1985-04-24

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and my Liberal colleagues, I wish to express to Armenians the world over our feelings of esteem, sympathy and understanding and join them in their desire for peace, justice and equity.
In the past, Armenia was exposed many times to persecution and atrocities. Its blackest day came on April 24, 1915. This date, which is being commemorated today in the Parliament of Canada and throughout the world marks the beginning of the dispersal and massacre of the Armenian people-the first holocaust of this century. Canada, a country that is still building its future, has thousands of Canadians of Armenian origin.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that soon, the Parliament of Canada will commemorate the anniversary of this tragic event every year on April 24, out of solidarity with the entire Armenian community in the diaspora. Canada, one of those rare countries born in times of peace, is interested in the history of every new cultural group that came to settle in this country after Confederation. In Quebec, we have a motto: Je me souviens. All Canadians should know what happened in Armenia, and when they do they will understand that realizing what happened in 1915 may help to prevent a recurrence of those tragic events.


DISARMAMENT
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the Ambassador for Disarmament told Canadians last week that the best hope of influencing government military and foreign policy was to take to the streets. Tens of thousands of Canadians will do that in the coming days. In Vancouver, where thousands took to the streets last year, thousands will again walk for peace this Saturday. Once again they will demonstrate their opposition to Cruise missile testing in Canada. The Liberals refused to listen. When will this Government listen? Once again Canadians will call for a nuclear weapons freeze followed by massive reductions. When will the Government listen?
Those who walk for peace on Saturday will also demonstrate their opposition to star wars. When will the Government say no to star wars and no to Canadian participation?
Those who walk for peace will demonstrate their anger at the Government's attack on the Peace Camp. The Government is wrong when it claims that the Peace Camp is not supported by Canada's peace groups. Today alone I have heard from Project Plowshares, Regroupement pour la non-violence, Lawyers for Social Responsibility, the national office of Operation Dismantle, and others, denouncing the harassment of the Peace Camp.
I urge every Canadian to take to the streets this weekend and say no to star wars and no to the nuclear arms race. We hope and pray that the Government is listening.

[ Translation]


PROTECTION OF EMBASSIES
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, Pinkerton's of Canada Limited has offered a modest $1,000 compensation payment to the family of Claude Brunelle, the security guard killed on duty last March 12 during the attack on the Turkish embassy in Ottawa.
As one of Canada's major security agency, Pinkerton's shows how little consideration it has for its employees and their families. It makes little sense to realize how such an important company as Pinkerton's rewards the devotion and dedication of its guards whose duties are just as dangerous as those of policemen. One would think that Pinkerton's practically reacts as a near-bankrupt company or as a business whose management has completely lost any sense of reality and of the real value of human life.

April 24, 1985

If these guards must carry guns and risk their lives, the company should carry an insurance policy to protect their families.


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, today, April 24, 1985, is a special day of remembrance for the Armenian community. It is the seventieth anniversary of the commencement of the tragic events of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire. Canada sympathizes with all the victims of those events, indeed with all victims of armed conflict. We recognize that the Armenian community has made a vital and vibrant contribution to Canada's development.
Seventy years have now passed since those tragic events. Canada, of course, was not involved, except to open its doors to the unfortunate victims. We can now neither pass legal judgment on those events nor support territorial claims which might now be made. We can, however, express our deepest sympathy to all who suffered during the events of 1915.
Part of the compact between Canada and the victims we welcome has been that while Canada offers a free society as a place of refuge, violent protest in Canada will not be tolerated. Today, within the best spirit of our tradition, we have seen a peaceful demonstration of remembrance in Ottawa. I know that the great majority of members of the Armenian community object to terrorist tactics. As a Member who has many Armenian constituents, I would call upon their leaders to condemn such activities in the clearest and strongest terms. Let us work together to build a better future, and a better Canada where the rights of all are fully respected.



Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, as has already been mentioned, today Canadian Armenians from across the nation have gathered on Parliament Hill. They are here to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the Armenian genocide in which over 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children perished. I am sure that all Members of the House, and indeed all Canadians, abhor the violence that has marked world history. Events such as the Armenian genocide have mindlessly taken the lives of innocent victims.
Only one week ago Canada was proud to celebrate the entrenchment of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada is now proudly regarded as a world leader in the areas of human and minority rights. Moreover, through our multicultural and immigration policies, Canada
has made sincere attempts to treat all peoples and all minorities fairly, while at the same time reaching out with a compassionate hand.
In the coming weeks countries throughout the world will gather in Canada to discuss the subject of human rights. Not to acknowledge human rights abuses is virtually an admission that they are acceptable. As a participant in this conference, and as the host country, Canada has a tremendous responsibility to take a leadership role.
Today the Armenian commemoration serves to remind us all, in a profound way, of the importance of fulfilling our commitments to human and minority rights.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some embarrassment to defend the Hon. Minister of Energy (Miss Carney). She has been set adrift by her Cabinet colleagues while she is on a slow boat to China on government business. Let me explain how.
On Monday the Minister of Energy informed Dr. Ursula Franklin, a distinguished scientist at the University of Toronto, that she was appointed to the Atomic Energy Control Board. That is a nuclear watchdog agency of the Government of Canada. Dr. Franklin was contacted by Atomic Energy Control Board officials and was even briefed for a board meeting.
I must say that the Government took the wind right out of the Opposition's sails. We had been saying that the Government had carried political patronage to untold heights. Ministers were appointing every Tory bagman and advertising person to government jobs and contracts. Here was the appointment of someone who was a scientist, an environmentalist, and a well qualified person, to a board that had been under criticism for being very inactive. Alas for poor Pat Carney who has no clout in the Cabinet; alas for poor Dr. Franklin, because her appointment was revoked and shanghaied from her on Tuesday.
I am sending a postcard to the Minister of Energy (Miss Carney), who is in China, pointing out that the Cabinet has acted as the Energy Minister Control Board.


THE LATE FOSTER HEWITT
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to put on the record of the House a tribute to the late Foster Hewitt whose funeral was this morning. Although he did not play the game whose popularity he increased, he was "Mr. Hockey" to two generations of Canadians for whom
April 24, 1985

Saturday night was always more "live" because of his broadcasts.
To an impressive degree, those broadcasts went beyond sports and entertainment. They contributed to our consciousness as a people during years when we were still evolving from colony to nation. If hockey is our national sport, a major reason is the impact of Foster Hewitt himself. His breathless exclamation, "He shoots; he scores", has become part of our language.
But there are other reasons why he merits the flood of tributes which have poured out since his death. At a time when it is often difficult to distinguish between a hockey game and an alley fight, or even a Question Period, his speech and decorum exemplified what used to be called sportmanship.
Foster Hewitt belongs to all of Canada, but he was a lifelong resident of Metro Toronto. He spent his last years at the Providence Villa and Hospital in Scarborough West, and as its Member I am honoured to pay this brief tribute to him in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: 
EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of spending most of last week in Nepal on behalf of the Hon. Minister of External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) responsible for the Canadian International Development Agency.
My role was to officiate, along with our ambassador to Nepal, Mr. Bill Warden, at the handing over ceremony to His Majesty's Government of the $4.4 million Dhanakuta Community Medical Auxiliary Training Centre and six outpost health centres. These projects will contribute significantly toward extending health services to all Nepalese by the year 2000.
It was not only refreshing to have witnessed the completion of a very successful CIDA project, but I was proud to have been received by such grateful hosts.
Our assistance to Nepal during the course of the last 15 years has been mainly in the areas of health care, surveying and mapping, water resource development, and civil aviation. The pride that the Nepalese have in our Twin Otters is a remarkable advertisement for a superb Canadian aircraft.
As I walked through some Nepalese villages at the lower reaches of the Himalayas, I witnessed the hunger, the poverty, the disease, and the unsanitary living conditions of many of their people, and I was reminded of the strengths of our country, and of the quality of life that the majority of Canadians enjoy.
Nepal looks upon Canada as a country of peace, as a friend, and as a generous supporter. We should all be grateful that we live in the most respected nation on earth.
[ Translation]


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: In a report made public last week, Mr. Speaker, Montreal's Economic Development Board confirmed that the city's growth is due to the transport industry.
When it comes to air transport, however, the Conservative Government gives the Province of Quebec and Montreal arguments which the weekly Finance describes as being flimsy and malicious.
Among others, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Transport) (Mr. Bouchard) has owned up to being incompetent in his attempt to justify his inefficiency in trying to keep in Montreal what the Province of Quebec may have left of the major air transport industry.
In his April 22, 1985 editorial, Francois Roberge concludes that, owing to the weakness of the Quebec caucus, Montreal is lagging far behind on many fronts.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge the silent Quebec Conservative caucus to forget about shameless patronage and get down to brass tacks before it is too late.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Globe and Mail Business Section reported that Great Lakes Forest Products Limited of Thunder Bay and Dryden hopes to get some relief on corporate taxation from the Government of Canada. This is not some impoverished company. Last year it had profits of $26.8 million. To date it has received $48 million in direct grants from the Ontario and Canadian Governments. This company already owes the Canadian taxpayers $125 million in deferred taxes.
Great Lakes had decided to invest $32 million in Canadian funds to build a pulp and paper mill in the United States that will ultimately lead to elimination of jobs in British Columbia. Great Lakes still has not compensated the natives of White Dog and Grassie for the destruction of their livelihood some ten years ago.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this company not only has no right to expect any further support from the taxpayers of Canada, but must be required to meet its commitments to Canadian society.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should call Mr. Charles Carter, President of Great Lakes Forest Products, 807-475-2110, and tell him that the answer is no, that Great

April 24, 1985
Oral Questions
Lakes has been at the trough once too often as far as we are concerned.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the current conflict of interest guidelines, guidelines that he admitted yesterday were in force. When they were put in force by the Prime Minister when he formed the Government, did he meet with his Ministers, either individually or collectively, to discuss the guidelines with them? Did he say to his Ministers that he expected the guidelines to be followed? Did he say to his Ministers that if they were not followed there would be sanctions?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: I cannot remember the exact sequence, Mr. Speaker, but I can give my right hon. friend the assurance that I did all of those things and conveyed to them, as he might properly expect, that Canadians want and will receive the highest standards from their public servants, particularly those to whom ministerial responsibility has been entrusted.

[ Translation]


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I re-read the conflict of interest guidelines this morning, after listening very carefully, yesterday and the day before, to the answers given by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. The conflict of interest guidelines have been violated: I know it, the Prime Minister knows it, and the Minister of Finance knows it. My question is as follows: Has the Minister of Finance offered the Prime Minister his resignation? Has the Prime Minister met with the Minister to determine w hether his judgment was sound enough to warrant that the Minister continues to work in his department?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there has been no conflict of interest on the part of the Minister of Finance, whose professional reputation and integrity are well known in the House and throughout the country. There was no violation of the guidelines by the Minister, who today is behaving, as he always does, with great integrity and dignity.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER S RESIGNATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister admmitted yesterday that the guidelines are in place. I read them to the House yesterday. It appears to us quite conclusively that the guidelines have been broken. I waited on Monday, and yesterday, and today, for some recognition on the part of the Government that bad judgment had been exercised by the Minister of Finance. But every answer that I have heard, particularly yesterday, just made the situation worse.
If the current conflict of interest guidelines in force mean anything at all, will the Prime Minister relieve the Minister of Finance of his responsibilities?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that the vast majority of Canadian citizens would agree on many things, but one is that no one has any lessons to learn in terms of probity and integrity from the Liberal Party.
Some Hon Members: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Minister of Finance is a man of unimpeachable integrity. He has at no time been in violation of the guidelines. The decision involved was taken by a Cabinet colleague in the exercise of his important responsibilities. That ultimate decision was exercised by public servants. I can say to my right hon. friend something which I am sure will not surprise him, because I know exactly the high regard in which he holds the Minister of Finance. I can tell him that we have absolute confidence in the integrity and probity of the Minister of Finance today and at all times.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What childish prank are you going to pull today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRIME MINISTER S POSITION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister, in answering questions from Members on this side of the House, denied absolutely that there had been any breach of conflict of interest guidelines by the Minister of Finance with respect to preferential treatment, or the appearance of preferential treatment. What exactly did the Prime Minister mean yesterday when he said in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, as reported on page 4017 of Hansard:
April 24, 1985

Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend raises the question of appearance, with which we must deal. I acknowledge that.
The guidelines outlining conflict of interest provisions deal with both real conflict of interest, real preferential treatment given to friends or family members, and the appearance. The Prime Minister yesterday acknowledged at least the appearance. How can he stand in his place today and say there has been no breach of the conflict of interest guidelines?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Because, Mr. Speaker, I said no such thing. I agreed with my right hon. friend that the obligation is to avoid even the appearance of conflict. I acknowledged no such appearance of conflict which implies guilt by the Minister of Finance. I think that is a fundamental and a fair distinction which must be made.
The situation is not uncomplicated. We came in and we inherited from the previous Government a system of guidelines which we followed in the early months, which placed a specific responsibility on the Minister of Supply and Services that he exercised. In the pursuit of his mandate he determined that those guidelines were deficient, that they ought to be improved, and that the ultimate responsibility in such matters of contracts should rest with public servants. That is what we did. The guidelines are in the process of being so enhanced, and will be filed with the House. I see no impropriety at any time which involves the Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: On the contrary, I see a man of great integrity and so recognized.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that his advertising management group is headed by two Tory campaign workers. He knows that, and the House knows it, but we are dealing with the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance himself has admitted in the House-and my supplementary question is directed to him-that he discussed this whole matter with his brother-in-law, Doug Lawson, and that having discussed it he decided that it was okay. I ask the Minister of Finance: would he behave in exactly the same way again should this kind of circumstance arise? Does he still think that it is okay?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That, Mr. Speaker, is a completely hypothetical question, but I will tell you that we acknowledge our obligation-and I have never tried to shirk it one bit-to have stringent and rigorous guidelines in the conduct of these matters, and we shall have them.


An Hon. Member:: Read Hansard.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, you say, "Read Hansard". When the Liberal Party was up to here in Coalgate, its Members said
Oral Questions
that guidelines were only for guidance; where there were conflicts of interest coming out their ears, they said that guidelines were only for guidance. We say guidelines are for professional conduct and to assist the public, and to make sure the public trust is recognized and honoured at all times. The Minister of Finance has always upheld the public trust.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF PATRONAGE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister on the same subject. For a number of days we have been trying to obtain an explanation from the Government of a contract that was given to the brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance. The Government has responded in the House, and elsewhere, by saying initially that it was simply the Opposition that was trying to make an issue of this kind of question.
Today the Prime Minister said something else to the press, and I want to quote him. After First blaming the press for raising the issue, he is reported to have said to a reporter: "Just because the Press Gallery in Ottawa decides there is an issue does not mean it's an issue in Canada." Will the Prime Minister explain what he means? Is he saying that questions about the possibility of patronage are serious matters only when they are raised about other Parties and other Governments, or will he admit that there are appropriate questions to raise about his own Government?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, let me just try to deal with the matter raised by my friend. My recollection is that in a scrum this morning, in engaging in what appeared to be a little bit of debate with a distinguished member of the Press Gallery, he indicated that this was a matter of national outrage, which is what he implied, and referred in rather disparaging terms to the reputation of the Minister of Finance. I said just because the Member for York South-Weston says this is a matter of national concern does not make it so, because the Canadian people know full well that the Minister of Finance is exactly what he appears to be, a man of overwhelming honesty and integrity. Everybody in Canada knows that. That was the context in which I said it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONTENT OF NEW GUIDELINES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should know that it is not simply a matter of integrity. In other systems of government in the parliamentary system, men and women of integrity have in fact resigned when they made a mistake.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 24, 1985
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: It is not necessarily a question of integrity. Since the Prime Minister has come back to the very specific issue that is involved here, I want to ask him if the guidelines that he has promised to bring before the House, or at least announce in the House, would have made it impossible for a contract to be awarded to a close relative of a Minister of the Crown, i.e., would the kind of decision that was made in the case of the Minister of Finance be possible under the new guidelines that he is now going to bring in?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks (a) a hypothetical question ex post facto. I can assure my hon. friend that the guidelines that will be brought in, as they properly should be, will be the most rigorous and demanding ever placed before the House of Commons.


REQUEST FOR EARLY INTRODUCTION OF GUIDELINES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's record is about 99 per cent solid in the House for not answering the question. Presuming that the new guidelines about contracts are going to be stringent enough to exclude the possibility of a future mistake of the kind that has just been made, instead of blaming the Opposition and blaming the press in a free society for doing their job, why does the Prime Minister not admit his mistake and bring in the guidelines right away?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, maybe I have a 99 per cent record, but we know why the Hon. Member is at 19 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: You are wrong again.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Just keep it up. Every day you are sinking like a stone, and I love it. The only thing worse than a socialist is a sanctimonious socialist. The Canadians have had it up to the gills with you. The patronage practised in Manitoba and Saskatchewan makes Maurice Duplessis look like a choir boy.
In point of fact there was no conflict, but my response to my hon. friend is as well that new guidelines, more vigorous guidelines, and more demanding guidelines, are required and will be implemented. I think they will do honour to the House and will satisfy the very serious requirements of my hon. friend.


EMPLOYMENT OF DOUGLAS ROBSON
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question concerning the Wilson family compact and it is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the Hon. Member for Humber-
Port au Port-St. Barbe the following, as reported on page 4019 of Hansard:
The Minister of Finance broke no guidelines and he broke no law.
Would the Minister now confirm what I know from speaking to the Deputy Registrar-General, which is that Mr. Robson never signed a conflict of interest document when he worked for the Government in 1979, nor did he sign one when he worked for the Government again in 1984, as he should have? Why did the Minister of Finance neglect to request from Mr. Robson a signature on a document regarding conflict of interest, before he hired him?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me make one thing clear. The contract that has been referred to by many Members today was signed by the Minister of Supply and Services and not by myself. In response to the question regarding the conduct of Mr. Robson, he took an oath of secrecy back in 1979. That is the oath of secrecy under which he has been operating.

[ Translation]


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Supply and Services concerning the Wilson family compact.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance informed the House that he did not know whether Lawson Murray Limited had been awarded further contracts by the Government of Canada since September 4 of last year.
Could the Minister of Supply and Services now inform the House whether the Government has negotiated, either directly or indirectly, any further agreements or contracts with Lawson Murray since September 4 of last year?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, last fall the Bank of Canada asked my Department to supply an agency to carry on this program of advertising marketable government bonds. We selected from among the firms that we know, trust, and in which we have confidence, the firm of Lawson Murray to undertake work amounting to a total contract of about $200,000 for a fee of $30,000.
That firm replied to us on February 14 by way of letter saying that the Government has been wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on this program, that the previous Government had been wasting all that money and that it was unnecessary. I think that that is laudable behaviour. I am very proud of the performance of Lawson Murray in this regard. I think I did an outstanding job in hiring that firm for the Government. I might say that there is an additional small contract we gave the firm in March, and any time I can give a
April 24, 1985

contract to a company that will save the taxpayers half a million dollars a year, I am going to do it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNTENDERED CONTRACT
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister believe that it is appropriate for the relative of a Cabinet Minister to receive benefits from an untendered contract?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, 1 have tried to explain to members of the New Democratic Party on at least five or six occasions the nature of the advertising agency business in this country. I repeat that we selected Lawson Murray because it is known to us-


An Hon. Member:: It sure is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Absolutely. The firm is known to us. It has our trust because-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: -it is an expert in this field. The firm demonstrated the wisdom of our decision by coming up with savings of at least a half million dollars a year, and I repeat, I will always sign those kinds of contracts.


BENEFIT FROM CONTRACT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it the opinion of the Prime Minister that it is appropriate for the relative of a Cabinet Minister to receive benefit from an untendered contract with the Government?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, we wanted-


Mr. Benjamin:: We want Brian!


Harvie Andre: The guidelines indicate-


Ian Deans: How about getting your boss to answer for a change?


Harvie Andre: Because-


Ian Deans: Is he afraid to answer? Is he afraid of the answer?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the House would like to hear the answer, it will come to order.
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Supply and Services I am responsible for contracting for some $7 billion worth of goods and services each year.


Ian Deans: Then he should fire you.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: As the Minister responsible, it is up to me to ensure that all guidelines respecting conflict of interest are satisfied. I assured myself that all guidelines were satisfied. I repeat, I think it was a great contract. I would do it again tomorrow if the opportunity came up.


MINISTER'S CONVERSATION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, the man the Prime Minister says has great and unimpeachable integrity. Yesterday the Prime Minister stated in the House that not only must Cabinet Ministers avoid conflicts of interest, they must avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, first, whether or not he agrees with that statement, and second, after having discussed the contract with his brother-in-law before it was signed, why did he, as a man of integrity, not veto the contract and avoid any impression of a conflict of interest?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear. The contract was awarded before I spoke to my brother-in-law. He advised me after he got the business. He said that he did not think we needed to do this business and that he did not think it was a cost-effective use of funds. I asked him to give me his advice on this matter. He subsequently wrote to the Bank of Canada on February 11 indicating that this was not business the Government should be doing. On that basis we let the business lapse and, as my colleague has indicated, we have saved somewhere between $400,000 and $600,000 a year.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister continue to defend sleazy, slimy, Tory patronage when they campaigned so vigorously against patronage in the last election campaign? Let us be straight with the Canadian public. Given the fact that the contract went to the Finance Minister's brother-in-law, would the Prime Minister not agree that there is the appearance of a conflict of interest, or at least a very small appearance of a conflict of interest?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I noticed one day that the Hon. Member was, (a) described as a member of the Liberal rat pack which, (b), often embarrassed the Leader of the Liberal Party. I can see why The Toronto Star for once was right on both counts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 24, 1985
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Very few Members have left such a forgettable impression upon this place as has the Hon. Member. When compared with the remarkable accomplishments and universal acclaim of the reputation of the Hon. Minister of Finance, I can say without hesitation or fear of contradiction that the Canadian people very much support the integrity of the Minister of Finance because they know it is there 100 per cent.


RECEIPT OF BENEFITS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 noticed that when the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain asked a supplementary question of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister was rising to answer the question when the Minister of Supply and Services rose. 1 would like to give the Prime Minister another opportunity to answer the question. Does the Prime Minister think it is appropriate for a relative of a Cabinet Minister to receive benefits from an untendered contract?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my erstwhile friend, the Leader of the NDP, who is probably yours, too, the guidelines were being tightened up, and we are very much in need of them in the conduct of public life.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Is it appropriate?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, in a perfect world-and, of course, the NDP believes that things are always perfect-there would not be the slightest problem at any time. I will acknowledge that from time to time administrative difficulties arise, particularly when a new Government comes in and inherits guidelines, and new situations come up. I will acknowledge that everything is not perfect. But we conducted ourselves honourably and we are bringing in new guidelines to improve upon that. 1 would hope that would satisfy my hon. friend.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister once again does he think it is appropriate for a relative of a Cabinet Minister to receive benefits from an untendered contract. If he does not think it is appropriate, and if that was possible under the old guidelines but not under the new guidelines, then why did he not order his Cabinet to behave in that way? Why does the Minister of Supply and Services keep insisting that he is happy with everything that happened in accordance with the old guidelines, if the Prime Minister feels that there is a need for new ones?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend perhaps is not making the essential
distinction between the two sets of guidelines to which reference has been made. One was raised by my right hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, the day after we came in, after 1 had conveyed to them the guidelines for the conduct of individuals as Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of the Crown. I then assigned, in writing, the Deputy Prime Minister to review all of the guidelines with regard to Ministers of the Crown and their conduct, with a view to enhancing them and tightening them up. The Deputy Prime Minister has done that, and those will be Filed with you very shortly.
With regard to the inheritance which we received, and the guidelines with respect to the tendering apparatus for the awarding of public contracts, the Minister of Supply and Services took the decision independent of me or any other Minister, according to objective criteria. He inserted public servants into that decision-making process.
In both cases there was no violation of any guideline at any time. What we have done is enhanced the severity, properly, of both sets of guidelines to ensure that the Canadian people are well served by their public servants.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OFFER RESIGNATION
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. 1 have been observing the situation for the last three days very carefully-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -and I know how important it is for the Minister of Finance to be above reproach.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance will bring down a Budget in a month, and in view of the fact that everyone recognizes that we are not questioning the integrity of the Minister of Finance but his judgment-he made an error in judgment in letting the contract go to his brother-inlaw and his former assistant-will the Minister of Finance do what he should do under the circumstances, and offer his resignation, to relieve the Prime Minister of having to defend him on a daily basis in the House?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, because of the premise of the question from the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice, 1 will repeat what my colleague has said again and again, and which I have also stated in the House. The contract in question was let by me, by my Department. It had nothing to do with the Minister of Finance. It was let by my Department. If anybody has a conflict of interest it has to be me. Again, the contract ended up saving the taxpayers a ton of money, and I am proud of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RESIGNATION SOUGHT
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as the Ministry of Finance was the client of the Department of
April 24, 1985

Supply and Services, and as it is the responsibility of the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could everybody in the House please listen to the question? Instead of yelling back and forth it would make things so much simpler.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as it was a contract for the benefit of the Ministry of Finance, will the Hon. Minister of Finance do what we expect from the Minister of Finance under the circumstances in order to clear the air completely, and ensure that the Minister of Finance who will present the next Budget will not have his name being questioned in the House of Commons and in the nation?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I should not have to say this to a former Minister of Finance, but what we are talking about is the Bank of Canada, a different institution, not the Department of Finance. The Bank's office is in a different location. It has its own staff, separate from the staff of the Department of Finance. The Bank called us and said it needed an agency to undertake a program. We hired the agency. The wisdom of our decision is demonstrated by the fact that we are saving hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, could we perhaps have two minutes of minding the business at hand? My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Considering the fact that according to the Auditor General's report last December, the then Minister of Transport, in April 1983, gave VIA Rail $75 million more than was budgeted and that in 1981, the Minister did the same for Canadian National to the tune of $46.5 million, could the Minister inform the House whether he has taken steps or intends to take steps to recover the excess payments made by the former Liberal Government? Yes, you guys over there!


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. colleague, first, this particular issue arises from some very legitimate differences of opinion in accounting practices. Second, it may very well have to do with the disposition of the thirteenth and fourteenth billing, which occurred as a result of the kind of open-ended contractual arrangements which VIA Rail has had with the two operating railway companies. Hopefully, that is being cleared up by the
Oral Questions
establishment of a new costing arrangement. With respect to the specific question regarding accounting practices, that is also a matter which is being looked at. Hopefully, it will be resolved satisfactorily.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. A few minutes ago the Minister of Supply and Services said, in reply to a question, that if he had to make the decision which was made, in terms of the contract which went to the brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance, he would do it again. After that the Prime Minister acknowledged that, perhaps, the Government had made a mistake in this instance. My question to the Prime Minister is simply-


Charles Joseph Clark: Stick to the truth.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, the Prime Minister did not acknowledge that he made a mistake. I want clarification from the Prime Minister.
In light of what the Minister of Supply and Services said, that the same decision would be made again, will the Prime Minister assure the House that a decision to award a contract to a relative of a Minister of the Crown, without a tender, will not be made again by this Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is like the clarity I heard on the news at noon on the CBC, when the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam said that the NDP is out of NATO, and the NDP Leader said: "We're in". That is the same kind of clarity and reason.
I tried to respond to my hon. friend. We inherited two sets of guidelines, one for Cabinet Ministers, which is being approved. I do not think it is appropriate for me to respond to nor is it appropriate for the Hon. Member to ask a hypothetical question. All I can do is tell him that we are committed to upholding the highest possible standards of human conduct in the exercise of a public trust. We have two sets of guidelines, and in both cases we are tightening up and enhancing them to the credit of the Government and to the credit of the House of Commons.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister was not hypothetical. It was straightforward and clear. I am looking for a policy decision from the Government. Will he assure the House that the newly-elected Conservative Government will not make any decision in the future which will give a contract on an untend-

April 24, 1985
Oral Questions
ered bid to a close relative of a Minister of the Crown? It is very clear. Can we get a yes or no answer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think there is a contradiction in the Hon. Member's suggestion of an untendered bid. I just want to be absolutely clear. I see the point that the Hon. Member is trying to bring forward, and I agree with him. I agree very much that the conflict of interest regulations should be very severe in regard to all of our associations and all of our families. I accept that, and always have, and said it right from the beginning. What I do not accept, and what I reject with the greatest of vigour, is the implication that any person, including someone sitting in the back benches of the Liberal Party, can have the temerity and impunity to try to slander the integrity of a most honourable Canadian. That I am not going to put up with.


Ian Deans: We are not doing that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In fairness, I will agree with the Hon. Member; I limited my comments to that great Canadian. But I responded fully to your concerns and I think the Member will be well pleased with the severity of the regulations as brought in.


APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask him whether he feels the conflict of interest guidelines apply to him, and if he can tell us whether immediately upon assuming the Prime Ministership of this country he resigned all of his corporate directorships?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Long before that.


LABSEA INCORPORATED DIRECTORSHIP
Sheila Maureen Copps: Well, can the Prime Minister tell this House why it took him almost two and a half months after he assumed the Prime Ministership of this country to resign from Labsea Incorporated, a company in which he shared the directorship with his great and good friend Frank Moores?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will be happy to. I resigned from all of the publicly and privately held companies with which I was associated long before becoming Prime Minister. It may be that there were either charitable organizations or universities, or some private companies in which I would have had either a minor interest, or a directorship on a hospital board, or some such thing like that. I will be happy to check the record. My principle, which I set out and which I followed, was to resign absolutely all of my business holdings. If there is an exception to that, I can assure you that,
(a), it would have been inadvertent and, (b), it would have been of no profit to me.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can he report to the House on the progress being made with respect to the implementation of the Ratushny report which deals with the transportation requirements of handicapped Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the House that the recommendations brought down by Professor Ratushny were excellent recommendations. I should also advise the House that we have been working very closely with the Advisory Committee on the Handicapped. It would be my intention within the next couple of weeks or so to announce a plan for the implementation of the recommendations which have been brought forward by Professor Ratushny, and also the recommendations brought forward by the Advisory Committee on the Handicapped. 1 should say as well that we will be designating the Minister of State for Transport as responsible Minister for all matters relating to accessibility for handicapped and senior citizens.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour, who is also responsible for CMHC. On April 16 I asked him why his Department was planning to increase rents in CMHC controlled apartments by in excess of 10 per cent, including the Main Square apartment complex in Toronto. The Minister replied that the present Government was raising the rent in order to recover from the previous administration's six and five program.
Does the Government not realize that many of the individuals in those buildings were already victimized by the previous administration's six and five program? Why are the Government and the Minister trying to stick it to these people again? How many other groups are going to be victims of this kind of thing?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain to the Hon. Member once again that the rent increases are made subject to the guidelines of the Rent Review Board in the Province of Ontario and can be substantiated before that board. The Hon. Member should also be made aware that in the Main Square project some 25 per cent of the units are rent geared to income, and if by increasing the
April 24, 1985

rents some of those individuals would have difficulty paying, they may apply for rent geared to income.
However, 1 think the Hon. Member would have to agree that individuals who have the ability to pay should pay, so that we can use scarce dollars to subsidize those who need assistance. 1 would think that would be something that this Government and he would support.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the Minister some weeks ago and I am still waiting for a reply on this issue. However, I have in my hand a letter he sent to the local Progressive Conservative candidate in Beaches-Woodbine in which the Minister says the opposite to what he has just told the House. He knows that CMHC does not have to go before the Rent Review Board in Ontario.
Is the Minister advocating to the Public Service groups, the superannuates, and everyone else who lost income under the six and five program, that they should now come after the Minister to make up their losses?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked a question in the House earlier on Main Square, and I replied in the House. The Hon. Member has applied to bring his question up on the adjournment debate and I hope that debate can come forward. I would reiterate that CMHC rent increases would relate to the very same guidelines, and the Corporation would be in a position to substantiate them if it were called to appear before the Rent Review Board. That is what I said in my first reply and that will be the course that CMHC will follow. I think the Hon. Member should appreciate that because it is not bound by law, as he knows, to appear before or abide by the Board.


Neil Young: Why don't you do it?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: We are substantiating the increases with reference to the same guidelines that the Ontario Rent Review Board would require.


TRANSPORT
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he realizes that since last September, several thousand jobs depending either directly or indirectly on the transportation industry have been lost in the Montreal area. Since the Minister will soon be making a speech in Montreal within the next few days I am told will he take advantage of this opportunity to give the go ahead for construction on the VIA Rail maintenance centre that would create some badly needed jobs in the Montreal area?
Oral Questions


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member for Papineau that we are aware of the economic situation in the City of Montreal. However, I would like to correct the impression the Hon. Member is trying to give the House in claiming that the maintenance centre-our decision is to be taken at a later date, depending, as we have always said, on our financial resources-would necessarily be a centre to create jobs. I may remind the Hon. Member that since maintenance is currently being carried out by Canadian National, transferring all the maintenance now being done by CN to a hypothetical maintenance centre would represent a considerable loss of jobs. So this is a case where it is more a matter of transferring jobs than creating new ones. That is the context in which we are weighing various possibilities. Now I am ready for another question.


TRANSPORT INDUSTRY'S FRAGILITY IN MONTREAL- GOVERNMENT POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that a report by the economic expansion office of the Montreal Urban Community has revealed that the transportation industry in Montreal is showing signs of being considerably weakened, and however the Minister would like to explain this, I would like to know what his Government intends to do to create jobs in the transportation industry in Montreal.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has a marvelous capacity for forgetting that he was in power for 20 years before September 4.
The situation in Montreal today did not come into being on September 4. You had any number of opportunities to prevent what is happening now and you did nothing, absolutely nothing. Mr. Speaker, that is the situation in Montreal and it all happened under the Liberal regime. Instead of creating a debt of $35 billion, you should have had some concern for what was happening in Quebec.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, today we have been hearing about guidelines. There are guidelines in immigration too. It seems that in immigration the jungle guidelines are often more dangerous than the predators. In fact we read that

April 24, 1985
Committee Reports
the chairman of the Minister's review committee for long-term illegal migrants is both guide and predator.
In view of today's Globe and Mail report of Mr. Green-baum's conflicting role, can we expect the Minister of Employment and Immigration to replace him immediately?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I read The Globe and Mail story this morning. I can tell the Hon. Member, and other Members of the House, that I discussed this matter with Mr. Green-baum, and he has since submitted his resignation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: While I have received assurances from Mr. Greenbaum that there was no impropriety in any of his actions, he and I nevertheless felt that, because this is a position which is of a quasi-judicial nature and any suggestion or hint of impropriety would undermine the confidence of that process, it would therefore be better if he were to submit his resignation.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, April 23, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, in both official languages.


PRESENTATION OFSECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence concerning the Report of the Canadian Emergency Coordinator on the African Famine.

In accordance with Standing Order 69(13), the committee requests that the Government make a comprehensive response to the second report.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from 1,305 citizens of Port Alberni, British Columbia. The signatures were gathered by a woman whose daughter was murdered. The signatures call for the reinstatement of capital punishment for the offence of premeditated murder in Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 271 will be answered today.


Mr. Blenkarn: Is there a company called Nunacom Incorporated doing market research lor any Department and, if so, who arc the real beneficial owners of the shares of Nunacom Incorporated or any company called Nunacom?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No. [Translation]


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


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the other questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed,
April 24, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: I have received notice of an application under Standing Order 30 from the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 30 I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), that the House adjourn for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the advertising contract awarded without tender to a company headed by a relative of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and the failure of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to enforce conflict of interest guidelines in the aforementioned matter and other circumstances related to this case.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) gave me notice of his intention to request an emergency debate under Standing Order 30. As Members know, there are a number of tests which the Chair is required to apply to an application under Standing Order 30.
First, the matter proposed to be discussed must be a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. As our precedents confirm, not only must the matter be a genuine emergency, there must be an urgent need to debate it with a minimum of delay in the national interest. The Chair must also take into account whether an early opportunity to debate the issue is likely to occur. We are now into the third Supply period and only three of the allotted days have so far been used. The Opposition has the option of choosing this subject as their subject of debate for the next allotted day.
Let me make it clear to the Hon. Member that it is clear to me that the matter is important which is, in my view, why it has loomed so large during the Question Period for the past few days. However, I am not persuaded that it is related to a genuine emergency as contemplated by Standing Order 30. 1 am therefore unable to find that the request fulfils the requirements of Standing Order 30.

[ Translation]


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1985



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, to amend on Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act, the Parole Act and the Weights and Measures Act, to repeal certain other Acts and to make other consequential amendments, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are two items I would like to raise in terms of the business of the House this afternoon dealing with the particular Bill which has now been called for consideration by the House. First, there have been consultations between the Parties and I believe there will be a disposition to deal with report stage and third reading of this Bill today by unanimous consent.
The second point is to address the question of admissibility, if I might, with respect to some of the motions put forward at report stage.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not the only Member with that interest. There are 16 motions on the Notice Paper at the report stage in amendment to Bill C-18, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1985. I intend to hear procedural arguments in a minute.
Motions Nos. 1 to 4 are identical. These motions present some procedural difficulty to the Chair in that they seem to go beyond the scope of the Bill and appear to amend the parent Act.
Motions Nos. 5 to 8 are also identical. These motions will be debated together and a vote on any one of these motions will dispose of the other three.
Motions Nos. 9 to 12 are identical and again give the Chair some procedural difficulty in that they also appear to go beyond the scope of the Bill and attempt to amend other statutes not included in Bill C-18.
Motions Nos. 13 to 16 are identical and should be debated together. Again, a vote on any of these motions will dispose of the other three motions.
1 am prepared to hear procedural arguments from Hon. Members on the acceptability of Motions Nos. 1 to 4 and 9 to 12, should they wish to do so. Perhaps, for the sake of convenience, 1 could hear them in the order in which I was given notice of their intention to proceed. I will therefore start with the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).

April 24, 1985
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1985


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, before making arguments on the motions perhaps I could indicate our agreement with the Government House Leader as to our willingness to debate all stages this afternoon.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Party I am also pleased to indicate that we are prepared to debate both report stage and third reading this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should indicate for the record that there is agreement by unanimous consent that the matter will proceed through all stages today.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) on a procedural issue.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I might indicate at this time that I will make my arguments relating to all of the motions that you have referred to, which I think will be of assistance to the Chair.
These are a set of amendments which would make it possible for war criminals residing in Canada to be prosecuted under Canadian law, within Canada, for crimes to be defined by the amendments that were committed in other countries, particularly during the Second World War, according to some of the submissions we have had.
I submit that this motion and the others are within the scope of and relevant to the subject matter of subclause 5(3), and therefore of Clause 5 and therefore of the Bill, and is therefore admissible.
Bill C-18 deals with over 200 subject matters which include not only drunk driving, computer crime, and telewarrants, but murder, perjury, lotteries, threats, forcible entry, weapons, wiretaps and a host of other topics. It is a very heterogeneous Bill. It does not deal with the entire criminal law but with a great part of the criminal law.
The effect of Clause 5 of Bill C-18 is narrower. It amends Section 6 of the Criminal Code which sets out and deals with a number of specified crimes committed outside Canada which can be tried in Canada, although they are extraterritorial. In particular, these include air piracy and the murder of diplomats.
Subclause 5(3) of Bill C-18 does yet a narrower set of things. It amends Section 6 of the Code to add to it two new extraterritorial offences-hostage taking and the diversion of nuclear material-to those which can be tried in Canada by virtue of Section 6.
The present motion seeks to amend subclause 5(3) to add two more crimes abroad to those to be added to Section 6- namely war crimes and crimes against humanity, including but not limited to those of the Second World War-with the amendment being closely modelled on the hostage taking and nuclear material provisions, and also drawing wording and
concepts from the Charter of Rights and the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
The scope and subject matter of a clause or subclause is not the same thing as the text of the clause or subclause. If it were, no amendment would ever be possible.
There are at least five precedents for these motions being admissible. First, in 1977, in Bill C-51, the Bill proposed to add additional crimes to the list of crimes that were contained in Section 178.1 of the Criminal Code, which sets out the crimes whose investigation can justify an application to wire tap.
In the committee, amendments were accepted and adopted to add additional crimes to the list of crimes being added to that list. The reference is Justice Committee proceedings, 1977, issue 23.
Second, in 1976, in Bill C-84, the Bill to abolish capital punishment, the Bill set out which murders would be considered first degree murders. At report stage a motion by the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) was ruled to be in order and was adopted, to add an additional item to the list of crimes which are first degree murder, namely a murder committed by a person already convicted of a murder. The reference is House of Commons Debates, 1976, pages 15091-15093 and 15195-15196.
Third, in 1954, at the adoption of what is basically our present Criminal Code, in Bill C-7, the Bill contained a provision, Clause 400, which is now subsection 415(1) of the Code, sidenoted "Printing circulars, etc., in likeness of notes", bank notes. In the Senate, at Government request, subsections (2) and (3) were added, creating and limiting a separate but not dissimilar offence sidenoted "Printing anything in likeness of bank note, etc." The reference is House of Commons Debates, 1953-54, pages 3918-3920.
Fourth, in the very committee proceedings which dealt with the present Bill, Bill C-18, Clause 10 proposed to amend Section 73 of the Criminal Code which deals with forcible entry and forcible detainer of real property. In the Code, Section 73 defines forcible entry and forcible detainer and Section 74 makes them each an indictable offence subject to two years imprisonment.
The committee, no doubt correctly, considered Clause 10 to open up the law of forcible entry and detainer to amendment and further amendment, to the point where our committee adopted a new Clause 11, changing them from purely indictable offences to offences punishable either on indictment or on summary conviction. In other words, hybrid offences. That is a provision that was not contained in the original Bill. The reference to that is our meeting of April 15, 1985, at page 461.
Fifth, again in the present Bill C-18, Clause 137 amends Section 605 of the Code to provide a Crown appeal against, among other things, a stay of proceedings in a case by indictment. Our committee adopted a new Clause 181 to amend Section 748 of the Code which was not amended by the original Bill, to provide a similar Crown appeal against a stay of proceedings in summary conviction cases. Again, a whole
April 24, 1985

area of law, Crown appeals against stays of proceedings, was open to amendment. The reference there is Bill C-18, first reading version, and Votes and Proceedings, April 15, 1985, at page 465.
1 submit that all of the foregoing precedents argue that the war crime amendments presently before us should be admissible.
Subclause 5(3) does not simply add hostage taking and nuclear material diversion to Section 6. Rather, it opens Section 6 to amendments by the addition of whatever additional crimes, outside Canada, Parliament may choose to now make triable inside Canada by adding them to that list. It does not create new crimes; it just alters the consequences of existing crimes and that is the proposal of this motion.
I submit that in cases of doubt, motions ought to be ruled in order rather than out of order, to permit debate.
Finally, if you do not agree with these submissions, I would ask that you seek unanimous consent, as was done in some of the cases I have referred to, to make it possible that these important amendments be added to the Criminal Code at this time.


Mr. Speyer:: Point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will begin and I know the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to make a contribution.


Mr. Speaker:: Would you prefer that I hear the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) first?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is fine.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because many of the points I was going to make with respect to admissibility have been made by my hon. friend, the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). I would only underscore the fact that the motions which we are now dealing with, which are four identical motions, would not change the essential thrust of Clause 5, the relevant clause. Clause 5 already makes reference within the four corners of the clause to a number of crimes which did not in fact occur within Canada. This includes the whole question of hostage taking and the diversion of nuclear materials. These are being added for the first time.
If the purpose of the amendment was to add to Clause 5 a matter which was not considered criminal in Canada, then certainly 1 would agree that we would be going beyond the scope of Clause 5. Instead, what is being proposed here in these amendments is that a provision be added dealing with the subject of war crimes.
There is no question that war crimes are recognized in this country as being crimes and as always having been crimes. The Constitution Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, and I know the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) was a member as well, unanimously support-
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1985 ed an amendment to Section 11 of the Charter of Rights which makes it very clear that should Parliament wish to act to make provision for trials in Canada of war crimes, that would not in any way offend the provisions of the Charter of Rights with respect to retroactivity.
I want to remind the House that on this question of trials within Canada for individuals who are suspected of having committed crimes against humanity, war crimes, this is not the first time that this issue has been raised either in the House or in committee. I recall vividly questioning the Liberal Minister of Justice, the Hon. Member for Shawinigan (Mr. Chretien), and questioning the former Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), on this very point and being told in no uncertain terms that it was the policy of the Liberal Government not to permit trials in Canada of suspected war criminals. I might say that I find it passing strange to find the Member for York Centre in his new manisfestation standing up before the House and suggesting that we supported an amendment which would permit such trials.
Dealing specifically with the question of admissibility of this motion, I want to underscore the fact that once again it is within the broad framework of Clause 5. It does not make a change that is fundamentally different. My colleague from York Centre has already cited one particular precedent on this matter. I would urge Parliament to move forward in order that those individuals who for one reason or another cannot be extradited to other countries be tried in Canada.
The admissibility of this motion, which is the matter to which I am addressing my remarks at this point, while it may be open to some debate and some discussion, Your Honour might very well agree having heard the persuasive arguments on this point and subject to what my ditinguished colleague, the Government House Leader, will say, there does exist sufficient doubt that this matter should be put to the House for substantive debate. In the unlikely possibility that the Government House Leader is not prepared to support that particular suggestion, I urge the Speaker-and I know it is not up to the House Leader-to be persuaded by what will hopefully be unanimous sentiments in the House to reconsider. But if that is not the case, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to move a motion seeking unanimous consent to permit this particular matter to be debated.


Mr. Speaker:: Further procedural arguments? The President of the Privy Council.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: With great difficulty I will attempt to deal exclusively with the procedural part of the matter. Some elements of policy have entered into these arguments but I will deal with the procedure exclusively. I think that is precisely what we are required to do at this time.
As you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. I to 4 in my humble submission seek to introduce a new class of offences into the Criminal Code which class is clearly not referred to in the long title of the Bill as passed at second reading stage. The Bill as passed did not deal with "war

April 24, 1985
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1985
crimes" and hence these proposed motions, all of which are identical, clearly are contrary to our practices as set forth in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1), which reads:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the Bill, beyond its scope or governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived.
And this was given ample support by Erskine May's Twentieth Edition at page 555, which reads:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the Bill or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, 1 think there are serious grounds for doubting whether these amendments are relevant to the clause which they seek to amend.
Motions 9 through 12 appear to be attempting to amend the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Extradition Act which are not now before the House. Such amendments in my submission, are out of order inasmuch as they are contrary to the provisions of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, citation 773(8)(a), which reads:
An amendment may not amend a statute which is not before the committee.
You will, of course, be aware that the rules which apply to the admissibility of an amendment in committee apply equally at the report stage, Mr. Speaker. I would refer you to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 792, which reads:
The moving of motions in amendment to a public Bill at the report stage is governed by the practice or tradition which has developed whereby only the same class of amendments which were moved at the committee stage may be moved at the report stage.
1 may say that I make this argument on the basis of the procedural argument. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a question of policy. Allusion has been made by both the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), whose constituency I have visited on a number of occasions-


Svend Johannes Robinson: You are welcome back.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -in support of the Hon. Member to make sure that he returns. I simply say, Mr. Speaker, that, as you know, if unanimous consent is sought this Government has taken early and strong initiatives in terms of this whole question of resolving the matter of war criminals in Canada and war criminals. We have set up a commission headed by the distinguished jurist, Mr. Justice Deschenes. I think from that point of view you will understand why we think that excellent work which has already commenced must be carried on. Accordingly, it would not only be inappropriate but presumptuous of us to make a decision on this basis with respect to a most important issue. I share the recollection of the Hon. Member for Burnaby in questioning the Hon. Member for York Centre when he was Solicitor General and I recall very clearly the position he took as part of the three-person committee of Cabinet with respect to this issue in which he indicated that retroactivity was not acceptable to him at that time. I say that with the greatest respect to the Hon. Member and 1 think we want to have this matter dealt with by the commission.
Accordingly I do not think that unanimous consent would be forthcoming.


Chris Speyer: 1 rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 will recognize the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) First.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, reference has been made to decisions in which the Members who have spoken indicated that I participated. I want to indicate to them that there was a considerable development of policy during the period 1 was Solicitor General and that development of policy was in the direction of taking over firmer action against war criminals in Canada.
1 recall earlier opinions to the effect that nothing could be done, including extradition, issued by former Governments. These were changed in the early years by bringing arguments to the attention of law officers of the Crown. 1 feel at this time that there is a sufficient development of legal opinion to justify-


Mr. Speaker:: I have allowed the Hon. Member to speak for an obvious reason, which was that somehow matters of debate entered into a matter of procedural argument. I cannot imagine how that would be possible here in this sort of Chamber.
Further procedural argument? The Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer).


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of your remarks you seemed to indicate a distinction between the different groupings. Indeed, arguments were made by the official critic for the Liberal Party and for the New Democratic Party. All of these groupings were dealt with together. My friend, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), spoke with respect to the first grouping of four. That was really the core of the amendments dealing with war crimes.
The other following three groupings are derivatives of the first one. No individual argument has been made yet to the points that you raise, indirectly or by implication, with respect to the second grouping, namely Motions 5 through 8 and also Motions Nos. 12 to 15. I would like to have an opportunity to debate those particular motions at the appropriate time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's argument to some degree is well founded. I indicated that I was prepared to hear the admissibility issues with regard to Motions Nos. 1 to 4 and Motions Nos. 9 to 12 at the same time. As far as I am concerned, I have heard the arguments with regard to the matters I have raised and I am now prepared to rule.
I have sympathy to some degree for the arguments being made by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). The question the Speaker has to consider-and 1 am now indulging in a minor obiter dictum-is: When is an amendment an amendment and when is it a subamendment? In my
April 24, 1985

judgment, from what I have seen, having read the matter, 1 think it is clear that the citation to which the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) referred in terms of Beauchesne does apply. What in fact is being attempted here is to introduce measures, however legitimate they are in the minds of many Members, which go beyond the original scope of the Bill and therefore must be ruled out of order.
If I may make one small comment on the references the Hon. Member made, particularly the references to what was already done by the committee itself, the Chair has not been asked to comment, will not comment and does not comment on decisions by the committee. However, I think the Hon. Member knows that such a decision by the committee would not represent a precedent or anything that would bind the Chair. I understand the purpose of the introduction of those points, but it is certainly not clear that what the committee did would bind the House or should bind me. If anything, in precedent terms, it would go the other way around. 1 think the Hon. Member knows that. Therefore, I will rule out Motions Nos. 1 to 4 and Motions Nos. 9 to 12 as being, in my view, out of order.
1 must also deal with the question of the request for unanimous consent. As the Hon. Member knows, we do many things here by unanimous consent. They are those things that we cannot otherwise do, and we do them by unanimous consent here in order to be more expeditious. Normally, for instance, we may, as we have indicated today, notwithstanding the general rules about when things may be done, choose by unanimous consent to go through all three readings. However, what is out of order is out of order. The Speaker is in a difficult situation, appreciating what the Hon. Member wants and understanding the seriousness of his concern. The Chair must say that a request to try to make something which is out of order in order by unanimous consent cannot be accepted by the Chair on the simple basis that it is either in order or it is out of order. Something cannot be made to be in order by a decision of the House.
The argument has always been that the House thinks it has the right to waive all its rules by unanimous consent at any time. It does have the right to do some things by unanimous consent which it would not otherwise do. It can decide to do a Bill in one day as opposed to in three sittings, but I cannot accept the request for unanimous consent. I say that notwithstanding that the Hon. President of the Privy Council has already indicated that consent would not be forthcoming.
I am not by this comment changing what the practical effect would be. I am really wanting to give notice for future attempts to use unanimous consent. It is reasonable to do things we otherwise cannot do and to expedite them through the procedure of unanimous consent, but clearly it would be an offence to the House to ask, in a sense by unanimous consent, to do something which cannot be done because the Chair must find it out of order.
If I may be perhaps a little more explicit, it comes close to suggesting that the House have a procedure to overturn a ruling of the Chair. If that is what the House wishes to have, if
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1985
it wishes to have that power, the House has a different method, that is, amending its Standing Orders through the reform committee. Those are my views on both the amendment and the request for unanimous consent.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am not in any way questioning the Speaker's ruling with respect to the question of seeking unanimous consent. I would just, however, seek clarification of the Speaker's ruling in light of its serious implications. I think the Speaker recognizes that the House has certainly traditionally understood that effectively we can take a decision on just about any question as long as we do it by unanimous consent. I wonder if the Speaker would elaborate or clarify whether the Speaker is in fact suggesting that it is only in matters of time, where there are requirements with respect to time-and the Speaker spoke about expediting certain matters-as opposed to matters of substance and substantial questions of order. Is it that distinction which the Speaker is making, that the House can in fact give unanimous consent to in effect not observe procedural requirements with respect to time? Perhaps the Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: No, the Hon. Member will know why I cannot stand here and indulge in a long clarification at this point. He must also understand that what I am trying to say is that what the House cannot do, it cannot do by unanimous consent. In other words, the request for the amendment is out of order, as I have said and I have ruled. It is out of order whether it is moved by the President of the Privy Council personally. It is out of order if it is moved. It therefore cannot be introduced by unanimous consent because it is ab initio out of order and cannot be made in order by a decision to make it in order. That is the point I am trying to make.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point to indicate that I understand what you have said. I think there is probably a sense, as I understand it, in the House that one does not try to do what is illegal by unanimous consent. I think that principle would be accepted by everyone here. On the other hand, when the House of Commons operates by unanimous consent, in many instances it has the effect of setting aside a Standing Order. I just did not want to get ourselves into a position where we were tying our hands with respect to doing something which has the unanimous consent of all Members of the House and is in the interests of not only this institution but of our country. I do not want to put Your Honour in a position of having to explain your ruling, by any means. However, I simply thought it would be appropriate at this time for me to ensure that we in the House understood each other and that there was in fact a clear understanding that unanimous consent very often is a matter whereby Standing Orders are set aside by virtue of that act.


Mr. Speaker:: The point I am trying to make to the House is that the House must also know there are matters which cannot simply be done by consent. I think logic makes that clear. I just wanted to use this opportunity, since it was clear that there would not be consent anyway, to put that on the record; it seemed like a good time.

April 24, 1985
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1985


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, with respect, it is not clear to me at all. Is the Speaker saying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Then the Hon. Member might come to see me in chambers and I will try to explain it.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a consequence of your ruling, the substance of the war crimes amendments which are being proposed in the different groupings is derivative and makes no sense.


Mr. Speaker:: Could the Hon. Member please tell me to what amendments he is referring?


Chris Speyer: The other motions-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is aware that Motions Nos. 1 to 4 and Motions Nos. 9 to 12 have been ruled out or order.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, you have ruled Motions Nos. 1 to 4 out of order, if I understood your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: And the other four.


Chris Speyer: And the other four.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the Hon. Member is now making a case that Motions Nos. 5 to 8 ought to be ruled out of order as well?


Chris Speyer: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in some difficulty. Shall we move back to Motions Nos. 5 to 8? I have already ruled them in.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the opportunity of making my argument. I asked for the opportunity to make an argument. I understood that what we were doing initially was debating in groups Motions No. 1 to 4, Nos. 5 to 8, Nos. 9 to 12 and Nos. 13 to 15 and there were different considerations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What I indicated in the beginning was that I had procedural difficulties with Nos. 1 through 4 and Nos. 9 through 12, that I found Nos. 5 to 8 in order. I indicated I would hear procedural argument on the matters that 1 thought were out of order. Is the Hon. Member now asking me to go back and hear the admissibility question on Nos. 5 to 8, because if he is doing that, I will be happy-


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I asked for it initially. I had understood that you were going to-


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, I did indicate that I thought Nos. 5 to 8 were in order. I saw the Member rise to deal with the question that I asked on Nos. 9 to 12. The "blues" will bear me out. If the Member is now wanting to revert to Nos. 5 to 8, I will be perfectly happy to hear him on Nos. 5 to 8. Can 1 now hear him on Nos. 5 to 8?


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order I asked for the opportunity, and I thought that it was given, to debate all procedural matters that were relevant to the motions that are on hand. My understanding was that pursuant to my request, I was going to have that opportunity to debate Nos. 5 to 8.
I make the first point, the threshold point that the core of Motions Nos. 1 to 4 goes to setting up a new offence that deals with the prosecution of Nazi war criminals retrospectively. Your Honour has ruled that to be out of order. That is Motions Nos. 1 to 4.
From Motions Nos. 5 through to the end of the motions, No. 15, they are totally derivative of the first four and make no sense whatsoever. I think probably the critic for the Liberal Party would agree with that. In other words, having ruled out of order Nos. 1 to 4, the rest of the motions make absolutely no sense on their face. Second, even if we can deal specifically with respect to Motions Nos. 5 through 8, Motions Nos. 5 through 8 say:
That Bill C-I8, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 2 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada.
(4.1)	For greater certainty, it is hereby declared that a person who has been found guilty in absentia outside Canada, but who has not yet been punished, shall not be entitled to plead autrefois convict on account of that finding of guilt."
That is what Motions Nos. 5 through 8 say. In terms of the Bill itself, I am at page 8, line 36, and I quote:
Where a person is alleged to have committed an act or omission that is an offence by virtue of this section-
I ask that you pay particular attention to the restricting clause in this subsection:
Where a person is alleged to have committed an act or omission that is an offence by virtue of this section and that person has been tried and dealt with outside Canada in respect of the offence in such a manner that, if he had been tried and dealt with in Canada, he would be able to plead autrefois acquit, autrefois convict or pardon, he shall be deemed to have been so tried and dealt with in Canada."
The point I am making is this. Autrefois acquit and autrefois convict are special pleas. They are pleas like guilty or not guilty, but they really in essense form the thrust of the law as it deals with double jeopardy. These go through all of the Criminal Code. If you notice the amendment that is submitted in Motions Nos. 5 through 8, there is absolutely no limitation with respect to the pleas of autrefois. In other words, Motions Nos. 5 through 8, and each one is similar, contain absolutely no restriction whatsoever, whereas the clause itself only applies to matters that are within Clause 5. The amendments that are being made or the motions being brought before you on Clauses 5 to 8 are absolutely unlimited in their scope. They would apply to any Sections of the Criminal Code whereas the actual amendment in the Bill itself on page 8, commencing at line 36, states that the limitation of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict only applies by virtue of this Section. We are dealing with international terrorism and hijacking. In my view, it is clear on the face of it that there is a conflict between the motions and the Bill. The one is far broader than the other, and inconsistent.
April 24, 1985

Finally, if I could deal just with common sense, Clause 5 deals with extraterritorial jurisdiction. You have made certain rulings with respect to war crimes dealing with extraterritorial jurisdiction. The rest of the motions make absolutely no sense because they are totally derivative of your finding on the first four.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his argument. My ruling remains, the motions are in order. The Hon. Member is asking the Speaker to do something that any Speaker might like to do, which is to go beyond the procedural admissibility of an amendment and have some concern for the quality of the amendment, if you will. No Speaker can do that. The only thing the Speaker is asked to do is determine the procedural admissibility of an amendment.
There is nothing in Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 on their face that is derivative in the sense that the Hon. Member means. The Member means that their effect may be derivative to another motion. That cannot make the amendment itself out of order in terms of the putting of an amendment. As someone once said, it does not have to make sense to move it. 1 am left with a dilemma. I think the Hon. Member has made a profoundly interesting argument with regard to the amendment, but not the procedural admissibility of the amendment.
I apologize to the Hon. Member if I misunderstood his earlier intervention and its purpose and if I caused him any trouble, but certainly I find that Motions Nos. 5 through 8 remain procedurally in order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would simply observe that based on your earlier ruling that you would not find it acceptable, as you did not find it acceptable, to consider what was out of order to be in order by unanimous consent, neither would you be prepared to accept unanimous consent that something which you have found in order is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member knows that he has a way of achieving unanimous consent by not moving them, if that were to be his intention. May 1 therefore proceed.


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 2 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada.
(4.1)	For greater certainty, it is hereby declared that a person who has been found guilty in absentia outside Canada, but who has not yet been punished, shall not be entitled to plead autrefois convict on account of that finding of guilt."


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 2 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada.
(4.1)	For greater certainty, it is hereby declared that a person who has been found guilty in absentia outside Canada, but who has not yet been punished, shall not be entitled to plead autrefois convict on account of that finding of guilt."
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1985


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 2 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada.
(4.1)	For greater certainty, it is hereby declared that a person who has been found guilty, in absentia outside Canada, but who has not yet been punished, shall not be entitled to plead autrefois convict on account of that finding of guilt."


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 2 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada.
(4.1)	For greater certainty, it is hereby declared that a person who has been found guilty in absentia outside Canada, but who has not yet been punished, shall not be entitled to plead autrefois convict on account of that finding of guilt."
On Motion No. 8-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want briefly to indicate the intent of this particular amendment. I recognize the concern that has been addressed by the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) but the intent of the amendment is to ensure that in a case in which an individual has in fact been found guilty in another jurisdiction or in absentia but despite the finding of guilt has never been punished for the offence for which he has been found guilty, he should not be able to claim in Canada that he has been found guilty and convicted and therefore not be put on trial for the offence here in Canada.
It has been argued that this particular amendment is irretrievably linked to the earlier amendments with respect to war crimes which were ruled out of order. In fact, that is not the case. Certainly the argument would be more compelling if the provisions with respect to trials of alleged war crimes in Canada had in fact been part of this Bill and ultimately part of the Criminal Code of Canada. We can only hope that following the report of the Deschenes Commission, such provisions will in fact be enacted by this Government which has not slammed the door shut to the possibility of trials in Canada as did the previous Government. That possibility does exist.
It is essential, particularly in the case of an individual who may have been found guilty in a jurisdiction with which Canada does not have an extradition treaty, that that individual should not be able to come forward and claim that he has already been convicted so he should not face trial. Certainly a significant amount of time has passed since the occurrence of war crimes but the passage of time can surely in no way diminish the gravity of these crimes. If indeed there are individuals in Canada against whom evidence exists of implication in war crimes and if in fact Parliament recognizes that they should not escape their day of reckoning and makes provision for trials in Canada with all of the legal safeguards inherent in our system of criminal justice, then I would submit

April 24, 1985
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1985 that this amendment which is very much in line with Section 11(h) of the Charter of Rights is most important.
In the absence of this amendment, it might very well be possible for such individuals to claim that they were found guilty in another jurisdiction even though they were not punished and thus successfully evade the possibility of being brought to justice. That would be doing a very grave injustice to the victims of these crimes and to their families, many of whom are still alive and living in Canada and elsewhere.
With respect, I would suggest that it is most important that this amendment be adopted in order to ensure that these people do not avoid the possibility of prosecution and ultimate conviction. Hopefully this amendment will be adopted and in the near future, following the report of the Deschenes Commission, hopefully a system will be put in place in this country that will permit trials in Canada with proper Canadian judicial safeguards of those individuals against whom evidence exists of possible participation in crimes against humanity.
On Motion No. 7-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to address Clause 5. I agree with the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). These amendments in Motions 5 through 8 were introduced primarily because of their relevance to the war crimes amendments with which my Party agrees and which we were hoping would be made part of the Criminal Code amendment package at this time.
Although that portion has been ruled out of order and Government Members have denied unanimous consent to make it possible for the Criminal Code to be amended at this time so that war crimes could be dealt with by domestic procedures under criminal law, the amendments in Motions 5 to 8 are still relevant and valuable. They apply to other extraterritorial crimes and, as my colleague has indicated and as I on behalf of my Party support, these amendments are here to remind the country that there is unfinished business and that our Party is in favour of adding war crimes to the catalogue of crimes within the Criminal Code for domestic prosecution.
1 hope that members of the Government will support these amendments. Not only will they be relevant to war crimes if the Government decides to proceed by amending the law, but in connection with nuclear material crimes and diplomatic crimes, the issues addressed in Motions 5 through 8 may still be relevant.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. As I said in my argument to Mr. Speaker on the procedural matters, these particular motions are totally derivative of the main question which is whether or not there is going to be in this legislation the prosecution of war criminals in a retrospective sense. The determination of that issue will be made after the report of the Deschenes Commission. The derivative amendments which are Motions 5 through 8 will be considered at that time. We are not ruling them out out of hand but they are totally inappropriate at this point in time, so the Government will be voting against those amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall 1 dispense?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next grouping is Motions Nos. 13 through 16.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) (for Mrs. Fine-stone) moved:: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 212 by adding immediately after line 35 at page 152 the following new subclause:
"(6) Section 5, subsection 40(1), sections 41, 56 and 59 and Schedule I of this Act shall come into force on the day this Act is assented to."


Jacques Guilbault: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 212 by adding immediately after line 35 at page 152 the following new subclause:
"(6) Section 5, subsection 40(1), sections 41, 56 and 59 and Schedule I of this Act shall come into force on the day this Act is assented to."


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 212 by adding immediately after line 35 at page 152 the following new subclause:
"(6) Section 5, subsection 40(1), sections 41, 56 and 59 and Schedule I of this Act shall come into force on the day this Act is assented to."


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that it can clearly be said that the next amendment is
April 24, 1985

consequential to Motions 1 through 4 which were ruled out of order. In view of that, I am prepared to withdraw Motion No. 16 with the consent of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there such unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 16 withdrawn.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) on a point of order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I was out of the House for a few moments during the time at which amendments were put forward on behalf of my colleagues and myself by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault). In our view, those motions have fallen in logic, if not pursuant to the Standing Orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to speak?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member wants to withdraw the motions, he may do so by unanimous consent.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, with unanimous consent, I would seek to withdraw Motions Nos. 13, 14 and 15, on behalf of myself and my colleagues.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions Nos. 13, 14 and 15 withdrawn.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Speyer) on a point of order.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, having concluded the debate with respect to the motions that were on the Order Paper, I have spoken to the official critics of both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party with respect to further amendments. There is one amendment to Clause 36 for which I think you will find unanimous consent. The amendment is as a result of incorrect translations from English to French. The errors were caught by the editors. I have given copies of the amendment to the official critics and I think, Mr. Speaker, that you will find that there is unanimous consent for the amendment to be adopted.
Customs Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to give notice?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Chris Speyer: That Clause 36 of Bill C-18 be amended:
(a)	by striking out lines 13 and 14 of the French version on page 26 and
substituting the following:
"lyste par le procureur general pour ('application de Particle";
(b)	by striking out line 21 of the French version on page 27 and substituting
the following:
"a Particle 237, peut lui ordonner immediatement ou des quc possible dc lui";
(c)	by striking out lines 40 and 41 on page 29 and substituting the following:
"(2), un juge de paix qui est convaincu, a la suite".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Perrin Beatty (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Henry Perrin Beatty: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) on a point of order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I understood that we were going to proceed with the third reading debate on Bill C-18 at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member for York Centre that we have just passed the Bill.



CUSTOMS ACT


Henry Perrin Beatty: that Bill C-40, an Act to confirm certain acts or things done on behalf of the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise and to amend the Customs Act and the Special Import Measures Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

April 24, 1985
Customs Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will try to make my remarks shorter than the title of the Bill, which is rather lengthy.
The Bill before us today has an important bearing on the capacity of my Department to carry out its responsibilities effectively in respect of the Customs Act. Timely adoption of the Bill will be of benefit both to the efficient operation of the Department and also to the public which the Department serves, particularly Canadian importers.
Essentially, Bill C-40 deals with the authority of people authorized by the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise to exercise or perform any of his powers, duties or functions under the Customs Act and the Special Import Measures Act.
Specifically, Subsection 46(4) of the Customs Act authorizes the Deputy Minister to re-determine the tariff classification or to re-appraise the value for duty of goods imported into Canada. This is an important function of the Department, both to ensure that legitimate duties are collected and to ensure that importers are fairly dealt with.
The present Customs Act does not specifically authorize other people to perform the Deputy Minister's functions to make decisions under Subsection 46(4). In practice, over the years, as the volume of such decisions has grown, the Deputy Minister has directed the appropriate Assistant Deputy Minister and officials working under his supervision to make such decisions in his name. With the current volume of cases-an estimated 5,700 in the fiscal year which just ended-it would be utterly impossible to conduct our affairs in any other way.
However, we have reached an impasse as a result of a decision which was handed down by the Federal Court of Appeal in February. In the fall of 1984, the Tariff Board, which hears appeals against decisions made under Subsection 46(4) of the Customs Act, questioned whether it could legally hear appeals when the decisions appealed from were not made personally by the Deputy Minister. The Board referred the matter to the Federal Court of Appeal which, in its February 22 judgment, agreed that the Board lacked such jurisdiction and, further, that the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise had no legal right to delegate his authority. The Department is, of course, respecting the Court's decision and currently, aside from some cases of critical importance which are being made personally by the Deputy Minister, no action is being taken under Subsection 46(4).
The situation cannot be allowed to continue. Cases which require a decision are continuing to pile up. It is unfair to Canadian taxpayers and unsatisfactory to Canadian importers to allow it to continue.
I might point out that the situation which was created by the Court's decision clearly points to the need for a completely revised and modernized Customs Act which is geared to the realities of business conditions in the 1980s. The present Act is more than 100 years old. While it has been amended many times, it is simply not geared, in many of its provisions, to the volume and complexity of administering customs matters today. Very shortly, I hope to bring before the House a Bill for
a totally revamped and modernized Customs Act which will deal with many of the archaic and outdated provisions of the current Act, including the one before us today. In the meantime we have to take action on Bill C-40 to restore the capability of the Department to administer its responsibilities effectively.
The recent ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal also has implications for decisions made under the former Anti-dumping Act. Although this Act was repealed in December of 1984 and replaced by the Special Import Measures Act, many of the Deputy Minister's functions and duties under the former Act, including making decisions appealable to the Tariff Board, were carried out on his behalf by other officials. By implication, the Federal Court's judgment also invalidates such decisions made under the Anti-dumping Act. It is important that we now validate the functions and duties performed by subordinate officers in the past or in the future with regard to this Act as well.
I should point out to the House that the Special Import Measures Act, which is now the instrument for dealing with the anti-dumping matters, has also been amended to clarify the authority of people authorized by the Deputy Minister to exercise or perform his powers, duties and functions. Essentially the Bill accomplishes the following things. First, it recognizes that the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise may authorize other people to exercise or perform any of his powers, duties or functions under the Customs Act and the Special Import Measures Act. Secondly, it validates acts of the Deputy Minister in exercising his powers or performing his functions or duties under the Special Import Measures Act and the Customs Act. Third, it validates acts done in the past and in the future by people authorized by the Deputy Minister to exercise his powers or perform his duties or functions under the Anti-dumping Act.
The job of ruling effectively and fairly on the thousands of complex tariff cases which come before the Department each year requires many highly trained specialists supporting the Deputy Minister. The provisions authorizing people to carry out the Deputy Minister's powers, duties and functions will be dealt with clearly in the new Customs Act when it comes before the House in the near future.
In the meantime, in the interests of getting on with the job, I would ask for the support of Members on all sides of the House in giving speedy passage to this legislation. I understand there have been discussions among the Parties and there is an agreement that we would have one speaker per Party on this Bill, and that we should consider all three stages today. I want to publicly express may thanks to my colleagues on the other side of the House for their co-operation which has been extremely helpful to us in allowing us to bring the Bill forward and resolve it on a speedy basis. I see that my friend from Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) is coming in and I believe he may be the spokesman for his caucus on this matter. Let me simply reiterate to him my appreciation of the co-operation
April 24, 1985

extended by Members on his side of the House to the Government in accomplishing this matter. We come under criticism from time to time for not passing substantive, pithy legislation; surely with the passage of this Bill today we will be able to set to rest any such claims in the future. I want again to thank Hon. Members for their co-operation.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, the legislation before us today is simply a housekeeping Bill and will certainly facilitate matters for the Deputy Minister and all those people who expect the Deputy Minister to sign thousands and thousands and thousands of documents. The intent of the original legislation was questioned, as I understand it, in the courts and I think this legislation is necessary. Any obstruction to it would be seen by a great many Canadians who are so affected to be an obstructionist tactic and the legislation therefore should proceed as quickly as possible.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to rise in support of this Bill. We recognize it is of a housekeeping nature, but I wonder if I can ask the Minister to advise us what the impact is, particularly the retroactivity section-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. This is debate and there are no questions or answers. The Hon. Member has the floor for his Party in debate.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I knew that and I was sort of rhetorically asking if the Minister could provide us with some information on the impact the retroactivity clause will have on any pending litigation. We would just like to have an understanding of what will happen. Secondly, we have a couple of minor modifications to propose to the Bill at the appropriate time.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, 1 am of course in favour of the Bill and its necessary housekeeping and administrative changes. I just wanted to bootleg in a vote of thanks to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) for the establishment of a customs office in Yellowknife, the capital of the Northwest Territories. The people wanted this for a long time; it has now been established. 1 have personally inspected it and find it working very well. Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is as follows: Mr. Beatty, seconded by Mr. Andre, moves that Bill C-40, an Act to confirm certain acts or things done on behalf of the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise and to amend the Customs Act and the Special Import Measures Act, be now read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Customs Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the Chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-40, an Act to confirm certain acts or things done on behalf of the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise and to amend the Customs Act and the Special Import Measures Act. Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, on Clause 1 I would like to move:
That immediately prior to the words "Deputy Minister" the words "Minister and/or" be added.


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Hon. Member could clarify which line that is since the Deputy Minister is mentioned three times in Clause 1.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, I assume that would actually be each of the references to "Deputy Minister".


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if that is admissible. I am just wondering why the Member is suggesting this. If I understand his amendment correctly, I certainly would not agree, with every action taken by the Minister in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty or function purported to be done on behalf of the Minister. I do not think we should agree to an act purported to have been done by the Minister but assigned to somebody else as being agreed to in Clause 1. Is that the intention, because we are talking about the Deputy Minister here?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, I might be able to clarify this for my colleagues. Let me just give some background. The Deputy Minister has some authority given to him under the Customs Act and other statutes which is unique and distinct from my responsibility as Minister. Usually when the Deputy Minister acts, he acts in my name on authority delegated from me. In some instances he has specific authority given to him by the Act which allows him to operate in his own name. What happened was that the decision made by the courts found that a decision by the Deputy Minister, because of the volume of requests made of him, to delegate that authority to his subordinates was not permitted; it was ultra vires. None of the actions that we are talking about here is delegation of my authority. Consequently, any reference to the Minister of National Revenue here would be irrelevant in that all we are doing is seeking to validate actions of the Deputy Minister of National Revenue and his subordinates. The effect of including reference to the Minister of National Revenue does not pose a particular problem for me; it is just that it is irrelevant in this context.
I imagine that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, might have some concern that inadvertently a

April 24, 1985
Customs Act
reference to the Minister of National Revenue in this context might allow the validation of some action which is not contemplated by Parliament at the time we are passing this Bill. If we are to protect the rights, powers and prerogatives of Parliament, we should be very careful to confine the scope of the Bill to keep it as narrow as possible.
As I said, it poses no particular problems for me if my colleague wants to make reference to the Minister of National Revenue. However, the effect of doing that would be to substantially broaden the scope of the Bill and presumably to cover all sorts of areas which were not anticipated at the time we had the discussion between Parties. They would be areas in which the court has expressed no difficulty at all. The concern expressed by the court was strictly with regard to powers which are specifically assigned to the Deputy Minister and which were delegated by him to subordinates.
If, on reflection, my hon. colleague feels, as I do, that it should be confined to validating those actions of the Deputy Minister, I certainly think he would find consent on this side of the House to withdraw the amendment because it would ensure that Parliament knew what it was voting on at the time.
Mr. Chairman, since some bootlegging has already gone on, perhaps the House would allow me to bootleg a response to the rhetorical question. I will give a rhetorical answer to the question asked by my colleague. The effect of this Act would be to retroactively validate decisions that were made in delegating authority. The understanding of both importers and the Department head was that the actions of the Deputy Minister in delegating his authority, which was a practical necessity, were both necessary and proper. On a technicality the courts found that he did not have the authority, under the statute, to delegate his powers as Deputy Minister. This would regularize that procedure for the future and retroactively validate decisions made on that basis in the past. This poses no problem, to the best of my knowledge, to the private sector or others. It simply assures us that practices which have been followed for years, and were accepted to be appropriate, are brought into conformity with the law.


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: 1 would like to rule. Do you have another question?


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, I would like you to rule as to the admissibility of the word "Minister", keeping in mind that we certainly do not want to extend any more powers to the Minister of this particular Department.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It goes beyond the scope of the clause. Unless you have any further arguments in regard to this, I must rule. First, there is a difficulty with regard to the way in which the Member proposed this particular motion. Second, it goes beyond the scope of the clause. It is not acceptable and it is redundant. Therefore, I must rule it out of order.


Dave Nickerson: I would like to follow up on the question of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan and the response given by the Minister of National Revenue. We were given the assurance that nothing untoward would happen as a result of the passage of this Act. The specific question as to whether there is any legislation pending right now that would be affected by the passage of this Act was not answered. Could we have an answer to that direct and specific question? Is there any legislation pending which would be influenced by the passage of this legislation?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, if I correctly undertand the question, the answer would be no. There is no legislation that I am aware of which is before the House at the present time that would be affected by this-


Dave Nickerson: I am sorry. Maybe I should have said "litigation pending or in process".


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, off the top of my head, the answer would be that I am not aware of any. The difficulty is that if the Bill did not pass we would have a complete gridlock in terms of the ability of the Department to make these determinations. Over 5,700 a year would have to be personally made by the Deputy Minister of National Revenue. We are essentially amending the law to ensure that the procedures which have been followed on a routine basis in the past are allowed to continue.


Dave Nickerson: I would like to thank the Minister for that partial assurance. I will give an example of the reason I ask this question. Some months ago, when the previous Government was in office, a Bill was introduced to make minor changes to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. We were told that it was a simple administrative matter and that it was necessary that this be done. It certainly appeared that way on the face of it. The House passed that Bill very quickly and afterwards we found out that one of the reasons for the introduction of the Bill was that there was a court case pending. Through the passage of that legislation we cut the ground out from beneath the litigant. We did a disservice to someone who had a legitimate case before the courts.
I want the assurance that we will not be doing that to any other person as a result of the passage of this legislation this afternoon. 1 quite agree with the Minister that it is a necessary thing to do and that probably 99 times out of 100 cases we would be acting in favour of the people involved. However, 1 would like to have the assurance that we are not cutting the ground out from underneath any litigant's feet.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, 1 can indicate that to the best of my knowledge that is the case. I can also indicate that if the amendment does not pass today, the effect would be to declare null and void all of the decisions which have been made by officials in the name of the Deputy Minister. I can pretty well guarantee that those people who were unhappy with the decision made, even if it was soundly made, would use that legal basis to try to undo the decision that was made.
April 24, 1985

The purpose of the amendement before us today is to try to establish due process to allow a method of appeal and to allow determinations to take place. The effect of not allowing that to proceed would be to create a serious inequity for many people.
I cannot give the Hon. Member the assurance that nowhere before the courts at the present time is there any case which relates to this. However, I can tell the Hon. Member that there is no hidden agenda here. There is no intention to try to frustrate the ability of an individual to protect his rights. Indeed, it is just the opposite. The effect of striking down many of these decisions would cause great inequity and unfairness. It would hamstring the ability of the Department to carry out very essential functions.


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, the effect of not passing this particular piece of legislation would be to render null and void the appeal procedure. In fact, it could operate in reverse for a great many cases that have been satisfied on behalf of the citizenry of the country. It was with that information that I recommended that our caucus accept this particular Bill and this particular clause.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 23, consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and Motions Nos. 1 (Mr. Axworthy) and 2 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4001).
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, could you clarify where we are as far as the amendments are concerned and whether we are dealing with Motions Nos. 1 and 2 as a package? I would like that clarification and to know whether or not 1 am permitted to speak?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motions Nos. 1 and 2 are grouped for debate with a separate vote on each motion. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate has the floor (Mr. Baker).


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we have heard many opinions expressed as far as these amendments are concerned. If one reviewed the record in order to read what Members of the Official Opposition have
Investment Canada Act
said about these amendments, one would see that the amendments themselves are absolutely necessary if the intent of the legislation is to be followed within the legislation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I know that the Hon. Member realizes why I am rising since he spoke initially in this regard, and I regret that I was not in the Chair then because I would have enjoyed listening to the Hon. Member, but I am afraid that he is not entitled to speak. Therefore, I must recognize another Hon. Member for debate. [Translation]
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. You are very good in French and I congratulate you. You are almost as proficient as the President of the Privy Council, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).

That being said, I want to say a few words about Motion No. 2 that is before the House. Motion No. 2, which is in the name of the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), reads:
"The technology under the appropriate terms and conditions established by the government, would benefit Canada, the pur-"
This is an important motion because it deals with the whole question of technological change, science and technology and research and development which are so important in society today.
I have had a good look at the industrial set-up of our country and ownership in our country. One of our greatest problems is that very little research is done in our country compared to that in other countries around the world. In fact, 1 am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, as a Member from Edmonton are as dismayed as I am that so little research is done in Canada and that there are so few jobs for young people in research and development compared to jobs in the United States, Japan, western European countries and most other industrialized states.
If I remember correctly, the percentage of our Gross National Product that is spent on research and development is approximately that of countries like Egypt or Ireland. I suggest that says a lot in terms of some basic faults in our economy.
One reason for the small amount of research and development in this country is the fact that much of our economy is foreign owned and controlled. Therefore, it is only natural that when decisions are made about where to conduct research and development, those companies do it at their patent plants in the United States, Japan or elsewhere. Of course, that is no surprise because if you or I were in control of a company and were going to conduct research and development, I think we would do it in our own country in order to provide jobs for our young people here rather than somewhere else in the world.

April 24, 1985
Investment Canada Act
1 am concerned that Bill C-15 will open the door further to foreign control and ownership of our economy, resulting in a loss of jobs in this country. I urge the House to accept Motion No. 2 because we cannot assume that foreign investment and technology will automatically benefit this country. A company often injects new capital to modernize and install new technology such as robotics and computers, which actually results in a loss of jobs. For example, approximately 80 per cent of the corporate tax breaks in Canada go to the largest corporations, which make up about one per cent of Canadian corporations. If one reviews the number of jobs being created as a result of those tax breaks in this country, it can be seen that in many cases large companies will eliminate jobs rather than create them as a result of tax breaks, new capital injection and modernization. They bring in new equipment that takes the place of human beings. I am not saying that we put in blindfolds and pretend that a new world of technology is not there. Of course I am not saying that, nor is the motion. The motion is saying that we should have enough power to make sure that if the new technology and capital are not going to help Canadians and be of benefit to Canadians then we should have the power to say no on behalf of the people of Canada and on behalf of the young people of this country whose futures are at stake.
The other point in arguing for the motion before us that I think we should acknowledge is that the Government must be playing a leading role in setting the terms and conditions under which capital and technology enter this country. We hear so much talk today about the private sector, free enterprise and the big companies. The Conservatives tell us, how great Ronald Reagan is in the United States and they tell us about the wonders that the American administration will do for us. We are opening up our Canadian house and saying to these big companies, "Come in. Do whatever you want. You are welcome". It is like having neighbours come into your house and saying to them: "Take over my house. Take over my kitchen and bedrooms. I will move out". That is the kind of situation the Conservative Party is establishing for us.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) says that inviting in your neighbours means you live in the dog house or the garage. Where is our independence and where is our national pride? Where is that assertion of what is right for Canadians that other countries take for granted? I often criticize some countries for being too nationalistic. It is something like saying "You are Americans, you are American right or wrong, or you are Japanese, or you are French and that is all there is". But we are on the other extreme where we do not assert any kind of Canadian nationalism. It is a case of: whatever the foreign investor wants, the foreign investor will get. Even before these amendments to the Foreign Investment Review Act which abolish the Act and the agency are passed, the Act of the previous Government is basically defanged or the watchdog will be defanged or have its teeth pulled. It will be very weak. What is being done now is rendering the agency
almost totally useless in terms of making sure that what is happening is for the significant benefit of Canadians.
I think there is so much more we can do in terms of a better standard of living, in terms of well-paying jobs for Canadian citizens and for our young people. A very good example is right in our own province of Saskatchewan. 1 see in the House the Hon. Member for Regina West, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig) and the Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis) and I think of the Potash Corporation and the potash industry in our province.
A few years ago we had eight or nine potash companies in our province. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is here and he knows the story. The Blakeney Government, back in the mid-seventies, because of lack of control over the potash industry by the people of Saskatchewan and because so many profits were being sent out of Saskatchewan and out of Canada with no Canadian or Saskatchewan control, decided the time had come to establish in Canada, in Saskatchewan, the largest potash company in the world outside of the Soviet Union. This company is owned publicly by the people of Saskatchewan having its head office in Saskatoon with a Canadian president, Canadian staff, research and development done by Canadians and decisions made by Canadians. If that can be done in a small province like Saskatchewan with one million people, we can use that kind of determination and do that time and time again at the national level from one end of Canada to the other.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are an Albertan and that you are a very independent man. I am sure it makes you angry, as it makes me angry, to see so many of these decisions left in the hands of foreigners who make decisions that take jobs away from us. It is not just research and development or export and trade and jobs that we now have in Saskatchewan because we control the potash industry, but the fact is that many of these foreign firms restrict the export of goods of their subsidiaries located here in Canada. They want to export from the head office located in the States, Japan or Europe and restrict the exports of firms here in Canada.
Our colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), did a major study a number of years ago in the early 1970s. If I remember correctly, he said in his report that the propensity to export among Canadian-owned firms in the same field was about four to one over that of subsidiaries of multinationals of foreign plants. In other words, if a company is Canadian-owned the odds are about four times as great that it will export compared to a plant controlled offshore. That is another reason why Motion No. 2 must be supported by this House so we can have more control and say over the capital and technology introduced in this country by a foreign company or by foreign investors.
Here we are not saying that all foreign capital and technology is bad. Of course not. We are saying that it is our house; it is our country. We have developed this country. We are going to keep it and it is ours. We want legislation to make sure it stays that way. I am sure that you yourself, Mr. Speaker, if you were not in the Chair would be standing up in this House
April 24, 1985

thundering about the terrible weakening of the foreign investment legislation by this Government that sits across the way. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you are lucky to be in the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, 1 am. I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House at this time to speak in support of Motion No. 1 which asks that Bill C-15 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 6 to 14 on page 1 and substituting the following words:
(2) Recognizing that increased capital investment and innovative technology would benefit Canada, the purpose of this Act is to provide for the notification and review of proposed investments in Canada by non-Canadians in order to ensure that they contribute to economic growth and employment opportunities, and to encourage beneficial investment in Canada by Canadians.
We believe that the amendment that I have just read would be the most appropriate statement of purpose of the Bill before us because, unlike the words in the draft Bill, the words in the amendment set out in a more clear-cut and realistic manner what it is that we as a Government should be looking at on behalf of the Canadian economy and Canadian workers.
If you look at Clause 2 of Bill C-15, Mr. Speaker, you will note that it says:
Recognizing that increased capital and technology would benefit Canada, the purpose of this Act is to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians that contributes to economic growth and employment opportunities and to provide for the review of significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians in order to ensure such benefit to Canada.
This wording on the surface may sound useful and positive but I suggest that these words contain a number of important flaws and omissions.
First, the paragraph in the Bill as proposed to the House talks of significant investments. What does the Government mean by significant investments? If the Government is talking only about investment above a certain size, then the Government is making a serious error in that it is overlooking the fact that investments from abroad that could well be of importance to Canada could be important irrespective of size. When it comes to the high-tech sector, most of the companies are very small. If we have arbitrary restrictions based on size, and if we look upon only investments above a certain level as being significant, then we are putting on the books a Bill which overlooks the reality of how a number of important sectors in Canada are constructed.
Also, the emphasis in the words of the Bill before us, which we want to replace with the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), is on significant investment rather than on beneficial investments. This raises another important concern about the words of the Bill as presented to the House. The evidence accumulated over the years is very clear, that investment from other countries is not necessarily beneficial to the Canadian public interest. For example, the evidence is very clear that many companies in this country that are owned and controlled by people outside the country have restrictions on what they
Investment Canada Act
can do. They have restrictions on the kinds of exports they can carry out. In fact, they have restrictions on whether they can export at all.
Just a few days ago there was an important meeting of the board of directors of the Automotive Industries Association of Canada. This association represents those companies making parts for what is known as the automotive after market, that is to say, parts needed to repair or tune up cars once they have been sold in their initial new form and once they get beyond the initial warranty period. The president of the Automotive Industries Association, after that important board meeting, held a press conference in which he confirmed that many of the companies comprising the membership of his association have limitations of one kind or another about the extent to which they can export their products to other countries. Most of these companies are subsidiaries of American parent companies, and they are prevented from exporting in any way, shape or form to the United States. Others which may be prevented from exporting to the United States may well have some limited authority to export to third countries, and some cannot even do that. This has nothing to do with their ability to produce goods in a competitive fashion, in a way which represents a high level of technology, efficiency and productivity. These limitations may be good for the American or other foreign parent companies, but they are not good for the Canadian public interest.
Also, in the last two or three years there have been studies conducted by Statistics Canada which show that Canadian companies that are subsidiaries of foreign companies have a propensity to import raw materials and components from outside Canada which is higher than is the case for companies which are owned and controlled in our country. This means that there is not enough attention paid by very large numbers of firms in this country to the opportunity to source here or to get components or raw materials here which may be equally if not more competitive when it comes to cost and quality than what they are bringing in from other countries.
There is all sorts of evidence confirming the extent to which subsidiaries of foreign parents are limited in the degree to which they can carry out research and development in Canada. A few months ago a report was presented to the Ontario Legislature. It was the result of a study carried out by Mr. Bovey at the request of the Ontario Government into the plight of post-secondary education in this province. Mr. Bovey made some recommendations in his report to which I cannot give my agreement. There were suggestions that there had to be very large increases in fees for people who want to attend post-secondary educational institutions in Ontario. I fear this is something that would be implemented by a Conservative Government if it should be re-elected in the Province of Ontario. The possibility that this will happen would be a very good reason not to have that Government re-elected in the Ontario provincial election of May 2.

April 24, 1985
Investment Canada Act
However, the point I want to make is that the Bovey report on post-secondary education in Ontario says something which is very relevant to the Bill and the amendment before us, and I want to put it on the record. Mr. Bovey and his commission found that foreign subsidiaries in this country have a propensity to support research and development in our universities to a much lesser degree than their parent companies are willing to support research and development in other post-secondary educational institutions, particularly in the United States. Also the Bovey report confirmed that foreign subsidiaries, particularly American ones, generally carry out research and development in our country to a lesser degree than is the case for their parents. This approach may well serve the interests of the parent companies, but this approach does not serve the Canadian public interest.
If there are subjects on which there could be some agreement by Hon. Members on all sides of the House, one is that we have to do more research and development in this country. The Government says that it expects more of this needed research and development to be carried out in the private sector. However, this expectation is only an empty and barren hope so long as the present situation which I have been describing continues, one in which subsidiaries of foreign parent firms are prevented from carrying out research and development activities to the extent that would be logical and practical if they had the full scope to carry out activities along the lines of their opportunities and potential.
A problem with the clause of the Bill in question is that it does not recognize these realities of the Canadian industrial and economic structure. Instead, in some kind of fanciful, unrealistic fashion, it seems to suggest that any degree of foreign investment here would necessarily be beneficial.
That is why

and I conclude-1 strongly urge the House to accept the amendment offered on behalf of the Official Opposition by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. It will put into this Bill a much more realistic and honest statement of purpose, indicating that this kind of legislation has to serve the Canadian public interest and ensure that foreign investment is beneficial to Canada when it comes to jobs, research and development, exports, sourcing and all the things which count in this country. The words in the Bill now do not do this, and that is why I say the amendment has to be adopted by the House in the interests of the Canadian economy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Motion No. 2 for a number of reasons. In earlier years in my experience in this Chamber we went through the exercise of the foreign investment review legislation. I might say in passing that because it was a minority Parliament, we compelled the Liberals to do something about the ownership of our economy.
This matter concerns our sovereignty and our economic independence. This matter concerns our nationhood. If we do not learn from history, we are condemned to repeat it. Throughout the entire history of our country, our experience with foreigned-owned corporations was that they seldom, if ever, did any significant research and development but, if they
did, it went back to the head office of the parent company, usually the United States and sometimes Europe. Those investors do not invest in Canada just because they think we are such nice people or just because they want to help us out. They do not look upon those investments as if we were some kind of charitable case which needs help. We are not another Ethiopa. However, they invest in order to make a return on the investment and to protect the interests of the parent company, even when in the course of protecting the interest of the parent company they do harm to Canadian jobs, Canadian entrepreneurs and the Canadian ability to export and sell, even to the country of the parent company.
In the case of research and development and technological developments, we have that lesson in spades from foreign-owned corporations in this country. Most nations want and accept foreign investment. The question is not whether we have foreign investment, but what kind of foreign investment. There are two kinds. The first is ownership investment, ownership capital, in which the foreign investor comes into our country and acquires ownership, either by starting up a new corporation or buying out one. It owns it. It has ownership. That is equity investment.
The alternative in terms of foreign investment is loan capital. It has happened all these years. Hundreds of million of dollars of foreign capital have come into Canada as loan capital. You pay back the loans and you end up, whether a private corporation, a co-operative or a public corporation, owning it. You have paid back the foreign investors their loan capital. You have paid them with a good return on their loan capital. That is the route that our country should be taking.
The legislation is an admission by the Conservative Government of failure. It says that Canadians cannot generate sufficient capital within our borders. If that is true or partly true that Canadians cannot obtain Canadian capital to go into a Canadian-owned corporation, it is a betrayal of our sovereignty and our nationhood.
There is still a law in the Criminal Code against soliciting or living off the avails of prostitution. The Government is soliciting. I mean just that. It is soliciting, as it is worded in the Criminal Code, by prostitution our sovereignty and our nationhood. It is soliciting. It is working both sides of the street to get foreign investment. Then it wants to do a little pimping, which is also illegal under the Criminal Code. You cannot live off the avails of prostitution. The Government expects all Canadians to be party to that and live off the avails of that prostituting of our nationhood and our sovereignty.
In the area of research and development and technological developments by foreign-owned companies, the history of foreign-owned corporations in this country has been dismal and abysmal. Let me give an illustration. In the early 1960s, 1960, 1961 and 1962-the Ford Motor Company of Canada did some research and development in terms of putting out trucks that would do well in a tropical climate. It made a deal with Cuba. These trucks were to be produced by Canadian
April 24, 1985

workers in a Canadian automobile plant at Windsor, Ontario. The deal was consummated. Cuba was going to buy so many trucks. What happened? Our great friends and allies south of the 49th parallel said no to the Ford Motor Company in the United States. It in turn had to say to the Ford Motor company of Canada, its subsidiary and branch plant, that it could not sell those trucks to Cuba because this would violate the United States' Trading with the Enemy Act. That was a foreign corporation interfering with our sovereignty, the production of our workers. That has occurred on countless occasions.
If anyone here is under any delusion that somehow or other these foreign investors are going to invest in research and technological developments which could be sold from the branch plant in Canada in competition with the parent company in the United States or anywhere else in the world, they are dreaming in Technicolor. In no way will a parent company allow that. It never has, and I do not blame it for that. Why should it cut its own throat in its own local market?
This admission of failure appears throughout this legislation. FIR A was weak enough as it was. This legislation throws out the baby with the bath water. We welcome foreign investments in terms of loan capital or, if any of it is equity capital, it has to be minority ownership. Why do we keep underestimating ourselves and our capacity? Billions of dollars cross our borders every year which could be invested in Canada. Tens of millions of dollars will cross the border overnight. That is because some financial institutions, pension fund or speculators feel they can make an extra one-tenth of 1 per cent in interest on the U.S. dollar market or the gold market. They should be told to be good corporate citizens and invest here because there is so much to be invested here and so much to be done. This supine acquiescence, this blind, hypnotic following of a premise has been proven wrong all the way back to the 1880s. It has been proven wrong every time.
It did not take the United States long to reduce the foreign ownership holdings in that nation. They recovered them through, for example, British war debts from the First and Second World Wars. A lot of that lend-lease and assistance was paid for by giving up those investments to the United States. That was the price the British had to pay for their investments in a foreign economy. That is why it should be loan capital.
I think Motion No. 2 is deserving of support and inclusion in the Bill. From a quick reading I do not have any particular difficulty with Motion No. 1 of the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). It tries to strengthen something that should not be there in the first place, but that is all we can do in the Opposition. I hope that those who sit on the government side will remember our bitter experience with foreign investors who owned a major portion of our entire economy. It tied the hands of our national Government and provincial Governments and tied the hands of Canadian corporations in terms of decisions that we can make.
Investment Canada Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. I have given him an extra 30 seconds.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If you gave me permission until now, could I go on for a while longer?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I'm afraid not. 1 will recognize the next speaker.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, 1 also have a few words to say about Bill C-l 5.1 would point out that we on this side of the House are aware of the Government's intentions as indicated by the words of the Prime Minister: Canada is open for business.
First of all, we think that Canada never did stop doing business with foreign countries, it has always been open. That is why we would not want Bill C-l5 now before the House to be nothing more than a cosmetic job to create the impression that this Government is more friendly and more open towards foreign countries than the previous administration was.
My leader adequately summed up our concern about this Bill when he said: Fair enough, Canada is open to foreign investors, but it is not up for sale. Our concern is that we want to make sure that, regardless of the Government's intention to ease the rules and the foreign investment review process, the national interest is adequately protected and that foreign investments really benefit Canada's economy, promote research, create jobs, and bring about a climate conducive to the growth of Canadian society. This is why my colleague representing the riding of Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) deemed advisable to introduce an amendment aimed at clarifying our point of view, the purpose or objective of the Bill. We on this side of the House have little use for unnecessary investments-take-over investments, for instance, which do not create jobs.
The fact that a foreign corporation comes here to buy out a prosperous and profitable Canadian company might simply prove that, in the long run, that corporation will skim off all profits and leave us in a precarious situation where those profits will be taken right out of the country for the benefit of the parent corporation shareholders, without one single job having been created here. In our opinion, that should not be the ultimate purpose of legislation to promote foreign investment. Quite the contrary! We have absolutely nothing against a foreign company from any country whatsoever coming here to open a new plant, create jobs, and perhaps give us an opportunity to do research in its field of operations.
The proposed amendment to change the purpose of the Bill seems extremely important to me. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would briefly compare the wording of both purposes so as to make their extent quite clear. First, let us consider the original
4080

April 24, 1985
Investment Canada Act
purpose as indicated in Bill C-15. I skip the first two lines to get to the part which is of more interest to us. From the end of line 2, Clause 2:
-the purpose of this Act is to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians that contributes to economic growth and employment opportunities and-
The rest almost sounds like an afterthought:
-to provide for the review of significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians in order to ensure such benefits to Canada.
First, we see that the Clause refers to significant investments, and it seems to imply that the Government does not see any point in reviewing and scrutinizing all investments, as has been the practice so far.
However, the amendment standing in the name of my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry reads as follows:
(2) Recognizing that increased capital investment and innovative technology would benefit Canada, the purpose of this Act is to provide for the notification and review of proposed investments in Canada by non-Canadians in order to ensure-
And here is the important part:
-that they contribute to economic growth and employment opportunities, and to encourage beneficial investment in Canada by Canadians.
What is important in the amendment moved by my colleague, Mr. Speaker, is that emphasis is put on the notification. We believe that every investor who wants to bring capital into Canada should at least, regardless of the size of the proposed investment give notification of his intention to a government agency which will review the investment and determine whether, in its opinion, it can be of benefit to Canadians. In fact, the amendment moved by my colleague also emphasizes the review process.
The Bill introduced by the Government does not specify which projects will be subject to review. First, the Government suggested that the previous administration was too restrictive and that the review agency had kept foreign capital out of Canada. This is completely false. If we look at the record of FIR A, we find that 3 per cent at the most of all investment applications made by non-Canadians and involving foreign capital were turned down. This means that the great majority of these investments, or 97 per cent, were consistently being approved. No one can therefore suggest that the avowed purpose of the previous administration was to prevent foreign capital from entering Canada. What concerned the previous Government and what should still concern this Government was to guarantee first of all that foreign capital did not enter Canada needlessly to purchase sound businesses, while creating no additional jobs and simply allowing profits and dividends to leave our country and go somewhere else. That is what we should monitor.
In addition, we must ensure that capital invested in Canada will, on the one hand, contribute to our economic growth, and on the other, create jobs because, in view of the present situation in Canada, this should be the main concern of the
Government, as 1.5 million unemployed looking for work will tell you. We should therefore make sure, on the one hand, that foreign capital will create as many jobs as possible for Canadians and, on the other, that these will be attractive jobs and that the companies locating in our country will produce economic fallout by generating other small service industries. This is what we want. That is why my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has moved an amendment to specify the purpose of the Bill so that we could be certain that this legislation aims at maximizing job creation, at ensuring quality jobs and at providing economic fallout for the community where these jobs will be created.
In our opinion, it is just as important-I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are telling me that my time is running out, but I would not want to close without saying that our Party believes it to be extremely important for the Government to review foreign investment plans to ensure that they will create businesses which will also benefit Canada in the field of research and development.
We know quite well that the general tendency of foreign parent companies is to carry out research and development at their headquarters either in Europe, in the United States, in Japan or elsewhere. We want to make sure that those who invest in Canada do not solely do so to make profits, which is perfectly normal, but we do not want that to be their only purpose. We do not want them to come here to find qualified labour and pay them as low as possible, although that is a legitimate attitude in any businessman. We do not want them to come to Canada merely because our country is rich in low-priced raw material while we realize that a foreign company could rightfully take that into account. We do not want a foreign company to come to Canada merely because there is a market. We think that those four legitimate aims will surely motivate the foreign company which would like to operate in Canada, but we think that at the same time, the Government should make sure that in trying to attain those legitimate goals, the company will also at least give minimum attention to the national interests of Canadians. That is why I support the amendment introduced by my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Speech!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As much as I would love to speak on this wonderful Bill, I will restrain myself as I know opposition Members will want a full opportunity to compliment the Government for this initiative.
I have spoken with the Opposition House Leaders about the business for this week. If we are not able to squeeze report
April 24, 1985

stage of this Bill through before six o'clock today, we will carry on tomorrow with report stage of Bill C-15. I want to designate this Friday as an allotted day and 1 rise for that purpose.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 wanted to assure the Government House Leader, as he can tell from his advantageous position, that we are working extremely hard to try to get this Bill through, but it looks very much as if it will be a task which is beyond even the best efforts of the Opposition.



INVESTMENT CANADA ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development, and Motions No. 1 (Mr. Axworthy) and No. 2 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4001).
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, in fact it is not a pleasure to rise to speak on Bill C-15. As the House Leader for the Conservative Party indicated to the House, Bill C-15 is a complete disaster. Clearly, he recognizes that one of the most important amendments to the Bill is the one which will change the title to "Take-over Canada" or "The Sell-out of Canada". 1 am looking forward to debating that amendment well into next year, if the House continues to have a conscience and does not permit passage of the Bill.
I believe it is the opinion of most Members of the House that the Bill really does open the gates to foreign investors in Canada, which will lead the way to foreign control. It is an interesting statement by the Conservative Party that Canadians cannot do the job and are prepared to roll over and let someone else do the job which must be done. It is absolutely astounding that a group of people who profess to be Canadians and who profess to have confidence in the country and in the entrepreneurial skill of Canadian business, would permit the floodgates to be opened to foreign control of the Canadian economy.
The Government lacks the courage to take a leadership position, pull the country up by it bootstraps and assist people who want to invest in Canada. The Government lacks foresight. It cannot see the potential of Canada. I believe that will bode badly for the next four years.
With the moves which have already been made, including the "sell-out of Canada Bill", I would suspect that the Government is not looking at a second term. It certainly does not deserve a second term if this is the kind of imagination and leadership which it is capable of providing.
I believe the most sorry thing is the lack of confidence in the country. In fact, this country has the capital and the human resources. Given the opportunity, I believe that Canadian
Investment Canada Act
investment in the appropriate industrial and economic activities could create tremendous employment and put Canada back on the road to recovery.
As a passing note I might say that perhaps one should not examine the antecedents of the Bill. The present Leader of the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mul-roney), has shown us the limited nature of his thinking. One has to note that in his previous incarnation he was the President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am the President.


Raymond John Skelly: Well, the Government House Leader claims to be the President, but he was not the President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada. I know that he is a gentleman of integrity and would never have let that resource slip through the fingers of Canada at the whim of the American corporation which owned it. The gentleman was not just the President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, he sat on the board of directors of the American corporation which owned the outfit. That is an interesting conflict. Whom does he really represent? Does he represent the interests of Canada, or does he represent the interests of American owners in Canada? I am wondering if this Bill does not in some way reflect the disposition of the Prime Minister of Canada. At the time when he was President of the company, I think that many Canadians would have felt that he had a serious conflict of interest, that in fact he did not have the interests of Canada at heart when he presided over the demolition of the iron ore industry.
It also appears that the mine was not closed because there was no iron ore in the region-and some people have argued that it was not productive-but that not enough further developments were made in Canada. It was more expedient for the American owners to open up new mines and import iron ore from Brazil rather than to continue the process in Canada. It is also interesting that the company did not try to derive benefits from resource exploitation in Canada. Maybe it should not surprise us that the Government lacks imagination and the courage to pull Canada together and take control of the economy.
The NDP over the years has put forward many propositions which would lead to greater benefits to Canada in terms of taking control of its national economy, deriving more from the production of resources, the creating of secondary industries, and ensuring that tax benefits accrue in Canada.
Canadian banks have been a bad example. They tend to have a conservative leaning. Canadian banks have been one of the worst players in the role of foreign investment in Canada. There was a time, which will continue as long as the Conservatives are in Government, when Americans did not have to invest in Canada. The Americans were able to come to Canada, using their U.S. assets as collateral, and borrow Canadian money to buy Canadian businesses. They could control the Canadian economy without in fact investing in it. That is the history.
This Parliament has not fulfilled its responsibility to Canadian people because it has not implemented a Bank Act

April 24, 1985
Business of the House
which would benefit Canadians instead of the bankers and a very exclusive level of society. The banks have been allowed a free hand to play the Canadian economy and to assist in the selling out of the Canadian economy. Under the present Conservative Government, I believe that the pace of the sell-out will accelerate, especially under this legislation.
Another disgusting institution in Canada is an offshoot of the banking system which is called the Federal Business Development Bank. The Conservatives want to shut down that institution for all the wrong reasons. I suppose Conservatives want the Bank of Tokyo and other foreign banks in Canada that they supported in the last Parliament to begin the process of lending. But the FBDB could be reshaped to become a valuable organization in encouraging and enhancing entrepreneurial capability in Canada. However, it seems that the federal Government, for a philosophical reason, will put a torpedo into that organization instead of cleaning it up.
Finally, we should revamp the tax system to ensure that penalties are given to the companies which come into Canada strictly to control and exploit the economy rather than to make a contribution. There should be benefits for appropriate investment which will enhance the economy and create further jobs. Our tax system should favour Canadians, rather than those who would take over.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that just a few moments ago the Government House Leader designated Friday next as an Opposition Day. I have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with him and the Deputy House Leader for the Official Opposition. You will know, Sir, that Standing Order 62(4)(b) says:
If an opposition motion pursuant to section (9) of this Standing Order is to be proposed on a Friday, forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given that the recorded division on the motion, if demanded, is not to be deferred.
1 have no knowledge at this point as to whether or not a division might be demanded and I do not want to raise problems with regard to what may happen on Friday. But I wonder if, for the purposes of allowing that such a thing could occur, the House might give unanimous consent to consider that the requirements of Standing Order 62(4)(b) would be met if notice were given by 2 p.m. tomorrow, Thursday.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it is one of those situations where 1 think there is a misunderstanding between the Hon. Member and myself. 1 had not understood the Hon. Member to say that he wanted to leave the option open for a vote on Friday. I understood he wanted to leave the option open, if he could have a vote, which I understood would be deferred until Monday.


Ian Deans: No.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: So 1 think under the circumstances it might be convenient for us to have a further discussion about this matter. I have no objection to a vote being called and being taken on Monday, but I had not understood he wanted to leave the option open to have a vote on Friday at the end of the debate. Maybe we can sit down and have a discussion with respect to what agreement we can reach. I am prepared now to agree that if a vote is attached to the motion, we would have the debate on Friday and there could be a vote at the end of the day, pursuant to the rules. That is satisfactory. But 1 do not necessarily want at this point in time to agree to the possibility of a vote on Friday on short notice.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would of course be quite willing to sit down with the Government House Leader and discuss the matter. The problem arises out of the Standing Orders because of the fact that we do not have a lot of notice for this Opposition Day. I think the Government House Leader has in the past attempted to give notice in sufficient time to allow for adequate preparation. But by giving notice at 5.20, on what 1 think might have been a Wednesday afternoon, this effectively precludes the Opposition from being able to utilize Section 62(4)(b), which of course is a Standing Order but is supposed to be able to be utilized.
I just want you to understand that the dilemma is that although the Opposition Day has been designated in time, and 1 concede that, there is of course the necessity for negotiation, or discussion at least, between the two Opposition Parties before a decision can be arrived at as to which of the two Parties will utilize the Opposition Day. It would be my hope, for example, because it might appear to be our turn, that we would have it. Nevertheless, that is not always the case.
The only reason I am asking for the opportunity to utilize Standing Order 62(4)(b) is that unless I ask for that now, and agree, therefore, to Friday right now, we would have to file a motion right now, which does not give us adequate time to discuss it, prepare it or decide upon it. We are caught in a very serious dilemma because it would then be possible for the Government at any time to announce Opposition days for Fridays and not give adequate time and, in so doing, preclude the opportunity for the utilization of Standing Order 62(4)(b). I am not suggesting that happened, but it could happen.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The point is, Mr. Speaker, that what the Hon. Member is really asking for is the option to call a vote on a Friday, which is not the normal process. It is available to the Hon. Member and the Opposition Parties if they want to force a vote at the end of the day on Friday. I am saying that he can have a vote on any motion but we will have that vote deferred to Monday for the convenience of Members. I am not speaking only on behalf of my colleagues or myself, but on behalf of all Members. I think that is appropriate.
The second point I should make is that I gave the Hon. Member verbal notice, the usual courtesy, at the end of Question Period. He asked me to announce it on the floor of the House, which I was quite happy to do. Both Parties received notice from me shortly after Question Period. If all
April 24, 1985

we are doing is saying that there could be a vote attached to this and we will have a vote deferred to Monday, we can deal with that right now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will tell you what we should do, if I may. I think you should pursue it behind the curtains, or do you want to make a final statement now?


Ian Deans: If I may, Mr. Speaker, it is important to clear up what may be left as a misconception. It is true that the Government House Leader indicated to me earlier in the day that he would call an Opposition Day on Friday. But it was only a very short while ago that he indicated to me that he had had discussions with the House Leader of the Official Opposition and that that indeed was going to happen.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I talked to both Parties.


Ian Deans: I am saying it was only a short while ago that I was informed, after discussions, that indeed it would happen. That is when I asked that it be announced today. It is not as though I knew hours ago that it was actually going to happen. I only knew a few minutes before the House Leader rose that in fact it was going to be called.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I told the Hon. Member that earlier in the day, and I am not going to be fooling around on the floor of the House debating this matter now. 1 have tried to be as courteous as I can.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, all I would like to say is that even if we were informed of the intentions of the Government, it has to be realized that the formal announcement that it was going to happen was made just a few minutes ago. The Government House Leader has to realize that, first of all, we have to determine between the two Parties who is going to have the Opposition Day. Then, if a motion has to be written, if it has to be a votable motion, we have to sit down and write it. Now, I understand that the Government House Leader thinks of us as speedy, intelligent and efficient people, but to do all of this in 20 minutes I submit is forcing it on us. I thought that the one thing the Government House Leader would agree to is that the requirement that the motion be submitted by six o'clock be at least put off until tomorrow so that we have time to write something down if we have to. I think that is the minimum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. We still have a few minutes for debate, and if there are any further negotiations I would appreciate it if the House Leaders for the respective Parties would please negotiate behind the curtains.
Investment Canada Act



INVESTMENT CANADA ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and Motions Nos. 1 (Mr. Axworthy) and 2 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4001).
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part once again in the debate on Bill C-15. Since the beginning of this exercise, 1 think it must be the fourth time I have had an opportunity to speak to this Bill and especially to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif), to possible amendments and especially to the dangerous aspects of the Bill she is steering through the House of Commons and which she steered through committee.
Mr. Speaker, there have already been a number of speakers on the amendment, and I am referring to Motion No. 1 by my hon. friend from Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and frankly this baffles me, because when I read the motion I did not think a debate would be necessary. I fail to see how a Member of this House could be opposed to the letter and intent of this motion. I can see some of our hon. friends opposite, and I would like hear them say why they are opposed to the fact that the Bill respecting investment in Canada is aimed at recognizing that increased capital investment and innovative technology would benefit Canada, the purpose of this Act being to provide for the notification and review of proposed investments in Canada by non-Canadians in order to ensure that they contribute to economic growth and employment opportunities, and to encourage beneficial investment in Canada by Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, it is like virtue and motherhood. I fail to see how the Parliamentary Secretary can object to having the amendment included in the Bill. I honestly thought her party was pursuing exactly the same goal. Does she really mean that her party is not interested in reviewing proposed investments in Canada by non-Canadians? Does she mean to say she does not think ensuring that such investments contribute to economic growth is a worthy objective? Mr. Speaker, I think it should be the core of this legislation. Who can object to the fact that investments contribute to employment opportunities? Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are not against creating jobs, and that like me, you fail to understand why our friends opposite are not rising to tell us: We agree. We are all for creating jobs. And who could object to encouraging beneficial investment in Canada? I am sure there is not a single Member in this House

April 24, 1985
Investment Canada Act
who would dare to rise and say that he is against the objectives we want to add to Bill C-15.
Mr. Speaker, we are taking up this debate again to try and convince our friends opposite that they have done enough for the Americans. They have gone down on their knees and given the Americans everything they wanted, but they have not been very good negotiators. Sure, when President Reagan came they had a nice party. They even had the pleasure of hearing their leader sing. This reminds me, and those who read the biographical notes written by lan MacDonald, that very objective journalist, will remember the story about young Brian who sang for Colonel McCormick. I am sure the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) will be very interested to hear this story, because there is a connection with the deuce of spades. The Hon. Member for Champlain should know that when his leader was a boy, and the big boss from the States came up to the North Shore, after a couple of scotches Colonel McCormick would say to little Brian: Get up on the table and sing me an Irish song . . . And Mr. MacDonald reports that if Brian did a good job, Colonel McCormick automatically gave him a couple of bucks, probably in American dollars. Mr. Speaker, 40 years later, history repeats itself, the only difference being that this time, not Colonel McCormick but you and I are paying the piper! Canadians paid for the song that was sung for the President of the United States.
The Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard), who 1 am sure is listening, will now realize, after sipping all this Irish coffee with his organizers in Quebec City, after having applauded, that all that was a sham. He will now realize that with his tax dollars and those of his constituents, all they did was enjoy a good party among Conservatives, and have loads of fun. But except for that Canada has been lured, evidence of which they get every day, every week. I challenge any Progressive Conservative Member in this House to rise and tell me what they got from the American Government. We have until six o'clock, there are still 15 minutes left, if they have examples of anything their leader got from the Americans . . .
We know what he gave up, starting with Canada's pride and independence. We know what he gave up, and this legislation is proof enough. We know he has even further endangered our environment for another year, and I hope that Members representing rural constituencies do realize what that means for their communities. Those who have maple bushes simply have to look around their constituency. The Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) knows what is happening in those areas. But to the Prime Minister this is no cause for concern. Does he want to wait until the economy of those rural areas is completely down before responding to the acid rain problem? No sir, he decided to hire Bill Davis for a dollar a year. As my leader suggested recently in one of his speeches, certainly one dollar a year is still too much. Because if you look at what has happened since that appointment, all they had was a courtesy meeting. There probably is an emergency but all they managed
to do was to meet in some "Maple Leaf' room in some airport to shake hands. Nothing has been accomplished, no progress has been made.
With respect to trade, which is of concern to all of us, Mr. Speaker, there also has been that kind of study group. The announcement was made in Quebec City with much fanfare, although the Governor General was absent. But we know this was intended, and as my colleague has just said, politeness is not necessarily one of our new Prime Minister's virtues any more than humility. They reached an agreement on trade, and with a lot of publicity, they appointed the Minister for International Trade and Mr. Brock. This was official, they were their personal attaches. What happened then? Even before they had time to ingest their Irish coffee, the President was back in the United States telling Brock: "That was just for the Quebec show, you have another job." So we wake up with the Minister of International Trade negotiating all by himself. There was nobody facing him, and this was supposedly the committee of two who had the absolute confidence of the two-as you would have me say-heads of state. This again was a sham. So we are stuck with that legislation which really is a flagrant example of subservience. More subservient than that is not possible! Just think of it! We allow American multinationals to come here, to take control of Canadian companies, to even shut them down if they happen to be too competitive, while we simply look on. It has come to a point where we say to the Americans, among others: "Do not worry, this country is for sale". This is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing. Despite the reference to those big investments that would allegedly create tens of thousands of jobs, we have all witnessed yesterday, those of us who are from Quebec, who pay taxes to Quebec, we have seen the budget tabled by the Quebec Finance Minister. He does not believe in your gamble, for he said the unemployment rate in Quebec would increase next year. This should be a cause of serious concern for these people who believe that this bill will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, who had made job creation a major part of their party platform during the last election campaign, and whose only contribution so far has been their decision to contribute to the arm race. 1 am quite worried about this.
I hope, therefore, that during this debate our hon. friends opposite will ponder the consequences of the summit, will realize that it was a jolly good show, that it was a major success for the organizers, that everybody had his fun at the expense of the taxpayers, but now that the euphoria of their victory has somewhat subsided, I hope they will realize that governing a country such as Canada is more difficult than bowing left and right once in a while. Mr. Speaker, you signal that my time has elapsed. There is still so much I have to say, but I will certainly have the opportunity to continue and share with you my feelings, as there are 14 other amendments to consider.
April 24, 1985


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words about this clause of the Bill because we believe that it is important that investment by the Canadian Government in the form of tax concessions to foreign and Canadian companies be made under terms and conditions that will benefit Canadians as a whole. Frequently, Canadian and non-Canadian companies have been able to get substantial grants to help the company and benefit the shareholder but which have been detrimental to the interest of Canadians.
I include in those companies some very important and progressive research and development-oriented Canadian companies in Canada. For example, one such company has one of the best records for investing in the research and development of new products and is at the forefront of the technological revolution. That company is Northern Telecom. It is a star among Canadian corporations, and deservedly so. Its sales in 1984 probably topped $4 billion. In 1983, its net profits were more than $1 million a day. The profits were up 92 per cent over the previous year. Stock, which had been worth $13 a share in 1982, is now selling at approximately $50.
Northern Telecom has invested very heavily in the research and development of digital technology. That investment has paid off handsomely for the company and its shareholders, as it should. Between 1976 and 1980, the number of the Northern Telecom workforce declined in Canada although its sales doubled. That is the sort of problem which I think we must face.
In the United States, however, the company's workforce increased from approximately 2,900 in 1976 to almost 19,000 at the present time. Therefore, if we are going to help companies in research and development through government grants or tax concessions, surely we should expect that the benefit will not go just to the company's shareholders but will go to Canadians as well.
More important to Canada is that not only has the number of Northern Telecom's workforce increased in the United States, the problem is that there are now 600 Northern Telecom employees in the United States who are scientists, engineers and other highly skilled people.
A Northern Telecom affiliate, Bell Northern Research, is jointly owned by Bell Canada and Northern Telecom. It now does product research and development in plants in Atlanta, Georgia; Mountain View, California; Durham County Park, North Carolina; Richardson, Texas and Ann Arbor, Michigan. This is an industry in which the company's research and
Investment Canada Act
development gives a very clear indication of the future direction in which that corporation is moving.
The question we must ask ourselves, therefore, is whether the company's future development and expansion is to be in the United States rather than Canada. If so, we must ask ourselves whether we are justified in giving the kinds of grants and tax concessions it has been given.
The company now has 14 plants in the United States. George Takoch, the author of an article which appeared in Saturday Night, asked "Are we witnessing the deCanadiani-zation of Northern Telecom?" That is a crucial question because Northern Telecom is one of Canada's best companies. Bell Canada and Northern Telecom jointly own Bell Northern Research. They employ 2,500 scientists, engineers and other highly trained people in five laboratories in Canada.
Last year, the company announced a $20 million expansion in Ottawa, which will create 200 new jobs in research and development. While that sounds great, in 1983 Northern Telecom spent $900 million in research and development and capital investment. Approximately one-third of the research and development investment and about one-half of the capital investment was made outside of Canada.
The development of the company's electronic offices systems products has been allocated to the company's subsidiary in the United States. Northern Telecom's DMS-100 switch, one of its most important products, which was once produced only in Canada is now produced in Canada and in the United States. Recently, when the demand for that product increased, 1,000 new workers were hired in the United States but none in Canada. A similar situation occurred with the company's SL-1 digital business and communications system. In 1983, when demand increased, the Santa Clara plant in the United States was expanded. The Belleville, Ontario, plant was not.
I put this information on the record because Northern Telecom's growth is due to a large extent to substantial help which it has received from the Canadian Government. In 1968, Northern Telecom received a $6 million grant to bring its SP-1 telephone switching system on stream. Between 1976 and 1983, the Canadian Government supported that company in the form of tax relief to the tune of $26 million.
1 believe that if we are to help companies like Northern Telecom, which is one of the best, we have a right to expect that the benefits will not only go to the stockholders but will go to all Canadians. That is the reason for our amendment.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 25, 1985