of the previous Government, which was out of control. There is still room to skim off the fat. One federal employee in five is over-classified, which goes against the legislation and regulations approved by this House. We find that a bolt that should have cost $9 did in fact cost $1,900. If this is what the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) wants, he should take the time to read this report before calling the decisions made by this House stupid.
This report proves what we have always maintained. It summarizes what we were saying during the campaign.



BRITISH COLUMBIA OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT-CRITICISM OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PANEL

Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the federal-provincial panel reviewing environmental impacts of offshore drilling in British Columbia lacks credibility because of its restrictive terms of reference. The panel is not even able to ask the basic question of whether or not Canada

December 13, 1984
Oral Questions
requires offshore drilling to meet energy needs. Although B.C.'s offshore area is subject to aboriginal claims, the panel is specifically prohibited from dealing with aboriginal rights. B.C. Indians are justifiably worried that, while land claims are being stalled, their resources are being ripped off and their environment destroyed.
Petro-Canada, which possess offshore leases, has shown the farcical nature of the panel by declining even to take part. It claims the cost of providing information is too high. Finally, no funding has been provided for intervenors. Communities which would be devastated by any offshore drilling accident do not have the funds to make full and adequate study of the risks involved.
This farcical panel was appointed by the previous Government. I call on the present Government not to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling until a proper study has been done. Intervenor funding must be provided, aboriginal rights must be considered, and the question of energy need must be raised.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It appears that the federal Government has made a contract, or deal, with the Province of Newfoundland concerning the offshore. On June 14 the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, wrote to Premier Peckford outlining the proposals of his Party for an offshore deal. Does the agreement, negotiated and apparently concluded with Newfoundland, reflect the provisions of that letter to Premier Peckford, and would he arrange that his Minister table the agreement in the House as soon as possible so the people of Newfoundland and the rest of Canada can review the terms?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: I thank my right hon. friend for raising a very important issue, Mr. Speaker. In point of fact the matter has not yet been fully concluded. Under the direction of the Minister of Energy the talks have progressed extremely well. There is a meeting of minds and agreement in principle in some very major areas- almost all, I understand. There appear to be some housekeeping items and some tightening up to do, and we expect that at an early moment there will be a final agreement because such an agreement would be very much in the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Canada.


ELIMINATION OF BACK-IN PROVISIONS IN NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in that same letter the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, assured Premier Peckford that the Crown-carried share in offshore Newfoundland and Labrador would be equally shared by both Governments. In light of his statement in New York city earlier in the week, where he proposed the elimination of the back-in provisions of the National Energy Program, how is the Province of Newfoundland going to be compensated?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be compensated financially, with money and with new opportunities, when the negotiations are completed. What has happened so far appears to be fully consistent with the agreement I worked out with Premier Peckford in June, and not at all inconsistent with the thrust of the statement I made in New York and which I made elsewhere in the country.
I want to assure my right hon. friend, and other Members of the House, because I know we all regard this as very important, that when the deal is concluded in its final form and brought to the House for approval, he will be satisfied that indeed this is an extremely worth-while and long-awaited agreement very much in the interests of the development of Newfoundland. It will open new opportunities to Newfoundlanders and other Canadians, as well as broaden our energy perspectives around the world.


John Napier Turner: Of course we hope that is true.


EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in that same letter to Premier Peckford the right hon. gentleman assured the people of Newfoundland that there would be no dollar for dollar loss in equalization payments as a result of revenues flowing from the offshore. In light of the Prime Minister's current conversations with the Premier of Manitoba and with Premier Levesque of Quebec relating to equalization payments, can he guarantee to the people of Newfoundland that there will be no loss in equalization payments?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have always felt the concept of federalism is sharing, sharing wealth and opportunity. Newfoundland has been a deprived province for too long and this Government, hopefully with the concurrence of all Members of the House, will take some very definite and positive steps to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador finally get a fair kick at the can here in Canada.
December 13, 1984


ROLE OF ONTARIO PREMIER
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I was astounded to learn that before Parliament was consulted, before the people of Newfoundland were consulted, Bill Davis was consulted. He approved the deal. He said: "It's okay, they're poor". I want to know why the Premier of Ontario was consulted. I want to know exactly what role he played in this deal. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, "check it with Erik" has been replaced with "check it with Bill".


John Carnell Crosbie: Who did you check it with?
Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, it has been the desire of both our Party and Premier Peckford and the Government of Newfoundland that any deal struck with Newfoundland should be in the national interest. The only way one can determine what the national interest is, is to talk to all the people involved.
In the formulation of the Atlantic accord back in the spring, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and I were in touch with other Premiers of other provinces, including Alberta, the Maritimes, and the Premier of Ontario, because we were breaking new ground. We were determined that we were going to use the accord as an instrument of equality for Newfoundlanders.
When I talked to the Premier on this matter, I pointed out that the average income in Newfoundland is 57 per cent of the national average. That is why they are poor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Miss Carney:: The premiers we have talked to agreed with us that the accord could be an instrument to bring equality and fairness to Newfoundland.


TRAINING IN OFFSHORE SKILLS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, only if Newfoundlanders have skills will they get jobs in the offshore. Why is there absolutely no mention of education or training in this agreement? What does the Government intend to do about training because, if it does not do something, Bill Davis's assessment of poor Newfoundlanders will be true eternally.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would say that this is a classic case of sour grapes. Don't you believe in good news?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: Answer the question.


Pat Carney: I would suggest to the Hon. Member that he wait until he sees the full agreement. We have a draft agree-
Oral Questions
ment of 62 clauses, in which more work has to be done in some technical areas.


Bill Rompkey: You have shown it to Davis and not to us.


Pat Carney: We will certainly be presenting it in the House.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. This morning the Minister of Finance told La Presse that universality is a luxury of the past. In September it was a sacred trust; in October it was negotiable, and now, as of this morning, universality is out the window. Who speaks for the Government, the Prime Minister of Canada or the Minister of Finance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the press report that I have makes no such reference. I am sure that it is an inadvertent distortion of the facts.
The Minister of Finance is reported as saying that the awarding of social benefits to persons earning more than the national average-he did not refer to universality at all, at least in the press reports I have-


Mr. Deans:: What are you talking about? Do you understand what is written there?


Martin Brian Mulroney: While I suppose it is open for debate or discussion, all he was saying was that his objective was to try to put more money into the hands of Canadians who need it most. The poor and the dispossessed in our society need more benefits than the bank president making $500,000 a year. That is exactly what we want to do.


Ian Deans: Sit down. Don't be absurd.


SOCIAL CONTRACT
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Does the Prime Minister not acknowledge that there has been a sacred social contract between the people of Canada and the Government of Canada regarding social programs? Is he now prepared to break this contract?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the traditions of this Party have been consistent from the very beginning. Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Stanfield, among others, had occasion to debate this in the House, and did so with great honour to the Party and the country. We stand for social justice. We stand for social programs. We stand for equality of opportunity, and we also stand for an examination to try to help those in our society who genuinely need assistance. There are too many people in this country living below the poverty line. We are trying to

December 13, 1984
Oral Questions
help them before we help those who do not need that kind of assistance.


OECD REPORT
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, surely the Prime Minister is aware that OECD studies show that Canada ranks second to last in social spending, and that people are suffering greatly? Will he agree today that there will be no cuts to old age pensions and family allowances? People are confused. Give us the truth.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it was a matter of inadvertence again. With regard to the OECD study to which the Hon. Member refers, in which Canada was second to last, health care was not included. If it was, it would have raised Canada almost to the top of the list. That is what is wrong with the NDP position.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I am talking about social programs.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I regret to say that my hon. friend, from time to time, has selective amnesia. I want to deal with that because we indeed stand firmly committed to assisting old age pensioners. We stand firmly committed to aiding all of those in Canadian society who need and deserve the help of the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns a factum submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Government on September 3 in the Dolphin Delivery case. Does the Prime Minister stand behind the position taken by the Attorney General that the Charter should be narrowed so that citizens are not protected from encroachments on their freedom of expression and freedom of association where those encroachments arise under common law? Or is this another orphan similar to the one the other day for which the Government disclaims paternity?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that is a gross and wilful exaggeration of the position taken by the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada has not argued any diminution in the Charter of Rights of Canada. This was a case that, on the facts, relates to private parties only in a relationship governed exclusively by the common law, without any legislation or government action in issue. In those circumstances, the Charter has no application.
We have intervened in every major court case and supported the Charter of Rights in many of them. Therefore, the question is an absolute distortion of the situation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is not a distortion. In his answer the Minister just referred to the common law as being excluded from protection in the Charter. That is exactly my question.


COMMON LAW RIGHTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is admitting that common law rights are to be excluded by the Government, will he agree that in the future all factums in which the federal Government intends to stand against the rights of the citizens, as it has done in this case, and against the Charter, as in the MacDonald case, will be reviewed by full Cabinet before they are sent to court?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, no such action has occurred, nor will any review by the Cabinet be necessary. The Attorney General is in charge of these proceedings. We have intervened in case after case to support Charter rights and we will continue to do so.
When we think it is a situation where the Charter does not apply, as in the particular case to which the hon. gentleman is referring, a legal opinion will govern, not some cheapskate, political opinion to twist things, as the hon. gentleman is attempting to do.


FINANCE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is is the position of the Government of Canada that in the near future the Government will reduce the already low 15 per cent corporate tax rate by introducing additional incentives for foreign investment in Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No.


NEW YORK TIMES REPORT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, will he then look into the relationship between the Minister of Finance and Dr. Michael R. Graham, Vice-President of Dominion Securities Pitfield Limited, to determine why Dr. Graham, in an article in The New York Times, indicated that such measures were likely to take place?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am completely unaware of any of the information to which the Hon. Member refers. I will take it under advisement and ask the Minister of Finance to explain.
December 13, 1984


THE CONSTITUTION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
For a week we have been asking the Government questions about the MacDonald case. The House will recall that a broad interpretation of Section 133 is being requested in Quebec to allow Canadians to receive bilingual introductory documents. The Government's position is based on an opinion given by the Department of Justice. The MacDonald case is about rights that are important to Canada's linguistic minorities. I would like to ask my question, considering the Prime Minister's statement yesterday in the House, at page 1150 of Hansard:
We believe-
Referring to your Party.
-in the defence of minority rights.
Will the Right Hon. Prime Minister do today what he promised yesterday, that is, revise his position, withdraw this factum from the Supreme Court and inform the House today of his decision?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Justice, who can take care of his own Department, has answered the question correctly. If I am not mistaken, Mr. MacDonald, the protagonist in this case, said yesterday on the TV news that he was satisfied with the representations made by the Minister. Nevertheless, since I have not had an opportunity to read the factum personally, and considering all the attention it is getting, especially from my hon. friend, I shall read it very carefully on the weekend and subsequently report back to my hon. friend. If, after consultation with the Minister, I reach the conclusion that it would be wise to examine this case from another angle, I shall do so without delay.


COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State, the Minister responsible for official languages and also responsible for the Court Challenges Program, and who has financed Mr. MacDonald to the tune of $35,000. Was the position stated in the factum submitted by the Minister of Justice the result of a consultation with the Secretary of State, and is there an agreement between the Secretary of State and the Minister of Justice regarding consultations on these matters?


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member I wish to remind him that the intention of the Court Challenge Program is to deal with test
Oral Questions
cases. The intention of it is arm's length from the substance of the cases involved.
The arguments here, as the Hon. Member will know, are parallel to similar cases in which previous Governments have intervened in this way. In that circumstance the Secretary of State is not involved with the Minister of Justice in the substance of the issue.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Prime Minister on the continuing melodrama of FIRA.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: Research analysis of FIRA by the son of the Minister for Mining has shown that one positive benefit of FIRA review was to introduce small, new foreign investors to Canadian suppliers from whom the foreign firms then bought supplies. Why will the Prime Minister not keep this review process for new investors, which process has had such positive benefits for Canadian suppliers and the jobs they provide?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the matter is presently being debated before the House. It may very well be that my hon. friend, with his special concern and knowledge of that area, will be able to persuade Members of the House of the validity of his views, in which case they will be incorporated into the final piece of legislation.
I can say that we have broached the matter with open minds in the hope, and in the knowledge, that all Members of the House will take the kinds of positive attitudes expressed by the Hon. Member and support legislation designed to create new jobs and new opportunities in Canada.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain if it is open minds or vacant minds.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dick:: Yours?


Steven W. Langdon: Let me ask the Prime Minister whether he would be prepared, in view of his recognition that there is some substance in the case on this point, to make a recommendation to his own Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion that this particular part of the Bill be reviewed and reconsidered-


Mr. Speaker:: I am in very great difficulty. I did not realize the subject of the first question was coming this way. The Member does not know, I am sure, because it is a rule peculiar to this House, that questions put during Question Period that are anticipatory of a debate later in the day are not to be

December 13, 1984
Oral Questions
permitted. Since the matter is called for debate, I am now in some difficulty having allowed the first question.
Perhaps I could simply explain my problem to the Member and go on to the next questioner. I am sorry I did not catch that on the first question. I have some sympathy for the Member since he is caught in a position that is of my making, and I apologize.
The Hon. Member for Sudbury.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I want to say that the Conservatives can worry about the bank presidents, but Liberals are going to worry about average Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: In light of the Minister of Finance's interview with La Presse yesterday, can the Prime Minister tell us whether Canadian families who earn $35,000 a year or more are to expect cuts in their old age security cheques and in their family allowances?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker.


SOCIAL SPENDING AS PERCENTAGE OF GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister indicate to the House why his Government is not prepared to increase social spending in light of the study by the OECD countries which shows that Canada ranks sixth out of seven of the richest industrialized nations in the amount per cent of Gross National Product spent on social expenditures?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we appear to be moving up, depending upon which Party is asking the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have moved from the bottom to sixth. In point of fact we are third per capita in social spending.
The Hon. Member raises a good question, because we have increased social spending for widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64, and we have increased it as well for veterans who fought for Canada and who deserve our recognition and help at this moment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who knows how important research and development are to allow Canadian enterprise to expand. Is the Prime Minister and the Government aware that Canadian firms do five times the amount of research and development through to production than do foreign firms of the same size?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 am aware of the fact that Canada over the last 15 years has spent less per capita on research and development than any industrialized country, with the exception of Iceland and Ireland. This Government is designing policies to attract national and international investment and to have research and development dramatically expanded here. We are going to ensure that that the research and development component is extended irrespective of the nationality of the capital, because that is what creates durable jobs in Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will know that has not been the case.


ROLE OF INVESTMENT CANADA
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that Canadian firms do significantly more research and development through to production than foreign firms, will the Prime Minister explain how getting rid of the review process in Investment Canada is going to assist us in expanding that R & D sector?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Investment Canada is not an omnibus piece of legislation designed to correct all of the ills. It is a piece of legislation designed to enhance the creation of employment by the attraction of international investment capital here. There will be other legislative instruments designed to enhance research and development because we believe firmly, and I think we will bring in legislative instruments which my hon. friend will applaud, that research and development must be substantially enhanced here in Canada if we are to achieve the levels of prosperity and employment that we need.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: House of the status of his inquiry into this tragedy? In light of proposed cut-backs in weather services, could he assure the House that adequate weather information is and will continue to be in place to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her important question. The report was handed to me today from my colleague, the Minister of the Environment. That report indicates that weather reporting was inadequate. It also makes recommendations with respect to the Department of Fisheries that all vessels report weather conditions as they find them on a daily basis, and that before any fishing openings are made consultations take place between Department of Fisheries and Department of the Environment atmospheric services. I ordered my Department today to make those arrangements.
With respect to cut-backs, there will be no cut-backs affecting the efficiency of weather reporting on the West Coast.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS SIGNING OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH QUEBEC- INDIAN DIMENSION QUERY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Tomorrow the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec will sign a $1 billion five-year development agreement. The Indians of Quebec have been shocked to learn there is no provision in that agreement directing some of these moneys to Indian and native developments. There are equivalent provisions in the development agreements with Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Would the Prime Minister assure us that he will raise this matter immediately with the Premier of Quebec and take steps to amend the agreement before it is signed tomorrow?
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the IRDA agreement deals with items of economic development as raised, by and large, by various provincial premiers. The agreements, at least the ones we've tried to sign, reflect a rhythm of development within the provinces as selected by provincial Governments. I know that in a parallel way the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been having many consultations with regard to native peoples.
If my hon. friend is of the view that there should be more integration, I would be happy to take a look at it. However, 1 can tell him that it appears that this agreement, which is the first the Government of Quebec will have signed with the federal Government in many, many years, will be very creative of job opportunities and employment for Quebecers. It is regarded as a major development in the Province of Quebec by all Quebecers who view economic development in co-operation with the federal Government as a step forward.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I must advise the Prime Minister that in the agreement signed with other provinces-and in the one signed by the Province of Ontario-there were specific provisions ensuring that Indians, Metis, and Inuit are not forgotten. Will the Prime Minister consult with the Minister of Indian Affairs to make sure that before tomorrow there is a possibility of including in this agreement, as is the case with other provinces, the same type of provision to ensure that some of that $1 billion goes to the Indians and Inuit of Quebec for their economic development? It is very important.
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can give my hon. friend the firm assurance that the Indians and Inuit of Quebec, many of whom live in my riding and even vote for me, will not be forgotten at any time or in any circumstances.


INDIAN ECONOMIC BENEFITS ISSUE
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Minister knows that if native people are not involved in the framework agreement, it will be almost impossible for them to have any kind of involvement in subsidiary agreements. How is it possible for an agreement to be drawn up between Canada and Quebec without including significant economic benefits for Indian people?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I think there are two points which I could suggest to the Hon. Member. First, his premise is wrong. Second, economic benefits, both within and outside the agreement, will of course flow to those people affected in the Province of Quebec.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Could he confirm reports to the effect that he is about to permit dual labelling, both in metric and in imperial measures? Having consulted with consumer, business, teaching, and science representatives across Canada, who all gave him the same advice, is he now prepared to ignore it? Has he caved in to the Neanderthals in his caucus?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had consultations with different interest groups and I am now drafting my recommendations. I intend to submit them to my Cabinet colleagues at

December 13, 1984
Oral Questions
the earliest opportunity, and then I will make the appropriate announcement.


David Berger: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When will the Minister make up his mind? He has been dragging his feet for three months now. Does he not know yet that one third of our income comes from our exports and that the cost of the two systems is higher?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important not to proceed too rapidly so as to make the most logical and effective decision in the best interests of Canadians. That is what this government will do.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Knowing the difficulties experienced in property transfers, such as a farm transmitted from father to one of his children, particularly with respect to tax matters, I would like to know what measures he will take to improve the situation and make it easier to transfer family farms from one generation to the next.


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question and his concern. Perhaps his question might be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Finance. However, it is my understanding at the moment that legislation allows for the transfer of the family farm from father to son or daughter, whatever the case may be, without a capital gains payment, providing the actual sale price is that of the valuation day value.
In addition, we now have a Bill before the Senate which would allow the seller to invest up to $120,000 in an RRSP providing he has been in the farming business for at least 10 years. The Minister of Finance in his economic statement referred the very important matter of capital-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the Minister might want to send a letter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HIBERNIA OILFIELD DEVELOPMENT-PROJECTED COST OF OIL
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I want to say to her that all reasonable Canadians
must applaud the fact that the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland have finally come to an agreement over Hibernia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Having said that, given that the world price of oil is between $28 and $30 U.S. per barrel, would the Minister tell us what are the most recent projections of her Department for the price of a barrel of Hibernia oil?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member welcomes the Newfoundland agreement. I think that he and members of the Opposition should wake up every morning and say: "Thank God we have a Conservative Government in Ottawa."-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the Minister would like to answer the question.


Pat Carney: To answer the question, which is extremely timely, all the projections that we have-and I have been briefed on this recently by Energy Ministers of other countries-show that oil prices should start increasing again in the early 1990s. They are in a stable mode now, but they are expected to head upwards in the 1990s. That is why it is important we bring Hibernia on now, so that we have energy security in 1990-92 when we expect the prices will be higher.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that some analysts have projected $60 per barrel for Hibernia oil, if world prices do not rise, are the Government and the Minister's Department contemplating a pricing system in Canada where there will be two prices-a price for the world oil market and a higher price to Canadian consumers for Hibernia oil or tar sands oil? Is that what the Government is contemplating for Canadian consumers?


Pat Carney: No, Mr. Speaker.


THE CENSUS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, thank God we have a vibrant opposition in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 13, 1984


Don Boudria: In the absence of the Minister of Finance, 1 will direct my question to the Prime Minister. According to the Canadian Press wire service and an internal report of Statistics Canada, the Government has overpaid $217 million in equalization grants over a five year period because the census data are not entirely up to date. According to the same report, estimates over 10 years would make matters far worse in the absence of a census. Will the Prime Minister tell us what consultation was held with the provinces before cancelling the census? Also, how much money will the provinces lose because of inadequate census data?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I suppose nobody could lose as much money as the previous Government lost and be damned for it by the Auditor General for mismanagement and abuse of public funds.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: What we are trying to do, with a sense of fairness, is to save some of the taxpayers' dollars and to treat the taxpayers' dollars with frugality. I would have thought, notwithstanding some temporary inconvenience, that my hon. friend would be applauding to save taxpayers' dollars, rather than rising on a constant stream of red herrings.


DEPUTY MINISTER'S VIEWS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of State for Finance. According to the same report Mr. Jean Fournier, Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance, is quoted as saying-


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, does the Hon. Member want to put his question?


Don Boudria: Can the Minister inform the House whether those view of her Deputy Minister were the same views expressed by the Minister of Finance when he cancelled the 1986 Census?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: am sorry, Mr. Speaker, the microphone went off and I did not hear the quote from Mr. Fournier. I apologize to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Member will send you the quote, and you can read it.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. On November 23 of this year, under the provisions of FIRA, the Government gave permission for Kruger Inc., a foreign
Oral Questions
controlled company, to acquire the Bowater Mill in Corner Brook, Newfoundland. That company has now stated that it will withdraw its offer unless the provincial Government passes legislation which would change the Labour Standards Act retroactively to 1978. Will the Minister tell this House if that change in the Labour Standards Act was agreed to by FIRA? If not, will he tell this House what he is prepared to do to ensure that that company has to abide by the laws that were in place when the FIRA agreement was reached?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that it is not customary to discuss ongoing decisions and conversations and, for that matter, even the undertakings with respect to FIRA matters. I am sure the Hon. Member would not want me to break the precedent that has been set for so long.


POLICY INQUIRY
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, given the Minister's answer, will he tell this House just how far the Government is prepared to go to attract foreign capital to Canada, and whether the price we will have to pay will be the elimination of child labour laws, minimum wage laws, health and safety laws, and environmental protection laws, all of which have been targeted by the corporate sector? How far is the Government prepared to go?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, I think most Members would agree that we hear much nonsense in this House from time to time, but rarely such utter rubbish as the Member put in his question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIRPORTS
Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. One week from today the control zone over the airport at London, Ontario, is scheduled to be reduced from 10 miles to five miles. This is as a result of a Ministry of Transport directive issued last year. According to the base user organizations in London, this reduction raises-


Mr. Speaker:: With due respect to the Hon. Member, does he have a question, please?


Thomas Hockin: About the safety of aircraft. The Minister and his officials met with these groups-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member leaves me no choice. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.

December 13, 1984
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Mr. Prime Minister, in the replies you gave earlier to the Member of the NDP and to my colleague about the meeting with the Minister of Finance to discuss social programs, you did say that your Government wants to help people in need, especially senior citizens.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Can the Prime Minister tell me whether he has changed his mind and his reply means that the 80,000 senior citizens who are single, separated or divorced will now receive assistance under the spouse allowance program?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there has been no question. We only heard a statement. There was no question. I could perhaps continue my reply to the question asked by my good friend from London West.

I want to know a little about the London, Ontario, airport.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Then the Prime Minister should ask the Minister of Transport to make a statement, under Statements by Ministers, about the London, Ontario, airport.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is evading his responsibilities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


An Hon. Member:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Member has a question, and 1 presume the House is ready to hear it.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Would the Prime Minister tell us whether he has reviewed his decision and whether his Government will help from now on those 80,000 senior citizens who are single, separated or divorced, under the Spouse Allowance Program?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are going to help those in our society who have been neglected by the previous Government. As the Minister of Finance clearly indicated in his speech, they deserve special attention from this Government. We are going to help them unhesitatingly and unequivocally.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. About four or five weeks ago in this House he said that Treasury Board would be considering some assistance for the farmers in northeast Saskatchewan who were flooded out last summer. Did the Minister get that through Treasury Board, will there be assistance to those farmers, and why is it taking so long?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, I can appreciate his interest in the matter. I did not think it was four or five weeks ago that I made that statement. I might put his mind at ease. We have completed the calculations on the Saskatchewan Manitoba excess water compensation. We are in the final stages of assessing a similar compensation payment to the Province of Quebec. I hope to be in a position, within a matter of a very few days, to make a positive announcement with respect to both.


RATIO OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign the Minister's Party promised that it would put up two dollars for every dollar put up by the provincial Government. Can he assure the House today that that promise will be kept?


John Wise: Not exactly at this point in time, Mr. Speaker.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As he knows, the Arctic Biological Station at Ste. Anne de Bellevue is to be closed as part of the Fisheries and Oceans cuts. Why has his office now advised all those who work there that they are not to make comments of any kind to the media, to the public, to Members of Parliament, or to any other government representative?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of any such suggestion. I think it is probably quite inaccurate because I can assure my hon. friend that that would be completely inconsistent with my own views and with the wishes of the Government. We want the public to be fully informed of government policy.
December 13, 1984


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, December 12, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: The petition presented by the Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Hockin) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, the Government House Leader, a question to enable him to set before the House the business he proposes for the House for the coming week.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my hon. colleague and to the House. We are ending this part of the session and are coming to the Christmas recess. We appear to be making progress on some items of legislation and I must say I appreciate the co-operation extended by both opposition Parties in this regard. I think this demonstrates to Canadians that we can make legislative progress while having sincere and good debates on the issues on which there may be differences.
I would like to bring forward some items on which we may make progress over the course of the next three days. Today we will carry on with the consideration of the Bill relating to Investment Canada, Bill C-15. Tomorrow I would like to call Bill C-8, the Bill with respect to the PGRT, for second reading and I think there might be a disposition to deal with all stages of that Bill in the House of Commons tomorrow. If we can complete that Bill tomorrow, I propose that we return to the debate on Investment Canada at the end of the day if we have not completed it by then.
On Monday it is my intention to call Bill C-13, a Bill relating to public works in Canada. Again, my understanding is that there may be a disposition to deal with that Bill in all stages including Committee of the Whole. If we complete the consideration of that Bill on Monday, it would be my intention to return to Bill C-15, relating to Investment Canada.
I think my hon. friend and I should keep in touch with each other. There will be further discussions that will take place with respect to progress on legislation which we hope to have the House deal with before the Christmas recess. At this point in time I propose only to deal with the business up until the end of Monday. I will give the assurance that I will consult with my colleagues in the opposition Parties with respect to business for the rest of the week. However, I think that depends very much on the progress that is made. Of course,
Petitions
the business that I have announced is always subject to the usual caveat that it may be changed in the event that circumstances or priorities change.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report, Statutory Instruments No. 28, of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, in both official languages.


FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the District of Muskoka in the Province of Ontario, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will thereafter provide a remedy, humbly-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, I rise to advise the Hon. Member, as I have advised other Hon. Members, that he is in fact reading the petition. He should simply provide the House with a short summary or synopsis of the purpose and intent of the petition as opposed to reading it.


Stan Darling: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This petition deals with the return of capital punishment and the undersigned hope that this House will give serious consideration to this. Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reinstate the death penalty for the murders of police officers and prison guards and for premeditated murder.

December 13, 1984
Introduction of Bills


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-216, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (political rights).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to provide public servants with the right to engage in political activity, as may any other Canadian who is not a public servant, and to be a candidate in a federal, provincial or territorial election. It would add political allegiance and activities to the list of things they can do and would provide the right for a public servant to engage in political activity after working hours.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: for leave to introduce Bill C-217, an Act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1985 will mark the 100th anniversary of the conviction and hanging of Louis Riel. The purpose of this Bill is to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel for high treason as opposed to merely granting him a posthumous pardon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: for leave to introduce Bill C-218, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons-free zone.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, to lend strength to Canada's arguments and efforts to achieve a nuclear freeze and nuclear arms reductions, this Bill will declare Canada to be a nuclear weapons-free nation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 15.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed by the Canada Post Corporation?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Eleven lawyers are employed by the Canada Post Corporation.
 * *


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 38 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall question No. 38 be made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howie: On January 1, 1984, were any Department of Public Works construction projects under way in New Brunswick and, if so, what were they?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member wish to be recognized on this matter?
December 13, 1984


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I have had a question on the Order Paper for some time, question No. 1. It deals with the RCMP hiring policy for people who have for a very long time put considerable expense into this matter and it is creating a great hardship on applicants. I wonder if the return related to question No. 1 could be inquired into by the Hon. Member to see if the answer could be expedited. I am sure that a number of people may drop their applications and seek other occupational activities depending on the outcome. I think the question is based on fairness and a real need for people to have some information and probably a policy statement put forward by the Solicitor General.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my capacity as House Leader to ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary, over the course of the next few days could review the Opposition questions which have been on the Order Paper for some time to determine whether they might be answered. I notice that the practice of late has been to answer questions from government Members, perhaps inadvertently, but there have been many Opposition questions. I wonder whether he could look into the matter.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I realize that a number of questions which have been placed on the Order Paper by the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) have been answered. They were the simplest questions and took the least amount of time to answer. Perhaps that is why the others have not been answered. However, other questions are being considered and hopefully there will be further responses at the beginning of next week.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



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.
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to speak today to Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada. In my speech I intend to demonstrate that if the Bill is passed in its present form, it will definitely harm the interests of Canadian workers.
Investment Canada Act
Like all Members, every weekend in my riding of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic I spend some time with my constituents. I cannot think of anything more distressing than listening to the personal tragedies experienced by constituents in their search for employment. I cannot say whether I sympathize most with a young person, a woman or a man over fifty with a family. They all have the same needs. Everyone needs a roof over his head and enough to eat.
I am sure Hon. Members would not remain unmoved if I mentioned all the sad stories I hear in my office. However, I will spare the House these details, because I am sure most Hon. Members are having much the same experience in their own ridings.
This Government is using the legislation now before the House to try and set up a common market with the United States by giving them all kind of concessions. For instance, 90 per cent of investments to acquire Canadian small- and medium-sized businesses will no longer be reviewable. I repeat the terms used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in his speech in London, in Great Britain, on December 10th of this year, where he said:
If adopted in its present form, the effect of the Bill will be to exempt from the review process all foreign investment concerning new businesses. Direct acquisitions of Canadian businesses whose assets do not exceed $5 million will not be reviewable, and the same will apply to indirect acquisitions of Canadian businesses with assets of less than $50 million.
Indirect acquisitions mean that a third party is involved.
Mr. Speaker, this provision is a threat to most of our small-and medium-sized businesses which, as the House is aware, form the cornerstone of Canada's economy. It is easy for the Prime Minister to go to the Economic Club and tell our neighbours to the South: Come on in, shop around in Canada, pick up any small business under $5 million, make an offer, and we will deliver. Mr. Speaker, he made us feel like some sort of Consumers' Distributors, this chain of small stores which everybody knows and where people can buy most everything at a very reasonsable price.
Mr. Speaker, it does not require much imagination to construct a scenario for the future. They will find all sorts of very good reasons to export their operation to the United States. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated in this House on December 10th, and I quote:
What we are trying to do, and what the Americans encouraged us to do, is to improve the environment for private sector investment.
"-and what the Americans encouraged us to do-" Mr. Speaker. But since when should Canadians take into consideration what Americans want for us?
Instead of trying to sell Canada to the highest bidder, the government should take control of his inter-provincial employment policy.
I found a real gem on page 2 of the Investment Canada press release dated December 7th, and I quote:

December 13, 1984
Investment Canada Act
Investment Canada, in consultation with the private sector and provincial governments, will work together with our trade services in Canada and abroad to promote and facilitate investment.
Well, we have a problem there, because when, for whatever reason, a Canadian worker in one province wants to settle in another province, there are a number of constraints. Workers are penalized in their search for employment. For instance, in many areas his skills are not recognized in another province. That is what is happening right now in Canada. I have another example taken from the construction industry. A construction worker who lives in Hull and for personal reasons wants to cross the river to settle in Ottawa, finds he cannot go back to Hull to work, because there is no such thing as mobility in our country. Mobility is not protected in Canada. We are trying to negotiate with the Americans and give them a good deal, while we have problems of our own we have yet to settle.
If today's high unemployment rates are hurting us in Canada, imagine what it will be like for Canadian workers and employers when Americans control most of Canada's small businesses. Especially when we realize that small- and medium-sized businesses are at the very heart of Canada's economic success. What right does anyone have to inflict this kind of situation, this kind of uncertainty on our businessmen and women? If their future is going to be snatched away by the first foreign investor who comes to town, that is enough for anyone to give up.
The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) said yesterday, and I quote:
Nobody is obliged to sell his business.
Mr. Speaker, how could anyone say such a thing? We all know that no one will be obliged to sell his business. The process will be infinitely more subtle and more insidious. As it becomes increasingly difficult for Canadian entrepreneurs to withstand financial pressures, it will be easy for any American entrepreneur to step in and take advantage of the situation. And there is not going to be much in the way of protest by this Government and other authorities. Is that what the Government opposite wants: to prepare our small- and medium-sized businesses for the hangman's noose?
Bill C-15 is a threat to the very essence and raison d'etre of small- and medium-sized businesses in our country. The Foreign Investment Review Agency was used as a negotiating tool and an intermediary to ensure that any investment would be in the interests of this country.
This bill has nothing to offer to Canadian investors. I think it is shameful to show such disrespect for the Canadian population.
Another danger which I must single out in this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the absolute decision-making power of the Minister. Knowing how mesmerized this government is before the almighty southern eagle, I am not at all sure
that Canadians will be protected. This calls for drastic amendments during the committee proceedings.
For years and years, Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to get a handle slowly and methodically on our own economy. But now the Conservatives have shifted in reverse, just about ready to give up on the masters-in-our-own-home principle. That is a very popular slogan in Quebec, and so it ought to be for all Canadians. To all newly elected Members from Quebec, it is a well-known saying which should be repeated here before the federal government-masters in our own home.
Are we on the verge of becoming a satellite country, the 51st American State? In any event, I agree with my colleagues that the Americans are our friends and allies. Other speakers have debated the issue and I would rather not elaborate on it.
But the role of the Opposition is to safeguard the vested interests of Canadians, and that is why I took the floor today.
Before concluding my remarks, I have to remind the government that Canadians do want to work, but not at any price, certainly not if they cannot invest their hard-earned savings in a company of their own choosing.
Essentially, we are all here to make sure that our policies are fair to one and all. We all have the same goal, namely to promote investment while at the same time giving Canadian industry a leading role on the world's new economic stage.
It is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I am prepared to cooperate fully and support all necessary motions in amendment once Bill C-15 has been referred to a parliamentary committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) for questions or comments.
Questions and comments?


Mr. Grise:: Mr. Speaker, here is my comment or question. After hearing the speech of the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens), I cannot help but ask myself certain questions.
I can understand that the Hon. Member finds it tragic when unemployed people whether they are women, young people or men heads of families come to see her at her constituency office.
I would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member. I want to know whether the situation in her constituency has existed only since September 4 or whether this has not in fact been going on for several years.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member spoke about the danger that our small businesses fall into the hands of Americans, but I wonder which is the greater danger, having businesses con-
December 13, 1984

trolled by foreign capital which bring employment to these men, these young people and these women, or seeing these small businesses disappear because of a lack of capital.
The Elon. Member also said that the former Government had made enormous efforts to promote economic recovery. I wonder at what price this was done and in what condition this left our economy.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked me whether the situation in my constituency was the same before September 4. I can say that the situation has worsened since that date. I represent a constituency-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: No, you will listen to me as you should! I represent a constituency of blue-collar workers, most of whom are construction workers. You can imagine what is happening following the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who announced cut-backs in every area. People are panicking, and I see at my office whole groups of men who are being laid off. Winter is coming and the situation is impossible. We know what is happening in the city of Montreal. Mayor Drapeau who dreamed of building 20,000 housing units on Montreal island, will not be able to reach his target, and in my own constituency, where there are mostly construction workers, the situation has become even more serious since September 4. What compounds the problem is the fact that, since that date, young students knowing that there will no longer be a Young Canada Works Program-


Jean-Claude Malépart: This is awful!


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: -are already beginning to queue up at my office to ask for my advice. I must tell them that we are waiting because the Government is consulting.


Mr. Rossi:: As usual.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: As usual, as my colleage from Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) says. I do not know what to tell these young people who come to see me. The situation is worse because of budget cutbacks which affect my constituency. That is my answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no further questions or comments, we will resume debate.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I must participate in this debate on Bill C-15 because I would have hoped that at this day and age, in 1984, we would not be turning the clocks back. However, it would seem that we have to mount a defence to prevent this Government from bringing forth this very regressive legislation which is going to do nothing good for the people of Canada; in fact, it will just help sell us down the river. I would like to address my
Investment Canada Act
remarks to what it means to the Canadian economy when we do have foreign investment, when we have companies from across our borders coming in and acquiring the assets of existing facilities or, in fact, building branch plants. I would like to read a list of branch plants, Mr. Speaker. It is admittedly a bit out of date. These are branch plants in Ontario in 1980, all owned by foreigners who at the time of the recession decided they had to consolidate and concentrate on their American parent companies instead of the Canadian branch plants. They are as follows: Bendix Automotive of Canada Ltd., Windsor, 55 employees; Bendix again, 650 employees; Canada-Ferro Company Limited in Brampton, 108 employees; Chrysler Canada Ltd., in Windsor, 2,200 employees; Crown-fab of Canada Ltd in Oakville, 90 employees; Essex Wire, Dunnville, 350 employees; Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd., Windsor, 840 employees; Gabriel of Canada Ltd, Orangeville, 20 employees; Houdaille, Oshawa, 500 employees; Rockwell, International of Canada Ltd., Parry Sound, 200 employees; Sealed Power, Stratford, 180 employees and Vulcan Equipment in Fergus, 56 employees. All of these companies were branch plants which were closed when things got tough because the Americans who owned them decided they had to protect their own companies first. In those days, the lay-offs in Canada were horrendous. In a seven-month period over 10,000 people in all but Ontario were laid off. There were 130,000 laid off in Ontario. That is a total of 140,536 men and women who had their jobs wiped out because their American bosses decided they wanted to protect jobs in the United States rather than in Canada.
That is what foreign investment means to Canada when we are not careful to ensure that we have the kind of review process that FIRA was intended to provide. Instead of forming Investment Canada we should have been strengthening FIRA so that more than 50 per cent of the investments would guarantee new employment growth in Canada.
I mentioned the Houdaille plant in Oshawa which had been in operation in that community for over 50 years manufacturing automotive bumpers. In 1979 it was awarded a $600,000 grant from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to refinance the retooling of that plant. At about the same time, in fact in May of that year, Houdaille Industries was taken over by KKR Investments, a holding company based in Florida, with FIRA's approval in December. The shareholders were actually told of the planned phase-out of the Oshawa operation before FIRA even approved the sale. In fact, the phase-out began a mere 10 days after FIRA's decision when half the work force was laid off. Six months later, on July 9, 1980, the closure of the plant was announced. The remaining employees had a minimum of 18 years at the plant, many with more than 30 years, with the average being 29 years. That is what you get when you do not have controls.
Let us look at some recent figures. In 1982-83, of the top 50 companies in Canada, 32 were owned by Canadians, or 63 per cent of the total. That group lost 9,953 jobs. But the U.S.-controlled companies, of which there are only 11 or 22 per cent,

December 13, 1984
Investment Canada Act
lost 17,487 jobs. There were three other foreign owned companies, or 6 per cent, with a job loss of 550. That is not the way we should be moving in this country, Mr. Speaker. Very clearly Canadian companies do better. They have a greater incentive to keep their people working. It is their lifeblood, and because they are Canadians they feel strongly that they should do so. But someone who lives across the border has less loyalty to a company in Canada than a Canadian does.
Earlier today 1 raised with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) the situation in Corner Brook where we have Kruger Incorporated, with FIRA's permission, acquiring the assets of the Bowater mill. In fact, it was this Government and this Minister who gave that approval who also provided some fairly hefty financial assistance, along with the province, to allow Kruger to acquire the assets. But it seems that the rules are changing. Kruger is now saying to the Premier of Newfoundland that it will not go ahead with the deal unless that Government is prepared to bring in retroactive legislation to change the labour standards laws. That Conservative Government is doing that and, as we see have seen today, yesterday and the day before, the debate is continuing long and hard in that province as the Opposition tries to prevent this very regressive situation.
I asked the Minister just how far this Government was prepared to go in order to attract foreign capital. Would the price we will have to pay be the elimination of things like child labour laws, minimum wage laws, health and safety laws and environmental protection laws? I found his reply to be ironic. He referred to it as garbage. I was quite pleased to hear that, Mr. Speaker, but the scary part is that those suggestions have not as yet come from the foreign-owned companies; those suggestions are coming from organizations like the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in presentations to a government commission, from the Fraser Institute, and from Canadian chambers of commerce. If Canadians are suggesting that kind of regressive step, what are we going to get from the folks in Alabama? They are going to want right-to-work laws, which is the right to eliminate unions. That sounds fairly similar to what is happening in Newfoundland today.
Let me read from an editorial in the Calgary Herald dated October 22, 1984 with reference to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. That business organization says the federal Government could end the universality feature of programs such as family allowances and re-examine such things as minimum wage laws, child labour laws and health and safety standards in the work place. We do not want that kind of Canada, Mr. Speaker. We want a Canada where we have a direct say. While we recognize that there is a need for an influx of capital, both from Canadians and from non-Canadians, it has to be done through a set of rules we can live with. We do not want them coming in for quick fixes and then running back across the border when things get tough again. We need stable industries with a commitment to Canada.
Foreign-controlled companies do not spend anywhere near as much as Canadian companies do on research and development, a key source of economic growth and productivity
increases. Let me give you some examples. This is the ratio of research and development over sales expressed as a percentage. For companies with less than 50 employees, it is 11.2 per cent for Canadian companies and 3.3 per cent for foreign companies. For companies with from 50 to 100 employees, it is 10.1 per cent for Canadian companies and 4.3 per cent for foreign companies. For companies with from 100 to 200 employees, it is 9.1 per cent for Canadian companies, 3.7 per cent for foreign companies. For companies with from 200 to 500 employees, Canadians do it at 8.4 per cent and foreigners at 3.4 per cent. For the companies which you would assume have the most bucks, those with more than 500 employees, it is 10.3 per cent for Canadian companies, and all the foreign controlled companies can do is to come up with 2 per cent. They are siphoning off that money and taking it home where they create jobs, not in Canada where jobs are needed. Foreign companies imported 22 per cent of their sales, five times that of Canadian-controlled companies. In manufacturing, they imported 30 per cent of their sales, four times that of Canadian companies. They are basically extensions of their parent companies whose activities are directed at the Canadian market only and not geared to the exports which we badly need.
Let us talk about the human side. I have talked about the lay-offs that occur when branch plants pull up stakes and go back home. What does it mean in human terms? I would like to read from a poem from the metropolitan Toronto Social Planning Study entitled Lay-offs: Job Retention As a Policy Issue. It was written by 13 year old Sharon L. The poem is entitled "My Dad Is Unemployed". It says: "My dad is unemployed and I hate it. It isn't his fault he hasn't a job. He tries hard enough. His company had to let somebody off. Guess who got picked? I hate his employers for what they did, for the quarrels and tension, but especially for making my dad feel so useless, unwanted, unneeded. I hate them for it." That is what foreign investment in this country means, Mr. Speaker, when we do not get a handle on it.
That is what it means when we do not ensure that there are some rules for foreign-owned companies to live by in terms of creating more jobs in this country and ensuring that they do not just extract our resources, take a quick shot at the market, wipe out a few competitors and bail out.
One of the messages I have heard in this debate from government Members is that they are concerned that Canadians are not investing in this country. I share their concern. Instead of developing incentives for Canadians to spend their savings in order to create jobs or for Canadian corporations to invest in Canadian products, the Government is looking abroad.
This should be called the popcorn Bill because the Minister seems so concerned about the businessman who wanted to come here to establish a popcorn stand for $6,000. If there are such possibilities for that business, why is there no Canadian investing in it? Why is it necessary to encourage the Ameri-
December 13, 1984

cans or Europeans to set up a popcorn stand? The Government seems to suggest that they represent the entrepreneurs in Canada. However, I see no changes that will encourage entrepreneurs to invest here. Instead, many Canadian corporations have taken their money out of Canada and invested it elsewhere.
Let me give an example from my own community. Great Lakes Forest Products Limited has announced that it will build a pulp and paper mill in Washington State. It will spend $25 million U.S. from the Canadian economy to build that mill, which will eat into the Canadian pulp and paper industry and British Columbia's markets for newsprint on the West Coast. That company is in receipt of $48 million to $50 million in direct grants from the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario. It owes $116 million in deferred taxes. Yet the Government is letting that company take its money to create jobs in the United States. Perhaps that company should go to Corner Brook to invest in the mill there and keep the money within Canada.
The reason given by Great Lakes for this investment in Washington is the unfavourable investment climate in Canada. Other companies have expressed the same sentiments. For many years we have seen our development companies buying shopping plazas and other enterprises in the United States and building condominiums. Why do they not do that here? Instead of simply opening the doors, the Government should be determining the causes for investment money to leave this country. I just do not understand.


John Horton McDermid: That is right. You sure don't.


Iain Francis Angus: Last year, personal savings in Canada totalled $36 billion. Surely we can do something to use that money to create some wealth in Canada. We do not even come close to the Americans.
Between 1950 and 1974, Canada had personal savings rates of 5.9 per cent. In the United States it was 6.9 per cent. In 1984 the figure is 12 per cent as opposed to 6 per cent. Canadians save twice as much as Americans.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Do you know why?


Iain Francis Angus: I would like to know why. Perhaps the Hon. Minister can join us in the debate and explain.
Yesterday, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) talked about housing and the need to encourage investment in housing. I agree with him but the reason why people are not building in this country is that they can make more money by leaving it in the bank. This is the result of the high interest rate policy of the previous Government which the present Government seems to accept. It has not taken action to ensure that interest rates go down to a realistic level so that people will invest money into housing again. The Americans will not build homes and apartments here because of the cost of borrowing. They realize that they can make money easier through other means. I suggest that the Government should change that policy.
Investment Canada Act
I want to see Canadians investing in housing, whether it is rental or for purchase, so that we can escape from the intolerable situation which persists in most communities in this country.
We are also, concerned about foreign investment with respect to the fishing industry in the Maritimes. There was an interesting discussion that took place recently in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. I am glad that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) is here today. He knows that the recent court decision effectively bars the Americans from the lucrative part of the Georges Bank. This means that the only way they can get into that market is by the acquisition of assets of Canadian companies, of fishermen, canneries or other companies.
It is my understanding that there is no provision for review by Investment Canada. I encourage the Minister to review that situation because I believe that other aspects of the fishery industry besides the Georges Bank could be in danger of being taken over. At least with FIRA, the Minister has an opportunity to say in Cabinet that such action is not good for the Canadian industry.
There also seems to be some confusion among Members of the Cabinet about provisions in the Bill. In reply to a question that I raised in the House two days ago, the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Bissonnette) said, as quoted in Hansard at page 1111:
-Investment Canada will see to it that the money is reinvested in Canada.
I have not found such a provision in this Bill. I would be pleased if an Hon. Member could tell me where that provision is because I have not seen it. I suspect it is not there and that the Minister did not understand the implications of the Bill.
In conclusion, let me explain what our Party would do. We would tighten up the existing FIRA legislation to cover a review of foreign firms already operating in Canada, applying stricter controls over any expansion of existing foreign-con-trolled business, ensuring that these firms promote trade in accordance with Canadian laws and policies rather than submitting to the laws and policies of the controlling company.
We would ensure that foreign businesses operate in our best interest by providing jobs, production of manufactured goods, research and development, re-investment of profits in Canada, and the purchase of Canadian goods rather than imports.
We would promote the expansion of public and co-operative ownership to promote ownership by Canadians of a larger sector of the economy and to halt and reverse the trend to foreign domination.
I am pleased to participate in this debate and look forward with interest to further discussions.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we have been highly entertained over the last 20 minutes by some remarks that are hardly worth commenting on. However, I do have a question for the Hon. Member. He is against investment coming from off-shore into Canada. At the same time he is against Canadi-

December 13, 1984
Investment Canada Act
an companies growing by investing outside of Canada. What is the NDP policy? How would the New Democrats prevent Canadian companies from growing by investing off-shore? What legislation would the New Democratic Party bring into the House to prevent Canadian companies from growing offshore? The Hon. Member does not need to get cribbing notes from his seatmate.


Steven W. Langdon: He does not need cribbing notes.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. I do not need cribbing notes. I welcome the Hon. Member's question. I remember seeing him in the halls of the other House a number of years ago. I want to say to him very clearly that we would provide mechanisms by starting with lower and controlled interest rates so that when Canadian companies and investors have some dollars there will be more incentive for them to invest in risk industries in Canada. Second, we would also be prepared, and we talked about this in the campaign so it is nothing new, to ensure that there is some kind of vehicle to prevent capital from flowing out. Perhaps some form of taxation system could be devised that would achieve a balance so that companies in Canada would find it more attractive to invest here at home. It is not that companies are expanding, Mr. Speaker. Great Lakes is undermining two other Canadian companies, two existing forest products companies in the Province of British Columbia. I, as a Canadian, object to that.


John Horton McDermid: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What the Hon. Member is saying to the House today is that he is opposed to competition in the market-place. That is the bottom line of his comments. He is opposed to competition of any kind and he is going to eliminate competition, which is absolute rubbish. It is absolutely insane to make a proposal like that.


Mr. Rodriguez:: There is no competition among the banks.


John Horton McDermid: I think the Hon. Member said he was going to bring in monetary controls. He would prevent Canadians from taking money outside Canada. Would the Hon. Member like to suggest any limit? Are we talking of $600; $1,000 or; $10,000? What exactly is the Hon. Member proposing when he talks about monetary controls? He is talking about controlling Canadians, telling them that they cannot take money outside the country, that they cannot invest, that they cannot take that extended holiday or whatever. What is the Hon. Member trying to tell this House? Why do the socialists not come clean with the Canadian people? Nobody believes a single word the Hon. Member has said today, not one.


Iain Francis Angus: I want to assure the Hon. Member that when I spoke I did not speak in terms of the Canadian who is travelling to Duluth in the U.S., next door to my community or to Florida or what have you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, they are not going to have exchange controls imposed on them. I am talking about investments of over half a million dollars.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: All investments?


Iain Francis Angus: Some kind of controls have to be imposed on those kinds of investments. Those are the kinds of investments that are stealing dollars from potential Canadian industries. I would rather see this Government get tough with the tax breaks it is giving to the corporations, the billions upon billions of dollars that we as individual taxpayers have to make up for. Corporations must begin to pay their fair share in this country instead of using the money to go off some place else and create jobs that may eventually lead to the elimination of jobs in Canada. That is what it is all about.


Mr. Oberle:: Mr. Speaker, will you permit me to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus)? I am curious whether the Member realizes two things. First, if the particular company of which he speaks had not made the investment in Canada in the first place, there would never have been any jobs, nor would there have been any economy in the area of which he speaks. Second, and equally important, does the Hon. Member not realize that the money of which he speaks-and I can tell him I know a little bit about that company, that it is not taking out $50 million a year, it is scraping the bottom of the barrel-which the company may have taken out for investments in other parts of the world has been earned in other parts of the world? Most of the product, if not all, is exported to other parts of the world and earns foreign exchange income that we need badly if we want to rebuild Canada's economy and recapture our place in world markets. How narrow-minded can these socialists become? Why does the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) not give this fellow a lesson? He is young enough to learn, and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap knows better, surely.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I will have a chat with my colleague the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), who obviously agrees with me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iain Francis Angus: I wonder about the question which the Hon. Member asks. If he is talking about money that Great Lakes has earned in the United States-I assume he talks about sales the company has made of a product, as far as I know it does not have any other operations elsewhere in the world other than in Thunder Bay and in Dryden at this point in time- because that company played the exchange market in the United States, it lost a substantial amount of profit that could have been used to develop Canadian industry. That company lost $900 million by trying to play the market instead of investing in Canada.


Frank Oberle: If it were not for the exchange it would be broke.
December 13, 1984


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no further questions or comments, we will resume debate with the Elon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart).
Mir. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker I welcome this opportunity to join in the debate on this important piece of legislation to all Canadians, namely Bill C-15. Unlike the comments of my colleague across the way, in my view this legislation heralds a significant change in the direction in which this country has been heading over the past 15 years. On September 4 Canadians sent out a message loud and clear that they wanted change. This Bill evokes change. That message could not have been made more strongly. On September 17 the process of this change began when our new Government assumed office. Since then we have had a Throne Speech and an economic statement which charted Canada's new course. Now we have Bill C-15, the first new piece of legislation by the new Government that will halt, as I love to call it, that slippery slide to socialism which those gentlemen know so well.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Stewart:: That is the notion which the Liberals put into effect some 16 years ago with their sleeping buddies beside them.


John Horton McDermid: The socialist hordes.


John B. Stewart: That is right.


John R. Rodriguez: Tell us about B.C. today.


John B. Stewart: Nothing symbolized the socialist policies of the previous Government more than the National Energy Program and the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Today we are beginning a process of making a break from those policies of the past that have bankrupted this great nation and placed 1.5 million people on the dole.
It is very interesting to note the comments of the opposition Members, the socialists in particular, who have spoken out so loudly against this constructive and positive piece of legislation. I noted in particular the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex Windsor (Mr. Langdon), who just left the Chamber and who in the past few weeks has been so critical of the deal approved by FIRA which will result in the loss of 600 jobs in the city of Barrie. That is my riding, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: Aren't you worried about it?


John B. Stewart: I am very worried about it.


An Hon. Member:: What are you going to do?


John B. Stewart: Listen and you will learn.
1 have searched long and hard for the logic in this argument and I can say I have found none. In his criticism of Bill C-15, he said that the end result would be a loss of jobs for Canadians. In his defence of FIRA he implied that FIRA
Investment Canada Act
would protect those jobs. I should like to quote from his remarks of December 11, 1984 when he said:
-under this Bill, Black and Decker would have been completely free of any review when the take-over occurred .. . they would have had complete freedom to shut down that subsidiary without any negotiation process, without any help for the workers involved, without any negotiation with the community and without any review mechanism by the Government of Canada. That kind of economic nonsense will damage communities across this country one by one over the next 10 years, if this Bill goes into effect.
The scenario described by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor is exactly what has happened in Barrie under FIRA. That is the type of economic nonsense, as he called it, which has been allowed to happen with the blessing of FIRA. Does the Member want this kind of economic nonsense to continue? Does he support FIRA or does he not? Does he want change or does he not? The Hon. Member did not say, but the inconsistencies in his argument were clear because 92 per cent of the cases which came before FIRA were approved at a cost of some $6,000 each. As a result of the work of the entire Cabinet in making those tremendous decisions, only 8 per cent were turned down. One of the ones which should have been turned down was the Barrie plant. Did they do it? Not on your "pooh-whippy", they didn't.


Donald James Johnston: How do you spell that?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Translation.


John B. Stewart: Right now there is every reason to believe that that agreement in front of FIRA was defaulted by Black and Decker. Did FIRA catch it? Did FIRA say, "No, you cannot close the Barrie plant because you did not live up to the obligations under your contract"? No, not one word have we heard from FIRA. Ostensibly that plant is to be closed, but perhaps not, and it will not be as a result of anything done by FIRA. Believe me, they sat and watched the whole degenerative process. Out of the whole thing, all they ever look at was only 8 per cent. One of the ones at which they should have taken a shot, they let go by the boards. I do not think that says anything good whatsoever about FIRA.
I believe the vast majority of Canadians support the initiatives of the new Government, particularly the goals which Bill C-15 will achieve. During the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made it clear to all Canadians that new infusions of capital were necessary if we were to revitalize the economy and allow it to create-the one thing he said which Hon. Members opposite keep throwing at us-jobs, jobs, jobs. But, how do we get those jobs, jobs, jobs? We must have somebody who will spend some money here. This country stretches 5,000 miles from sea to sea and it has a measly 25 million people. We do not have a domestic market which is sufficient to do the silly things which the former speaker mentioned. We must export. We are a great exporting nation. To export, we must have capital which builds buildings and machines and sells products. Not one doggone thing in the world happens until one sells something.

December 13, 1984
Investment Canada Act
I am talking about a strategy which would encourage equity investment and stop the outflow of equity capital. That is the problem in Canada. In 1980, the Liberals told Canadians they would buy back Canada, that foreign investors were no longer welcome. That was the message of P.E.T. But the Liberals did not really buy back Canada. They borrowed it back. That is what they did. They absolutely and totally borrowed it back, replacing foreign equity with foreign debt. The Progressive Conservative Party wants to reverse that trend. We want to encourage an inflow of investment capital, because equity inflows mean less reliance upon debt. They mean lower interest rates, a lower deficit, lower inflation, higher economic growth and, given the one medium we need, but, most important they mean jobs. That is the critical need. We need to strengthen the capital base of Canadian companies, particularly our small businesses. Too many Canadian businesses have too much debt and too little equity. That is our problem.
The message was clear. Bill C-15 will fulfil the promises we made to Canadians. As I said before, on September 4 they voted overwhelmingly in favour of our policies and new directions for the country. If the members of the Opposition believe for one minute that Canadians do not want to welcome foreign investment capital into the country, let them look at the government Members surrounding them on that side of the House. The message is clear. Canadians have rejected FIRA, totally rejected it. Canadians have rejected the socialist policies which have brought about the worst economic crisis the country has experienced probably since Confederation.
There are 1.5 million of what our friends across the way like to call ordinary Canadians. We on this side are ordinary Canadians too. We think more of them than they do, with all their rhetoric. These ordinary Canadians must surely wonder why the NDP, which claims to have a monopoly on the concerns of ordinary Canadians, is speaking out so loudly against this positive piece of job-creating legislation. Perhaps we have a chance of getting rid of those albatrosses - de Havilland, or Canadair. Why do they demand a continuation of the policies which have done so much to damage Canada? Billions of dollars have been spent to prop inefficient operations. They cannot have it both ways. They have to make up their minds. Either they are for change, which means jobs for Canadians, or they are against it. I think the ordinary Canadians which we represent know where both opposition Parties stand. It is fairly obvious if one looks across the way.
What are the changes we can expect to see with the passage of Bill C-15? First, all new businesses are exempt from the review process. Second, all direct acquisitions of Canadian businesses under $5 million are exempt from review, except those pertaining to culture. I believe that makes sense. It refers to those in the print media, et cetera. Third, all indirect acquisitions under $50 million are exempt form review.
The effect of these changes will be significant, especially in light of the activities of FIRA in 1983. For example, none of the 442 new businesses reviewed in 1983 under FIRA would be reviewed under Investment Canada, 80 per cent of the 283 direct acquisitions would not be reviewed by Investment
Canada, and 93 per cent of the indirect acquisitions would not be reviewed by Investment Canada.
Investment Canada has also been given a specific mandate to encourage investment for growth and jobs, to provide information services and to advise businesses and investors on opportunities and contracts. This matter was raised in the House today. We were asked why we would do away with that. That will not be the case whatsoever. The Prime Minister mentioned that there would be more Bills coming in, delving further and further into the problems of foreign investment. In short, it sends out a message that Canada wishes to become a better place for foreign investors to do business. It is as simple as that. In turn, this will give domestic investors increased confidence in the Canadian business environment.
Unlike FIRA, Bill C-15 reflects a new attitude. That is what we as Canadians must have. We require a complete attitudinal change. It recognizes the positive contribution foreign investment can make. Some 90 per cent of foreign investors will no longer have to wait for government approval before proceeding with their investments. We are placing realistic time limits on the length of the review process. We are not dragging our feet.
FIRA proceeded from the assumption that all foreign investment was bad. That was the Trudeau philosophy. Investors had to prove that they could benefit Canada, and the word "benefit" was defined by a bureaucrat. Investment Canada proceeds from the assumption that foreign investment is good for the country. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to think about the word "FIRA". Every foreign investor was afraid. The very word struck fear i the hearts of foreign investors. It was negative, the way everything was for so many years. Now we have something which is positive-Investment Canada, the place to put your money. It is a place of trust, a place of growth, a place where new jobs will be created. That is the difference between us and them.
Opponents of this legislation like to point out the high approval rate of proposals made to FIRA, but they missed the point. As Richard Smith of the American Embassy said in a letter to The Globe and Mail on September 8, 1982:
FIRA's approval rate, reportedly close to 90 per cent-
In reality it is 92 per cent. He continued:
-is not the relevant measure; it takes no account of applications withdrawn or not made as a result of FIRA's onerous procedures and requirements. Investment once established in a foreign country is highly vulnerable to the policies of that country, and it tends not to go where it perceives it is suspect. There is a sense in which FIRA can be viewed as a solution without a problem.
However, there is a problem. There is no way of knowing how many potential investors simply looked at government interference-particularly Americans to whom the words government interference are anathema-and then quickly looked elsewhere. There is no real way of knowing how many we lost, no way of knowing those potential investors were chased away by that one scary word, FIRA.
The Wall Street Journal expressed similar sentiments in the September 14, 1982, issue, and I quote:
December 13, 1984

In practice the agency has been secretive and capricious, and ... has driven away many would-be investors through bureaucratic inertia ... a continuation of FIR A provides just the wrong signal at a time of capital flight by Canadian and foreign investors alike.
Amen. All the criticism has not come solely from the United States. In August 1982, the West German Economics Minister said that Canada could move closer to recovery and secure new markets for its energy, if only it would drop its trade barriers and relax nationally-oriented policies.


Frank Oberle: Those are my people.


John B. Stewart: The Hon. Member says that those are his people, and I agree with him. He called FIRA and the NEP "hindrances that impair the investment climate of your country". That is about to change. It is like a breath of fresh air. A new day has dawned. The PCs are here and Canada is on the way straight up.
The underlying theme behind the criticisms of FIRA has not been so much over the approval rate, but over the potential investors who never even bothered to try to get through the plodding, bureaucratic mess. That has been the problem. We are now sending out a message to potential investors that Canada is again open for business. The door is open and the till is ready to ring.
FIRA has been a hindrance and a millstone since the day it was created. It is a bureaucratic nightmare. Since that time it has grown increasingly irrelevant. As The Globe and Mail pointed out a year ago, FIRA was set up in 1974 by a minority Liberal Government, but it came too late to fight the last war over high foreign ownership in the economy in the 1950s and 1960s, and now it is ill equipped for the next war, fighting for new business investment in the 1980s. If we are to survive as Canadians, we have to be out in the jungle, which is known as the world market-place. Let us put it to rest and bring in a new agency that encourages investment in Canada. Let us welcome it with open arms and not be so silly. That investment will create jobs for my children and your children. It will help take away that deficit which is a millstone around the youth of this nation. Job priority is the top priority. It comes from doing such things as, first of all, getting rid of FIRA.
How is it that the opposition Members can claim that we will lose jobs by bringing new investment into this country? That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. How can they demand a stronger FIRA to protect jobs that do not exist? That was pointed out by my colleague to the left. Is it not obvious that the Liberal policies of the past 16 years, which the NDP so strongly supported, have brought us to the point we are at today? Is it not obvious that Canadians voted for change and that we are providing that change? It must not be because we still hear criticism.
Why do the opposition Parties continue to criticize the policies that were so strongly endorsed by Canadians on September 4? It was all put out in front of them. I dare say that there is not one of us on the government side who did not make speech after speech deriding and decrying FIRA and stating that we would change it. Every Canadian knew that.
Investment Canada Act
They continued to defend the policies that were so clearly rejected by that mass of voters. Perhaps that explains why they are surrounded by government Members on that side of the House. How much stronger does the message have to be before they realize that the policies of the past which they cling to, as our government House Leaders says, like Velcro, are irrelevant to the vast majority of Canadians in the 1980s? What was ever accomplished in North America by socialism? Nothing.
Bill C-15 is timely, relevant, positive, constructive and worth-while. It is what Canadians want and it is what they are going to get. I would urge all members of the opposition Parties to look to the left, to the right and then to support this legislation which Canadians want and so desperately need. Let us bring investment capital into Canada and create jobs for the 1.5 million unemployed ordinary Canadians, whom we in the P.C. Party support, who want to work but have been denied the opportunity to do so by the harmful Liberal policies, backed up by the little bit of ambiance to their left over the past 16 years. Have the courage once to vote for change.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it has been fascinating listening to the Member make his speech. It has been an interesting combination; first a little speech for the people back home who say, "My goodness, I think Barrie should have prevented the shut down of the Black & Decker plant", organized carefully for a clip on the TV station. Then, somebody clearly drafted for him a speech extolling the virtues of eliminating the agency that he just got finished saying should have stood up and protected the workers in his dome city. He carefully read the speech without recognizing the immense contradiction in which he was involved.
At the very least, as he stood and talked about the new day that had dawned, he should have blushed. The new day that dawned after the election for the 600 workers in the Black & Decker plant in his constitutency was a bleak and desperate day, a day in which their jobs were lost and in which this Government was presented with a challenge. This is the whole point of this debate: The existence of a review mechanism by the name of FIRA-it could have a different name or a slightly different approach-has given the workers of Barrie the chance to appeal the shutdown decided on by Black & Decker.
The Hon. Member is well acquainted with what is taking place in his constituency. He must realize that those workers came to Ottawa. They were able to meet with the staff of the Ministry of Regional Industrial Expansion. They were able to present to the Minister careful information, which contradicted the information which Black & Decker had provided to FIRA. As a result of the existence of that review mechanism, which he now wants to strip away, the Minister had Black & Decker come to him and provide a fresh explanation. The trade union involved is now taking that Minister to court to ask the Minister to intervene to protect their jobs under this piece of legislation of which he wants to get rid.
We have here a classic case of workers and communities being able to use FIRA to try to protect themselves. Instead of this Member standing up and supporting his community and
1214

December 13, 1984
Investment Canada Act
the workers in his city, he stands up and says, "A new day has dawned. Thank Heaven for a P.C. Government". It is a classic case of jobs being lost as a result of foreign investment. The facts are on the record that it was a foreign company that took over another foreign subsidiary. The result has been a loss of 400 jobs.
Members opposite may not like to face reality. They may want to re-write history, but the facts are very clear in this case. Why did this Member get up in the House to try to defend the elimination of the one mechanism that his community and his workers have had to turn to in order to stop this company from doing what it wanted to do? Why has he been able to rise and unblushingly call for the cutting away of the one piece of legislation which is protecting the people in his community?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to tell the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor that when it come to speaking about free enterprise, I do not need any help. Second, perhaps I could ask him a question. Does he understand the meaning of grandstanding, Mr. Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John B. Stewart: When the Hon. Member first stood in his place in this House to speak about Black & Decker and General Electric, he mentioned that take over of Westinghouse by Black & Decker. He did not even know what the company was. He is up there grandstanding again on their great vision of ordinary Canadians.
Yes, that is happening in my riding. Only 8 per cent of all the applications that came before FIRA were reviewed, at a cost of $6,000 each. The one that FIRA should have reviewed was the Black & Decker application for Barrie. It did not review it and allowed it to happen. Why bother at all? That is the whole point. We will chase away 35,000 more than we will ever win. It is in my riding and it is my concern. However, defending an 8 per cent decision does not make it right at any time.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to step in and help you referee this exchange. I gathered from the Hon. Member's remarks that he seems to be telling us that had FIRA protected the Black & Decker workers, he would not be supporting this Bill but would be supporting the continuance of FIRA. Is that correct? That is the conclusion that I would draw from what the Hon. Member has said.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, may I tell the Hon. Member that his conclusions are the same as they were in the leadership race: he might win.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, again, the Hon. Member has missed the point of FIRA. The statistics regarding FIRA do not show that 92 per cent of the applications have not been reviewed. They show that 92 per cent of those reviewed were accepted with conditions, and the conditions in the case of
Black & Decker, according to the news reports and the comments made by FIRA officials, were that the Black & Decker plant would remain profitable. So long as it remained profitable, it would be kept open.
The union has quite clear statistics that indicate, first, that Black & Decker was profitable last year and, second, that it has remained profitable this year. It is because of that that it is able to turn to FIRA and say: "You have not kept to the conditions to which you have committed yourself'. In fact, it is the commitments that FIRA has gotten out of Black & Decker that now permit the workers in the community to go both to the Minister and in turn to the courts to try to protect those jobs.
Let me ask the Hon. Member whether he cannot recognize the contradiction in his approach. Can he not recognize that in this case, as I predict will happen in many, many cases in the future, jobs of Canadian workers will be lost because of foreign investment and jobs that could be protected by a review process will go without that protection in the future?
I have one last point to make, if I may. I am not grandstanding. I do not have constituents in Barrie to win to my side. I am talking about people in our country who are being hurt and whose jobs are being lost. That is the point and that is what our fight is about. I ask the Hon. Member to recognize that as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), but I ask him to make it a short answer.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I will make it short. It is not contradictory. I will always fight for my constituents. 1 will be fighting very hard for solving the Black & Decker problem, and not inflaming it as the Hon. Member is. Investment Canada, on the whole, will create a much better situation than we have now, and always will. Foreign investment-


An Hon. Member:: Right on!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We made a convert.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comments is now over.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill C-16, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1985.
December 13, 1984



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson)-Fisheries- Georges Bank boundary decision-Possible United States request for moratorium, (b) Request that Prime Minister negotiate management agreement; the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Employment- Provision of funds to create jobs, (b) Source of funding; the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-Fitness and Amateur Sport-Reported importation of drugs by Soviet athletes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[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.
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this Bill which, contrary to that party's commitments, is again intended to steal jobs from working men and women. Despite suggestions from some of the Progressive Conservative Members, nowhere does the legislation ensure that there will be more jobs in Canada. Despite suggestions from some of the Members, nowhere does it ensure that in any area, any province or any constituency there will be more jobs. But on the other hand, this legislation offers no guarantee that in any area or constituency there will be no loss of jobs. And I well understand why the Liberal Party, which forms the Official Opposition is not supporting the legislation as submitted. It is because when an American multinational corporation, as mentioned by the Prime Minister, decides to take over a number of small businesses, and there is a recession as has already occurred in some particular area of the economy, the decisions will be made in the United States rather than in Canada, and the financiers will decide to close down the Canadian subsidiaries in order to maintain production and employment in the United States, for which they are responsible. And in Canada, our companies will operate as mere warehouses and there will be lay-offs. There is no way the legislation can prevent that kind of situation.
Investment Canada Act
Earlier this week, a Progressive Conservative Member wanted to know of instances where foreign corporations had come to Canada and had been badly served. Some people's memory must be short. One only has to mention Iron Ore. That company's representatives came here to develop resources in Quebec, and when they realized there was nothing left to do, you know what they did. They appointed a Canadian businessman as president to smooth things out, to close it down and lay off people.
Other Members will recall ITT. At one point they came to develop our natural resources in Quebec, with no thought whatsoever of reforestation, of the future. And when they were finished, when things were no longer profitable, they closed down and told Quebecers: You look after yourselves!
Mr. Speaker, it is important in my view that each Member in this House should make sure that the legislation is improved. I have no objection to investors from any country coming here in Canada to invest. But one thing must be ensured, namely that jobs are created and that economic and social policies in Canada do not end up being determined by foreign investors.
There is another ambiguity. If you read the speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) delivered in New York and examine the bill, you realize there is a very serious problem with this government because the Prime Minister always says different things in different places and you never know when he speaks the truth.
On page 4 of his speech, the Prime Minister of Canada mentions that he went to meet the President of the United States. I am of the opinion that he went to take the President's orders.
And finally, he announced that the President of the United States would come and check in Canada whether the Prime Minister of our country has complied with his orders.
Not only does he provide the answer to establish good relations between Canada and the United States, he also asks that regular meetings be held between both levels, that is between the President and the Prime Minister and also at the ministerial level. With such an attitude, I wonder who will govern Canada. Will the ministers of the Canadian government have to adjust to the decisions taken by American governors?
It should not be forgotten that our friends and neighbours are an important power. I find it hard to imagine the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and some other ministers discussing with representatives of the American government. I rather suspect they will enter those meetings with set ideas, and come out sharing the American views. After 15 to 20 years of that kind of attitude, the Americans will dictate not only our economic fate but also our social policy.

December 13, 1984
Investment Canada Act
I noted another part of his speech where he refers to the control of some foreign investments by large corporations. But when a foreigner invests in small or medium business, there is be no problem. Come right in that's for sale and there is no problem!
However the government has forgotten that American financiers will at first purchase a small Canadian business, then a second one and a third one and after a number of years, thousands of Canadian businesses will have been snatched as a result of the lack of regulations in the bill. They will be the ones making the decisions.
I wonder if it is not the American government or the big American financiers who demanded that the government defer the enforcement of the bill amending the Labour Code which was passed by this House.
I would like to know whether the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) can assure us that no foreign interference influenced the government into denying the passage of a bill unanimously agreed to in this House following a debate in committee.
Energy is another crucial sector. And there I think that doors are wide open to the multinationals. I see my colleague from Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) ... I think I would invite the members and ministers opposite, those from Ontario and Western Canada to listen to their colleague from Duvernay. He knows what multinationals are all about. He knows what multinationals think of small businesses and consumers. I hope that you will hear him in caucus, because he went through all that and he will soon tell you about it. He knows what the interests of a multinational are. Certainly not the protection of the consumers or of the small businesses. He experienced the problem in Quebec with other small garage owners.
I urge the Members of this House, especially on the government side, from the West and other provinces to listen to the Hon. Member for Duvernay.
1 know he could speak from his own experience. So I think it is very important to think twice before selling Canada off to foreign investors.
Canadair is another case in point. The Minister has told the House that Cabinet would decide if foreign investors ever decided to purchase Canadair. But how can we be sure about a Government that is as consistent as a weather vane? At least under the former Clark Government, they would say one thing in French and the opposite in English, but this Government says the opposite in both languages. It changes its tune every day. I think it is important for Members from the Montreal area and from Quebec in general to make sure that Canadair keeps its jobs and that its technology stays in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, from the way the Prime Minister and some Hon. Members have been speaking to this Bill, I get the impression that they want to go back to what the situation was 75 or 80 years ago-the law of the jungle. The previous
speaker, in his answer to a question by the New Democratic Party Member, said that as far as private enterprise was concerned, he knew all there was to know, but he never answered the question about jobs lost in the private sector. He did not know what to say to that, Mr. Speaker.
I think most of my colleagues, and even some New Democratic Party Members, said that Hon. Members would have to think hard before adopting this Bill. They will have to propose substantial amendments, while both protecting Canadian investors and making it possible for foreign investors to settle or do business in Canada. Above all, we must ensure that no jobs will be lost, and our main challenge will be to ensure that new jobs are created.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that if his Party came to power, it would increase business confidence, and unemployment would go down. We have had the figures: 50,000 more unemployed. CBC employees thought that with a new Government, things would be all right. The result: more than 1,100 people have lost their jobs, and this does not include jobs lost as a result of those lay-offs.
Mr. Speaker, I could give a long list, but only one item has remained the Government's top priority and that is spending $36 million to change the uniforms of our soldiers, which should come as no surprise with a Prime Minister who seems to like window-dressing. However, I do not think the Canadian military need uniforms. They have the qualifications and the skills, and I do not see how changing the colour of their uniforms will afford better protection against Cruise missiles.
Mr. Speaker, to get back to the legislation before the House,
I believe, I hope and I am confident, as I said earlier and I see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mrs. Carney), whom I would urge to listen to the Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) who has had experience with multinationals in the energy and oil sector. I expected him to be appointed Parliamentary Secretary, to have a balance with one defender of multinationals and one defender of medium- and low-income Canadians, but that was not to be. I urge Hon. Members to listen to him, and I trust that next week, the Government will bring in substantial amendments to protect the interests of Canadian workers. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition will do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens).


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Further to the comments made by my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), I would like to ask him a question.
Could he assess the housing situation in his constituency as of today, as against the days when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister responsible for housing?
December 13, 1984


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


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) with this answer. I think Statistics Canada has shown us today what has happened since September 4, with respect to housing. Actual figures show that in urban areas, there is a 15 per cent drop in housing starts, with a 28 per cent decline in collective housing.
The Minister when sitting on the opposition side, not very far from here, never tired of asking the Government to inject money that would stimulate the building industry. As the saying goes, when the building industry is healthy, everything is healthy. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that there have been cuts-


Mr. McKnight:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that the Hon. Member be more specific as to the time when I requested more influx of dollars to inflate the housing market artificially and allow those men and women who have been employed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no point of order there, Mr. Minister.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat, because the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), the Minister in charge of Housing, does not understand. It is therefore important to .. . I suppose he read the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation's statistics showing the distressing housing situation. And, Mr. Speaker, not just housing starts but also rental accommodation are down, but the Minister recommended cuts in that area.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I did appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart); for a while there they almost sounded like his best wishes for the New Year. But he also said something about it being dangerous to have American investors or business owners. I am convinced that, even though it is not in his riding, the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is fully aware of the existence of a company with head offices on the south shore, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft to be precise, and headquarters in Hartford, Connecticut.
The figures are there, Mr. Speaker, and they tell us that this company has been creating jobs for years on the south shore. Some of the Pratt & Whitney workers even come from Montreal. Perhaps some of them live in the Hon. Member's riding. So he might keep in mind that such investments do create jobs.
Investment Canada Act
That is the type of company which has been a boon to all regions of the country and primarily responsible for high technology development in Canada's aeronautical industry. Companies like that do not pack up and leave with millions of dollars every year, they do not bank all their profits in Hartford, because in the past 15 years that company has never stopped expanding, creating jobs and improving technology.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise). First of all, I think he picked the wrong example. As far as Pratt & Whitney is concerned, I did not say I was against attracting foreign investments. 1 said that we must make sure that foreign investments in Canada are used not to make us lose jobs, but rather to keep them or create more jobs.
He referred to Pratt & Whitney, but he should remember that it does not stand as an example, it is not a model company. Remember the 1972 labour troubles brought about by unionization! Remember how that American multinational company fought in Quebec to prevent male and female workers from joining the unions! As I recall, the National Assembly had to step in and legislate to force the company to let all its workers join the unions.
Still, I am glad the Hon. Member raised that point because it goes to show that American businesses and foreign investors alike must abide by the law. Recently, we heard about unions affiliated with American unions deciding to break all ties and join the Canadian labour movement. It proves that we do need strict rules to make sure that Canada is not directed from the outside.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) for a supplementary.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I wonder a bit when I hear the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) say that the company in question, Pratt & Whitney, was not a model company in our country, when his Government invested some $12 million in it in the last few years.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Hon. Member ... I do not know whether he is hard of hearing, but I said that it is a bad example as far as unionization is concerned. He surely remembers that at the time, when there was a dispute at United Aircraft, as it was then known, the company's name was held in such contempt that it had to be changed for the company to continue operating.
The Member has certainly not forgotten the 1972 labour troubles in Quebec about the unionization of that company's employees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now over-

December 13, 1984
Investment Canada Act

Mir. Tom Hockin (London West): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House for the first time to speak extensively. 1 find it difficult to speak extensively when asking a question in this House so I will take the opportunity this afternoon to speak in this debate.
The Bill before us, Mr. Speaker, is a Bill which this House has debated in many forms over the past two decades without its necessarily being called Bill C-15. I support this piece of legislation for a number of reasons which are in direct contradiction with the views expressed in the last few days by members of the New Democratic and Liberal Parties. I want to make my comments under three headings. I believe these headings are the essence of the Opposition's arguments. The first argument is that most foreign countries have some sort of screening mechanism, some sort of "FIRA", and usually a much tougher FIRA or screening mechanism than we propose and, therefore, we are going to be exposing Canada to an investment climate which will be unusually demanding for Canada as compared to that in other countries in the world. This has been a major point in the argument of the Leader of the New Democratic Party and has been frequently alluded to by members of both opposition Parties.
In dealing with this argument I would like to quote from a report of the OECD on this particular subject. If you look at the way foreign countries deal with direct investment which comes into their country, Mr. Speaker, you will find some surprising facts. Canada's FIRA regulations in the past 10 to 12 years have been much more onerous and strenuous than those which exist as screening mechanisms in other countries. I will quote from a document entitled Controls and Impediments Affecting Inward Direct Investment in OECD Member Countries-which was published in 1982-under the heading, "Authorization Procedures, Regulations and Impediments of a General Nature". Germany: No authorization is needed. Greece: The importation of capital from abroad is not subject to authorization. Italy: Foreign direct investment does not require authorization and its screening mechanism is much weaker than FIRA was. For the Netherlands: Inward direct investment in the form of capital participation is not subject to authorization. Spain: As a general rule foreign investment in Spanish firms is free up to 50 per cent of the capital. Above 50 per cent the investor has to apply for an authorization which is granted in almost all cases. In the last two years, an average of 96 per cent of the total value of all applications submitted in Spain for authorization have been granted. Switzerland: No authorization is required for investment by non-residents or by established foreign-controlled enterprises, except for the acquisition of real estate which is subject to authorization and a couple of other limited industries. The United Kingdom: No authorization is required for investment by non-residents or established foreign-controlled enterprises. The United States, our neighbours, and I again quote from the OECD document as I have been all along: No authorization is required for investment by non-residents or by established foreign controlled enterprises. Some States of that Union prohibit or limit
the ownership of land by non-resident foreigners or foreign corporations.
This is a very interesting document when one is trying to get a sense of where Canada fits in the context of over-all foreign investment in the world today. Why is this important? First of all it was raised by the Opposition. The truth is that Canada has constructed layer upon layer of deterrents through FIRA which are viewed as being psychological impediments by foreigners, which in their view is much more onerous than investment in other countries. If that is true, we have to come to terms with that reality.
I want to read from a recent book by Professor Edward Safarian of the University of Toronto. He looks at the flow of investment from 13 major countries in the last 20 years. From 1963 to 1968 Canada was the recipient of 16 per cent of the flow of investment from the 13 major investing countries in the world. From 1968 to 1973, it was 12 per cent. Then, when FIRA really moved into high gear from 1974 to 1979, it was 3 per cent; only 3 per cent of the total investment came to Canada, down from 16 per cent. We have to situate our screening mechanisms, whatever they are, in a world context. There is no better proof of that than the statistics that I have just read.
Of course, the most dramatic is the situation since 1980. From 1980 to 1982 our share of the flow of investment capital from these 13 major countries was negative. In other words, we were investing more abroad than was being invested here. We have to look at what Canada looks like abroad. We have to look at what our screening methods look like arrayed against the panoply of screening mechanisms in other countries. If you look at this you will find that FIRA was extremely dangerous for our economic development.
It is true that Sweden, Norway, Australia and Japan have screening mechanisms, but, by all objective views it is clear that they are much easier than FIRA. As a matter of fact, France is extremely open. It has an interdepartmental committee that looks at certain levels of foreign investment and it has a registry for foreign exchange investments, but it does not have strict criteria and its rejection rate has always been about 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per cent a year of all foreign investment destined for thftt country. France, Australia, Scandinavia and Japan all have a very, very low rejection rate, Italy especially so.
We have to look at FIRA in this context. That is why FIRA, quite frankly, must go the way of the dodo bird. It is a mechanism which, if it ever was useful, is certainly no longer useful in the late 1970s let alone the 1980s.
The second major thrust I have found in this debate this afternoon as well as when the debate opened, is that there is somehow inherent in our Bill great danger to the survival of small firms. Of course, you can argue both positions on this subject with varying degrees of proof, but I would like to share with the House my thoughts on this very briefly.
December 13, 1984

I have a feeling that in Canada we have had a tendency, especially in the last 10 years, to produce small firms that grow to a certain stage but never grow to the second stage. That second stage is the ability to export abroad or even just to the United States, or to move to a technological stage whereby a company becomes a world-class firm. We have had a tendency in Canada of producing small firms which are then sold for the capital gain and the capital gain is used quite often to buy real estate, which is not particularly productive. We have to stop that. If we want our small firms to really develop, and this includes the Black and Deckers of the world, we have to find a way of getting them to that second stage where they can be truly an international presence. Small firms can be internationally strong as well as nationally strong. I believe the way to do that, Mr. Speaker, is by giving the kind of signals we are giving in this Bill.
I was told the other day by the president of one of the larger foreign-controlled firms in London that if this Bill is passed, he is thinking of buying two or three small firms in Canada and quadrupling their output. That company will export back into the U.S. from that base. It is going to quadruple its payroll and quadruple its labour. That is as a result of this Bill. In other words, small firms also are going to be resuscitated by this Bill. They are not just going to be threatened.
A number of firms who in fact find the competitive situation more difficult as a result of this Bill may find that their investment patterns would have been better in different directions anyway. We will have a more competitive situation which will drive down prices and force us to be more competitive and effective in the world economy. Hopefully, as a result, we can move to what I have referred to as the stage two of any business, which is able to be something more than a small national enterprise.
The third major argument we have been hearing is about the threat of foreign buyers moving into this country buying firms and closing them down. I think this was the burden of what we were hearing this afternoon. In that regard I would like to say that from all evidence we have seen in the last six or seven years, firms are not investing in Canada to shut down Canadian firms; they are not investing at all. Therefore, the essence of the opposition argument in this regard is really without any factual foundation.
I have heard arguments that if we have foreign ownership, we are going to change the production patterns of certain Canadian firms and so on. I would like to suggest, especially in the example brought up by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), that foreign participation in Canadair or deHavilland might be an extremely good thing. What those firms have are magnificent facilities, magnificent skills, magnificent technological capabilities. What those firms need is foreign distribution, foreign marketing expertise and some foreign leverage. In fact, they might get it by having a foreign partner.
Execution of Mass Murderers Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order, please. The hour provided for Private Members' Business has now expired."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 31 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River) moved: that Bill C-209, an Act respecting the execution of mass murderers, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that this Bill will pass second reading stage and go to committee. I believe it deserves that treatment.
This Bill is necessary because the Criminal Code of Canada fails to provide for the proper punishment of mass murderers, sometimes called serial murderers. The continued existence of mass murderers, or serial murderers, is a constant source of fear to Canadians in general and particularly to women and children.
The Bill provides for the execution of anyone who deliberately plans and kills 10 or more human beings and is found guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.
One such murderer is Clifford Robert Olson. No one can deny that the murder of these girls and boys was not deliberately planned and carried out in cold blood. Let me outline this murder spree of Clifford Robert Olson. He had no conscience and killed simply for kicks. The first murder was that of Christine N. Weller. Olson took her to Richmond on November 17, 1980, and killed her with multiple stab wounds. Her murder, like that of all the others that followed, was planned and deliberate.
Five months later, Clifford Olson took Colleen Daignault to Surry and killed her. Her murder was also planned and deliberate. The cause of her death was skull fracture.
Five days later, Clifford Robert Olson took Daryn Todd Johnsrude to Deroche on April 21, 1981, and caused his unlawful death. The cause of death was skull fractures.

December 13, 1984
Execution of Mass Murderers Act
The fifth murder was that of Ada Anita Court, which took place just one month after the murder of Daryn. On June 21, 1981, Clifford Robert Olson took her to Agassiz and caused her death. The cause was strangulation.
Eleven days later, Clifford Robert Olson took Simon Patrick Partington, a nine-year old boy, to Richmond and killed him. The cause was strangulation.
The next murder took place 28 days later. Sandra Lynn Wolfsteiner disappeared on May 19, and finally Olson admitted that he killed her.
The next murder was seven days after that. Clifford Robert Olson took Judy Elizabeth Kozma to Agassiz on July 9 and caused her unawful death by multiple stab wounds.
Just two days later Clifford Robert Olson took Raymond Lawrence King to Agassiz. He killed him on July 23, 1981. The cause of death was skull fractures.
Again, just two days later, this man-if one can call him a man-took Sigrun Charlotte to Richmond and killed her on July 5. The cause of death was skull fractures. Just two days later, Clifford Robert Olson took Terri Lynn Carson to Agassiz and killed her by strangulation on July 27, 1981.
On July 21, just three days after the murder of Terri, he took Louise M. Chartrand to Whistler and killed her. The cause of her death was skull fractures.
Those are the 11 murders that this man carried out in that short period of time. In the month of July alone, he killed five people in cold blood. The evidence indicates that many of them were put through sordid degradation. The evidence is sufficient to indicate that at least some of these people faced sexual abuse and degradation before they were murdered.
I will deal with his sentence in a few moments. The first question I want to raise is whether Olson can be rehabilitated. In his 42 years of misspent life, Olson compiled a list of crimes which kept him behind the bars for the best part of 25 years. He committed one crime after another, and then capped it all with the murder spree of at least 11 young people. He now openly brags that he killed several others in the United States, for which he has not yet been convicted.
Perhaps the words of the wife of Olson can give an insight into the kind of man we are dealing with. She told the Supreme Court hearing that she was married to "an animal who terrorized me". She also told of nightmares that haunted her before her husband was caught in which the ghost of the murdered nine-year old boy, Simon Partington, begged her to help him. Whether it was a ghost or a dream, she sincerely felt that this young child was begging for help while her husband was brutalizing and killing him. She went on to say, "Oh, I hate him-I've hated him since the night he held a knife to my throat".
Robert Shantz, Olson's lawyer at one time, said that Clifford Olson is "conscienceless creep" who should be executed. He went on to say that, "There isn't anything that current medical science can do to change that fellow. You let him out and he is likely to have three more kids killed". This has been
verified and confirmed by other highly trained psychologists. I ask the House: can he be rehabilitated?
First, Olson has no remorse for what he did. He laughed when he was collecting the money for the people he had murdered. Second, most experts say that, without a conscience, a serial killer cannot be reformed. Dr. Morrison, an American psychiatrist, said, "They are untreatable, unrehabilitatable, and uncontrollable". He went on to say that they can put on a good act but they cannot be reformed.
I submit that there is as much chance of Clifford Robert Olson being rehabilitated as the proverbial snowball staying a snowball in Hades.
Second, is it proper to try Olson a second time? This is an important question. Some people have raised the objection that this would be retroactive legislation which violates the fundamental principles of justice. Let me give you one or two instances. Adolf Eichmann was executed for crimes he committed prior to 1945 by laws which could not have been in existence prior to 1948 because Israel did not exist prior to 1948. The crimes he committed were so terrible there was no question that he should have been executed. He was. War criminals who were tried by army courts and who were not punished sufficiently were then tried by civilian courts and punished. Other war criminals were executed years after they had committed their crimes. There is an exception to every rule, and it is accepted generally by people around the world. When the reason is strong enough, the exception is made. Here we have a man who murdered 11 young people, laughs about it, and wants to profit by it. Twenty-five years in prison is not adequate. He has special guards, special protection, and special privileges. He watches television. He write letters, I do not know how many, with the dirtiest and most profane language 1 have ever read. The taxpayers of Canada are paying to keep a man like that alive.
Third, who will be responsible if Olson does escape or is eventually paroled? Not a boy or a girl on his street would be safe. He gets his kicks from killing boys and girls. Would those of you who think he should not be executed have him live beside your sons and daughters who have small children? Would you want him next door to you?
Retroactive legislation has beneficial side effects because if the possibility of retroactive legislation had been publicized, anyone who wanted to commit a murder today could no longer be absolutely certain that he will not be executed tomorrow. Who knows how many lives might have been saved from potential murderers because this Bill was on the Order Paper?
Next I want to look at the experience in one other country, namely, China. China, which we think is so primitive, established the death penalty for serious crimes. It included homicide, rape, robbery, explosions, and other activities. The report states that two months after taking this hard line, that is that people who committed crimes and were found guilty would be executed, crime fell to its lowest level in years, dropping 46.7 per cent one month and 11.5 per cent more the next month.
December 13, 1984

Death is a deterrent. Everybody wants to live. Very few want to die. Death is certainly a deterrent. It is certainly a deterrent when a man has committed a number of crimes and is then executed. He will not commit any more crimes. Had Clifford Olson been executed after he murdered the first girl, Christine Ann Weller, there would be ten fine young people alive today, but he was not executed.
I want to outline a few comments that I have in a thick file of letters from people all across Canada. One deals with the last point I want to make. People are urging that this Bill be passed. In the last session of Parliament I tabled more than 10,000 petitions from people across Canada who said that Clifford Robert Olson has no right to live. The punishment given to him is not adequate. Here are some comments. Here is what one person said, "It might be a good idea to let Olson mingle with the other prisoners". You know what would happen if they did that, Mr. Speaker? Why should the state make criminals carry out what is the state's duty? Other comments are: "Why should the taxpayer protect him? The children he killed were never given any protection and in a society where we thought they did not require it. Well, those children are rotting in their graves. Justice is a joke in Canada. A life sentence is a farce. These murderers are out in five years. He is dehumanized and should be treated in the same method given a mad dog suffering with rabies".
Fourth, execution works in other places as a deterrent. I have given the instance of China. By law, Olson's sentence means that no request for parole may be considered until he has served at least 25 years. The judge recommended that he not be permitted to have parole then, but strange things happen in our land. Olson escaped before from a maximum security prison. He may escape again. If he is executed, he will not be escaping or killing any more boys or girls. What if he does escape? I do not want the blood of the boys and girls on my coat-tails. I do not want the blood of the boys and girls he has already killed on my coat-tails. The man should be executed.
Some people have said to me that they do not believe in capital punishment because the wrong man may be executed. But there is no chance of the wrong man being executed in this case. It will be Clifford Robert Olson.
I want to close with a comment that came to me from somewhere in Canada, I forget where. The person said, "The man continues to make a mockery of our judicial system. He is still front page news because of our obsession with the money that was paid to him to uncover his victims, while his victims' ghosts are screaming in our apathetic ears for justice to be done". This person went on to say, "I hope they continue to scream. I hope they scream so loud that we are awakened from our self-serving lives determined to right the wrongs for which our neighbours' children have already suffered the consequences".
I have no hesitation whatsoever in moving that this Bill be read a second time and that Clifford Robert Olson be executed.
Execution of Mass Murderers Act


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has raised a very important question. However, Bill C-209 respecting the execution of mass murders only deals with part of the problem in my opinion. I think that its scope should be extended.
What I do not understand is that although our constituents have made this a priority issue the Government opposite is showing no leadership on the question of the death penalty. When I was elected in 1979, one of the first things I did was to ask my constituents this question in a householder mailing: Do you agree with a return of the death penalty? 85 per cent of them answered yes. This was the opinion of my constituents in 1979. They were for a return of the death penalty. Each week,
1 receive letters from people throughout the country. In nine out of ten cases, people favour a return of the death penalty.
In terms of human tragedy, we often forget those who are the real victims. It is not only the one who is killed whose rights are violated, but all those around him who love him, his father, his mother, his sons, his daughters, his brothers and his sisters, and the spouse who go through a very harrowing and even traumatic experience.
The major problem revolves around the application of the law. If our institutions are unable to keep convicts in jail and if the convicts continue to escape, our correctional system should be reformed. How many times do we read in the newspapers that people on parole have committed another crime? How many times do we hear that they have committed acts of violence and even murders? The Government should have the courage, first of all, to submit the issue of the death penalty to a free vote in this House, and second, to review our parole system.
Mr. Speaker, I know that other Members want to speak, but in closing, I could perhaps suggest that we consider having a national referendum on the death penalty. I often have the feeling that some Members in this House are saying that their constituents want the death penalty, but that they themselves are against it. Are we here to represent our constituents or not? For my part, I would vote for a return of the death penalty for first degree murder.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I should like to place a few remarks on the record concerning Bill C-209 in the name of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). The entire subject of capital punishment is a very emotional one, yet it is important to recognize, as did the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay), that we have to deal with this matter in a reasonable manner, not simply be caught up in an emotional stampede. I am opposed to capital punishment in principle. I am not simply opposed to this Bill, but I am opposed to capital punishment for four reasons.

December 13, 1984
Execution of Mass Murderers Act
First, capital punishment tends to be class legislation. People who are well to do are able to afford lawyers. They can go the whole route in terms of postponing trials, obtaining extensions and appeals, and bringing in witnesses. The route is something which helps many more people with money to be acquitted than people who do not have money. In the end, people who do not have money are executed, and those who have money are acquitted much more often.
Second-and the Hon. Member referred to it in his speech-there is always the possibility of convicting the innocent. For example, Donald Marshall of Nova Scotia served 11 years in prison for a murder which he did not commit. If we are to be consistent, we have to recognize that if we apply capital punishment for any reason, there is always the possibility that the innocent will be convicted.
Third, capital punishment is not a deterrent. Studies have been conducted in States in the U.S. which have capital punishment and are adjacent to States where capital punishment does not exist. These studies have shown that the rate of murder does not vary significantly. In fact, violence begets violence. If we want to encourage a violent society, perhaps returning to capital punishment is one way of doing it.
The fourth reason is a very important one. Juries tend not to convict when they know that a human life depends upon their decision. When they know that what they decide will result in whether another human being lives or dies, they are very reluctant to convict someone.
A number of Private Members' Bills have been given first reading in this session. Of the bills submitted, I believe the present one is perhaps the most objectionable from a legal point of view because it attempts to apply capital punishment in a retroactive manner. It is specifically designed to deal with a single individual. I agree with the Hon. Member that Clifford Robert Olson is a most odious individual. There is no one in the House who would want to defend such a person. As a person who opposes capital punishment in principle, I would go as far as to say that if anyone has forfeited his or her right to life, it would be a person like Clifford Robert Olson. However, I do not think that this is any reason for us to provide a retroactive law applying capital punishment. It is a repugnant principle in law.
The Hon. Member is aware of the concerns within his Party about applying a retroactive 25 per cent back-in under the National Energy Program. In that instance we are talking about money, and they oppose it in principle. They find it most repugnant. However, the Hon. Member is willing to take a life by passing a retroactive law. I think that illustrates the legal fallacy and the objectionable legal quality of the Bill which he is proposing.
Perhaps capital punishment gives society the feeling that we are doing something about a problem when we are not, or that we are dealing adequately with the situation when we are not.
It was revealing that when the news of the Olson murders first broke several years ago, a psychologist pointed out that there were five or six young people, children, in British
Columbia at that time who, he believed, had the potential to act in the same manner as Clifford Olson. He was saying this at the same time that British Columbia was shutting down facilities to help such children.
Why are we not demanding diagnostic or treatment facilities for children in crisis so that they have some possibility of growing up and living normal and decent lives? We have to attack this kind of problem at its roots instead of waiting until we have a crisis, saying that we will take the life of a person we all find objectionable and feeling that somehow we are dealing with the problem.
In conclusion, I find this Bill to be a most objectionable one. It is a subject with which all of us have a great deal of difficulty dealing. I do not believe the Hon. Member's measures will in any way deal with the matter in an adequate fashion. People such as Clifford Olson have to be kept in permanent confinement. There is no doubt about that. I agree with the Solicitor General that we have to deal with this subject in a reasonable way. We should not be following blind emotion.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to second this Bill. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), has my support for the second reading of Bill C-209, an Act respecting the execution of mass murderers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill.
It is very important that we have a concrete definition of mass murderers before we begin to discuss the various concerns and solutions. According to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, that is premeditated and ill-meaning. Mass means relating to large numbers of persons or things or on a large scale. Therefore, we can safely say that a mass murderer is one who unlawfully kills a large number of human beings, having previously intended to do so.
In this category we must include not only those people who unlawfully kill a number of people at one time, but those who murder several people over a period of time. The latter is often called a serial murderer, and they definitely fall into the mass murder category because they are personally responsible for taking several lives.
At this time I would like to add that it is my opinion that one murder is one too many. Anyone responsible for the murder of two or more people is a mass murderer, in my judgment. I would like to point out that there is a very important distinction between those people who murder once and those who are responsible for several tragic deaths. While murder in any form is deplorable, the one-time murderer has often committed the crime in a moment of passion.
May I stress again that I do not condone that action. Murder is murder, no matter what the circumstances. My point is that the one-time murderer usually acts without malicious intent. It is in a moment of passion or emotion that
December 13, 1984

he or she decides to revenge or benefit himself or herself, or it may be a case of fear, fear of being caught in the act of committing another wrong. It is rarely an act that has been thought out and it is rarely repeated.
The mass murder or serial murder is a completely different case. If possible, it is even more deplorable. It is a repeated deliberate action not only to harm, but to destroy another life. This is the murderer who kills again and again and feels no remorse for his or her actions. It is carefully thought out and usually cleverly executed. A pattern develops and the murderer chooses similar circumstances and methods for each death.
What makes this type of murder absolutely unbearable is the complete lack of respect given to the life of others, not only once, but several times over. What words can we possibly use to explain how terrible this crime is? We need only look at the victims and their surviving families to come to a realization of the disaster and chaos such a murderer brings to our citizens. There is an added dimension of pain and heartbreak to the family of a victim of a mass murder. The knowledge that the person responsible for killing a loved one has done so before to other families, and may do so again, is especially frightening. We need only talk to family members who have had a mother, father, brother, sister or child callously murdered. The pain is doubled because you know you are not alone in your suffering. Other families are experiencing the same pain.
There may be strength in numbers, but this is a terrible bond to have with others. So they suffer and wonder why their family, why their daughter, son, sister, brother, mother or father? Why indeed. It is hard to understand how a mass murderer, or serial murderer, picks his victims. There is rarely any connection between the victims of a serial murderer. There is no logical process by which the murderer singles out his prey. In most murders of this kind the victims are vulnerable single people, children out alone, elderly people on their own, women out by themselves.
Another similarity is that the victims are nearly always strangers to the murderer. They have to be strangers because the murderer needs the thrill of the chase. He chooses someone, be it male or female, who can be caught alone. Sometimes the killer seeks to gain his victim's trust, only so he can monstrously betray it. Such murders are monstrous. The actual killing is often sadistic and the murderer thrives upon the terror he induces in his unfortunate victim.
The question is, what can we do to stop or prevent such horrible crimes like these from continuing? Can we deter people from considering and committing this sort of murder? I strongly believe that we can, and more, that we must. We have a responsibility to our citizens and ourselves to make sure that we do just that. We have the technology and know-how to do so many incredible things. Yet for too long we have not implemented the one sure way to prevent the massive loss of human lives that occurs when mass murder takes place.
I am referring to the deterrent of capital punishment. While many mass or serial murderers put little or no value on another's life, they are still very concerned with the preservation of their own. The knowledge that, by taking the lives of
Execution of Mass Murderers Act
others, one may lose one's own life is definitely something that would make one stop and think. It would force the potential mass murderer to think twice, once about his own life and the second time about another person's life.
Most of us would never really consider taking someone else's life. If the possibility of losing our own life was a very real and probable result from taking another's life, I am confident that an individual would be deterred from murder the first time.
As I mentioned earlier, while murderers may have little or no concern for their victim's life, they are very protective of their own. Most actions are based on a strong desire to protect and affirm one's own self. In order to present the mass murderer with a very real deterrent, we must concentrate on the one aspect of his life that does mean something to him, that is his own life. I am not talking about a vengeful action in taking a murderer's life.
I would also like to mention that hanging is not the only method available for the implementation of capital punishment. I sincerely believe that we can be more humane in our methods. The purpose of capital punishment is not to take revenge. It is to be used as a deterrent to prevent a potential murderer from becoming an actual one. I am talking about giving a clear choice to the potential murderer. If an individual decides to kill, then he should be held responsible with his own life. We must ensure that that choice is made clear to the murderer. It is his choice.
We have a responsibility to uphold our end of the bargain. Our parents taught us values and the lessons of life by warning us of the consequences our actions would bring. We must ensure that potential murderers understand that they will be asked to atone for their actions.
I am not suggesting revenge for the dead victims. Revenue is not the basis of our judicial and correctional systems. Revenue does not bring the victims back. However, weither can we turn a blind eye to such horrible crimes. The numbers of mass or serial murders are growing. In the United States, over 120 serial murderers are now in prison. Many have killed hundreds of innocent people in the course of their lives. Yet they feel little or no remorse for the taking of another person's life.
The notorious Henry Lee Lucas from the State of Virginia, who claims to have murdered over 360 people in 32 years, says, "Once I've done a crime, I just forget it. I go from crime to crime". Lucas' partner, Otis Elwood Toole, also shows no remorse. "I think of killing like smoking a cigarette, like another habit", he said.
We have a responsibility to break that habit of our mass and serial murderers. It is a habit that knows no economic, social or geographical barriers. While the United States is particularly plagued by most of the known serial murderers, here in Canada we too have experienced the trauma and terror that these murderers induce.
Our nation's attention has been riveted to the Clifford Olson case. However, that is just one example. We do not want a

December 13, 1984
Execution of Mass Murderers Act repeat of that horror to happen to any Canadians in the future. Those terrible events are ongoing in the hearts of the victims' families. Our main objective is to provide a deterrent to those considering murdering many times over.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize yet again that it is our responsibility to provide a measure which will give the potential mass murderer reason to re-think his proposed course of action. It is not a matter of revenge but a matter of being responsible and providing justice for our society. To provide for the capital punishment of murderers, I support this Bill.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill presented by my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Taylor) touches on a fundamental issue. However, I do not want to use the precious time of this House to discuss the basic issue of this Bill, which is an attempt to reintroduce capital punishment into the Canadian penal system. We are all aware of the significance of this matter and the interest it generates. I am convinced that my colleague is proposing this legislation with the conviction that capital punishment is necessary for the welfare of Canadians. 1 do not intend to discuss the logic of this conviction. However, I do have an opinion on the subject.
Like other Canadians, the events of the past months have made me reflect on the issue of capital punishment. The Prime Minister has already indicated there will be a debate on the subject at some time during this session. The debate, to be followed by a free vote by all Members of the House, makes us aware of the fundamental significance of our own individual opinions on the subject, but I do not intend to discuss with you my own opinion nor the arguments in favour or against reinstatement of capital punishment in Canada. I do not think this is the appropriate time to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I may have said this before, but in any case, the Prime Minister gave Canadians the assurance that this difficult subject would be debated in the House at some time during this session of Parliament. The debate will probably be long and heated, as were all debates on this issue, including the debate in July 1976, when capital punishment was removed from the Criminal Code of Canada. No doubt every aspect will be examined and analyzed in detail, with statistics attached. No doubt the results of this debate, whether to reinstate capital punishment or to maintain its removal from the Criminal Code, a will be milestone in the evolution of Canada's penal system. However, and that is where I object to the Bill presented by my hon. friend, all the aspects and implications of the issue of capital punishment should be studied and debated, not just one particular case to which it could be applied. In other words, we shall have to consider the humanitarian as well as the preventive or reparatory aspects of such punishment and the impact it will have on Canadian society and on Canada's image abroad.
I feel that because of its fragmentary and superficial nature, the Bill presented by my hon. friend does not lend itself to this kind of debate and is therefore inopportune.
Mr. Speaker, that is not my only objection to the Bill now before the House. I am also firmly opposed to the Bill on substantive grounds because I feel it is inadequate in what it is trying to accomplish. It is enough to analyze the Bill's various paragraphs to see what kind of problems it raises. Mr. Speaker, the Bill is inadequate throughout because it deals with the complex issue of capital punishment in a few minor considerations, a preamble and a few clauses that lack substance.
Let us look at the preamble. The Bill deals only with one specific aspect of the issue, namely the death penalty for mass murderers. In my opinion, the scope of the Bill is too narrow; it does not meet the stated purpose explicitly described in the whereas clauses of the preamble, which is to relieve Canadians of their fears in general, lessen the grief and remove the anguish of the families of the victims of such criminals.
Murderers convicted of killing at least 10 people certainly deserve a particularly severe penalty and unequivocal condemnation of their actions which I would describe as savage. There is no question about the panic caused by a series of murders in a community or the anguish suffered by the families of victims. However, by what logic would these murderers be condemned to death while others who have committed actions just as monstrous, such as nine murders, would be spared?
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member would probably reply that you have to start somewhere and that is not because it is impossible to condemn to death all murderers that none of them should be condemned. While I do not question his sincerity in the least, I must seriously wonder as to the timeliness of proceeding as he suggests by legislating on a piecemeal basis. By proceeding in specific cases, would we not be doing in a roundabout and virtually secret way what we have promised to debate publicly?
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, if the death penalty must one day be reinstated in Canadian criminal law, this must be done following a comprehensive debate and discussion and not by what I would call a roundabout way. To do otherwise would be unworthy of this House, whatever the personal beliefs of every one of us on this matter. It would be unworthy because we would be depriving the Canadian people and ourselves of the comprehensive debate that the subject deserves, and also because, by acting in this way, we would risk developing a body of law without any guidelines, made up of individual cases and exceptions.
However, this is not the only problem with the Bill introduced by the Hon. Member. Indeed, clause 3 of this Bill sets deadlines for the execution of a mass murderer, which would be 90 days after the coming into effect of the legislation or 90 days after expiry of any time for appeal after the tenth guilty verdict is delivered, whether or not the murderer has exerciced his right to appeal or not. In other words, the Hon. Member
December 13, 1984

for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is suggesting that the hanging take place before the appeal is heard. Let us hang him right away and we shall see later if he really murdered ten people! In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, he disregards the right of appeal, which is fundamental in our penal system and which can normally be exercised up to the highest Court in the land, that is the Supreme Court of Canada. Moreover, the Hon. Member is ignoring completely the historical right of all those condemned to death to petition for a reprieve or a commutation of sentence. During this week when we are celebrating the 36th anniversary of the International Bill of Rights, it is ironic that this House should be asked to consider a Bill which deliberately goes against some of the most basic rights guaranteed by this charter and by various other international instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights.
I need not to remind this House that Canada has played an active role in the formulation and the adoption of these instruments. By passing such a Bill, we would be repudiating all the international commitments made by Canada in the field of human rights. For instance, as recently as last May, at a meeting of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, Canada approved a resolution containing provisions which reasserted the commitment already made in the International Bill of Rights and the Covenant. Anyone condemned to death has the right to petition for a reprieve or a commutation of sentence, and this can be granted to anyone condemned to death. The capital penalty will not be applied if there is an appeals procedure or any other procedure or power to obtain a reprieve or a commutation of a death sentence.
We are all aware that those provisions are not operative in Canada, but are we not morally required to honour our international commitments, inasmuch as Canada has for so long played the role of a supporter and promoter of human rights in the world?
Also, under our Common Law, anyone sentenced to death is entitled to clemency and pardon. Such executive clemency is a royal prerogative and an integral part of our Canadian judicial traditions that are confirmed in our Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker, it is my view that the enactment of my hon. colleague's Bill would place Canada on an equal footing with some nations that ignore human rights and profess that international commitments are of no value, even moral even symbolic. Surely this House has no desire to opt for the road proposed by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, it is Clause 5 of the legislation that I would like to discuss, the Clause under which my hon. colleague proposes to bypass the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enacted less than three years ago for the purpose of entrenching for Canadians, under the Constitution itself, the most basic rights, the most essential to the survival and growth of democracy.
Execution of Mass Murderers Act
My hon. colleague proposes to use the procedure provided for in Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the "notwithstanding" Section under which the Parliament of Canada or a Legislative Assembly can specify that an Act shall operate notwithstanding the Charter. So my hon. colleague would have us bypass the Charter, ignore those basic guarantees that all Canadians are supposed to enjoy. But what are those specific guarantees he proposes to bypass? The one in Section 7, the right to life, liberty and security, not to be infringed upon except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice? The one in Section 12, the protection against cruel and irrelevant treatment and penalties? And finally, the one in Section 11, the right to the benefits of the lesser punishment if the punishment has been changed between the time of commission and the time of the sentencing?
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that it is in all good faith and quite within the law that my hon. colleague, by way of Clause 5 of the Bill, tries to bypass those provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But I have serious doubts as to whether we should do so. Since April 1982, when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force, the Canadian people have been convinced that their rights are protected. They are assured that there is a mechanism which guarantees that their rights are safeguarded.
It is my view that it would be unworthy of the Parliament of Canada to use Section 33 in order to keep the Charter away from a debate in which its application is so basic. Bypassing the Canadian Charter under such circumstances would downgrade it to the level of an ordinary piece of legislation, rob it of all its character of a constitutional, basic and supreme statute.
I indicated earlier that this legislation was not appropriate by reason especially of the commitment made by our Leader to refer the question to the House for scrutiny and propose a free vote on it. The Prime Minister renewed that commitment in this House on December 3, in answer to the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). Is our Leader's commitment not enough for my colleague from Bow River (Mr. Taylor)?
Also, without being an expert on parliamentary procedure, I do not feel a Private Member's Bill is the right avenue for debating a matter of public interest, as it is in my view.
Indeed, it seems to me that the public interest is at stake here, and that the Hon. Member's Bill is not under the circumstances the most appropriate way of raising the issue of capital punishment.
Although we realize that capital punishment is of interest to the public, and that the Government is very sensitive to the expressed concerns of Canadians, it is therefore my view that introducing this legislation is not the proper procedure for debating the issue.

December 13, 1984
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret that the time left to debate Bill C-209 is so very short. I am sure that if the subject of the way to deal with those who commit capital offences is ever debated in the House, it will be debated at very great length because of the gravity and seriousness of the subject. Doubtless, many of us will want to scrutinize carefully every aspect of it because of its importance to us.
1 would first like to express my appreciation to the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) for the views which he expressed. I identify with those views. I would also like to express my appreciation to the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) for his discussion of the specifics of this particular Bill, some of his concerns about it, and why it might not be the appropriate way in which to approach the much more complex and underlying issue of capital punishment.
I believe we must seriously address ourselves to the victims who suffer one murder, never mind the cases of the perpetrators of mass murders. What are we going to do to take care of the tremendous trauma, suffering and sorrow which takes place with the death of one person? I hope this Government will address itself in a better way than the previous Government might have addressed itself to this problem. We must address the concerns of the victims of crime. I know that the last Government began to address this problem, and I hope that trend will continue in the future.
I would also like to express my concern about the entire matter which deals with mass murderers, not only the mass murderers of individuals who are selected one by one, but the whole issue of terrorism. When this subject arises in the House again I would like to have the opportunity to speak about this tragic concern.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hour provided for Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, during the past few days I have brought to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and this House my concern regarding the successful implementation of the Georges Bank decision which has handed down by the World Court. The reasons for my concern were genuine because relations between Canadian and American fishermen have not always been good, and there has been no indication that those relations will improve with the Georges Bank decision. Because of the request made by the administration of the United States Government to have implementation of the decision delayed for a one-year moratorium, it has become even more important that negotiations on the decision be started immediately.
There is no doubt that the Prime Minister and Hon. Members of the House are aware of the long history of the Georges Bank dispute. Negotiations between the American and Canadian fishermen began in the early 1970s when a compromise on fishing rights was reached. However, eventually it was rejected by the New England fishermen. Canadian-American negotiations were continued through the late 1970s with Canada's Mr. Cadieux and the U.S. negotiator, Mr. Cutler, and an agreement was reached. But with the change of the American Government at that time, the agreement was not implemented. Therefore, when our countries could not come to any agreement, both countries agreed to put the case before the international Court of Justice. Although decisions made by the World Court are not binding, both countries agreed at that time that they would abide by the World Court decision.
As we are all now aware, the decision was reached and handed down. The decision did not give Canada everything she asked for, nor did it give the United States everything it asked for. However, I believe, and I feel most Canadians believe, that it was a good compromise because the smaller area which was given to Canada-about half of what was originally asked for-happens to be, a richer density of scallop fishery. I believe that Canadian fishermen can learn to live with that decision.
What is important now, however, Mr. Speaker, is the immediate implementation of that decision in order that Canadian fisheries management systems may go into effect, especially, of course, in the scallop beds, in order to ensure a healthy and productive fishery in the future.
Just the other day we had an official request by the American administration for the imposition of a moratorium. I posed the question the other day to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and I was pleased with the reply of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that they were not interested in a moratorium. This is something about which we should all be extremely concerned because it is time we get on with the job of good solid fisheries management of the Georges Bank, which will not only benefit Canadian fishermen, but will also benefit American fishermen.
The Canadian record of fisheries management has been very good in the context of world management of fisheries. Our biologists and scientists recognize the need for quality improvement to enhance the species. We cannot take everything; there has to be some stock left so the species will continue to thrive and be economically feasible for fishing. Of course we use the basic principle of size limits on shellfish and
December 13, 1984

age limits for groundfish and the pelagic species. That is basically good solid management.
I am also concerned, Mr. Speaker, that just lately the International Trade Commission fact finding report, concluded on Wednesday, fully supports the U.S. claims that Canadian fish imports are injuring the New England markets. I am a little bit skeptical of that because it seems to be a lever over the heads of Canadians. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) and the Prime Minister-at the highest levels, that is my concern-assure Canadian fishermen that they get their rightful share and proper management. Unfortunately ground-fish and pelagic fish will not fly the flags of Canada nor the flags of the United States; they are trans-boundary.


Mr. Stewart Mclnnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) for raising this matter. The Government does not significantly differ from the position he stated, but for the record I think it would be appropriate that I review the history of this situation.
On October 12, the International Court of Justice established the Maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine. That is the boundary, it is final and not in dispute. Indeed, in this House On December 5, in response to a question from the Hon. Member, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) put the position of the Government of Canada very clearly.
Before going to the International Court of Justice, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that Canada had negotiated and signed a treaty with the Americans which would have provided for reciprocal fishing rights and joint management of certain Gulf of Maine stocks, so that both countries would have experienced minimum changes to their established fishing patterns wherever the International Court of Justice might place the Maritime boundary between them. In the end this agreement was rejected by the U.S. Senate. The Americans have now proposed that both countries continue fishing as before in the former disputed area for a period of one year while they assess the implications of the decision and develop their position for such further negotiations as might be necessary in respect of East Coast fishery resources.
An official proposal on these lines was received from the U.S. Government on December 7. It acknowledges the final and binding character of the boundary fixed by the International Court of Justice. The Ministers concerned have not yet had an opportunity to finalize a formal response. However, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated publicly that we do not envision agreeing to the proposal. We have serious doubts about it.
One of our concerns is to avoid a return, however temporary, to a situation where unrestrained fishing might again threaten the living resources of the Gulf of Maine area. Our primary objective is to get on with managing the resource in a
Adjournment Debate
manner that will maintain it and, if possible, let it return to previous levels so that we can protect the jobs of Canadians involved in the fishing industry.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientists are working on an analysis of the resources in the Canadian zone in close consultation with the industry. When this analysis is completed, and only then, will we be in a position to determine precisely what we need to do to manage our resources and what we need in the way of co-operation from the Americans.


EMPLOYMENT-PROVISION OF FUNDS TO CREATE JOBS. (B) SOURCE OF FUNDING
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a result of a question I put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on November 29 with regard to certain statements, or musings perhaps, by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) about the money allocated for job creation.
In committee, the Minister indicated that this was not new money. The $1 billion which the Government so flagrantly used in debate and in the scrums with the various press people was implied to be new money for job creation programs. Unfortunately, on questioning the Prime Minister he seemed to indicate that he was not at all certain. That is how it appeared to me. The Government, in its economic statement, released by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), said there is a $1 billion budgetary allocation for job creation programs in Canada. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has now reneged and said that it is not new money but reallocated money. Therefore there are no new funds for direct job creation programs by the Government of Canada.
Much more important, the Government, which was elected with a massive majority on September 4, has reneged on its promises to the Canadian people. It has refused young people an opportunity to enjoy a meaningful life in the years ahead as a result of reneging on its promises. It has disallowed certain moneys under unemployment insurance. It has disallowed the entitlements that older workers in this country possessed up until this time, by cutting them off as well.
When it comes to direct job creation programs, the Conservative Party and its caucus of sheep have done absolutely nothing. They have reneged in the face of concrete fact which suggests beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is need in this country for moneys coming from the Government of Canada to create jobs.
What better example than the Canada Winter Works Program. There is $250 million budgeted for 1984-85. But what is the demand on that money? The demands are unequivocally six times that amount of money.
What do we get from the Prime Minister-this jokester, this man who stands in the House of Commons and laughs at the unemployment in this country? We have nothing but platitudes from him and from the Minister. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) is the real culprit

December 13, 1984
Adjournment Debate
in this. In fact, he is the minister of finance and the one who is setting the policies for the Government.
There is no new money for the unemployed in this country. Not only am I ashamed of the Government, I am ashamed of the caucus Members, those sheep over there and on the ends over here who have done nothing other than quote the Conservative rhetoric that emanates from the United States. They say that foreign investment will be the cure; foreign investment will be the cure for job creation in Canada. But the Minister responsible and the Minister of Employment and Immigration have refused to place on the table in the House of Commons the impact studies which will indicate to Canadians as well as the House how many jobs will be lost as a result of Investment Canada.
The Government is bankrupt of ideas. It is turning back the clock in regard to job opportunities for young people. There are 900,000 young Canadians without employment. What does the Government do? We not only get platitudes from the Prime Minister but from all the front benches.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has echoed in the Chamber and outside the Chamber that the unemployed are not looking hard enough for jobs. Where are the jobs, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary. Why are you not putting more money into Canada Works? Why are you not putting more money in a first chance program for young people? Why are you singling out the unemployed in this country to decrease the deficit of this country? Where is the compassion that you promised during the election campaign?
With great respect, I suggest that this Government is a vaudeville act. Act one was during the election. Now we are into act two. Scene three, if I may add, Mr. Speaker, will come when the Minister of Finance places before this House a budget which I suggest, if it does not address the problems of the unemployed, we in this Party will fight tooth and nail to make sure that the unemployed workers, the young people, will have an opportunity that they deserve. They deserve to have a meaningful life in this century.
This Government is bankrupt of ideas. Its cure is to throw rhetoric at the problems. I for one will not stand in this Chamber and take it sitting down. It is time for the Parliamentary Secretary or the spokesperson for the Conservative Party to stand in his place and tell Canadians just how wrong the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is, how wrong the real culprit is, the Minister of Finance, and how wrong the Prime Minister is. They have to do something and they ought to do it now for those individuals who are unemployed.
Finally, if I can conclude with a brief remark, Mr. Speaker, this Govenrment has singled out the older workers. Not only has it done nothing for the younger workers and the unemployed, but it has done nothing for the older workers who are ready for retirement and who will be slashed by this ruthless Government. Shame on this Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Hudon), I am pleased to enlighten and reassure the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). I should imagine that, in the mind of the Hon. Member of the Official Opposition, there would be only one way to solve the problem-higher taxes or a larger deficit. That is certainly not how this government sees it.
As the Hon. Member probably knows, a special budget allocation of $1 billion in 1985-86 will go a long way towards opening new employment opportunities as a result of the Expenditure and Program Review tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) at the same time as the economic statement. This review enabled us to recoup $4.2 billion through lower expenditures or higher revenues. Some of these funds are used to reduce the government's over-all deficit, and $1 billion has been set aside to create jobs and develop human resources.
The cut-backs mentioned in the Expenditure and Program Review affect all government programs, including of course those of Employment and Immigration Canada. However, I might stress that the $ 1 billion earmarked for new job creation programs is not money coming from 1985-86 budgets cuts in existing job creation programs. The new programs will be the subject of wide-ranging consultations between the various levels of government and with the parties involved in the private sector, that is management and unions. With these new initiatives, the unemployed will be offered many real opportunities to make a useful and productive contribution to Canadian society.
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize as well that the Minister looks upon those future consultations as a process designed to promote co-operation by all sectors-federal and provincial governments, management and unions-so as to eliminate duplication and make the best of our limited resources. We will create as many openings as possible with these funds, and that is the commitment made by the government to all Canadians.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT-REPORTED IMPORTATION OF DRUGS BY SOVIET ATHLETES
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on Friday December 7, I asked the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelenik) the following question:
Will the Hon. Minister cither confirm or deny that three Soviet athletes have been charged with bringing drugs into the country?
December 13, 1984

The Hon. Minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for his question. I have been informed that three Soviet weightlifters were indeed detained at Mirabel International Airport last evening. They were found to have in their possession restricted drugs, contrary to the provisions of the Canadian Food and Drugs Act. The matter is now in the hands of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, therefore, I am not in a position to make any further statements.
I have been advised that the three Soviets have been charged with bringing into Canada drugs which are illegal under the Food and Drugs Act. Of course the court will deal with the charges in due course.
1 am concerned about the matter because it is illegal. People coming into Canada who bring in illegal drugs are not only breaking the laws of our land but are showing a disrespect for our laws and our traditions. In sport there have been times when people have drugged themselves in order to be more alert or to build bigger muscles. Others have given drugs to opponents in order to slow them down or dull their senses. The use of drugs in sport is completely contrary to the high ideals we Canadians place on athletic competition.
Probably the worst aspect of this whole deal is the example which is being given to the boys and girls and the young men and women who are athletically inclined in Canada. We hold our sportsmen in high repute. We pay large salaries to our baseball players, our hockey players, et cetera; sometimes even larger than is paid to the Prime Minister of Canada. We honour these athletes. Boys and girls look up to them. When athletes come into a country, they come as honoured guests to take part in tournaments or contests. Our athletes have a tremendous responsibility to make sure that they build their bodies with good food, not drugs; that they get proper sleep; that they get proper exercise; that they set an example of wholesome living, because what they do will have a very real effect upon hundreds of boys and girls who are growing up.
Drugs have many uses. There are drugs which relieve pain. At this very moment we have a Bill before the House which, if passed, will permit the use of heroine to relieve the tremendous pain that is suffered by those with cancer. In my view this is a proper use of drugs. We have drugs which are used for so-called recreational purposes, to take people on a "trip" to make them forget their troubles. Hon. Members will recall that the LeDain commission in 1972, which was commissioned to inquire into the non-medical use of drugs, concluded that "there is as yet no evidence of serious long-term effects from use at current levels of consumption of this drug in North America".
That was in 1972, but by 1981 many prominent authorities on the subject deemed that such an opinion was wrong. Dr. Powelson said in 1967 that "this particular drug is harmless", but by 1974 the same doctor admitted the following:
-in five years 1 knew I was totally wrong . . . medical research groups, after a generation of neglect, began to attribute long-range ill effects to the use of this particular drug.
There are those today who are advocating the use of drugs for relaxation, so-called "trips". When athletes use such drugs, they are betraying the young people who look up to them, and are gradually reducing their own stamina and strength.
Adjournment Debate
There are other drugs which are used to relax muscles or to build muscles or to slow muscles down. Such drugs may be used before a contest so a fighter will not feel pain. Other drugs may be used to superficially keep him alert. Or, such drugs may be used for ulterior purposes by giving them to others to slow them down, to tighten up their muscles, et cetera. There is one good rule to follow; athletes do not need a crutch, and drugs are crutches. They do not need a crutch to build strong bodies. They need good food, good sleep, sound living, wholesome exercise.
I view with disdain the fact that athletes from Russia had the gall to come into Canada and bring with them drugs which they knew to be illegal under the laws of our country.
Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur
Sport)): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to elaborate on the matter raised by my friend, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), regarding the infraction committed by not three but two Soviet athletes upon their arrival in Canada last week. I congratulate the Hon. Member for bringing this very important subject matter to the attention of the House.
The athletes were indeed charged under Article 15 of the Food and Drug Act after tests of the capsules identified their substance as illegal under the Act. I must state that 1 am satisfied that the laws of Canada were dealt with efficiently and fairly at that time from a legal standpoint. However, as Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, I cannot and will not condone such an obvious violation, not only in respect of the laws of our country, but the rules of sport and the spirit of fair competition.
On the premise that the use of drugs which artificially enhance performance is harmful to health, ethically wrong and ultimately a threat to high performance sport, Sport Canada has shown initiative in developing a policy to eradicate the use of such drugs.
The competition in question, however, was conducted under the rules and regulations of the International Weightlifting Federation which does not have in its regulations any sanctions or penalties for the possession of a banned doping substance. As a result, the two athletes in question could not be prohibited from competing, as Would have been my hope.
Notwithstanding these circumstances, I initiated discussions with Mr. Gotfield Schodl, President, and Dr. Tamas Ajan, General Secretary, of the IWF. I am pleased to announce that I received assurances from both of these officials that they will undertake the following action. First, the IWF will address the specifics of this incident at the earliest opportunity. Second, a one year suspension against the two weightlifters will be recommended by the officials. Third, the IWF will discuss the adoption of sanctions and penalties for the possession of banned doping substances as well as the use of them. I further requested that Canada be permitted to conduct dope testing at this competition using our International Olympic Committee's accredited laboratory in Montreal.

December 13, 1984
Adjournment Debate
Once again, I must state that this Government is unequivocally opposed to drug use in sport. To this end, our policy mandates every national sport organization to develop a plan to eradicate improper drug use, as well as suspensions for any athlete who uses, possesses or has been convicted of a drug offence in this country or elsewhere. We cannot achieve this in isolation. I am therefore committed to initiating international co-operation to solve this important problem. To this end, I am
contacting my international counterparts with a view to eventually abolishing the use of drugs in amateur sport, not only in Canada, but around the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the Elouse is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock in the morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.28 p.m. the House adjourned.

Friday, December 14, 1984