1985-01-30

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, while in opposition, Conservative Members criticized the Liberal Government for abusing air trips which were funded by taxpayers. The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) spoke in the House for hours on the subject. I would like to quote that Member. He said:
It is astounding that we have this kind of extravaganza from a Government preaching restraint.
That sounds familiar. We have yet to hear the Hon. Member, who now sits on the government side, complain about the fact that the Government has spent more than $496,000 in the last two months on air trips, and refuses to make public the reason for the use of these sacred instruments of travel.
This is the Government that, throughout the election campaign, misled Canadian people by promising that it would bring about changes; that it would not be abusive; that it would be an open Government, and that it would create jobs. There were 338 promises in total.
The Government has yet to prove to the people of this country that what it promised during the election campaign was not "bull roney". Happiness is never having to say you are Tory.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the Cruise missile is tested in the Primose Lake Air Weapons Range which straddles the northwest corner of my constituency.
Recently I met with the Battlefords Association for Nuclear Disarmament. Members of that group told me they were opposed to Cruise missile testing; that they were opposed to involvement with the United States; that they were opposed to defence spending, and that they were opposed to NATO. One
member of this group explained that he supported what he called the Soviet Union's "assistance" to Afghanistan.
It is my view that Canadians strive for a truly mutual, balanced and verifiable disarmament. Our Government pursues this goal by using a moderate, conciliatory approach through the channels of diplomacy. I believe that sensible and fair Canadians, the majority of our citizens, want an honest and common sense approach. Many who protest, talk about their highly moral position. Striving for peace, by any means, is moral. No side in this debate has the exclusive claim to morality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call to the attention of the House and to the people of Canada the matter of the opening of an inquest today in Port Hardy, British Columbia. The inquest is inquiring into the deaths of five fishermen and the matter of receiving inappropriate weather information on the coast of British Columbia.
It is with some pleasure that I note the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) has looked into the matter, but I would warn the Government that it is not simply a matter of weather warning improvement. The availability of search and rescue equipment on the coast of British Columbia is such that if fishermen, or indeed any people, get into difficulty, quite often in the wintertime, during daylight hours, helicopters cannot reach them because of inappropriate deployment along the coast of British Columbia. I would also point out that Sikorski and Boeing Vertol, manufacturers of helicopters, have indicated that the entire coast of British Columbia could be covered by helicopters within one hour's flying time, for a price of $10 million.
More must be done to ensure the safety of people at sea than simply tuning-up weather forecasting and weather broadcasting. The Government must show concern in many other ways by co-ordinating and improving the resources which we already have.

January 30, 1985


TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that the current crisis in the textile and clothing industry continues and is growing worse. Thirty-four thousand jobs have been lost in that industry over the past ten years. It is a deplorable situation if we consider that it costs in excess of $250,000 to create a job a year in that sector. Many of my constituents have told me their concerns about this, and it is imperative that the Government implement policies designed to alleviate that situation.
In August 1984, there were 39,700 workers in the textile sector, and 48,100 in the clothing and hosiery sector in Quebec. Those industries account for one out of five jobs in Quebec's manufacturing industries, including several thousand in my riding of Drummond, which goes to show that those industries are a major component of our economy.
Textile and clothing imports into Canada have reached unprecedented levels in recent years. In 1983, imports rose by 25 per cent over the previous year. This unabated growth in imports means that more than 27,000 pieces of clothing come into Canada every hour, every day. This situation is the result of inaction on the part of the Liberals who were unable to adhere to the principles of their own policies.
To remedy that situation, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Minister responsible-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his allotted time has expired. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, Friday last the Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) introduced Bill C-26. The purpose of that legislation is to extend to needy single persons, aged 60 to 64, one of the old age security benefits, the spouse's allowance. My first reaction is to say "Hurray"! But, unfortunately, the Government has decided to add a new criterion which unfairly discriminates against 80,000 people in Canada, most of whom are women.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure not one Member of this House, whatever his political stripe, will let the legislation pass as it is now worded. Otherwise it would be a shame. If the Bill becomes law as it now stands, every time a 62-year old lady calls at one of our constituency offices and says: "I have
been turned down!", and, being asked why, she will answer: "Simply because one day I separated from my husband."
Mr. Speaker, I am counting greatly on the support of every member in this House to have the Prime Minister amend the legislation to render it accessible to all needy single persons, and I am convinced he will do so.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Lise Bourgauit (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, unemployment remains the first concern of our government. Unfortunately, our friends opposite do not seem as sensitive as we are to this issue. They continue to make speeches and prolong unduly the debate on the Investment Canada Bill which will enable our small businesses to expand and create jobs.
Mr. Speaker, a German industrialist told me recently that many of his fellow citizens were just waiting for more favourable Canadian legislation to be passed before coming to Canada to invest and to create some of the thousands of jobs which this country desperately needs.
Mr. Speaker, the Members opposite use the Standing Orders and the procedures of this House neither to make the debate any clearer nor to improve some of our bills intended to correct a situation which has become intolerable for Canadians, but simply to score political points with the media, perhaps to be named Official Opposition of the week, the month or the year!


ANTI-SEMITISM FIRE BOMBING OF VANCOUVER SYNAGOGUE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I report to this House that early on Friday, January 25, the Temple Shalom on West 10th Avenue in Vancouver was fire bombed. The synagogue was gutted, and there was $400,000 damage. Later, on Monday night, again there was an attempted fire bomb at the Schara Tzedeck funeral chapel. I am sure all Hon. Members of this House will join with me in deploring these terrible attacks.
Rabbi Philip Bregman is quoted in The Globe and Mail as saying that:
-he has hired guards in the past to watch over services during this temple's high holy days in the fall. At various times during his four and a half years at the synagogue, rocks have shattered windows, his car was vandalized twice, red paint has been poured over the front doors and over the Star of David and there have been telephoned obscenities and bomb threats.
January 30, 1985

This is not Europe, Mr. Speaker; this is not Paris; this is Canada. We thought we did not have these kinds of things happen in Canada. We have been rather smug in the past. I think we should note that anti-semitism, when we think it is dead, always seems to rear its ugly head again. On the fortieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, I would like to think that we Canadians, all Canadians, could liberate ourselves from this terrible problem of anti-semitism.
As long as Jews are singled out and persecuted, none of us in Canada are safe, and we should express our regrets about these terrible attacks in Vancouver.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ATLANTIC PROVINCES TROWEL TRADES COLLEGE
Mr. Pat Binns (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Provinces Trowel Trades College was recently established in Sum-merside, Prince Edward Island, as a training institution to encourage young people to take up the trowel trades and meet the needs of our Atlantic building industry.
The College came about because of the foresight and commitment of union leaders, civic officials, training institutions, and federal and provincial Governments. Some of these people are in the public gallery today, including Mr. Albert Vincent, Mr. Leo Rossiter, and Mr. Derek Key. They are here to meet with members of the Atlantic caucus. They seek the support of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and the Government of Canada, as well as of officials of provincial and municipal Governments, and union leaders, in order to continue their training courses. I urge continued public support be given for assistance to this college.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed of the intention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to cancel its native affairs program Our Native Land. This one half hour show, which is heard nationally on Saturday evenings, is the only radio broadcast which focuses exclusively on issues which are of concern to Indian, Inuit, and Metis peoples. The approach is one of in-depth and concentration, and it is not duplicated elsewhere.
I recall, Mr. Speaker, when the CBC, under the previous Liberal administration, cut this program from one hour to one half hour. It was a disgraceful, shocking decision at that time, and I said so. Now, Our Native Land is to be cut entirely and replaced by three native news stories per week.
CBC has once again failed to carry out its mandate to reflect the culture of the peoples of Canada. I know that the
Oral Questions
CBC is responding to government directives to reduce its expenditures. There is a lot of fat in the CBC; that cannot be denied. But, please, let us get rid of one of those unneeded vice-presidents and keep Our Native Land.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: Our Native Land, Mr. Speaker, will celebrate its twenty-first year of broadcasting next month. I call upon the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) to intercede and talk some sense into the CBC executives who sit in such splendid isolation in their corporate boardrooms.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
In the House yesterday, the Minister of National Health and Welfare seemed unable to confirm whether the options mentioned in the Government's consultation document were government policy or not. Forty-eight cents a day more for disadvantaged Canadians is almost an insult. There is uncertainty and confusion everywhere in this country, owing to a definite lack of leadership. For months, the obvious confusion in Cabinet has been causing much concern among low-income families, senior citizens and working mothers. Only a budget can put an end to the confusion.
Could the Prime Minister persuade his Minister of Finance to put an end to this confusion by bringing down a budget as soon as possible?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will bring down a Budget towards the end of April, as agreed. I think this has already been announced. Concerning the confusion referred to by my right hon. friend, I think perhaps I should quote someone who is a bit more objective, Louise Dulude-

-of the Social Policy Reform Group who last night, on CTV, described the social benefits paper as a very good first step. I think that is what the consultation process is all about, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gauthier:: That is a Tory group.

January 30, 1985
Oral Questions MATERNITY BENEFITS


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. In December the Minister of Finance contributed to that confusion, indeed caused an uproar, by suggesting that we should end social programs for middle-income earners. Now the Minister has mused aloud in Toronto about tinkering with maternity benefits. Will the Prime Minister put an end to this confusion, because working women are now worried about the Minister's remarks? Are we going to have yet another confused consultation paper?


Mr. Crosbie:: We have a confused Opposition.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that on November 8 I said exactly the same thing on page 78 of the agenda paper, at which time I drew attention to the fact that unemployment insurance premiums were high and having a retarding effect on the ability of small business to create jobs. I asked the question then, as I did earlier this week, whether it was more appropriate to take these programs out of the unemployment insurance program and have them financed by general government revenues. If the Right Hon. Member has any comments on that, I would be very pleased to receive them.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance, that agenda paper of November 8 seems to have been overridden on several occasions and we do not know whether we can rely on it any more.


FINANCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. As I said in my first question, only a Budget can end this confusion. I suspect that Budget is being delayed partly because of dissension in Cabinet-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: - and perhaps because of the recent undermining of the Minister of Finance by the Prime Minister. However, I want an answer to a third suggestion. Would the Prime Minister confirm that the Budget is being delayed, despite the confusion in the country, because his political allies in Regina, Queen's Park, and St. John's are contemplating elections and want to get them out of the way before what they foresee will be a disastrous Budget introduced by the Minister of Finance?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deans:: That is precisely what Frank Miller said.


John Napier Turner: I understand from a communique out of the Prime Minister's office this morning that he is going to see Mr. Miller, the Premier-designate in Ontario. Perhaps I could ask him, Mr. Speaker, whether Budget time is going to be Miller time.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I hate to be unkind, but in the interests of national harmony, bring back the cue cards.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is curious that my right hon. friend invokes the word "dissension" the same day as the Hon. Member for Shawinigan returns to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Chretien:: Saint-Maurice.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I just want to tell-


Ms. Copps:: Ask Champagne about party unity.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There's the decreasing influence of Queen's Park at it again. It's the melody in the voice that I love.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It's clearly Wednesday.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In response to my right hon. friend, I want to say, with respect, that he can expect, at a time that was already indicated, an outstanding Budget brought forward by a truly outstanding Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Government's message to Canadians this week is: "Don't have children". It is cutting the family allowances and the child tax exemption. It is going to eliminate maternity leave under the UIC, and it has done nothing about day care.
Is the Prime Minister's Government serious about eliminating maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act? If so, how does he reconcile that with the promises he made in the televised women's debate before the election? Is he telling Canadians now that we cannot afford to support women when they leave work to have children? Is that what he is telling them?
Martin Brian Mulroney: For someone who began with such promise in the Catholic Youth Organization only a few years ago-to be indulging in such distortion today! The answer is absolutely no. We are trying to do what
January 30, 1985

we have tried to do in many other instances. I say this with affection for my hon. friend. He knows, as I do, that we are trying to help those most in need in our society.


SICKNESS AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, how does it benefit Canadians to muse in public about the elimination of one program when they do not know where they are going with the replacement? All it does is provide confusion and uncertainty.
The Minister of Finance mentioned the elimination of social programs. Are they also considering eliminating or changing the sickness and retirement benefits under the unemployment insurance program? Are they doing that as well?
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me say, with the greatest sincerity and seriousness, that that sort of distortion is not becoming to the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: I said very clearly that we were considering taking the financing of those programs out of the unemployment insurance scheme and putting them into general revenues of the federal Government. I never talked once about making any changes in the program.
As I said in a previous answer, the reason why we are doing it is to take the load off small business that is suffering from that high front-end tax, so that it can create more jobs. I should think that the Hon. Member should be encouraging us to do that.


TAX POLICY AFFECTING THE RICH
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the social spending plans of the Government. The only way to increase social spending for the poor without cutting back on programs for middle income Canadians is to increase the total going into social programs and obtain the additional revenue by changing tax policy to get more revenue from the rich. In the options proposed in the paper that was released on Monday, why was this important, specific option excluded?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Oshawa that his question is very similar to those asked yesterday and to which the answer was given. The answer had two aspects. First, if we increase social spending, obviously we must get the economy producing more. I think all of us agree on that.


Ian Deans: No.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is obviously one point that has to be put forward. Any other options in terms of tax reform are budgetary, and remain with the Minister of Finance.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: The memorizing of a precise answer does not constitute a rational reply to the question.


REDISTRIBUTION OF INCOME
John Edward Broadbent: I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister since the Prime Minister is not dealing with the question. He has just said that the only way of getting more revenue for social programs is to have an upswing in the economy.
There are over 8,000 Canadians currently at income levels exceeding $50,000 a year-presumably working men and women-who do not pay any income tax whatsoever. There are additional thousands of upper income Canadians who, because of their high income level, had their taxes substantially reduced when others were not, a few years ago.
Why did the Government not include among its options the possibility of giving a tax increase to these people instead of middle-income families, and redistribute that income to the poor who badly need it?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I looked at the position put forward by the Hon. Member yesterday, that it was coming from middle-income Canadians. I said yesterday that, according to option one, 70 per cent of the money redistributed would be coming from families above $40,000, and it would be over 80 per cent from option two.
I studied it even further last night. For families earning over $50,000, sixty per cent of the redistributed money would come from them. That is the exact group that he says to tax more.
If he goes back to the bank janitor and the bank president, he would see that the bank janitor would gain money and the bank president would lose 65 per cent of his benefits.


MIDDLE-INCOME GROUP
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, once again the Minister did not deal with the question. He neglected to note in his reply that more than one million middle-income families, earning between $30,000 and $50,000-many of which are families with two-income sources-will be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost benefits that they will get-


Mr. Speaker:: With respect.


John Edward Broadbent: I will come to the question, Mr. Speaker. Why, in the expressed concern of some of the poor groups themselves, has the Minister embarked upon a program that will put the major part of the burden on middle-income Canadians and redistribute that to the poor, instead of going after those Canadians who can afford it, namely, the rich, by bringing in tax reforms now?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will give the Hon. Member the same answer.

January 30, 1985
Oral Questions
He might not like the answer, but it is the correct answer. The other point I would make is that the option which he put forward has some of those very adverse effects, and now he is trying to reverse quickly and cover himself. Now he is attempting to talk about the rich.
I told him that the options provide for a 65 per cent redistribution to those at a lower income. I hope he understands when I tell him again that the options he puts forward in terms of tax reform are obviously a budgetary item.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SIR PATRICK WALL, M.P., PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY
Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the proceedings to advise Members of the presence in our gallery today of Sir Patrick Wall, M.P., United Kingdom, President of the North Atlantic Assembly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. MABEL DEWARE, NEW BRUNSWICK MINISTER OF CONTINUING EDUCATION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that also in our gallery today is the Hon. Mabel DeWare, Minister of Continuing Education, in the Province of New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FINNISH PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Speaker:: As well, may I draw to the attention of House the presence in our gallery of a delegation of Members of Parliament from Finland led by Chairman Tarja Halonen and Vice-Chairman Saara Mikkola.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jacques Guilbaut (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is clear that middle-income families will have to pay as much as $571 million to provide an extra 48 cents a day-almost worse than nothing and not even enough to buy a quart of milk-for families who need it most. That is because this Government has decided to transfer more money to the Conservative provincial governments than to those families.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister how he can even consider transfering such considerable amounts to the provincial governments, instead of substantially increasing the meagre extra benefits he intends to provide for families who are in greatest need of them.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition brought forward the 48 cents a day option. I looked at that last night as well, and I want to put that into perspective today also.
The greatest benefit, if you take the three programs in the family benefits package together, is about $800, just over $2 a day. A 48 per cent increase for those who are poorest in our society would be a 25 per cent increase.


Ian Deans: For goodness sake.


An Hon. Member:: You can't even buy a litre of milk for that.


REASON FOR TRANSFER OF LARGE FUNDS TO PROVINCES
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Mr. Speaker, what an answer! The Minister informs us that 48 cents is enough. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how much money is going to the provinces. What kind of deal was the Minister able to make with the provincial governments, if he is now transferring such enormous amounts of money to the provinces? Is he trying to compensate for reductions the Minister of Finance is about to make in other transfer programs?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in the preface to the question of the Hon. Member I did not say what he attributed to me and it was a distortion of what I said. What I said and what I was pointing out concerned the benefit because the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was trying to point out yesterday, I take it, that it was insignificant.


Ian Deans: It is.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What I am trying to point out, in terms of the benefit these people are receiving, is that obviously we would like to do more, but in view of the redistribution, taking a look at what we are getting and in terms of what the 48 cents means per day, or the yearly increase, that has to be put into perspective. I say to the Hon. Member not to distort what I am saying.
In terms of what the redistribution would be with the provinces, I said yesterday, and I repeat to the Hon. Member today, again, that obviously we want to sit down with the
January 30, 1985

provinces in terms of their social programs and see what arrangements could be made if either of those options became government policy.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He will have had an opportunity to review the report presented to him over a week ago by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which outlines the deteriorating condition of municipal infrastructure and calls on the federal Government to inject funds into the municipal sector.
Would the Minister not agree that such an investment in our municipalities creating, it is estimated, some 75,000 jobs a year, would be a wise use of public funds, and seeing as the federal Government has reduced its contribution at the municipal level to almost nothing, would the Minister now make a commitment to meet with representatives of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to expedite an agreement which would allow work to begin this spring?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, I met for a full morning with the entire Council of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and we had a very worth-while and productive meeting. They raised the question which the Hon. Member has just raised on the state of the infrastructure of the municipalities. I said it would be something we would be looking at closely to see whether there were some basis on which we could provide some support. However, I did caution the Federation that, because of the major financial requirements of the Government, and the difficulty of our financial position, it was not going to be easy to meet what the Council put in front of me.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL NEGOTIATIONS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Given the situation at the municipal level, and the fact that the federal Government has backed off on any kind of contribution over the last 10 or more years, and given that we do need jobs in this country, would the Minister not agree that it is urgent to give an indication to the municipalities that the Government will provide some funds and meet to negotiate the actual level, perhaps even with the provinces?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the concern of the Hon. Member and I appreciate very much the concern expressed to me by representatives of the municipalities. There are many pressing needs in our country today. They have one, and we will take that into account as we review the wide range of demands that are upon us right now.
Oral Questions


SECTORAL DIALOGUE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of External Trade. In the paper he made public yesterday, the Minister is soft-pedalling the sectoral approach at a time when two agencies are holding public hearings on the subject in the United States. What has the Canadian Government been doing since September to pursue the sectoral dialogue?
I would also like to know what the Minister has done about following up the commitment made by his leader when he said last year on April 18 in Toronto: We shall pursue talks already initiated with the United States with respect to certain sectors. What has the Minister done since September to keep this option open, Mr. Speaker?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, I would advise that sectoral trade discussions are not continuing with the United States at this time as we wish to discuss with the Canadian people the whole range of options that are available in our trade relationship with the United States. Once that discussion has been completed, then we will continue our discussions with them on the option that has been chosen.
I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that, in the meantime, discussions on day-to-day trade issues are continuing with the United States.


MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister referred to consultations, and I know that yesterday he announced to the media that he would be doing a series of letters on international trade. I therefore wish to ask the Minister, since all Canadians are concerned by international trade, whether he intends to have his paper examined by a committee of the House to ensure that an issue of such fundamental importance is considered by the Members of this House.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Hon. Member that we feel a referral to a committee of the House at this time would be premature.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Francis Kelleher: I would point out to the Hon. Member that this is a discussion paper. We want to find out what the problems are in the Canadian sector-

January 30, 1985
Oral Questions


Ian Deans: You have studied it 50 times.


James Francis Kelleher: Once we have ascertained what those concerns are, we will be in a position to direct our discussions and perhaps return to Parliament and a committee at that time.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am happy to be informed that she has now agreed to meet with the Canadian Federation of Students after all, to discuss her new program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It is, of course, based on a wage subsidized career internship program and private sector initiatives. Does she not recognize that it is already too late to introduce a new program, of doubtful effectiveness, and that students are deeply concerned? In spite of its shortcomings, would the Minister consider using for this year the well-tested project oriented program which we know will achieve specified job-creation goals, and thus ensure that students will be in a position to know where they are going to be this summer, and then allow adequate consultation and preparation for the program that she plans to introduce next year-that she would be better off introducing next year.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether I followed that convoluted question. However, I should like to say to the Hon. Member that, in the last couple of months, I have had the benefit of meeting with students and with unemployed young people in Regina, in St. John's, Newfoundland, in Halifax, in Toronto-all across the country-so that I could have their input with regard to the summer programs which will be forthcoming. I can tell him that I do not consider it too late to be announcing the very substantial programs about which he will hear shortly.


GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, summer is almost upon us.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: There must have been three fine caucuses this morning. The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville on a supplementary question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Summer is almost upon students who are worried about how they will pay their tuition next year. Will the Minister and the Government consider a more rationalized
approach? Rather than this program which the Minister is obviously having difficulty putting together, would she not consider rationalized spending initiatives to provide both fulltime jobs for the unemployed generally and summer jobs for students in economically useful, productive, and needed expenditures for municipal infrastructure reconstruction, reforestation, and to meet social needs-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member consider allowing the Minister to reply?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in replying, I should like to tell the Hon. Member that when we cancelled the Liberal Government's $85 million-and remember, it was $85 million which it had in the budget for Summer Canada this year-we announced then that we would be coming forward with a program which would meet the real needs of young people. We gave that commitment. I want to tell the Hon. Member that I intend to meet that commitment.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It is based upon answers which he gave today during Question Period to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. The Minister said that his intention now was to transfer part of the costs of the Unemployment Insurance Program on to general taxation. Is the Minister of Finance confirming, in total contradiction to commitments which he and the Prime Minister have made that there would not be a general tax increase, that the Government is considering a general tax increase to cover costs of the Unemployment Insurance Program, and God knows what else?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could pass this document over to the Hon. Member so that he could read it and understand, because he obviously cannot hear. I have very clearly said that there may be a part of the Unemployment Insurance Program which is not unemployment insurance in the true sense of the word "insurance". Should we consider moving those social programs to be financed under general revenues as opposed to an employment tax which small business has been telling us-and I believe the Hon. Member when he was on this side of the House-would retard its ability to create jobs? That is all that I said. Any extension of that is a distortion on the part of the Hon. Member.


REQUEST FOR SINGLE GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says that it is a distortion. How-
January 30, 1985

ever, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that he would take benefits away from the middle class and the Minister of Finance said that he had to cover unemployment insurance by general taxation. When will the Government get its act together and bring these proposals together in one document so that Canadians will know for what they will have to pay come next April?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, a number of the questions the Hon. Member is asking, he knows, can only be asked in the course of a Budget. However, let me point out that we are trying to have a look at some of the mess left us with the distortions in the policies of the previous Government, distortions which are causing more difficulty for small business, in particular, to create jobs.


Lloyd Axworthy: Are you going to raise taxes or not?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Is the Hon. Member saying to us that he does not want us to help the small business community?


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of External Relations. In the 1984 report on the administration of CIDA under the previous Government, the Auditor General claimed that there was an inadequate monitoring of CIDA's food aid projects. Despite several inquiries at CIDA and at External Affairs in the past few days, I have been unable to learn that the Government now has any staff in Ethiopia exclusively assigned to monitoring the daily distribution of Canadian food relief. We know of short visits by government officials-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, is there a question? Statements are for earlier in the day.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: So that assurances can be given to Canadians that their gifts are helping people, will the Minister tell us what steps have been taken to monitor, day by day, distribution of Canadian food relief to the Ethiopian people?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker I want to thank the Hon. Member for asking this question as it gives me an opportunity to explain the present situation in Ethiopia.
Needless to say, our policy is dictated by humanitarian reasons first and not by political considerations and the information we have received from our embassy and from non-governmental organizations indicate that as much as possible food relief is being distributed to the hungry and that it is very difficult to reach the provinces of Eritrea and Tigre.
Oral Questions
We are doing everything in our power to ensure that Canadian Food relief is distributed-


Mr. Speaker:: I must, with great respect, invite the Minister to make a statement under Statements by Ministers.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications, who met yesterday with the representatives of a new coalition established as a result of budget cut-backs in the cultural sector. The Minister has yet to meet with leading groups in that sector, such as the Canadian Conference of the Arts. Therefore, I should like to know whether the Minister intends to honour the commitment made by his party during the election campaign, namely to consult with artistic groups. I am not referring to Conservative culture Ministers, but to the groups themselves, the representatives of the cultural community. If so, when does he plan to hold such consultations?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did meet yesterday with some of the representatives of that group. I might reassure the Hon. Member by telling her that, several weeks ago, I went to the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the organization she has mentioned, for the official opening of its new facilities. I spoke with several Ministers, not only Conservative colleagues but also the Minister of Manitoba who, as far as I know, is of the same persuasion as the NDP Opposition Party.
We do have ongoing consultations with most of those who play a role within the cultural community. With that in mind and taking into consideration the fact that there will be a federal-provincial cultural conference in Vancouver at the end of the month, I intend to spend most of the month of February meeting with most of the groups to which you are referring.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. It concerns a more specific area regarding cut-backs and arises out of the cut-back of the program Our Native Land on CBC Radio. Would the Minister give us his commitment to native programming? Would he tell us what it is and how he will ensure that there is adequate funding so that there will be native programming?

Oral Questions


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows very well it is the responsibility of the CBC management to determine the corporation's programming and the directions it has to take in either of the areas mentioned. The Government has advised the corporation about the need to reduce the national deficit, and that accordingly all government agencies, departments and organizations must assume their share of the responsibility. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that I will pass on to the President of the CBC her concerns as expressed in this House.

[DOT] (M50)


INCOME TAX ACT
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Many taxpayers who have sold land and purchased replacement land are being reassessed under Section 44 of the Income Tax Act for failing to file an election. Since no election form is provided by Revenue Canada, will the Minister examine the matter of Section 44 deferrals, and will he consider the act of re-purchase as an effective election, thus providing relief to those taxpayers who face unfair treatment?


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue is now in Toronto announcing important changes to the Income Tax Act. I therefore take notice of the question and will refer it to the Minister.

January 30, 1985


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to answer a question about fisheries, since they will not ask any questions about justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: That's because there's no justice in the country.


Ian Deans: We didn't know what to ask you. We didn't know what you knew.


John Carnell Crosbie: In fact, Mr. Speaker, they are not interested in the answers at all. They are howling and bawling like a bunch of banshees.
The Hon. Member will know that what the Department of Commerce released was a preliminary estimate of the dumping margin which could be imposed upon Canadian producers of skin-on dried whole salted cod. That salted cod has its skin on. That is more than I can say of most of the Members opposite.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: At least we're not salted in brine like you are. We don't want a pickled Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I could get into a lot of trouble here, but I wonder if the Hon. Member would like to "fin-ish" his question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR CANADIAN INTERVENTION
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Minister of Justice would scale down his remarks just a little bit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN CODFISH
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I would like to direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that the United States Department of Commerce has imposed an interim trade barrier against imports of Canadian dried salt cod. This will result in average duties of over 24 per cent against Canadian salt cod exporters. Since Canadian exporters and, indeed, ultimately the fishermen will have to bear the cost of this protectionist measure against them, what action is the federal Government taking to stop this anti-Canadian fish tariff imposed by the United States?


George Roland Henderson: It is a very serious question and I am sure that the fishermen in eastern Canada would like a little justice to be served to them. Since the matter does relate to and affect the Prime Minister's own riding as much as any other riding, I would think that the Government would be very serious about trying to intervene with the Government of the United States. Considering the great relationship that the Prime Minister says he has with the United States Government, surely he would intervene on behalf of the good fishermen of eastern Canada and make sure that they do get justice in their marketplace.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly, if it becomes necessary, we can count on the Prime Minister to make strong representations. However, he cannot interfere in the quasijudicial system of the United States.
January 30, 1985

The United States International Trade Commission has now to determine if there is injury to the domestic industry. The Department of Commerce has determined that we are selling codfish to the United States at below production costs. Unfortunately, that happens to be true, because the world price is below our cost of production. However, that is why the Canadian Saltfish Corporation exists. It exists to help those areas of Quebec, Labrador, Newfoundland, and southwest Nova Scotia. At the appropriate time, if and when it becomes necessary for influence to be exerted, the Prime Minister, because of his relationship with the President of the United States, will be able to be very effective.


EXPORT PRICE OF OIL
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. After four Conservative Energy Ministers failed to reach an agreement on new oil and gas prices and taxation this weekend, she announced that Canadian oil producers could sell off more of our precious crude oil resources at even cheaper prices to American refiners. How can the Minister justify selling Canadian crude oil to Americans at prices lower than eastern Canadian refiners must pay for this oil on the world market?
Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I think I could more properly ask the Hon. Member how he could justify his question since he is the one who, when debating the National Energy Program, said that that program is the only success of this Government, meaning the Liberal Government. The reason why we have a discrepancy in prices is because of the previous administration which was supported by the NDP. I would like to correct the Hon. Member because he knows perfectly well that, at the wellhead, the prices are the same for Canadian as well as export oil.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows full well that the NDP supported neither the National Energy Program nor the previous Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would like to ask a question of the present Minister because we must deal with the here and now. The Government seems to have a policy enunciated by the Minister that it will not sell natural gas to Americans for less than it sells it to Canadians at the Toronto citygate price. Why does the Government have a different policy for oil? Why is the Government not consistent on this matter, and why is it discriminating against Canadians?
Oral Questions


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the policy about which the Hon. Member is talking is the policy of the former administration and the policy supported by the NDP. It is this Government that is working closely with the provinces to go to de-regulation which will get rid of this false and malicious system which hurt western Canada so badly, and which is now hurting the consumers of Quebec and Ontario.


AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister will know that the country has invested, or is proposing to invest, $275 million with Bell Helicopter, and $100 million with Pratt & Whitney, to develop a twin-engine helicopter program. There has been a suggestion made that there is no market for this type of helicopter or that there is not a sufficient market to justify the investment. Has the Minister investigated those allegations? Will the Minister advise the House what he is doing about this suggestion?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, I would caution him about believing what he reads in the newspapers sometimes, and particularly about the report to which he has referred, which was based entirely on idle speculation and did not have much truth connected to it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and concerns the farm debt crisis which has become apparent in our country today. Farm bankruptcies are estimated to be up to 1,000 in the coming year. The Farm Credit Corporation has suggested that the default on farm loans will be over $2 billion in the next year or so. Is the Minister going to respond to the demands of the Opposition, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and the National Farmers Union, by bringing in an immediate program to forestall some of these bankruptcies?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the Hon. Member's question and his interest in this subject. Indeed, we have responded, and we have responded very quickly. The Hon. Member will know that we immediately put a moratorium on farm bankruptcies into place. Second, we put into place the Farm Credit Appeal Boards across the country. Third, we put into place a pilot project involving the banks, the federal Government, the prov-

January 30, 1985
Housing
inces, and farm organizations in the Counties of Bruce and Grey in Ontario.


UNITED STATES PROGRAM
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the Minister will not take some effective action, like the United States Government has done. Over 8,000 United States farmers have been assisted, either with the lowering of interest rates to 7 per cent, or they have had set aside up to a quarter of their farm debt for a five-year period. Why will the Minister not bring forward a substantial and effective program, like the United States Government has done, which has been demonstrated to be so effective in only its first six weeks of operation?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member looked into the success of the U.S. program, he might not be quite so supportive of it.
Indeed, I do not know why the Hon. Member is so indignant. We made a commitment to lower interest rates during the election campaign, and we have done that. We have delivered a 4 per cent reduction in interest rates which provides a benefit to some 5,600 farmers in Canada. When the Party to which the Hon. Member belongs was in Government, that Government did not fund the special farm assistance program throughout 1984. Apparently, interest rates of 16.75 per cent were satisfactory to him when his Party was in Government. However, they were not to us, and that is why we have lowered them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, January 29, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), I have the honour to table in both official languages copies of a consultation paper on housing.


METRIC CONVERSION
Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the House today the Government's policy on metric conversion. During the last few months we have had exhaustive consultations with retailers, various associations, consumers, business and many Canadians who wanted to express their views. We have reached a decision which, I believe, will satisfy the requirements and expectations of both business and individual Canadians, as well as current market requirements.
In the early seventies, as part of the planning for the conversion process, the economy was divided into more than 100 sectors. In each sector, conversion was initiated on a voluntary basis with the full co-operation of the industry and at the rate decided on by the industry. However, in the retail sectors, and more specifically with respect to gas and diesel fuel, home furnishings and individually weighed foods, it was decided to adopt regulations that would make the use of metric units compulsory and limit the use of imperial units. These regulations were adopted under the Weights and Measures Act.

Canadians feel, and we agree, that a compulsory "metric only" approach is both insensitive and heavy-handed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michel Côté: Therefore, the three regulations under the Weights and Measures Act covering fuels, home furnishings and individually-measured foods will be revoked. They will be replaced with new provisions allowing the use of metric only or the use of imperial units alongside metric units in the advertising, displaying and weighing, and measuring of these groups of products. In all other sectors the situation will remain unchanged.
This means that consumers who are unfamiliar with the metric system can continue to refer to imperial measures while buying products in these three retail sectors. However, metric will continue to be required in these sectors, to ensure that consumers can easily compare prices between stores and products. This will also guarantee fair and equitable competition among retailers.

For small retailers, Mr. Speaker, abiding by the new policy entails practical difficulties, harsh consequences and undue expenditures, so they will be exempt from provisions concerning weighing and measuring. In other words, they will be allowed to continue to use imperial scales. However, they will be expected to use the metric system alone or in conjunction with the imperial system in advertising, displays and labelling.
January 30, 1985

Our Government believes that this policy is in the best interests of all Canadians. The metric system is here to stay. Canadian industry and retailers have spent a lot of money to convert to the metric system. Today's young school graduates are familiar only with the metric system. We do know that the way the metric system has been forced upon retailers has been a source of problems for the many Canadians who find it difficult to use only the metric system.
The Government is committed to metrication, but the significant point is that it will achieve it through a more flexible and more humane process than has been the case so far. This new approach, which allows the use of both imperial and metric systems, takes into consideration the concerns expressed by our fellow citizens, yet it will eventually meet their basic requirements.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my main concern today is that it took the Government so long to come forward with any policy at all.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: We have been saying to the Government since the House convened in November: "For goodness sake, do something". Today, what we have from the Minister-who will possibly be known in the future as "Mr. Half and Half'- in at least some sort of statement.
The most telling part of the Minister's statement was that metric is here to stay. Substantial investments have already been made by Canadian businesses and retailers. Children coming out of school today have been educated only in metric. That is to state the obvious.
Given that admission here today, why has it taken so many months to get any kind of policy out of the Government?


Mr. Dick:: Consultation.


Bill Rompkey: The reason it has taken so long is that during the election campaign that Party promised to do away with metric. That was very clear.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Never.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: As stated-and politically, let's give him his due-


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, I would like to hear the Hon. Member's statement and other Members might allow him to be heard, please.


Bill Rompkey: The policy of the Party opposite during the election campaign was enunciated very clearly by the man who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister. Indeed, until a few weeks ago that Parliamentary Secretary was saying that metric was dead. It is not dead, it is alive and well! That is the only policy that this Government can have. Why has it
Metrication
taken them so long? Because there are deep divisions in that Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: They are listening to the antediluvian forces. What we have seen today is a further flip-flop by the Government, a further lack of continuity. Its members are not keeping the promises they made during the election campaign. There is confusion in the ranks of Hon. Members on the other side, Mr. Speaker. I want to say to those Members of the Government that they were elected to govern, and whether the solution is simple or difficult they should take their responsibility seriously and get on with the job.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that in all my years in Parliament I have ever heard such a convoluted and confusing statement as I have heard made today by the Minister. After all, Mr. Speaker, when the program of metrication was brought in, it was criticized by Hon. Members of the Conservative Party as not going through fast enough. The process has now gone on, Mr. Speaker, for years, tens of millions of dollars have been spent, and the Government has been told by industry, retailers, the grain trade and by consumers' associations that the process has gone so far that it cannot be reversed. The Minister's statement agrees with that because the Minister says that metric is here to stay.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that when we have a chance to ask questions, and when the people concerned realize what the Minister has said, we will find in fact that there is no real change.
The Minister says in his statement that retailers in food stores, for example, can use both systems. Does that mean they will have to have two sets of scales? That doesn't make any sense at all. Can they use the imperial scales alone? The Minister says no. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, they are not going to go back to the old system. The Minister says that small retailers who still have the imperial scales can continue to use those scales but they must mark their products in both metric and imperial. But if they have not got the metric scales, how can they calculate what the metric costs are?
I believe, in fact, there is going to be very little change. The Minister knows that, but as indicated by my colleague, the Hon. Member from the Liberal Party, he had to give something to those Conservative Hon. Members who had advocated going back to the imperial system. Representatives of all the interest groups have told the Government and the Minister to get rid of the confusion, let us know what we are doing; let us keep metric.
There are many people, including older people, who still have difficulty with the metric system. We know that. But surely the stores have taken care of that because while they use the metric scales, most of them have cards indicating the price of products both in the metric and imperial measurements so that people can get by. It seems to me that the Government
1826

January 30, 1985
Metrication
ought to stop this nonsense, talking out of both sides of its mouth, and admit the fact that we have metric and we are not going to go back to imperial.


Jean-C. Lapierre: In view of the statement the Minister has just made, I would like to ask him how, in the case of gasoline, for instance, the owner of a small service station who wants to please both his consumers who prefer the metric system and those who prefer the imperial system, can technically offer two kinds of pumps at his station? Does the Minister intend to ask retailers to re-equip themselves with both kinds of pumps? Under the program just announced by the Minister, are we going to need a subsidy program so that the small butcher shop on the corner can re-equip himself with imperial scales since he no longer has the old ones? What does this mean for the corner stores whose customers will want both systems? Can the Minister tell us exactly what will be the impact of this decision on the retailers?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by my hon. colleague, I wish to tell him that what we were asked to do after lengthy consultations was to provide a much more flexible system under which imperial measurements can be used without resulting in legal proceedings. It is in this context that we have announced a new policy today. What we are saying is that businesses will have the choice between metric only or both systems. However, the small retailers such as the corner stores mentioned by the Hon. Member will be able to get an exemption if they wish to continue using imperial measurements.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister is as follows: What assurance do the consumers have that the inspectors of his Department will continue to guarantee that Canadian weights and measures are controlled efficiently in the chaotic situation which the Minister has just created by allowing both the metric and imperial systems? What assurance will consumers have that the goods they purchase are weighed correctly? Are the inspectors getting from the Minister the necessary budget to inspect gas pumps and weigh scales used in the stores? Has the Minister received more money to allow his inspectors to do this?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think that with their usual keenness and the required instructions, the departmental inspectors will be in a position to enforce the regulations as clarified, and I expect no legal proceedings in that respect. Indeed, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that we have in our statute books the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, which specifically allows the use of the metric system or both systems of units, and there has never been any problem nor any legal proceedings under that Act which has been in force for the past ten years.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the Minister's statement he suggests that food stores will be permitted the use of metric only or the use of imperial along with metric. Is the Minister saying that stores will have to have two sets of scales, both in metric and imperial, or can they have either? In other words, can they have imperial scales only? If that is so, what protection does the consumer have?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Read the statement.


David Orlikow: I have read the statement; that is the problem. [Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my Hon. colleague that we are now announcing the following policy. In a grocery store, it is either metric or both systems and this means that in a place where you have for instance several units of measurements, we want the operator to keep on if he so wishes using metric only, but if he decided to use imperial measures, then he must have at all times a reasonable presence of metric units in order that the consumer may be able to compare these measures and make a better decision with regard to his or her purchase.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, that strikes me as a policy of sucking and blowing at the same time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Here is the expert!


John R. Rodriguez: There were a great deal of problems when the previous Government said we were moving to metric and gas station operators were being prosecuted when they maintained a gallon reading on their pumps. With this system, are those who are selling gasoline by the gallon going to be required to carry a metric pump? Because if people have been raised under a metric system, they have a right to see the equivalent in metric, in litres, of the gasoline they purchase. Is the Government going to force its colleagues in the Conservative Party who own this gas station to carry a metric pump as well as the imperial?


Mr. King:: They had it already.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. And my colleagues on this side of the House who, according to the Hon. Member, operate a gas station, will have to use or have metric measurements available if they want to go on using imperial units.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in difficulty. The House knows that the tradition on these matters is that questions should take no longer in total than the sum of the speeches. I can allow, therefore, approximately two and a half minutes more.
January 30, 1985

[DOT]t (1520)


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned about the Minister's decision and I would like to put the following question if I may.
Will the Minister admit that what is now being done will be an encouragement and a reward for those who have broken the law, and have avoided metrication? After all, they still have the old scales and the former equipment which could now be an advantage over their competitors?
I see a Conservative backbencher who applauds those who have broken the law. Is it the policy of the government to reward those who refuse to comply with the laws of the land?
If such is the case, I would also like the Minister to answer the following question: How will the retailer go from one system to the other if he has only metric or imperial scales? Will your inspectors also make sure that the conversion will be made in a specific manner? Are you going to inspect the equipment used in such conversion?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would merely remind the Hon. Member that the previous policy prohibited imperial measures. Thus those who experienced problems in using only the metric system were liable to prosecution because of a system which they could hardly understand. According to our consultations, over three-quarters of Canadians think that they should not be punished or liable to prosecution for using a system which they find difficult.
I think that the policy now implemented is much more flexible and responsive to the needs of Canadians. The government has undertaken to proceed with metrication while showing a greater understanding for those who still want to use the imperial system as long as they can also use the metric system to allow a better comparison.


Mr. Speaker:: In order not to confuse the House, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) says I have just made a ruling. I have not. I have merely reported to the House what has been the tradition of the House under previous Speakers, that the Speaker has full control and discretion over the length of this period of time. It is my judgment, for the purposes of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, that I will exercise my discretion in saying that we have used up almost all of our time, but in the interests of not causing offence to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), I will allow one more question.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, my question is quite simple but not important in my opinion. Would the Hon. Minister tell us, to the best of his knowledge today, whether it will cost anything at all for inspectors to re-equip themselves as a result of the statement he has just made today? At present the food
Petitions
inspectors' equipment is exclusively metric. Now, the Minister is stating that the metric system is first and foremost while the use of the other system also is allowed. Then could he tell us how much it will cost to re-equip our food inspectors so they will be able to inspect as well those who will see fit not to comply or to use both systems?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my honourable colleague, I would say that I do not have any exact figures for him today with respect to his question, but I will provide them as quickly as possible. However, I do not think we could say today that there will be any additional costs. We intend to show tolerance, understanding and flexibility with respect to the needs of Canadians. We are simply bringing forward a policy which is needed and requested by most consumers and retailers in those three industrial sectors.


Mr. Speaker:: Petitions.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, hundreds of farmers and other Canadians who were made foreigners in their own land by compulsory metric will now welcome this choice.


Mr. Speaker:: No, petitions. Excuse me, we are now on petitions.


PETITIONS
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a seven-page petition signed by 98 people in my riding who object to the specific cut by the CBC of the program The Friendly Giant. They believe there are many cuts that can be made in areas other than children's educational programs. I therefore submit this petition on their behalf.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a committee formed by several churches in the City of Chilliwack in the Fraser Valley East riding. This committee is concerned about the increased militarization in Central America and wishes to express their support for the peace initiative of the Contadora group.

January 30, 1985
Order Paper Questions


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to refer the report entitled "How to Secure and Enhance Canadian Access to Export Markets" to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this paper deals with a fundamental issue pertaining to the economic and political sovereignty of our country, and I think the House should agree to refer it to its committee for consideration. I am also convinced that my hon. colleagues opposite will want to-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member might be able to make those comments if the matter had been introduced by consent, which is what he is seeking. I must now find out whether the House wishes to consent to the introduction of the motion. Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no such consent.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 169 and 192.


Mr. Stackhouse: In 1983, how many individuals were (a) charged with (b) convicted with impaired driving?
2.	In 1983, how many fatalities occurred on the roads and highways and, in each case, how many were (a) a result of an impaired driver (b) injured as a result of these accidents?
3.	In 1983, how many individuals under the age of 21 were convicted of impaired driving?
4.	In 1983, how many driving licences were suspended due to impaired driving?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Statistics Canada reports:
1.	(a) In 1983, in Canada there were 135,701 charges of driving while impaired. This total consists of (i) driving while impaired through drugs or alcohol; and (ii) driving with more than 80 mgs of alcohol in 100 millilitres of their blood.
(b) This information is not available elsewhere.
2.	(a) and (b) This information is not available elsewhere.
3.	This information is not available elsewhere.
4.	This information is not available elsewhere.


Mr. Stackhouse: In (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983, how many murders were committed in Canada and how many were police officers or penitentiary guards on duty?


Harvie Andre: Statistics Canada reports:
The table below depicts the number of homicides and murders for Canada for 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 and depicts the number of police officers and correctional officers who were murdered on duty.
Police
Officers	Correctional
Total	Total	Murdered	OfficersYear	Homicides*	Murders	on Duty	Murdered1983	682	625	1	11982	668	622	1	31981	648	601	5	01980	593	493	3	0
* Homicides comprise murders, manslaughters and infanticides.


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


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


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
January 30, 1985



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, January 28, 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; and on the motion of Mrs. Tardif (Charlesbourg) (p. 1708).
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I know that I have only four minutes left and that other Members are waiting anxiously for the Committee on Management and Members' Services, which I have the honour to chair, to begin its meeting. It is in the interests of Hon. Members opposite that I should leave the House to chair this meeting, especially in view of the order of business for today. It concerns several of them.
The Hon. Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif), who is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), did me the honour of quoting something that I had said. However after thanking her for this kindly gesture yesterday and upon reflection, I went back to the source, since I am a cautious man, and saw that she had not quoted me accurately.
The Hon. Member and Parliamentary Secretary said the following:
As one of their own, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) said, the real work on a Bill does not take place in the House. Let us therefore proceed and go to committee right away.
I would not really have any objections to that going down in history as something I said, but this is only her interpretation of what I said. My comments were as follows, as reported on page 1636 of Hansard for January 24, 1985:
I often think we can be more effective through our work in parliamentary committees, in caucus, and by travelling across the country-
I want to make it quite clear that I was not contradicting myself and did not say that we should proceed and go to committee right away since so few of the Hon. Member's colleagues had taken part in the debate.
Mr. Speaker, this is about all that I shall be able to say because we have this previous question hanging over our heads to muzzle us, but I think that, for us, parliamentarians, and also for yourself, Mr. Speaker, who are a distinguished parliamentarian and have been a Member for some time, it would have been interesting if those who have been sitting here for many years could have heard what the new Members, especially on the Government side, had to say about this bill, which they must consider essential since they want it to be passed immediately.
Investment Canada Act
This is therefore an important bill. As for us, and I do not think that the Members opposite have any reason to question our sincerity, we do not believe that agreeing to it would be in the interests of Canada which is an independent country with the right to protect itself, as do our friends from Great Britain, from France, but especially from the United States. Mr. Speaker, it is on this point that I shall conclude before leaving the floor to my colleague from Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), if you want to recognize him, or else I could invite my colleagues from the Government to rise.
Mr. Speaker, it is not in the interests of Canada that the Americans believe that, under this new Government led by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), whom we respect, the door is now wide open in Canada, that all controls have been lifted, that we beg them to come here, to create jobs, to reduce jobs, and to keep research and technology in their own country. We have evidence of this. In Canadian companies with less than 50 employees, 11 per cent of the research is done in Canada and 3 per cent abroad. In companies with 50 to 100 employees, 10 per cent of the research is done in Canada, but when these companies are foreign-controlled, the figure is 4 per cent. In companies with 500 employees, 10 per cent of the research is done in Canada, but 2 per cent is done in-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allotted to him has expired. The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien).


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to return to the House today. I see we are involved in a procedural wrangle in which the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) is using his young Parliamentary Secretary (Mrs. Tardif) to do his dirty work. Frankly, I can sympathize with the Hon. Member for Charlesbourg, because as the House may recall, I was once Minister of Finance in this House-

When I was Minister of Finance my critic was the Member who is Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) today. We had a debate in the House which lasted 15 weeks. He was still asking questions and complaining about when I would get up rather than asking my Parliamentary Secretary to get up and do a little job. I got up and said that that was enough, after 15 weeks we had to vote.
I was in the House all the time. We have not seen the Minister in the House. Where is he today? Is he closing factories in Quebec? Is he selling Canada out to the Americans? He prepared the speech that the Prime Minister will use to sing for the American bigshots in Baie Comeau. He went to New York to sing again a few weeks ago with a speech prepared by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. He is

January 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
not in the House to do his job. Where is he today when the Government is imposing closure after 14 hours of debate? He is running away and asking a Member of Parliament to do his dirty job. Where are they on the other side?

Those Messrs. Muffler who when they were in the Opposition complained because we used closure once or twice after twenty weeks of debate . . . They are not complaining today. I will say this for the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne): He is not a Mr. Muffler. In fact, he said he was a "deux de pique", a two of spades, and I suppose his neighbour is the three of diamonds. Where are they, all those silent Conservative Members who were elected in Quebec? The Hon. Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif), who said herself that she was used by her Minister and was not familiar with the procedure. I found this so outrageous that I felt obliged to take the floor, Mr. Speaker.
And when you consider the policy of the Conservatives! Today we have seen once again the confusion about metric and non-metric. They said they were going to do away with FIRA and they created a new agency called Investment Canada. Americans may be obliged to file applications after all. They tell them they will not when they are in the United States, and then they table legislation in Parliament that will maintain the obligation to apply to a Government agency for permission to invest in Canada.
Of course we want foreign investment, but not at the cost of our national pride. It was humiliating for Canadians to see what happened in New York a few weeks ago, when the Prime Minister of Canada sang for his supper to entertain New York businessmen. But where is this investment today? Since the Progressive Conservatives came to power, in the Saint-Mau-rice area alone, which I represent, Melchers closed its doors in Berthier, Wabasso and Westinghouse closed down in Trois-Rivieres and Wabasso, Le Carbure and C.I.L. in Shawinigan. These industries are Shawinigan's lifeblood. And I could mention many similar occurrences in the region, like the one that caused the Member for Champlain-good for him-to say that this region had become a disaster area since the Progressive Conservatives came to power. We had several plans for the Saint-Maurice area, including the electrochemical research center for Shawinigan, which was cancelled, the agricultural research center for the riding of Trois-Rivieres, also cancelled, and the agricultural research center for Victoriaville, cancelled as well. And now what is happening? At least 2,000 jobs have been lost in central Quebec alone, since the Progressive Conservatives came to power. Where are last summer's demagogues who said we were doing nothing for Quebec? Where are the Members who were elected to bring investment to Quebec, and to create jobs for Quebecers? They are silent! They have been silenced, Mr. Speaker, as effectively as Mr. Muffler silences cars on TV.
The Minister is smiling, but we have not heard him say much about Quebec's economic problems. Not a word today,
and we are paying the price for their silence. The only policy they have is to get on their knees and ask the Americans to come and invest in this country. They will come if there are any profits to be made in Canada. They are not going to come because we get down on our knees. If we are proud to be Canadians, we cannot go to the Americans as we are doing today and say: Come and take what you want in Canada, it is free. They will not respect us for it. They will come if they can make money. They are not going to come because they like the way we smile. And meanwhile, what is happening to this country?
I have just come back from a trip to the far East, and people are wondering whether there still is a Canada or whether we have become an extension of the United States. I asked this question the other day, and it is becoming increasingly clear that the only thing the Prime Minister of Canada wants is to try to please the Americans and become the first Governor of the State of Canada.
In any case, let us talk about external affairs. Last week, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) apparently forgot that last fall the House indicated quite clearly that we were against the American star wars policy. At that time, the Opposition agreed with the Government and the House was unanimous on that truly important international policy. But since Reagan told Mulroney: We want you on our side, everything changed and our contribution simply vanished. The various parties in the House of Commons had managed to reach a consensus concerning our position on the international peace policy, but the Americans in New York spoke to Mulroney and once again the issue is settled. Here we are today, after hardly fourteen hours of debate, Mr. Speaker, you have been in this House long enough-


Mrs. Mailly:: Two things. First, on a point of order, I should think the Hon. Member ought to refer to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) rather than to Mulroney. Second, I am beginning to worry about the ears of our Members and I am wondering whether he could not speak so loudly in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The former Minister should know that he should address the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as the right hon. gentleman.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Right Hon. Governor of Canada. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I see that the Conservatives are touchy. I must say that it is shameful, because we are taking decisions about the future of Canada and I am really asking myself just what kind of economic policy we will have in this country. Who will decide for Canada when it comes to jobs, research and development? What is going on in the House? The scandalous aspect of all this is that the Minister has gone into hiding after
January 30, 1985

asking his Parliamentary Secretary to put the previous question. This is unprecedented in the House, the Ministers do not take their responsibilities. It is unheard of, they impose closure after only fourteen hours of debate on an extremely important measure which has not been the subject of consultation throughout Canada. They have been saying all along:

"We will consult with everybody". I don't know who was consulted about the Bill. Not even Members of Parliament were consulted. The Conservatives consulted the business community in New York probably but not Canadian businessmen.
What effect will this Bill have on some parts of Canada? In the northern United States people are complaining because jobs are going from Michigan or New Hampshire down to the sun belt. What will happen to us when we are even farther north if there is no border and no capacity to make decisions to protect our own jobs in Canada? What has been the result of six months of free enterprise mentality? It has been an absolute disaster in the Province of Quebec. In the last three months one factory after another has been closing.
The Minister will not discuss options with anyone and will not intervene to save jobs. He will just let the Americans take over all of Canada. I believe that there is still a place in this land for this Parliament to express views about what the economic policy of this country should be instead of the businessmen of New York, deciding that.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, initially 1 would like to welcome the Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) back to the House from the corporate boardrooms of Toronto. It is a pleasure to see him putting in a guest appearance in the House and we certainly welcome him back after that kind of performance.
I am delighted to take part in the debate on this fundamental question. Again, it is with some interest that I have been listening to Liberal Members of Parliament, including the Member for Saint-Maurice, speak on this question. I recall very vividly when we on this side of the House in opposition, along with our Tory colleagues in opposition, rose time and again to question the Government about shutdowns of corporations right across this land. It was that Liberal Minister and that Liberal Government that said it was the market that was taking the role and they were responding to market forces. That kind of hypocrisy surely is not acceptable to the people of Canada.
The Liberals talk with ringing indignation about the fact that Canada must not take its orders from the boardrooms of New York, Hartford and elsewhere in the United States. If one looks at the foreign policy of that former Government and the decision with respect to the testing of the Cruise missile, for example, where are those great defenders of the autonomy of Canada today? Just a few months ago they were the ones who were defending the American economic policy, foreign policy and every other policy as well.
I remember questioning the former Minister of Regional Economic Expansion with respect to a company in my constit-
Investment Canada Act
uency that had shut down. It was one of the 98 per cent or 99 per cent of successful applications approved under the Foreign Investment Review Act of the previous Government. I had asked the Minister about the undertakings given by that company when it had received approval to take over this Canadian company. I was told that unfortunately those undertakings were not a matter of public record but were between the Government of Canada, FIRA, and the company. Even the 250 workers at that plant who lost their jobs were told that they had no right whatsoever to know the terms and conditions of that takeover.
Today, there is a Government which has come forward to say that it is effectively putting up the for sale sign. Canada is for sale to the highest bidder. If one examines the rather toothless wonder of FIRA and the very minimal conditions which were in effect, how can the Government possibly come before Parliament and suggest that it wants to destroy even the basic scrutiny that existed under the previous Government, inadequate though that may have been?
What were some of the questions which were asked of companies which sought to invest in Canada? The first question was whether this new investment would provide jobs for Canadians. I would have assumed that a foreign company coming to Canada would have been asked that as a basic question. Yet the Government, through this Bill, is saying that it does not care. If a company wants to come in and take over Canadian companies, the Government puts down the welcome mat. If the company decides to shut down that plant six months later because of its world product mandate, its desire to maximize profits globally and to open up where there is cheaper labour, no environmental or labour standards or no unions, the Government says that that is fair enough because that is free enterprise in action.
It is free enterprise in action but if we look at the record of foreign capital in this country, it has been a record that has resulted in the net loss of thousands of jobs. It has been one which has resulted in research and development in Canada being at one of the lowest levels of any industrialized country in the western world.
Of course, if there are foreign corporations in Canada they will not do R and D in Canada; they will conduct their research and development at their head office in the United States. Historically, Mr. Speaker, foreign companies have viewed Canada as a cheap source of raw materials and as a lucrative market for their goods and services.
The fundamental decisions which have been taken about investment, about employment, about research and development, about export, new technology and marketing, have not been taken here in Canada by Canadians in the interests of Canadians; they have been taken in foreign boardrooms not in the interests of Canadians but in the interest of the global profit picture, the bottom line, of a multinational corporation.
What this Conservative Government is doing in paying off its friends in the corporate boardroom is saying let's have more

January 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
of the same. Let's sell out Canada. Let's sell out Canada even more than we have already sold it out. We in this Party say that is fundamentally unacceptable.
I see a Tory back-bencher who wants to speak, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that he might want to take the opportunity while this debate lasts to rise to his feet and defend the policies of this Government which is effectively throwing open the doors to foreign capital and ending any meaningful control by Canadians over investment in Canada. I suspect we will not hear very much from the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) aside from the bleating coming from the backbenchers. The word has gone out. This Government has been secretive, yet it purports to reflect the views expressed on parliamentary reform and a new era in Parliament. But what have the Tories done on one of the most important Bills to face the people of Canada? They have shut down debate. That is a shameful action and the people of Canada will remember the silence of Tory back-benchers when it comes to the next election.
There is no question that this debate is an historic debate because it touches upon the future and who will be making decisions about Canadian resources and Canadian jobs. We do not need more studies to show the level of destruction to our economy as a result of the fact that basically we are tenants in our own land. There has been lots of documentation about that. There was the Gordon Commission in the 1950s, the Watkins report in the 1960s, and the Gray report in the 1970s, all of which documented very clearly the problems that foreign investment creates in this country.
The question then must be asked, who is going to control the economic decision-making in this country? The answer which appears to be given by the Tories is-


John R. Rodriguez: Wall Street.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -that we do not care any more because ultimately wherever the bottom line reigns that will be where the Tory Party is prepared to accept foreign investment.
The Liberal approach to foreign ownership was not significantly better, but at least the Liberals did not propose to dismantle FIR A. Ed Lumley, a former Minister, said that Canada was one of the most open countries in the world. I cannot imagine another country that is more generous in its treatment of foreign investors. We in this House have seen hundreds of thousands of Canadians losing jobs as a result of throwing Canada open to foreign ownership by this Government and the previous Government. We have seen the contradiction in policy. On the one hand the Government talks about reducing the deficit, but in the next breath it brings in this Bill which will increase the deficit because it will result in a net outflow of dividends and interest payments. It is time that we in this country took control of our own economy for Canadians and by Canadians.


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 64(1) I am honoured on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to lay upon the Table a notice of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act. I would ask that an Order of the Day be designated by you for consideration of this motion.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order to interrupt Routine Proceedings or Orders of the Day, does the Minister not require unanimous consent to revert to motions or to revert to some other proceeding? Is the Minister not out of order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) rises on a point of order. I would like to bring to his attention that on page 61 of the Standing Orders, Standing Order 64(1) reads:
64.(1) A notice of a Ways and Means motion may be laid upon the Table of the House at any time during a sitting by a Minister of the Crown-

[ Translation]


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 a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and on the motion of Mrs. Tardif (Charlesbourg) (p. 1708).
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate to identify what this debate is all about and remember that it is Standing Order 56(1) that is being referred to right now, and that it requires that the previous question be put.
As Hon. Members will remember, that motion was put by the Hon. Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister. We regret that once more the Minister does not have the guts, the courage to do his own work in this House. We have very seldom seen him here since the debate started. And looking back at the Members who participated, I think the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) was right when he called the Government Members "mufflers", because they have not been very articulate in this debate that is most important to us.
Looking at Hansard, Mr. Speaker-and I would like to say this for the record-there were only a few hours of debate, three hours and 12 minutes to be more accurate, used by the Progressive Conservatives, as against 10 hours and 51 minutes for the Liberals, and 9 hours and 19 minutes for the New Democratic Party. I would not say that 22 hours of debate is
January 30, 1985

something excessive for such an important piece of legislation, and certainly not a reason for the Government to impose closure. The Government has 211 Members, who say nothing because they have nothing to say. That conclusion is obvious because they have not spoken. But we have much to say on the Bill, and we insist that our democratic rights be respected in this House. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we will oppose and vote against Government closure.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to being a muzzle, the Standing Order prevents any person, any Member from introducing amendments to the legislation. This second reading stage, is traditionally the stage for consideration of the principle of the legislation, that is when the House may discuss the principle of the Bill.
I had expected the Government to be interested in hearing the views of all Members, but as I said, such is not the case. Indeed, I am very much amazed that the Hon. Members from Ottawa-Carleton, my area, have not risen in this debate, except for one. And I thought the Hon. Members for Ottawa-West and Nepean-Carleton would speak up because in their constituencies, in the Ottawa area, there is a major high technology industry, an industry that has created many jobs.
Mr. Speaker, it will be remembered that the Hon. Member for York-Peel, when he introduced the Bill, said that the impact of Bill C-15 would be to create jobs.
But looking at the media, or at the comments made at the time by the Hon. Members, we realize it is not quite accurate to claim that this change or name substitution will mean any great contribution to job creation. I am thinking, among other things, about a report in the December 20, 1984, issue of The Globe and Mail in which it was suggested that the big American financiers would not be in any great hurry to come and invest here, and 1 would simply like to quote from that report in English:

-foreign investors are a hard-nosed lot interested in making money. In Canada, that means mainly resource industries, and, with the exception of oil and gas, resources are not considered good investments.
The world is producing too much of raw materials, such as copper, nickel, and certain kinds of lumber, which Canada traditionally has produced.

Concerning funds those Americans supposedly would invest in Canada, I am quoting once more from Mr. Thomas Wal-kom in The Globe and Mail:
"You don't get the idea that there are a lot of folks with money bags at the border, waiting to get into Canada", said a banker, smiling wryly.
"People in Canada are going to have to be very patient," ... "Investment will be up, but not necessarily enough to do anything about unemployment."

I did not say that: an American banker, one of the Prime Minister's friends in New York did. Thus, we must not rely
Investment Canada Act
upon the United States to bring us money or jobs. I read also in the House of Commons Hansard a comment on clause 21 made by my friend from Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Barry Turner), in which he says about jobs and investments:
Capital resources in Canada are not sufficient to meet the needs of governments, whether federal, provincial or municipal, nor those of the private sector.
Therefore, we have on the one hand a statement saying we need money and on the other, American bankers who say: We have money but we may not be in as much of a hurry as you think.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) said when he rose in this House:

I would just like to point out that for three months our Party has been talking positively about an opportunity ... for foreigners to invest in this country ... unemployment has gone down. There were 100.000 new jobs started up.
To him I must say that one cannot be so naive as to think that sweet-talk can create 100,000 jobs. We all know that there is a six-month lag in economics and that jobs come after a certain time. The result, the jobs about which he bragged, were indeed created by policies of the former Liberal Government in months gone by. As a matter of fact, if we look at the statistics we Find that the number of jobs created in the last few months is no greater than the jobs created in previous months.
A more interesting statement was made by a friend of the Tories, Mr. James Gillies, a former Member of this House. I refer to an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail in which Mr. Gillies talked about capital flow and job creation. 1 think this article is worth reading. It is enlightening in terms of foreign investment. In part it read:
Not all foreign investment is productive. It is naive to believe that any flow of capital into the country will move the economy forward. It depends entirely on what it is used for. If it is not invested in the production of new plant and equipment and does not lead to an increase in exports it can have serious negative economic consequences.
I am not the one who said that. It was Mr. James Gillies, an expert economist and a former Tory Member of the House. He continued:
Moreover, until the intractable balance of payments problem is solved we must try to limit the borrowing of capital from abroad. No government or government agency should borrow in foreign markets under current conditions. If a government has a function that it believes must be performed either directly or through a government agency, the capital should be raised domestically or the proposed operation should be postponed.
I thought that statement was rather interesting. It was published in a January, 1985 edition of The Globe and Mail.
The auctioneer of some of our assets in Canada-I am thinking about Canadair, de Havilland, Teleglobe and other companies of that nature-Mr. Paul Marshall, was given the job of trying to sell, if he could, these companies to prospective buyers. We were told by the media in a recent report in The Citizen that Mr. Paul Marshall, President of the Canada Development Corporation, made a statement to the effect that

January 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
there were no job guarantees in these possible sales. As a matter of fact, to quote Mr. Marshall, he said: "There are no job guarantees at this point". One would wonder why the Government would want to get rid of some of our good Crown assets without some guarantee of job security for those employed by these companies. The Government has been giving us promises of jobs, but evidently it has not been carrying out its promises. At this time it is not preaching by example when it puts on the block companies which are Canadian and which are Canadian assets, in my view.
I will just end my remarks by saying that we oppose this motion and regret it immensely.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about this Bill. I think it is a very poor and misguided one. I want to put my concerns on record on behalf of my constituents.
It has been said that Canadians do not care whether a company is foreign owned or Canadian owned so long as it gives them jobs. Rather, I think it is because Canadians care very much about jobs that they have to look at the issue whether the company is foreign owned or domestically owned. Foreign-owned corporations do not provide as much employment and indeed are responsible for many unemployment problems in the country. As a result of control by foreign head offices, decisions are made that result in jobs disappearing, research and development jobs not being created here, and spin-off jobs which come from the purchase of other Canadian goods and services not going to Canadians because of the number of imports.
The situation with which we were faced before Bill C-15, before this dismantling of FIRA, was not an adequate one. We do not have a strong FIRA. It is something of a token operation. We would like to see FIRA strengthened. It was not adequate as it was set up. Of course it has been declining in its operations. It has been almost rubber-stamping applications, not looking after the interest of Canadians in finding jobs.
Our response to the inadequacies of FIRA would not be in the direction of this Bill. It would be in precisely the opposite direction. FIRA has not been strong enough. It has not been doing enough. There have not been the other measures which the Government should be introducing to buck up FIRA and to provide a context within which Canadians could begin to regain control of their economy.
Recently I returned from visiting Atlantic Canada and Regina with the NDP caucus action group on jobs. We met with a very large number of community groups. They spoke to us about their concerns about high unemployment in the country. I did not hear one group, individual, expert or specialist ask us to get rid of FIRA, to dismantle it or to weaken it. However, I heard from many individuals, experts, economists, political scientists, people running co-ops, small-business people, people active in the economic life of their communities and unemployed people who want to be active in the economic life of their communities. They talked about greater control of the Canadian economy. They talked about co-ops and small
businesses. They talked about job creation at home and manufacturing concerns which would buy goods and services in their communities and keep money in their communities. They talked about foreign corporations coming into their communities, making a bundle largely on the extraction of resources and then leaving. Of course, this is what foreign corporations can do. They talked about profits not being plowed back into their communities as a result of foreign ownership.
I heard quite an earful about the difficulties we already have with foreign investment and foreign control of our economy. People want less of it, not more. They want local control. They want the money to stay in their communities. They want jobs there. They want all the surrounding goods and services and the diversification which comes when companies operating in their communities are Canadian controlled, buy from their neighbours in the community and help keep the economy going.
We have a number of very fundamental problems. We have to look at the differences between foreign-controlled and Canadian-controlled corporations and at why foreign-controlled ones are not beneficial to our economy. First I point out that foreign-controlled firms import much more than Canadian-controlled ones. This reduces purchases in communities, jobs which go along with those purchases and spin-off benefits accruing from doing business within communities. This occurs particularly with the purchase of machinery and other high-level kinds of purchases.
Foreign companies imported 22 per cent of their sales, five times that of Canadian-controlled companies. In manufacturing, foreign-controlled companies imported 30 per cent of their sales, four times more than Canadian companies. Why do we want more of our economy controlled by corporations that will import more? It will simply mean job loss.
The second problem that arises with the differences between foreign-controlled and Canadian-controlled corporations concerns the disproportionate share of payments for non-merchandise items like interest payments, profits and service and management charges. The resources available for potential investment and job creation here in Canada are reduced by the outflow of interest payments, dividends, profits and so forth to head offices. This affects Canada's balance of payments and means that there will be less money available. The money is going out of the country to pay for management services which could well be provided by Canadians. That means that less money is left in the Canadian economy to be reinvested in an attempt to create more jobs.
Specifically, American-controlled firms holding 36 per cent of industrial assets in Canada accounted for 61 per cent of the external remittances. These remittances are going from foreign-controlled corporations and specifically American ones right across the border to the head offices. The Canadian corporations, to a much greater extent, are finding the management services and other services they need in Canada and they are paying out their interest payments, their profits and
January 30, 1985

their dividends to other Canadians who will be reinvesting that money in the country.
The third structural problem that exists with foreign-con-trolled corporations is that they do not spend nearly as much as Canadian-controlled corporations on research and development. This reveals a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of the Government which has indicated that it wants more research and development. This is true of the previous Government as well. We certainly apprised that Government of the problem and it said that it was concerned about research and development. Of course, it did very little about it.
Any increase in foreign control of the economy will mean that less research and development will be taking place in Canada, and of course that means there will be fewer job opportunities for Canadians who are involved in research and development. There are many people with Ph.D.s in all kinds of specialties who are unemployed. People who are well trained in research fields are driving taxis or doing part-time jobs and not using the talents they developed because they cannot get jobs. Where are those jobs? The jobs are attached to head offices in another country. Canadians do not receive these very important jobs. Indeed, the investment we have made in educating these people and developing their skills is lost to the Canadian economy.
An analysis of research and development expenditures of different sized corporations has been done and it indicates that the very large corporations, the ones we would expect to be contributing the most to research and development, are actually contributing the least. The relationship of research and development over sales for Canadian corporations with more than 500 employees is 10.3 per cent. That same ratio for foreign-owned corporations is 2 per cent. In other words, there is roughly a five-fold difference. These are the companies to which we look particularly for doing research and development in Canada.
The next problem I would like to raise is that the high rate of foreign control of Canadian industry contributes to poor productivity performance by reducing competition. Foreign subsidiaries do not face competition from their parent firms. This is a fact of life in the branch plant system. Branch plants operating in Canada are not meant to compete with parent companies but are meant to purchase, often at inflated prices, the products of the parent company and other affiliates in the system. They are not meant to put other products for which they have done research and development which would compete with the parent corporation on the market because it is the profits of the parent corporation which count in the economic decision-making process, not the profits of the branch plant. A branch plant that could be innovative and could compete is not allowed to do so because that is not a part of the branch plant system.
Specifically, foreign-controlled companies account for 72 per cent of all merchandise imports to Canada. That is what foreign-controlled companies are supposed to do. They are supposed to be importing rather than exporting and competing. A great deal of economic analysis has been done about
Investment Canada Act
this by government departments, Statistics Canada, and of course by a large number of independent researchers who have made very, very clear this very important structural problem.
The last of the problems of a structural nature that I wish to raise is that the greater dependence of foreign-controlled firms on merchandise imports which are usually tied to the parent company at the exclusion of Canadian competitors has the effect of reducing jobs available to Canadians. Studies done by the United States Senate and the Harvard Business School have found that direct American investment in Canada produces a significant net creation of jobs for all sectors of the United States workforce. That is lovely for the United States workforce but what is this Parliament doing maximizing job opportunities for American workers at the expense of Canadian workers?
We must be concerned about the high unemployment rate in our own country. To be in favour of a measure that will increase unemployment for our own people is simply scandalous at this time of high unemployment. It means that workers of all kinds, from research and development specialists to blue collar workers, will lose job opportunities because of the structure of the branch plant system. It extracts resources from Canada. Branch plants do the hewing of wood and drawing of water in Canada and keep the manufacturing and research and development at head office.
Even as it exists today, FIRA has certainly not been a tough check on foreign investment in Canada. FIRA approval rates over the past two years have been in the order of 95 per cent to 98 per cent. It is not as if we can say that the current FIRA has been screening out a great deal of foreign investment. Less than half of those foreign takeover applications that were approved were intended to increase investment or provide any new jobs, and that is a very crucial point.
Corporations that received approval under the existing FIRA did not provide opportunities for job creation. They did not represent new investment or expansion and they certainly did not represent greater productivity and the possibility of exports, innovations, or anything of that sort. They were simply takeovers. In some cases these takeovers even reduced production in Canada. We know that that happens. A company takes over a Canadian plant and a year later, in spite of everything that has been said to FIRA by the corporation, closes down the plant and jobs are lost. There are plenty of instances of foreign corporations entering Canada without even pretending that they will help the Canadian economy.
The current FIRA has not been careful enough in seeing that foreign investment on balance does good things for the Canadian economy. It has not even acted according to its own current terms of reference. In the future we can expect Investment Canada to do an even worse job unless there are major amendments to this Bill.


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


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 is the first major piece of government legislation that has been

Investment Canada Act
put before us. It provides Canadians very quickly with knowledge of the philosophical bent that handcuffs the Conservative Party.
The debate over FIRA versus Investment Canada is a classic example of something which distinguishes a Liberal Government from a Conservative Government. First, FIRA was an instrument of nation building. It was an instrument to safeguard and promote Canadians and Canadian economic sovereignty. Investment Canada will do neither.
Second, while foreign investment was viewed as an indispensable sector of the economic pie, FIRA was an initiative taken by Canadians to put Canadians first. It was an initiative that attempted to instil in Canada a sense of purpose, vitality and leadership. Investment Canada will merely perpetuate the often heard criticism that Canada lacks the drive and self-fortitude to make things happen.
Third, FIRA put Canada second to no one. It viewed Canada and the United States as co-tenants of the North American continent. Investment Canada views the United States as the owner and Canada as the subservient tenant.
In short, FIRA subscribed to the theory that the ability to control the economy makes a strong economy, and also defines the kind of country we are and indeed want to be. Through Investment Canada we will lose that sense of national will and purpose. The economic subservience theory which is espoused by the new Government will not ensure long-term economic growth; it will merely transfer it to other lands and other peoples. It will only help boost the value of the American buck, the Eurodollar and the Japanese yen. Canadians are asking: "What about us?"
In reality Bill C-15 is yet another example of government which is far more interested in the art of public relations than it is in actual substance. This Government is prepared to sacrifice long-term economic planning and economic sovereignty for short-term, image-making propaganda. The Minister who introduced the legislation late last year declared in his press statement:
We are back in business. This legislation sends a message to the world that, once again, Canada welcomes investment.
Of what world does this Minister speak? This country has always been open for business and has always welcomed investment. If that were not the case, we would not be witnesses to what is a great, prosperous and thriving nation. In terms of economic investment, like any other country, under a Liberal Government, and specifically through FIRA, Canada wanted and stressed what was good for Canada and Canadians. Is that a negative attitude to take as a country? Is that not how a country attains a degree of respect in the international business community?
FIRA was an essential and calculated policy instrument which sought to ensure that foreign investment also included significant benefits to Canada. FIRA allowed Canadians to bargain and negotiate with a huge variety of multinational interests from a point of strength. The objective of FIRA was
January 30, 1985
not to prevent or discourage foreign investment, but rather to cater to it and to the needs and aspirations of Canada.
It should be noted that since its inception in 1974 FIRA has approved, on average, 92 per cent of all applications. That figure clearly demonstrates that foreign investors not only wanted to and did invest heavily in Canada, but that they were willing to meet the criteria which were established by FIRA. In short, the investors realized and appreciated that more jobs for Canadians, more research and development for Canada and greater Canadian exports were parts of the investment deal. Why should it be any different today?
It is doubtful that FIRA discouraged in a significant way any foreign investor who was serious about investing his or her capital in Canada. In fact, the Conference Board of Canada performed a study last April which determined that FIRA provided a deterrent for only 11 per cent of foreign business. More important, Statistics Canada figures indicate that FIRA did not halt the flow of U.S. investment into Canada. In fact, the gross inflow of direct U.S. investment into Canada continued to expand during the time of FIRA. Gross inflows varied between $1 billion and $1.4 billion throughout most of the 1970s, before sky-rocketing during 1980 and 1981. If we took a quick analysis of the facts and figures, we would find that they effectively contradict the Government's blind portrayal that FIRA was the enemy of foreign investment and that the removal of FIRA, replaced by Investment Canada, would bring a new beginning.
As the Bill stands, direct acquisitions by non-Canadians of businesses in Canada with assets of less than $5 million are not subject to review; neither are indirect takeovers resulting from the acquisition of parent companies outside Canada when the Canadian subsidiary has assets of over $50 million. In my opinion, that is a grave concern for Canadian small businessmen, particularly in the increasingly competitive field of high technology. The Government will simply open the doors and allow the takeover of firms which are below these thresholds. What will Canada gain if these small enterprises are more prone to shutdowns? What will we gain if these Canadian jobs are not guaranteed? What steps will be available to the Canadian Government to prevent such economic hardships? What action can the Government take to guarantee benefits to Canada and to ensure jobs for all Canadians? Unfortunately the answer to those questions is that this Government wishes to wash its hands of its commitment to small businessmen.
Another case which illustrated FIRA's protection for small businessmen involved the terms which were negotiated when the Herald Company of Syracuse, New York, a publishing Firm, took over Random House of Canada Limited. As a result of FIRA, the American buyer agreed to guarantee the jobs of all 85 Random House employees and to offer jobs to ten employees of another Canadian company which was closing its Mississauga plant. In addition, the Canadian employees of Random House were to be given a chance to buy a controlling interest in the company. Finally, the buyer agreed to print in Canada any book it published when Canadian sales were expected to exceed 10,000 copies. Those economic concessions
January 30, 1985

will no longer be possible with Investment Canada. Many firms which are below the new thresholds may be small, but collectively they are the engine and the spirit behind the creation of new jobs in Canada.
To further compound the inequities of Investment Canada, the larger takeovers which will dictate the fate of thousands of workers and the interests of entire regions will now rest at the mercy of one Minister. Under FIRA those factors would be shared by the full Cabinet in order to incorporate and understand a variety of disciplines, interests and regional necessities. That perspective was much more encompassing. Now, a billion dollar decision in the hands of one Minister centralizes power in an unprecedented way. In doing so, it imposes horrendous limitations as it relates to the spectrum of interests.
Not only is the concept that FIRA discouraged foreign investment a fabricated myth perpetuated by the Tories, but that inaccuracy is also complemented by a mood that at the present time the U.S. is least likely to undergo active investment abroad. This growing view was echoed in a fascinating article in The Globe and Mail. I realize, Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that my time has ended. Perhaps, if this debate is extended, I could read that fascinating article to the House at another time.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, this is a day which should be marked and underlined with a red pencil in the annals of the new Mulroney Government. We are seeing the gagging of Parliament. We are seeing another form of retreat from those brave, bold words of July, which turned into shambles and tatters by the time we reached January. They are the great paragons of parliamentary rights.
Without a doubt, this is one of the most critical pieces of legislation which has been brought forward in many a year. After a limited debate of not more than 20 hours, this grand majority-those 211 Members-are putting their tails between their legs and retreating into the last refuge of scoundrels-the right to close off debate. Why? Because they are afraid of what they are hearing. Government Members do not like what is being said in this Parliament about the inadequacies and fallabilities of the Government's approach to the Investment Canada Bill.
We on this side are not surprised at that. The Government started out with a broken promise. I would like to quote from an interesting article from The Calgary Herald, which of course I read faithfully every day. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), who was then the Opposition critic, was asked what the Conservatives would do about the Foreign Investment Review Agency if elected. He said that he would not like to say what the changes would be but that there would be public hearings. He continued:
Those public hearings will be held before a Tory government drafts new legislation-
Well, we were all waiting for the public hearings, but in the darkness of night the Minister sailed into the House, laid the legislation on the Table and we have not seen him since. The House has heard all this debate, but where has the Minister
Investment Canada Act
been? This Government that wants to consult and hear from people has discriminated against Members of Parliament. It does not want to hear from its own Members of Parliament or from us. The Minister has not bothered to show up, nor has the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). This Bill is the centre piece, the crown jewel of its economic program, and Ministers of the Government cannot be bothered to take a minute or two away from working with their chiefs of staff to come here and listen to the debate. Instead, they are going to close off the debate.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, they are closing it off because they realize and recognize that it is a faulty and flawed piece of legislation which does not do the job it is supposed to do. It has nothing to do with investment in Canada. It has to do with some punitive, vindictive response to what Government thought were the inadequacies of the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
The debate thus far has shown some very serious flaws in the Bill which the Canadian people are now beginning to recognize. When has there ever been a piece of legislation which has given such uncontrolled power to make discretionary decisions on major plant locations and economic development to one Minister without any recourse to Cabinet, to Parliament or to any committee? He has been set up as an economic czar and he does not have to answer to anyone. That is incredible power, and if I were a member of the Conservative Party I would be a little concerned because those Hon. Members will also suffer the same limitation of access as any other Canadian. We know how inaccessible the Minister is. He is never in the House, so I do not know when his colleagues see him. I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, to provide one Minister with that kind of power is asking for trouble, and those Hon. Members opposite are going to find it in spades. On what basis will decisions be made: on who paid his Tory membership last month, or on who was talked to at the latest dinner for the old alumni of the Bank of Western Canada? Who is going to get the benefit of that particular kind of examination? We do not know, Mr. Speaker, and neither will any other Canadian.
We know very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that in this Bill there is power to make decisions which will affect regions. Nothing is more critical to economic development, and yet here we have a Minister who has shown time and time again his insensitivity to regional development. He does not understand the word. He can only see so far from when he sits on his horse farm somewhere north of Toronto. He has nothing to do with what is going on in Atlantic Canada because we see there the evisceration of all the regional development investments which made sense.
What is the reason for all this, Mr. Speaker? We know the price we will have to pay and we are still taking cap in hand, doffing it to our American friends and saying, "We are wide open for business". It is a doormat policy which we are encountering day after day in this House. We see it in every respect. We saw the Minister of National Defence (Mr. January 30, 1985

Investment Canada Act
Coates) selling out on the DEW line question, initialling agreements open to totally unintended consequences. We saw the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), that one-time red Tory, who is now turning an indescribable purplish shade, rising in his place to say, "Oh, I agree with star wars. That is one of the great advances towards world peace". So we are going to have a star wars philosophy because that is going to help and encourage negotiations. To spend $40 billion or $50 billion on a brand new weapons system in outer space somehow, in the logic of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is going to help maintain world peace. I have more respect for that Minister than that. I suspect he has simply been given his orders by the Prime Minister not to disrupt those kind and cordial relations with the President of the United States, which the Prime Minister says he wants to establish in order to make sure we get a better economic deal.
But, Mr. Speaker, what have been the results of that sort of cap in hand, doormat approach which Government has taken? We just heard today in Question Period in the House of Commons that in return for our investment, in return for our so-called open hand, the Americans are going to increase substantially the tariffs on cod fish, which will only affect the entire economy of eastern Canada. In particular, the constituency of the Prime Minister is going to be one of those areas which will be affected in the most dire and drastic way. But it is all right that our American friends are going to increase the tariff by 25 per cent.
Last week we heard of the decision of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) to take off the export surcharge on gasoline or heavy oil to the United States. What will Canadians pay? They are going to pay $6 a barrel more. I believe this Government, Mr. Speaker, is headed toward a very thorny patch. What disturbs us, of course, is that it does not know what the consequences are. What we are seeing is a haphazard, ad hoc, confused approach to government. Those Ministers are making decisions when they get up on their feet, if then. They are contradicting one another and do not have any kind of clearly enunciated strategy about how we can develop the economy of this country. The Americans themselves, the Conference Board of Canada and the American Wall Street brokers, have all said that this legislation will not add one additional cent to the foreign investment coming into Canada. They say there are other kinds of problems. Last year under the old FIRA program $4.3 billion came into Canada. And there was, however, a difference, Mr. Speaker, we had the ability and capacity under that program to ensure that there would be benefits and jobs for Canadians, that there would be research and development in Canada, and that there would be good management. But this Government is giving up that right. It is giving up the power to bargain for a better deal for Canadians. Its so-called open window, open sesame approach is simply a way of saying-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I think there is some kind of Irish conspiracy going on and we will have to trace it back to some sort of
Fenian plot in the 19th century in order to explain the Mulroney-Reagan love-in affair, the amorous union that is taking place daily, which results in absolutely no form of protection for Canadians. That is the problem with which we are faced. We are getting into these new liaisons which result for Canadians in the loss of their birthright. We are losing our birthright. No economic development is going to take place. There is nothing in the Bill to encourage Canadian investors. There is nothing to provide for protection for our small businesses. We have nothing to bargain with. Now Parliament is being snuffed out, debate is gagged, and we are told there is no point in even looking at the issues anymore.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we happen to believe that there are still a lot of very important issues. I can say on behalf of my caucus that if we are not allowed the privileges and rights as parliamentarians to debate this Bill any longer in this Chamber, we will certainly make full, proper and effective use of that right when we get to committee. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, if the House Leader is within hearing distance of our words, that he had better not plan for an early summer vacation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 find it somewhat amusing to sit and listen to Liberals making the same speeches about closure as I heard from Conservatives last year, the year before that and the year before that. If we have ever had evidence that there is really no difference between the Grits and Tories, we have had it today, and neither of the Parties had the courtesy to blush. I wish they would at least send their speeches back and forth across the way, then they could take turns making them every time we have closure in this House.
The issue is not whether we should have foreign investment. There is no argument that we need some foreign investment. What we need is more loan capital and less ownership or equity capital. I like the American people, all of us do. They are good neighbours and good friends. I like my own friends and relatives also, but I do not want them moving into my house so that I have to live in the garage. That is a quote from Tommy Douglas at the time we forced a minority Liberal Government to bring in foreign investment review. We ended up with a toothless tiger, but at least it was a beginning.
Canada is not alone in how it is treated by foreign investment. I had an opportunity to be in Mexico City and when I left I bought the Mexico City Daily News. On the financial page it says: "Foreign Firms Reaping Profits". Here is what happened in Mexico. Transnational companies operating in that country invested $273 million in the first six months of 1984. Those same companies sent out of Mexico $820 million in royalties, interest and profits during that same period, in other words, Mr. Speaker, almost quadruple their investment. And Mexico is a poor country. No one objects to foreign investors making a reasonable return, but any nation worthy of the name has to have some ground rules which put controls on the reinvestment of profits. These companies cannot just cut and run whenever they feel like it.
January 30, 1985

In that poor country of Mexico, in the two and a half years from the beginning of 1982 to the middle of 1984, United States corporate investment was $1.2 billion. In that same period of time, some $4.78 billion was sent back to the parent companies. That is nothing more than the bleeding of a poor nation. It is bad enough when they bleed a country like ours that is relatively well off, but they even do it to a poor country like Mexico.
I spoke about ground rules on foreign investment. Those ground rules must cover such things as how much profit is to be reinvested. They have to say that if you are a resource-based foreign-owned corporation with an operation in a one industry town, you shall pay a royalty into a fund to protect that town at a time when the resource has been depleted or the operation is not profitable. If the company wants to leave, there will be enough money there to ensure that the community will have funds available to be invested in some other industry and thus save the community from dying. That also needs to be applied to domestic corporations which think they can move into communities and pull out 20 years later, leaving them high and dry.
There need to be limits on how much the company can send back to the parent company by way of interest and dividend payments. There needs to be a requirement that a certain percentage of the total parent companies' spending on research and development must occur in the country in which they have branch plants. It cannot all be done in the home country. Without those kinds of ground rules, Mr. Speaker, we become nothing more than a territorial extension of the United States or of any other major foreign investor. Just as we have become a territorial extension of the United States militarily, we will also become a territorial extension economically. When you allow too much foreign ownership and control of your economy, you lose some of your economic sovereignty and national independence. It has happened before and it is bound to happen again if the Government insists on going ahead with this mindless pleading for foreign investment without there being sufficient ground rules.
There must be significant benefit to Canada Mr. Speaker. That is a key phrase. It was in place under FIRA. But the Government of those days did not make sure that it laid out the ground rules for FIRA to enforce. Unless and until we get those kinds of ground rules, we have to be more than once bitten and twice shy about foreign investment. We cannot just leave it to come and go for the sole benefit of an international corporation and to the detriment of our own nation.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that most Canadians are more concerned about our independence and sovereignty, our ability to exercise control, not only over our national policies as they relate to defence but over our economy as well. The minute we allow inordinate amounts of foreign ownership in one or more sectors of our economy, we have lost some of our sovereignty, our independence. No self-respecting parliamentarian can sit back and allow that to happen. We all believe in having good international relations. We are internationalists, but not at the
Investment Canada Act
expense of our own nationalism and our nationhood. We are not internationalists at the expense of our sovereignty.
You cannot blame the foreign investor or the foreign corporation for acting as it sees fit in the best interests of that corporation, when it is allowed to operate freely, or when there are no real ground rules for it to live up to. We cannot blame them; we have to blame ourselves. Successive free enterprise governments have, since before Confederation, gone on their hands and knees, begging and pleading foreign capital to control a major part of our economy. As a result, successive national Governments were immobilized in their ability to deal with booms, busts or anything in between as they ran the risk of incurring the anger of the Government of the nation where those foreign corporations were located. The United States has a long history, as did the British, French and German colonial powers, of exercising its power over countries like Canada at any time it thought its corporations and their investments in Canada might in any way be inhibited or reduced. The United States Government has always, as a matter of policy, be it Democratic or Republican, gone to bat for the major corporations which have controlled anywhere up to 90 per cent of any one sector of our economy.
I hope the Government will reconsider and present to the committee, if, as and when this Bill reaches it, a set of ground rules that we can all support. Then this so-called Investment Canada will be an even stronger agency than FIRA and it will be able to deal impartially with foreign investment for the benefit of our own country.


John Napier Turner: am not here in the Chamber just because I wanted to see you again, although it is always a pleasure, Mr. Speaker.
Mir. de Jong: You guys can hold hands somewhere else.


John Napier Turner: When I see the experience, diligence and good judgment represented in the Chair, it gives me the confidence I need in knowing that I am going to get a fair hearing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Now they have changed.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I was just saying some generous things about your deputy, which you can read in Hansard. I have respect for the Chair, and particular respect for an old friend. However, that is not the reason I am here.
I am here because I am concerned, as are the members of my Party, with the unecessary haste with which the Government is treating this Bill, which is a very important piece of legislation. I am concerned about the methods it is using to curtail free debate and unduly accelerate its passage through the House of Commons.
At the outset I would like to congratulate those in our quarter of the House who have said a great deal in response on

January 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
the merits of the Bill. I speak particularly of my old friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy); my seat-mate, the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), and the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), who have had a good deal to do with the mobilization of debate from our quarter of the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Don't forget the Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien). He did a good job too.


John Napier Turner: He did a good job this afternoon, as did the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
This legislation was not really introduced in the House of Commons. It was introduced one night in New York City before the American investment banking community.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Napier Turner: At that time the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that this country is open for business again. I had never felt that the country had ever been closed to business. I do not stand in the shadow of the Prime Minister in wanting to enhance and improve our trading relationship and friendhip with our great neighbour, the United States. On other occasions I have said to him that I do not envisage our relationship with the United States on the continent of North America to be one of proprietor and tenant, but, rather, one of two equal co-tenants sharing the resources, future and environment of the continent. Any enhancement of our relationship with our neighbour should not be made at the expense of an independent foreign policy for Canada, our political sovereignty, or our economic and cultural integrity. Those are the issues at stake in this particular Bill.
I said that I did not object to the Prime Minister saying that this country is open for business. However, I say once again, as I have said in the House and across the country, that Canada is not up for sale.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I am concerned, as are my colleagues, that the Government is not seriously considering its relationship with the United States in matters of defence. It is accepting, almost blindly, what the U.S. Secretary of Defence may say or the Pentagon may dictate. We have already spoken about the extension and destabilization of our weapons systems into star wars research.
Last week we in the House of Commons experienced the extraordinary phenomenon of my having to put a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) following a committee session on Thursday during which the Conservative Members of the standing committee refused to allow the text of a treaty to be signed with the United States to be revealed to other Members of Parliament on that standing committee. I met the U.S. delegation which came to Ottawa on Monday to sign that treaty. I said that I was not in a position to make a comment because I had not had an opportunity to read the treaty. I said that at the appropriate time we would want to
know what concessions had been made to Alaskan fishermen that changed that treaty from the text which was defeated by the United States Senate two years ago.
I bring that to your attention as a relevant example, Mr. Speaker. This disregard for Parliament is without precedent. A treaty involving the fishermen on the West Coast was signed in Ottawa without any Member of Parliament or standing committee of the House of Commons having an opportunity to review it. I concede the argument of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that constitutionally the executive of Cabinet has the power to sign a treaty unless it has legislative consequences upon which Parliament or the provinces must act. However, a treaty is an important document. It has more validity and strength than a mere agreement, an exchange of notes or a contract. It binds two countries.
I have had some experience in negotiating treaties. I had the honour of being on the negotiating team for the Columbia River Treaty. The Hon. Paul Martin was the Secretary of State for External Affairs at that time and I was parliamentary secretary to the late Arthur Laing, whose riding of Vancouver South is now represented by the Minister of Fisheries. We took the position that the Columbia River Treaty need not be before Parliament for ratification as it had to go before the United States Senate under our constitutional precedents. Yet the treaty was of such importance that we sent it before the Standing Committee on External Affairs. The committee examined the treaty and heard witnesses on it for six weeks in order to convince the Canadian public that it was in the best interests of Canada.
This present treaty involved very sensitive issues. It involves the livelihood of the fisherpeople on the West Coast of the country as well as the sports fishermen. This treaty, involving a very important industry in British Columbia, has not even reached the floor of the House of Commons or a standing committee. That attitude is infectious in the Government. Moving that the previous question be put at this stage in the debate reflects the same disregard for the House of Commons.
This is the first major original piece of legislation brought to the House by the Government. It raises more questions than it answers with respect to foreign investment. It raises serious questions which need to be debated by the House. These questions have been brought to your attention and amply outlined by my colleagues. Are the levels of the review procedures too high? What is the impact on small Canadian independent business? What are the implications of the change in the benefit test from a "significant" benefit to Canada to a "net" benefit to Canada? These words may have a great consequence on the way in which this legislation will operate.
When we look at the assessment factors we see the same five factors as in the earlier legislation plus the inclusion of the words, "compatibility with cultural policy and effect on international competitiveness". What do those words mean? We have had insufficient review and explanation from the Government on that. Yet they are absolutely crucial to the operation
January 30, 1985

of this legislation because they are the factors upon which the agency bases its assessment.
What about the review process itself? What about the words "culturally sensitive factor"? The reserve power to review any investment, regardless of size, in culturally sensitive factors, is subject to that review process. What does "culturally sensitive" means? Once again there has been insufficient explanation given.
The issue of job creation was handled very eloquently by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. The Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) says that this legislation will bring investment flowing into the country, and thereby jobs. That is merely an assumption which has not been proven. As my colleague said, when the New York investment banking community was asked by members of the media from this country whether that would be the fact, they said no. This Bill will not change market factors or the unused industrial capacity in this country which militates against the investment we like to see. This piece of legislation will not change the debt-equity ratio of some of our major concerns for our smaller businesses, several hundreds of thousands of which were ravaged by the recession in this country. There is nothing in this Bill to encourage Canadian investment, yet the title of the Bill is "Investment Canada". That point was made very succinctly by my colleague from Laval-des-Rapides.
[DOT] <noo>
The power to review foreign investment now belongs to a single minister, namely, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), a minister who does not really believe in regional expansion or in such a policy. Should we allow a single minister to hold a monopoly over the approval of foreign investment in Canada? That is a risk I do not care to run.
Several Hon. Members have indicated that the Minister is absent.
Mr. Speaker, this House is now debating a major piece of legislation. But the Minister responsible for it is not here. He was absent from the House on several occasions. He is never here! The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) has indicated that, as Minister of Finance, he used to pilot from his seat any piece of legislation from his department. I, too, as a former Minister of Justice and later as Minister of Finance, sat here days on end, attending debates on legislation I was responsible for, because I held Parliament in high respect, because I had respect for this forum of the nation, and because I had consideration for the elected representatives of all parties, each Hon. Member representing his or her many constituents. But the Minister responsible is not here. Ministers of the Crown are not there, except for a lone one.


Mr.   La Salle@: But he is a good one.
Investment Canada Act


John Napier Turner: He has been here for a long time. He is having problems in his riding with hog producers, but that is a different story. Only one minister . . . but not the Minister responsible, not the Prime Minister.
Decisions in this area used to be taken by the Cabinet as a whole. I am aware of the Minister's approach concerning our Crown corporations. He favours the clearance sale approach. He has not even determined under what terms Canadair, de Havilland, Eldorado Nuclear and Teleglobe Canada would be sold. Who would be the eligible buyers? At what price? What protection would there be for Canadian technology and, more importantly for Canadian workers, men and women? He does not say. Are we going to let that same minister control all by himself all foreign investment coming into Canada? What a risk. Well, the House would not have the time to hold a debate. Why is there not at least a committee of ministers? Why has the Minister of Finance no input in this regard?
Contrary to what the Minister had promised, there was no public consultation. We hear constantly in the House about this new government of consultation. It is eternal consultation to try and reach a consensus, but consultation without leadership. But in this area, there is no consultation. With the Americans maybe, but certainly not with Hon. Members of this House.

There has been no public consultation. The Government seems to be more concerned about pleasing the bankers on Wall Street, New York than the baker on Main Street, Canada.
I come now to the motion. Why is the Government so afraid of the Opposition that it has had to impose this heavy-handed measure to end the debate? The back-bench Conservative Members were elected from all parts of Canada with a huge majority and a massive mandate from the people of Canada. Why do we not hear from them? All that we hear is the flipping of the fins. Whenever the House Leader gives them the word, there is a standing ovation and applause for the Prime Minister.
There have been only 23 hours of debate on an issue of vital importance to Canadians. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) was here, but he has left the Chamber.


Mr. Lewis:: He is right there.


Mr. de Jong:: We are working.


John Napier Turner: The Minister and the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who just spoke will recall that there were over 400 hours of debate on the Crow legislation. The people of Canada focused on an issue that was of great importance, particularly to the western provinces. There were 400 hours of debate on that legislation, but only hours of debate on this legislation which is of very great significance to this country. Of those 23 hours, according to the rules, there were 11 hours used by Liberal speakers prior to this afternoon, 9.2 hours taken up by the New Democratic Party, and 3.2 hours used by the Conservative Party. Divide

January 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
3.2 hours by 211 Members and it shows a great individual contribution, doesn't it?


Lloyd Axworthy: About 48 cents a day.


John Napier Turner: Where is the respect for Parliament?
The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has the responsibility for the committee on the reform of Parliament. No one on this side doubts his sincerity. We can recall the Conservative Members, when in opposition, calling for an enhanced role of the Member of Parliament. I believe in that enhanced role because each one of us is elected individually by people in this country, in ridings composed of 80,000, 100,000 or 120,000 people. I respect every Member in this House and while I do not think there is a single Member I dislike, I have not had an opportunity to meet this new faceless mass, these new Conservatives. I cannot judge them because no one gets up to speak. No one says anything. Perhaps they are still in awe of this Chamber or in awe of you, Mr. Speaker. I know that you gave these new Members indoctrination lessons to the House of Commons. It is a privilege to be elected here, and the greatest honour for any citizen is to receive the tribute of being elected by one's peers to the House of Commons of Canada.
We are proud of that and we have exercised our rights. I call on Conservative Members to retrieve their dignity and their independence as Members. Show your constituents that you are not nameless, faceless and anonymous cyphers sitting in the House of Commons. Their constituents elected them, yet there have only been 3.2 hours of debate in 14 speeches.


Mr. Jepson:: The people have spoken. Why don't you listen?


John Napier Turner: The people have spoken but they expect you to speak. The people of London wanted you to speak. You ought to get up.
We do not have a government by referendum or a government by plebiscite whereby the citizens of this country would be expected to vote on every piece of legislation. They elect each one of us to cast our best judgment, use our best experience and contribute our best eloquence to the consideration of legislation in the House of Commons. Those Conservative Members across the way have been derelict in their duties with respect to this particular piece of legislation.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Let us vote.


John Napier Turner: Where is that great respect for Parliament? This is the Government's first major Bill, and yet it is using closure. The Conservatives still have an opportunity to contribute to this debate because it does not have to close until all those who wish to speak have risen.
I recall, as you will, Mr. Speaker, what the Conservatives said when, after hours and hours and weeks of debate, closure occasionally had to be applied. The Conservatives said that the use of any measures to limit debate was the end of democracy and threatened the survival of the House. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Now, suddenly, closure after 23 hours of debate
is a good thing. Now the great leaders in the fight for the rights of Parliament have become the great followers of a Government showing utter disdain for the rights of Members of this House where even the Minister responsible for piloting the legislation does not do you, Mr. Speaker, nor us the courtesy of appearing to hear what we have to say.
The Tories have abandoned the principles they said they would uphold. Why closure, Mr. Speaker? I do not think they have any other legislation available.


Paul Wyatt Dick: It is not closure. Do you not know the difference? Read the rule book.


An Hon. Member:: It is the rattle of the chains over there.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: They know this fellow well in the Ottawa Valley. The trouble is that they do not know him well enough yet.


Paul Wyatt Dick: But they re-elect me.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: May I, through you, Mr. Speaker-and I hope you will use your indulgence here, because none of the government Ministers except the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) are present-ask you to tell them that we are not going to be pushed around? Would you tell them that we are going to examine this Bill in committee, carefully. We are going to call witnesses. We are going to alert the public of Canada as to what this Bill is all about.


Mr. Young:: We will not be silenced.


John Napier Turner: Will you tell them, Sir, that this type of guillotine is not the end of this issue. Will you tell them that this is a very bad indicator and sign of how the Tories want to treat future legislation but before your Honour by putting the guillotine on this very important first major piece of legislation introduced by the new Government. We are not going to let the Government hide the legislation behind draconian motions to end debate. We are not going to be silent on this issue. We are not going to roll over and play dead, like the Tory back-benchers are doing. The Minister of Transport smiles. He is lucky he is on the front bench. He is very lucky he is on the front bench.


Mr. Johnston:: He is also on the front burner.


John Napier Turner: He may be putting rail transportation on the back burner-


Mr. Mazankowski:: We have so much talent in the back, I cannot leave my seat.
January 30, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Investment Canada Act
(Division No. 10)


John Napier Turner: The Minister has so much talent in the back that he cannot even see it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Let me tell the Minister of Transport that he does not have to feel any threat from his back-benchers. They are not saying anything. He has only one guy to worry about.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: The lord high executioner.


John Napier Turner: At any rate it has been a privilege to be before you and to see these empty benches across the way. It is a great experience to hear those fins flap every Question Period. But, by God, let us hope that the Tory back-benchers wake up to their responsibilities as Members, or else the people will be asking questions. And then there is the sitting behind the curtains. Remember the time when one used to be able to smoke behind the curtains? One cannot do that anymore. Let me tell them over there to come out here in half an hour. We will have the vote. Remember that the vote is not the full exercise of a Member's responsibility here in the House of Commons. We hope we are going to hear something more from the Tories. I will sit down so as to let that happen. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for coming back to your chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the motion of Mrs. Tardif (Charlesbourg), seconded by Mr. Fontaine:
That the question be now put.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour, please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed, please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried by a slim margin.

January 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
The next question is as follows: Mr. Stevens, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour, please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed, please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.
Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I just want to announce the business of the House for tomorrow. We will commence second reading of Bill C-20, followed by Bill C-23 which deals with amendments to the Small Business Loans Act. I hope to see progress made on those items of legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.07 p.m., the House adjourned.

Thursday, January 31, 1985