1985-01-24

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and on the amendment of Mr. Gray (Windsor West) (p. 1302).
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, when I left off my participation in this debate two days ago, I had suggested that what we should be doing instead of opening our doors through Investment Canada is finding a new mechanism to ensure that investment money, whether Canadian based or from countries beyond our borders, can be used to the benefit of Canada and its people. In my remaining five minutes, I want to indicate how I see those funds being attracted to the investment needs of Canada.
One of the things we should be looking at is a greater intensity in trying to match the need. When I talk about the need, I mean people who have ideas, entrepreneurs who need capital to develop their ideas into fruitful enterprises which will create real jobs and therefore wealth. On the other hand, we have people in Canada who do have money and who want to invest in new enterprises to create additional wealth for themselves while at the same time setting up a new business that in itself will create wealth for the participants. We would be better off if Investment Canada were to become the vehicle to match investors with needs. Perhaps from time to time there will be no investors in Canada prepared to take the risk to develop new enterprises. Perhaps at times there will be ideas generated in other countries. Perhaps the originators of those ideas may want to bring them to Canada to assist us. We are not opposed to that. We want to make sure that whatever mechanism we establish will be for the benefit of Canadians.
We should also ensure that our mechanisms prevent the outright takeover of Canadian-based, Canadian-owned companies by foreign interests. That is not in the best interests of this country or its people. For example, if you have a functioning plant whose owner wants to retire and dispose of his assets, I
think the Government of Canada has a responsibility to ensure every step is taken and every avenue explored to find a Canadian buyer. When it comes to looking for employees, the Government does not hesitate to say to an individual who wants to bring someone from abroad to work in his or her facility, whether a small or a large business, "Have you done a job search in Canada? Have you gone through Canada Manpower? And have you searched across the nation to find an out-of-work Canadian to fill this position?" Very clearly this was a policy of the old government and it is a policy of this Government. Why do we not use the same philosophy when it comes to investment? It is capital that is not working. It is unemployed capital that we are trying to put to use. As a Government and as a Parliament, we should be saying to people who have need for investment: "Have you fully searched throughout Canada? Here are some things we can do to help match you with an individual who has some out-ofwork capital".
We would be much better off, Mr. Speaker, if we took that approach rather than saying that the doors are open, buy us out. I do not want to be bought out. I want Canadians to have full partnership in this country. I think the Government has a responsibility to ensure that people have every opportunity and it should assist and boost them along.
I am quite pleased to see the motion before us to delay this Bill so that the Government can have the six months it needs to rethink its rhetoric and to put in place something that is practical for our country.
[DOT] (mo)


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate today, and I would like to ask the Government to consider our proposal to postpone adoption of this legislation for six months as an opportunity to reconsider and rethink this Bill.
It is clear that basically, the Government tabled this legislation on investment in Canada for the purpose of facilitating the entry into this country of investments that will create jobs. However, I feel that the Progressive Conservative Government made a very serious mistake in attempting to rewrite the history of the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
Naturally, a new Government will think it can do better than its predecessor and want to start from scratch and rewrite history. Nevertheless, the Minister should consider how the Foreign Investment Review Act has benefitted Canada. Granted, a number of administrative adjustments to the legislation

January 24, 1985
Investment Canada Act
were made in the course of its history. From time to time, the Agency was criticized for taking too long to respond to applications by prospective buyers of Canadian companies or prospective investors. However, it was a matter of administrative measures that could easily be dealt with, but to repeal the existing legislation which protects our Canadian economic interests, which is what the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion wants to do, is, I think, a very serious mistake. The Government's Bill will neither boost the economy nor create the expected jobs. And why will the Bill fail to live up to the Government's expectations? Because it gives foreign investors carte blanche. In fact, it allows them to come and buy whatever they want in Canada, with no consideration for the country's economic interests.
Over the years we have had regional development policies enabling the Government, whenever appropriate, to attract investment to a region with less industrial development and higher unemployment than other regions. Mr. Speaker, I maintain that this regional development policy has been beneficial to our country. I also believe that letting foreign investors invest only where they want to put their money and, as often happens, purchase a Canadian company with which they compete on the international market, will, in the long term, have a disastrous effect on the Canadian economy, despite the short-term financial gain. We already have a very high concentration of Canadian companies. Competition in Canada is already limited as it is. It is a fact that in many sectors of the economy, the market is dominated by only one or two companies, and this lack of free competition is not always to the advantage of the consumer. In fact, if the Canadian economy were more competitive, we would all be better off.
The policy this Government is proposing will be a blow to the free market system in Canada. I predict that foreign investors are going to buy Canadian companies to reduce competition on the Canadian market and that both in the short and long run, this will not be in the best interests of Canadians or of Canada's economy.
I think it is incredible that the new Government is getting involved in decontrol of investment in our country. This does not happen in any other industrialized country, and especially not in those countries that compete with us on the international market.
Mr. Speaker, just try and buy a Japanese company or a French company, just try to invest in countries that are our main competitors, in Japan and in the Common Market countries, and let me know whether they let you invest freely, without any constraints, and without making any commitment to promote the economic interests of the country concerned. It just does not happen! It doesn't happen in France, it doesn't happen in Germany, and it doesn't happen in Japan. And why should we let it happen in Canada? Because the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion wants to do some Americans a
favor. Some of those big American corporations felt frustrated in the past because they could not take over certain Canadian companies and that was because at the time, we judged that the take-overs would not be in the best interests of this country.
I think it is very sad that one of the first actions of this new Government should be to bow to certain American economic interests. To do a few Americans a favour, we are risking our economic stability and our ability to compete freely on the Canadian market. I also predict that this kind of legislation will not create those hoped-for jobs.
I am particularly concerned about this offer the Minister made together with the introduction of his bill to sell a number of major Crown corporations which have played, are playing and should continue, in my view, to play an important economic role in this country. I am referring to such corporations as Canadair, from Montreal, and de Havilland, from Toronto, which are operating in a high technological industry with great job creating potential in Canada, and which the government might be tempted to sell off at bargain prices to foreign interests which will not protect the permanent job security given to many workers with these two aeronautics industries in the Montreal and Toronto areas.
For these reasons, we will fight against this bill as long as the government will not commit itself to imposing specific conditions on those who want to invest in Canada, in order to create jobs and protect existing ones in our country, so that the firms which might be sold to foreign interests may continue to operate and play a significant economic role in Canada. I suggest that the House should not adopt this bill, for it is much too dangerous.
[ English]


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to say a few words on Bill C-15 and argue in the House that we should be delaying this Bill for several months until the Government has a chance to reassess it once again.
There is a myth in this country that foreign ownership of our industries has made Canada a very prosperous country. I would like to make the argument that that is not the case. So much foreign ownership of our key resources has made us a poorer country and over the years has lost us many thousands of jobs.

In this country, Mr. Speaker, 26 per cent of our industries are controlled by foreigners, compared with 3 per cent in France and the United States, and only 1 per cent in Japan. [English]
The contrast is really quite stark in terms of our country and their countries with regard to foreign ownership of our economy. If you look at it sector by sector, in 1980, 1981 and 1982 some 48 per cent of our manufacturing in Canada was foreign
January 24, 1985

owned. Some 76 per cent of our rubber industry was foreign owned. In 1982, 19 of the 50 largest firms in this country were foreign controlled.
I think there are a number of consequences of foreign ownership for our economy that make this country much poorer than it could be when compared to other industrialized nations around the world. One of the consequences of foreign ownership is that our industrialized base becomes very fragmented because our economy tends to be a mini-version of the economy of the United States. It tends to mirror that of the United States. The United States has a much larger market than Canada. Its market is 10 times the size of Canada's. For example, if the United States has 10 firms in a particular industry, such as refrigeration, we in this country, because we are a mini-version of the United States, tend to have the same 10 firms in that same industry. We simply do not have the market to support that kind of industrial breakdown. Therefore, we have more unemployment and less efficiency than in the United States because of the varied sizes of our markets.
Even many efficient firms in Canada tend to close down because of decisions that are made in foreign boardrooms, particularly in the United States of America. I recall very vividly that a couple of years ago the Bowater plant in Newfoundland laid off some 700 employees despite the fact that it was making profits and paying dividends to its shareholders. In fact, it laid off 700 employees at a time when it paid some $40 million worth of dividends to foreign shareholders in the previous two years from 1980 to 1982. An efficient firm will also close down in this country because it is part of a multinational corporation if it is not in the interests of the corporation as a whole to keep that firm in operation in this country. This can happen because of plans made elsewhere in the world or in the United States of America. We have seen this happen time and time again.
When looking at industrial development in Canada, one sees that often the most efficient, stable or successful industries are those that are Canadian owned and not excessively fragmented. Examples of this can be seen in the steel industry, the breweries and the telecommunications industry, to name but a few.
Another consequence of foreign ownership in Canada that makes us poorer is that we tend to lose out on an awful lot of research and development. Members of the Conservative Party, when they were in opposition and during the election campaign, said: "Elect us and we will increase that percentage of money that goes into research and development". Yet we heard the mini-budget statement in November in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) cut back again on many research programs and particularly on funding for the National Research Council of Canada. Once again we are seeing a breach of a very important election promise and a breach of faith and understanding of the Canadian people about future industrialized development.
Investment Canada Act
As I said, in 1981 we spent 1.2 per cent of our GNP on research and development. The United States spent 2.5 per cent of its GNP on research and development and Japan spent 2 per cent of its GNP on research and development. France spent 1.8 per cent of its GNP on research and development. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we are behind almost every industrialized country in the world in terms of money that is spent on research and development. Our percentage of GNP spent on research and development is lower than many other countries such as Belgium, Norway and Yugoslavia. It is my understanding that we are on a par with countries such as Ireland and Egypt when it comes to money being spent on research and development.
Looking at the new and innovative fields of high technology, Canada is now importing around twice as much high technology as it exports. That of course means a loss of jobs for Canadians and particularly for young people. In 1980 our high-technology trade deficit was some $8 billion. In computer technology alone the estimates are that by the year 1990, only five years away, our trade deficit could hit some $10 billion. I do not see any reason in the world why we should have a trade deficit of some $10 billion in computer technology when we are moving into an era in which every child will have a computer on every desk in every classroom in our country. There is no reason at all why we cannot be producing those computers here at home, whether in Quebec, Ontario, the West or the Atlantic Provinces. There is no reason why we cannot be supplying our schools and hospitals with our own computers. There is no reason why we should not be supplying not only the government sector with our own computers but the private sector as well. If we had some imagination, that is the way it would go. One of the consequences of foreign ownership is that we do not do the research and development and forward planning we need because it is done for us in Dallas, Texas, New York, or any place which seats the headquarters of the firm.
Another consequence of foreign ownership is that there are often exports in Canada which are restricted because the parent companies make decisions about export policies in their branch plants around the world. If we look at the Gray report which came out ten or 12 years ago, it indicates that about 58 per cent of Canada's manufacturing subsidiaries operated under some kind of export restriction. It was over 50 per cent then, and the situation is almost as bad today.
In 1981 Statistics Canada provided a report which was quite controversial in Canada. The report indicated that foreign-owned firms imported about four times as much as domestic firms in the same field. That meant the loss of thousands of jobs for Canadians. Therefore, a foreign firm, because it is a subsidiary of a company which is based elsewhere, will tend to import four times as much as a Canadian firm. In addition, foreign ownership has made us a supplier of raw materials and an importer of manufactured goods. The deficit in manufacturing in 1981 alone was some $21 billion. That resulted in the

Investment Canada Act
loss of thousands and thousands of jobs in Canada each and every year.
We must also consider the outflow of capital in terms of dividends, interest payments and direct capital which amounts to billions of dollars. Between 1976 and 1981 it amounted to an outflow of some $38 billion of Canadian capital by foreign shareholders in terms of dividends, interest rates and direct profits to countries other than Canada.
These are but a few of the arguments which lead me to support the motion which is before the House and to call upon the Government to rethink the whole foreign investment strategy. The agency which is being replaced is FIRA. FIRA had most of its teeth pulled by the former Liberal Government. The former Government and this Government have been backing away, and I believe for the wrong kinds of reasons. I would argue before the House that the Government should accept the amendment, do some rethinking, and come up with a stronger Bill which will help Canadians take control of their own destiny and economy and build a society which is controlled by Canadians. If we do that we can start in the 1990s and the latter part of the 1980s to repatriate the Canadian economy, just as we did with the Constitution in 1982. If we do that, we are making some meaningful progress in terms of making Canada a country in which Canadians control their own destiny, a country which will have jobs for every Canadian, regardless of where they may live. However, we will not achieve that by trying to woo large multi-national corporations which will come into the country, set up subsidiaries, do little research and development, import components and parts from abroad, export little and create few jobs for Canadians. Foreign companies often set up in communities such as mining towns which become single-industry communities. When it is no longer possible to be in that community, they leave, destroying a town such as Schefferville in Quebec. It destroys the future for the people who live in those communities.
In closing, I would like to say that I come from the Province of Saskatchewan, which probably has more locally-owned and locally-controlled industries and businesses than any other province in Canada. That is a result of the tremendous power of the co-operative movement. The wheat pools which are owned by the farmers now sell 70 per cent of our wheat. Saskatchewan has a powerful credit union movement. There are credit unions in every town and village across the province. Saskatchewan has co-op stores, retail stores and all the businesses in which they are involved, such as the refining of petroleum. Saskatchewan also has a very powerful public sector, such as the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, the gas and oil companies and the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. I believe that all of these developments have contributed to the fact that our province has one of the two lowest unemployment rates in Canada. If we had followed that kind of a lead, this country would be better for each and every one of us.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of history that one joins in the debate on Bill C-15. Indeed, Sir, this is part of an ancient debate which goes back to the time of Confederation and, in all probability, before that. When we talk about the movement of goods and capital between Canada and other countries, mainly the United States of America, there has always been a certain amount of discomfort on the part of Canadians because our neighbours to the south are so large in comparison to ourselves. We have never really known how to deal with this problem. When times have been good in Canada, we sometimes felt that we did not need the money coming across the border and legislation was passed, such as FIRA, which tried to keep it out. On the other hand, when times are not quite as good and we need more jobs in Canada, the tendency, as it is today, is to open up the doors, get rid of things like FIRA and invite some of that money into the country. I suspect, Sir, that this debate will continue to wax and wane over the next centuries as it has over the last.
What we see with Bill C-15 in comparison with the old FIRA is a difference in outlook towards life on the part of the Liberals and the socialists, on the one side, and the Conservatives on the other. If we examine what has been said during this debate by the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, we see that their view of life is very introspective. They tend to look inwards all the time. When there is any new development of any kind, their natural reaction is to be frightened. They tend to be reactionary. In their policies, they always tend to stress protection. They want to protect themselves from anything which might be happening. It seems, Sir, that the Liberals and the socialists are like so many snails. Whenever anything happens which comes close to them, they retreat back into their shells.
If we contrast this with the general views and principles espoused by the governing Party-which, I might add, represents the majority of Canadians who saw fit to elect this new Government with these new ideas with one of the largest majorities in Canadian history-we see that its views tend to be outward looking. We see opportunities and not threats when there are new developments in the world at large. We on this side of the House feel that Canadians can compete with anyone from any other country in the world. We have confidence in Canadians and in Canada.
In keeping with our views on the minimization of state interference and control in the lives of private citizens, what they can do with their own property, to whom they can sell, and so on, the legislation before us today was brought about. In Canada in the past we have tended to build walls around ourselves which have been so thick and so high that we ended up not being able to see over the top. We want to dismantle some of these walls and Bill C-15 is one of the ways in which we want to do that.
There is a new world out there. It is a new and exciting world and it is full of opportunities and challenge for Canadians. We feel that Canadians are up to that challenge and can
January 24, 1985

take advantage of it. My plea, Sir, isthat Canada gets plugged into the new world.
It is a simple fact, Mr. Speaker, that if we want a high standard of living in Canada-and that translates for most people into high wages-then we need capital investment in this country. If we want to be able to pay higher wages, it means that we have to have more machinery available to us so we can be more productive and that with the time which is put in by way of labour, we can extract more out and, as a consequence, can enjoy that higher standard of living. That means that capital investments are of the utmost importance to Canada and Canadians.
Under the previous administration in this country, although there was capital coming into Canada helping us develop our industries here, by the time that administration's stint was over and it had been thrown out by Canadians, that capital flow had reversed. Not only had that administration installed barriers to foreign capital coming into Canada, but it had also made it very difficult for Canadians to invest in their own country and Canadians were taking their capital abroad to the United States and other countries. Therefore, there was a net capital outflow from Canada, and that is one of the reasons we are saddled with so much unemployment today. It is a direct result of government policies in the past which have created this negative flow.
What we intend to do now and in the next few short years is to reverse that process so that we have a positive flow, so that Canadians will invest in their own country, because opportunities for profit making are here. We also must have money from abroad coming into Canada because we do not have enough in this country to provide all the jobs which we would like to see created in order to get the unemployment rate down. As a consequence of the reversal in capital flow, there will definitely be more employment. The horrendous figures for unemployment will get better and better as the years go by under the new Government and as this reversal is made possible. There will be increased business opportunities for Canadians whatever their line of business.
The principles contained in this Bill were expounded at length during the recent election campaign. They were a fundamental plank in the platform of the Progressive Conservative Party going into the election. These ideas received the overwhelming support of Canadians and, therefore, in my opinion it would be wise for the Opposition not to try to drag out debate for ever and ever by bringing in things like the six-month hoist which we are debating today, but rather accept the wishes of Canadians and help us constructively to make a better Bill. The Opposition should not object to the principle of the Bill and what Canadians want but should try to refine it and make it better. That, Sir, is my suggestion to opposition Members and I hope they will take heed of it.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Government to reconsider the Bill it calls Investment Canada. I think it should be called the foreign investment act because it does absolutely nothing for invest-
Investment Canada Act
ment in this country. The only beneficiaries of this Bill will be foreign investors.
If the Government would only take the time to look at this Bill, it would see the fallacies which are contained within it. How can we expect a foreign company which owns a branch plant in Canada to maintain the research and development which is maintained by a Canadian-owned company? It is just not going to happen. The parent company in a country other than Canada, primarily the United States, is not going to let it happen. The politics of that country are not going to let it happen. How can branch plants export products the way Canadian-owned companies can? It just is not possible. It is not allowed by the parent company. Only a Canadian-owned company which has developed the product with state of the art technology can export it. A Canadian branch plant is just that, a store-front to sell an existing product in Canada. It is nothing more and will be nothing more. How can the Government say it is going to create more jobs with this Investment Canada Act? A branch plant is forced by its very nature to import more parts and equipment and technology than a Canadian-owned company would. Both statistics and common-sense tell us that, Mr. Speaker.
When there is a downturn in the economy, where will the jobs be lost? They will be lost faster and in greater numbers among foreign-owned companies because they will protect the operation in the country of origin. They are not going to be concerned about branch plants in Canada or unemployed Canadians. Canadians will be employed if the work is there but when a downturn comes, when difficult times arrive, it will be primarily Canadians who suffer and they will suffer first.
That is not to say this Party is against foreign investment; not at all. Foreign investment is extremely important. It has played a great role in the economy of this country. We invest in foreign countries as well so it would be extremely shortsighted to say we should not allow foreign investment in this country. However, that is not the question. The question is, if we completely destroy the existing framework which allows us to monitor and regulate foreign investment in this country, which gives us a window on our economy and our industries, we will be courting disaster. We will suffer economic reversals the like of which we have never suffered before.
You can say that FIRA has not worked. Certainly the Government says FIRA is too restrictive. My friend from Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) says that FIRA was not strict enough. Obviously the former Liberal Government was doing something right. So why not take this Act, as my colleague from Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) has said, and adjust it and see where the problems are? Certainly there were problems with FIRA. Application review took far too long and that is just one problem; but here we are dismantling a positive Act and agency which served this country and its economy very well.
The Government has said this Bill will be a boon for the economy. The Americans in turn have said they are not

January 24, 1985
Investment Canada Act
waiting at the Canadian border with bags of money. Do not expect a change in FIRA to bring American investors pouring into the country. The Americans are saying that they are not going to pour into this country and invest in great numbers, yet this is what the Government is basing its whole argument upon. It is willing to destroy completely the economic fabric of this country in order to take a flying chance that there will be additional investment in Canada. We need jobs now and if we cannot get them, for heaven's sake, let us be prepared to do everything we can to retain the jobs we have.
The Government has encouraged foreign investment in Canada. It wants that investment. The question is, what will happen with this framework? Any direct takeover worth less than $5 million will not be reveiwed under this Act. I say to the Government that nothing is going to be reviewed under this Act. You cannot tell me that, given the dialogue the Government has started in order to encourage this friendly attitude towards the U.S., it will now suddenly review the activities and investments of Americans in Canada. No, it is not going to do that. It was a fallacy to imagine that was going to happen.
This is particularly evident in the energy sector where the most damage is going to occur. Stock prices in the energy industry are depressed. There are multinationals who perhaps have the marketing capacity right now but they do not have the resource capacity and Canadian energy companies are ripe for takeover by foreign firms. The Government is going to turn a blind eye into this danger, yet the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has said that enhanced Canadian participation is one of the objectives of her Government. There is obviously a very large discrepancy in the policies advocated by two different Ministers of this Government.
A lot of the complaints about FIRA have naturally come from those people who are going to do business with the companies investing in Canada, such as lawyers and accountants. That is natural. But it is not the responsibility of those people to look after the economy of this country. The Government has to do that and the Government is sadly neglecting or completely abandoning its role. What will happen to small business? The Americans are not going to invest in new businesses, they are primarily going to take over existing Canadian businesses and this is where we will lose the jobs. What about the Government's promise to free up capital for small businesses and Canadian businesses in general? Instead, it is leaping into the path of least resistance and doing something which does not require and has not been given any thought. Canadians have paid for the Canadianization of the energy sector but the Government is turning the clock back to the beginning and giving over the energy sector and other sectors of the economy to foreign investment. It will be all completely done away with in a few short years.
The Government has fostered the belief that foreign investment will mean investment will occur all over the country. The have-not areas will have their big moment and foreign companies are just going to come pouring into their regions. Well, that is not true; it is not going to happen. Statistics indicate
that if you lift the restraints on foreign investment, the foreign investors will all end up in the same area. They are like fast food outlets; they want to be on top of one another. How is this going to help one of the crying needs of this country, the need for regional development? Not only will it not help, it will exacerbate the problem and make it worse.
I think this is a travesty. The Government is not managing the economy, it is throwing it open helter-skelter and allowing foreign firms to come in and do whatever they want without regard to the Canadian economy itself. There is no consideration given to regional development or to where the economy is going and how jobs will be created. The Government is not prepared to give any thought to this. It only wishes to make friends on the other side of the border and it is doing so at the expense of the average Canadian. It is a travesty and I ask the Government to reconsider its position in this regard. It will be a very bad mistake if the Bill goes through in its present form.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-15 which proposes an agency called Investment Canada. Its purpose is to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians.
The goals of this legislation have been set out as follows: one, to increase the entrepreneurial spirit in Canada; two, to increase research and development and the diffusion of new technologies; third, to expand Canada's economic and industrial base; four, to stimulate trade; and finally, to create jobs.
These goals I am sure are unexceptionable to all Members. Indeed, few Bills are introduced in the House to achieve more desirable goals than these. However, in measuring the value of this legislation surely we must examine whether the vehicle that it proposes is commensurate with the goals being sought, whether it reflects ideology or reality. I believe it reflects ideology, for the facts do not support the assumption that unencumbered foreign investment will achieve the economic benefits described.
Obviously, the biggest foreign investors are the Americans. To oppose this legislation is likely to evoke the usual allegations of anti-Americanism. Let me put that to rest. I am from Windsor and no Canadians are more familiar with Americans and less anti-American than we. Our jobs are unusually dependent upon the automobile industry, which is American owned and a classic example, through the auto pact, of what can be achieved through American or foreign investment when appropriate protections are implemented.
We are overwhelmed by the American print and broadcast media. We are Pistons fans, Lions fans, Tigers fans and Red Wings fans. Much of our entertainment and culture are pursued in Detroit. My wife and children are Americans. I obtained my doctorate in the United States.
We are not American but we do sometimes feel that our country has ceded us to the United States and that we must struggle against that, as we have with respect to the insensitive cuts applied to Windsor CBC. We struggle constantly to assert
January 24, 1985

our Canadian identity. We are then not only admirers of Americans, we are more aware than most Canadians of their shortcomings and the dangers of American dominance. We know that the pursuit of their national or corporate goals are unencumbered by philanthropy or concern about Canadian economic or political independence. We must pursue those goals ourselves. Where we have done so, Windsor has benefited.
On the other hand, hundreds of Windsor workers can testify to the results of the failure to defend Canadian interests. Let us just cite a few examples: the 200 jobs at Canadian Motor Lamp, the 500 jobs at Bendix, the 500 jobs at Dali Specialties and the 500 jobs at Walker Metals. They are jobs lost because Canada's interest was not sufficiently protected.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) went to New York to speak to the Economic Club and promised Americans that Canada would have a new direction and new national purpose. That purpose was to enhance Canada's sovereignty and independence by declaring that Canada was now open for unencumbered American investment. The Americans were ecstatic. They reap profits and payments amounting to 61 per cent of all external remittances. U.S. subsidiaries in Canada account for a large share of American exports to Canada. As was discovered by the U.S. Senate and the Harvard Business School, investment in Canada generates jobs in all sectors of the American economy. American professionals, technologists, scientists and engineers occupy the top spots in American-owned subsidiaries in Canada.
What benefits will Investment Canada bring? Let us look at the Government's goals. The first is to increase the entrepreneurial spirit. This, of course, must be one of the more curious aspects of the Bill. The Government says that the purpose is to increase Canadian investment. Of course, that should be done but nowhere in the Bill do we find any direction on how that should be achieved. We will disregard the philosophical nonsense involved in increasing Canadian entrepreneurial spirit by encouraging American investment and profit taking.
Will Bill C-15 increase research and development? This Bill is almost absurd in its disregard for reality. The fact of the matter is that the sorry record of Canadian industry in research and development is attributable largely to the failure of American subsidiaries because Canadian-owned industry has invested 10 per cent of sales as compared to the American Subsidiary rate of 3 per cent. That 10 per cent is quite comparable to a reasonable average.
We are supposed to gain technological diffusion. This is usually measured in terms of productivity but, as the Science Council has reported, American subsidiaries have a very sorry record compared to Canadian-owned firms with respect to productivity improvement. Of course, technological diffusion will not be attained if we do not have recipients, and we do not have the scientific and engineering underpinning to receive such diffusion.
We are supposed to be expanding the economic and industrial base. That would assume technological diffusion and
Investment Canada Act
would be based on increased international markets, which are not attained. It depends upon reinvestment, which does not occur. It depends on foreign-owned subsidiaries buying supplies in Canada, which they do not do. Let me cite an example of what happens even under protective instances. Chrysler vans that are made in Windsor are composed 70 per cent to 80 per cent of out-sourced parts.
We are told that our trade will be stimulated but the record shows that foreign companies are geared only to Canadian markets. Indeed, apart from exports to parent companies which account for 90 per cent of those exports from this country, subsidiaries may be restricted by their parent companies and indeed may be subject to the extraterritorial application of U.S. restrictions.
Will jobs be created? Let us examine the record. In 1982, 50 per cent of all jobs lost in Canada were lost among those American-owned companies constituting a portion of the 50 largest companies in this country.
In considering this legislation, it is difficult to see what has motivated it. It is alleged that there is a discouragement of American investment, but in fact between 95 per cent and 98 per cent of the applications have been approved in the last couple of years. Only 50 per cent have been required to meet any job conditions and 15 per cent have involved no new jobs or any new investment. In fact, the Conference Board has pointed out that only 11 per cent of foreign investors were at all deterred by FIRA.
It may well be that prompter, more efficient processing of applications would help, but clearly if we wish to achieve what the Conservatives say we must achieve to increase trade, jobs, research and development and to expand our industrial base, then it should be provided for, as it is not in this legislation. Instead, the Government is offering up the country for sale. It is a garage sale in which the house and children are thrown in for good measure.
The fact is that the wreckage of FIRA is unlikely to achieve anything. As a matter of fact, when consulted on the matter, American bankers have said that if there is new investment it will probably be a decade before it occurs and most of it will go into primary industry, which is of no help to us at all. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has promised us a new direction and a new sense of national purpose. That is what is needed, but it will not be achieved by looking to the United States or elsewhere. No nation has pursued a national vision in a foreign territory. We must look to ourselves, to Canadian interests and investment opportunities, if we are to achieve those goals which this Bill seeks to achieve.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, so many things have been said in this House in the discussion of Bill C-15, the Investment Canada Act, which would allow foreign countries to take control of our small and

January 24, 1985
Investment Canada Act
medium-sized businesses without having to meet any requirements whatsoever.
Since this is my second opportunity to take part in this debate, I will limit my remarks to the Bill as it relates to the situation of women in Canada. The number of women in the labour force is greater than ever. In 1981, 51.6 per cent of it were women. The Dodge report indicates that 10 years from now, women will account for 65 per cent of the labour force. The ever-increasing participation of women has mainly been confined to the service area. According to the latest figures published by the Department of Labour in February 1984, 61 per cent of all service employees in 1981 were women.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 is a threat to women workers in Canada, because they are employed in the service and administrative areas, and as we know this means in our small-and medium-sized businesses.
When one looks closer into the role of women in small- and medium-sized businesses, one realizes to what extent these are dependent on women. This legislation, as has been said repeatedly, is a threat to the integrity of our small businesses. It is a threat to the integrity of women employment in that sector. Most women remain confined to the traditional employment ghettoes, such as cashier, secretarial, sales jobs in stores, and so on and so forth. And it is precisely those jobs that are directly threatened by the advent of microtechnology. If we add the negative consequences of the Investment Canada Act to the jobs that will be suppressed by high technology, we see that women once more will be the victims of bad Government policies.
Moreover, there is a significant salary differential as between men and women for similar work. It is a fact that employers look for women workers for more routine-like, less stimulating and, above all, low-salary jobs.
In 1980, average women's earnings amounted to 58 per cent of men's earnings. The average salary is $15,000 for women, as against $29,000 for men. In the 25 to 34 age group, a man with a Grade 9 education earns $15,696, while a woman with an M.A. or even a P.h.D. degree earns less. Her average earnings are $15,527.
Many families depend on the financial contribution of outside working wives for an adequate family income. In 1980, more than 49 per cent of wives with salaried jobs were married to men earning less than $20,000 a year. Those women therefore were providing their families with much needed extra income. Without their participation in the labour force, many families would be living below the poverty line.
A number of reports and studies often referred to in parliamentary debates shed a spectacular light on the scope of the problem. And as I said, technological changes are a serious threat to the areas of employment that are traditionally reserved to women, at a time when they enter the labour force in ever-increasing numbers.
During the election campaign, the three main political parties made many policy statements on the necessity of implementing training and retraining schemes for women as well as affirmative action programs. For example, the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on the status of women shows that he seemed willing to provide new opportunities for women, and I quote:
Nothing less than a retraining program of unprecedented generosity and ingenuity would be needed to face up to this new reality, when hundreds of thousands of women will suffer financially unless we make a national commitment to prevent such conditions.
I have closely scrutinized the measures taken by the government since it came into power on September 4, and I regret to say that all those fine words about women like many others were nothing but pious wishes.
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to show the part played by women in the Canadian economy. She is by far the mainstay of the economy. She is often compelled to accept menial jobs either because of family responsibilities or lack of opportunities. Some women who are heads of families have been forced to take two part-time jobs because they could not get job security.
When a working women is found in a small- or medium-size business, either she works with her husband or she is selfemployed. Mr. Speaker, I have been made aware by my constituency office of the problems and discrimination experienced by women workers in their working environment, and today I must plead on their behalf.
The problem of employment for women has been raised on various occasions over the years. A policy in this field has yet to be developed. Past experience has shown that when a company is in financial straits, women are the first to be dismissed and are reduced to accepting part-time jobs, which condemns them to poverty in their old age. It is well known that low wages result in a small pension.
If Bill C-15 were passed in its present form, I think it would jeopardize all small- and medium-size businesses, which are the backbone of the Canadian economy. Moreover, the Investment Canada Bill does not guarantee in the least a strong economy and, still worse, it provides nothing at all to safeguard jobs in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I therefore hope that we will take all the time required in committee to make the necessary amendment to this bill.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few comments on this Bill. I have not had an opportunity to speak to this issue so far in the debate and I think it is an important debate. It is one to which more attention should be paid. In it we find articulated some of the serious differences that exist between the Government and the New Democratic Party, in particular with respect to how we view the Canadian economy and how we view the global economy.
January 24, 1985

I think I am being fair to the Government if I say that it regards the global economy and the investment decisions made by the international investment community as a series of neutral and independent decisions which we in Canada, particularly those in government, have to take into account as simple facts of life similar to the way in which we take the weather into account. Viewing as a simple fact of life that investment decisions are made according to certain criteria, the responsibility of government is then to create in Canada the context, or, as the Conservatives would call it, the investment climate, in which, given the rules of investment behaviour, investment will come to Canada and not go to other countries.
We have a different view of those kinds of decisions. To start with, we would like to see an international economic order in which those decisions are not made independently in the boardrooms of multi-national corporations, or global corporations, as they are more appropriately called in many instances. We would like to see an international economic order in which those decisions were accountable to the wellbeing of the global economy itself and the well-being of countries, not just the ones in which investments may or may not be made but other countries as well.
Of course, that brings into play the whole question of the North-South dialogue, et cetera, not in any charity-related way but in the way the Brandt Commission so well indicated- that the economic well-being of the North is related to the economic well-being of the South.
But I would like to return to the major point which I wanted to make concerning how we in the NDP regard investment decisions. We see the criteria by which these decisions are made not as something with which we simply have to live. In the name of the public interest, of the well-being of the Canadian economy and of common good, we would want to see, if we were in government, these investment decisions made in the interests of Canada. The interests of investors should not stand against and above the interests of the community, in this case the interests of the country. This is why in the past we supported and indeed initiated from this side of the House ideas such as the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
We were not happy with FIRA. We did not think it did its job as well as it could have. We did not think it was tough enough with respect to foreign investment. Despite the existence of FIRA, there were many cases where companies met its requirements but, after having been allowed to invest in Canada, behaved in a way contrary to what they said they would do, in ways contrary to the Canadian public interest.
This is an internally coherent measure on the part of the Government. It is not that the Government is contradicting itself. It has a view of investment with which this piece of legislation is quite consistent. Its view is that as a country we should simply capitulate to international realities, that we should simply capitulate to the world of international investors and say that we as a government are here for whatever those
Investment Canada Act
guys would like. "You do not want to invest unless we have the following climate and conditions-that is our job", says the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He says that it is their job as the Government to create the conditions in which investors feel good so that they will invest.
That is not the way we see it. We see it as not only acting against the interests of the Canadian economy but as acting against the future of the global economy and against the possibility of having a new, just and sustainable economic order in which one country is not played off against the other, in which workers and farmers in one country are not played off against workers and farmers in another, in which people generally are not played off against each other by those who decide where money will and will not be invested. I am referring to those who sit there and say: "Well, Canada likes to have certain environmental laws, it has a labour movement with which we have to contend and various other things. Unless it softens up and creates the right climate, perhaps we will invest somewhere else".
By acceding to this kind of attitude on the part of the investment community, the Government of Canada is not only acting against the interests of Canada but against the possibility of finally creating some day a global economy in which that kind of blackmail cannot occur. There is no other word for it. That is why corporations are in business, either domestically when they play one province off against another or internationally when they play one country off against another.
In this Bill we have a classic opportunity to see what are the differences between the New Democratic Party and the Government. Although we were always very unhappy with the tokenism involved in FIRA with respect to the Liberals, we see this as a step backward on the part of the Progressive Conservative Government. It is trying to abandon altogether any pretence of ensuring that foreign investors act in the interests of Canada. At least in that respect we might be able to say that the Government is being more honest. It is not interested in pretension; it is interested in coming clean about the way in which it views the world. Our objection is that we do not think the world operates that way. We do not think that the international investment community is a sort of innocent, well-meaning group of people who are asking themselves how they can benefit the world or how they can distribute goods and services in the most equitable way. We just do not fall for that line. We know that when they meet they have global profit strategies and do a lot of thinking about how they can play one country off against the other. We know that any country which takes the kind of supine, acquiescent role which the Government is now advocating for Canada will live to regret it.
Unfortunately it is not just the Government which will live to regret it. If it were only the Government, it would be all right because at least the Government would have brought it upon itself. Unfortunately all Canadians will come to regret the decision being taken by the Government in the form of this legislation. That is the unfortunate part.
I have nothing else to say with respect to this particular piece of legislation.

January 24, 1985
Investment Canada Act


Some Hon. Members:: Good.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I hear Hon. Members across the way saying "good". It always makes them uncomfortable when someone else can articulate their position better than they can. Nevertheless, it is useful to help them to understand how they in fact see the world so that they can see themselves clearly compared with what others are saying. They do not like a clear kind of debate where Canadians are presented with clear philosophical choices. A genuine, clear clash of ideas might threaten the efficiency of their rhetoric and the way in which they like to pretend other things.
I am sorry if I have caused the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) or any other Member over there a certain amount of discomfort by trying to paint more clearly what is going on here. I hope in future they will be more interested in a clear exchange of ideas, not feel so uncomfortable with that kind of exercise.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it my duty to take part in the debate on Bill C-15 to create Investment Canada which, in my opinion, is a mistake that all Canadians will regret in the future.
If we look at the history of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, as many have done before me, we see that the Agency was created in 1974 and given the responsibility to apply certain criteria. One thing we have to remember is that the major purpose of this agency was to guarantee that any foreign investment would produce substantial benefits for Canada. This means benefits from every aspect, especially with regard to jobs and to prevent wealthy foreign investors from taking over some of our major industries and making them into subsidiaries of an American, British or Australian parent company which would eventually have meant fewer jobs in Canada than if the same industry had been Canadian owned. However, I believe that FIRA had a much loftier purpose, namely to canadianize our economy and make us proud to be Canadians. We often hear that it was because we were afraid of American investment. There might be some truth in this, Mr. Speaker, when we think of the enormous strength of the United States, a country with a population of over 225 million while we are just 26 million. We have to find means to assert our Canadian sovereignty and give us this pride which we lacked for many years, but which has emerged gradually because we are still a young country. I can give you examples of this pride: the Canadian flag is one. In passing, I can assure the House that our pride is still increasing because, just recently, the Canadian union of automobile workers severed its ties with the International union so that the Canadian workers and American workers would handle their business separately.
This is a sign of canadianization and it shows the will for sovereignty and the pride of belonging to Canada.
We could also refer to history. It would have been very easy to let the Americans through in 1814 at Chateauguay, but a small handful of Canadians rose up against that notion for the simple reason that they were proud to be in their own country.
I said earlier that we had to give ourselves the tools to fight against foreign invasion, and that the investments we must fear most are naturally those from the United States since the Americans are so powerful. What saddens me the most about this change, which is simply a cosmetic change for appearances' sake, is that the new Investment Canada agency excludes 90 per cent of small businesses, which are responsible for creating the most jobs in Canada.
We have to recall also that, for all practical purposes, FIRA rejected only 3 per cent of all applications submitted to it. This goes to show, Mr. Speaker, that this agency created in 1974 was there to apply what I would call criteria of pride and to help Canada to progress independently, both at the economic and political levels, because if ever we lose our economic independence, we would quickly become politically dependent.
These are the reasons why I wanted to make my humble contribution to this debate, in an effort to increase the awareness of the Government because, even though it promised changes during the election campaign, it was simply a promise to add its own seasonings to the great banquet it would offer the Canadian people. That was its right, of course. But with this change that is basically radical, especially in the area of foreign investment, I think that viewed from the long term we are making a mistake.
I submit that with the Foreign Investment Review Agency, established a few years back, Canadians gave themselves something to be proud of. I referred to the flag. I could have referred to the national anthem. I could have referred to a number of other things. Those are landmarks, markers we set up from time to time along the road to free Canada from any investment that could be harmful to our national, political and especially to our economic unity.
Such is the contribution I wanted to make, because it is my feeling that in view of the data and figures which I brought up earlier, we are opening wide the door to foreign investment, and, as a result, to a loss of our political identity following the loss of our economy. If we look at the reason why FIRA was created in 1974, we find it was to safeguard the future, the jobs, the economy and the youth of this country. This is something that cannot be over-emphasized.
Recently, my good friend from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) brought up before this House a striking example indeed of why the Foreign Investment Review Agency was established, when he referred to the University of Ottawa bookstore. This bookstore, as I think the Hon. Member mentioned, is a very large employer. It was in the process of being taken over by
January 24, 1985

American interests. Thanks to FIRA, this process was slowed down and today, although certain amount of American money is invested in it, the business is controlled by Canadians instead of foreigners.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of making this humble contribution. Everything has been said or almost, the arguments are completed. But certainly it was absolutely necessary for all Members in this House to take part in the debate, and this is why I rose today. This is also the prime reason why my colleague from Windsor-West (Mr. Gray) has introduced an amendment to postpone the whole matter for another six months, in order that all Members may take part in this debate.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this very important debate on Bill C-15. Before I begin, I would like to make several observations on the process of how this Bill came to the House of Commons. It is interesting to note that there was very little, if any, consultation with respect to Bill C-15. This is an extremely important piece of legislation with very serious ramifications from coast to coast in this country, yet in its wisdom the Government decided there would be very little if any, consultation. I understand there was no consultation with the provinces or with the various interest groups. They would have appreciated the opportunity to give their point of view with respect to Bill C-15. The Government promised that it would be an open, accessible and consultative Government. However, with this particular piece of legislation it decided not to go through the consultation process.
The other observation I would like to make is that this is the first major piece of legislation for the new Government. It is interesting to note the Government's priorities. One can assume that because it is its first major piece of legislation it is the Government's top priority at this point in time. It is strange that that should be its top priority when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is telling Canadians that the top priority is the economy and jobs. There are other more important pieces of legislation that should be coming forward.
In announcing Bill C-15, the Minister responsible for industry stated that this legislation heralds a new day for Canada. Indeed it heralds a new day but it is a sad new day for this country. By introducing this Bill, the Government is dashing any hope of having Canada ever gain control over its own economy. It is dashing any hope of our becoming masters in our own home. The lack of concern among Tories for Canadian independence and sovereignty, whether political or economic, should not come as a surprise.
The Tories have never quite been able to shake the master-slave mode of thinking. In the early years of this century, the Tories were determined to keep us bound to Britain. Arthur Meighen said "ready, aye ready" to Lloyd George during the Chanak crisis. Now we have "Branch-Plant Brian" saying
Investment Canada Act
"ready, aye ready" to Ronald Reagan and the captains of U.S. industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.


John V. Nunziata: It is hardly a coincidence that the Government should make the announcement of FIRA's demise on the eve of the Prime Minister's cap-in-hand speech to the Economic Club of New York. I am sure he will make the corporate boys at the Iron Ore Company misty-eyed with pride.
The Minister responsible for industry in announcing this legislation stated that Canada is open for business. As my Leader has indicated, this country has always been open for business. It has never been closed to business. We have always welcomed foreign investment. We want foreign investment, but we want it on our terms. As my Leader quite eloquently put it, this country is not for sale. Yet the Government has put the "for sale" sign on Canada. It is prepared to sell out our cultural identity and our economic sovereignty.
The Minister is thoroughly misguided with respect to this particular Bill. It is a regressive piece of legislation and it is a tremendous step backward. This piece of legislation comes as no surprise, though. After all, it is the Conservative way of doing things. As far as the Conservative Party is concerned, what is good for General Motors is good for the country. Conservative Members have blind faith in the private sector. With this particular piece of legislation, they have blind faith that foreign investment will enter Canada and provide much needed jobs. After years of slowly and methodically gaining control over our economy, the Tories are prepared to sell our country to foreign interests.
With respect to this particular piece of legislation, the evidence will suggest that 90 per cent of foreign takeovers will go ahead without review. Why is there a need for Bill C-15? The Tories argue that this legislation will lure foreign investment and will create jobs. Yet they have no concrete evidence that that in fact will be the case. I will try to indicate why I believe the opposite may be true.
The Conservative Party also argues that FIRA was a barrier to foreign investment. The facts simply do not bear that out. FIRA was not a barrier to foreign investment. As we are all aware, since its inception in 1974 there were in excess of 6,000 applications. Of those 6,000 applications, 92.2 per cent were approved. In 1977 and again in 1982, certain amendments were made to the Act to streamline the review procedures. Since 1982, 97 per cent of the applications were approved. The Government says that FIRA was a barrier to foreign investment but the facts simply do not bear that out.
FIRA was good legislation. It was not perfect legislation but it was good legislation. That legislation provided that foreign investment was welcome in this country but it had to be of significant benefit to Canada. We in the Liberal Party recognize the benefits of foreign investment. There is good foreign investment and there is bad foreign investment. The Foreign Investment Review Act said to the world that Canada is open for business and wants foreign investment, but we want investment that will be of benefit to Canadians. If it is not of benefit
1634

January 24, 1985
Investment Canada Act
to Canadians, then we are really not interested. Why, pray tell, would we want foreign investment that would not be beneficial to Canadians from coast to coast?
In my respectful submission, there are even limits to good foreign investment. For example, study after study has shown that foreign-controlled companies do less research and development than domestic companies. Studies also show that most foreign-controlled companies in Canada purchase most of their parts and components from other countries.
FIRA was set up as a review mechanism to ensure that Canada would not suffer as a result of foreign investment. We said that we wanted foreign investment but we insisted that there had to be significant benefit from it. As well, we wanted foreign investment on our terms. What is important is the fact that FIRA gave this country the opportunity to have a very strong negotiating tool with foreign companies which wished to enter the country to do business. We were able to say to these companies that if they wanted to come to Canada to do business, they would have to do it on our terms. They would have to create jobs in the country and would have to do other things that would be of benefit to our economy.
Legislation like FIRA is not unique to Canada. As Hon. Members are aware, there is similar legislation in the U.S., Australia and Japan. These places have extensive controls. For example, in the United States there are very strict controls over whole sectors of the U.S. economy and specifically in the shipping, broadcasting, air transportation and defence components of the economy.
FIRA had the effect it was intended to have. With respect to the recession years, foreign investment increased annually from 1974 onward. Between 1964 and 1973, foreign investment in this country averaged $690 million a year. Since 1974, foreign investment has averaged $1.4 billion each year. In the past four years the average has been $2 billion per year. In 1983 the capital inflow into Canada was $2.8 billion.
What will Investment Canada do? The Government argues that it will create jobs. However, there is no guarantee of more jobs. There is the distinct possibility that foreign companies may enter this country, purchase competitor companies and then close those companies down in order to secure the Canadian market. Is this the result the Government wants? It is inevitable and one must be cautious.
As a result of this new legislation, we will slowly lose control of our economy. There will be a tremendous loss of jobs. As I have already indicated, FIRA was good legislation. It allowed us to gain control over our economy. In every major sector of the economy there was a reduction in the amount of foreign ownership. One need only consult the figures for foreign control of Canadian industry from 1971 to 1981. Mining went from 62 per cent foreign control to 30 per cent. Oil and gas went from 90 per cent foreign control to 49 per cent. Primary metal manufacturing went from 41 per cent foreign control to 13 per cent.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that my time has expired. I simply wish to say in closing that we in the Liberal Party will fight this legislation every step of the way. In our view it is bad legislation. I would encourage Hon. Members opposite to take a good hard look at the possible serious and detrimental ramifications of Bill C-15.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak in the debate this afternoon. In reflecting back on the nature of the Bill before us and the law we are considering this afternoon, I recalled an old story which I read in a magazine about the Liberals. It seems to me that the Liberals are really the ones who sold out Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond John Skelly: I think they protest too much. The Liberals are already beginning to complain. In fact, my Conservative colleagues agree with me that the Liberals did sell out Canada. The Liberals have been in power for 63 years during this century! Who else could have sold the place out?


Mr. Gauthier:: We put in the FIRA legislation. We thought about that.


Raymond John Skelly: I am trying to be as constructive as I can. I can remember the Hon. Alastair Gillespie who was a former Liberal Minister of Industry. There was an instance when someone asked him what he would do about foreign ownership. Mr. Gillespie said that once in a while, if his secretary spotted something in a magazine or newspaper article, she would clip it out and call it to his attention. He was asked what he then would do about it and he said "Generally, nothing". He said that investment was good for Canada. The country was sold out with a bang by the Liberals over the years.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's nonsense.


Raymond John Skelly: That certainly is not nonsense. It is fact. The record stands and the Liberal Party and Liberal Governments sold out Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond John Skelly: The Liberals can rest assured that I will not let the Conservatives off the hook. Just relax.
It has been pointed out that the Liberals created what the previous speaker called good but not perfect legislation. I'll say it was not perfect? The Liberals, in order to prevent the selling out of Canada at the enormous rate which they were letting it happen, concocted the piece of legislation which established the Foreign Investment Review Agency. In their wisdom they always attempted to address a question. They usually placed good legislation before the House and then promptly gutted it before it came into play; just as they gutted the FIRA legislation. When the Liberals had finished with their jiggery-
January 24, 1985

pokery of that legislation, it was a more open door policy than that of Alastair Gillespie's secretary.
The previous speaker, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), admitted that 92 per cent of the applications which were put before FIR A up to 1977 were approved. The only people who had the remotest bit of difficulty were the Mafia when they attempted to launder money in order to get it into Canada. The Liberals might have had some pangs of conscience in that instance, but I am not sure-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Careful!


Raymond John Skelly: Okay, I will be nice.
Recognizing this dastardly record-that these companies would come in, buy out Canadian businesses and shut them down-it was called to the attention of the Liberal Government of the day. But they still allowed it to happen. They were not satisfied that it was enough. The previous speaker, knowing how abysmal the record was, had the nerve to stand up and say that improvements had to be made. What I think he wanted was maybe for the Mafia to be able to bring in investment money. Why let it go somewhere else? At any rate, from 1977 to 1982, 97 per cent of the applications were approved.
I think it is firmly established on the record that the Liberals did in fact sell out Canada. They knew when they did that that research and development was going to the United States. They knew that service costs from the United States against Canadian companies were enormous. They knew that the dividends paid to the United States were debilitating Canada. Canada has paid back 10,000 times more than the dollars we received in investments to the Americans at our own expense. Market arrangements for Canadian branch plants were often completely an end run done on the firms in Canada so that the American parent companies could receive the export benefits in the world market. The Liberals knew that.
One of my colleagues raised an interesting figure, which was that the cost Liberal Governments imposed on Canada cost us in the order of $2,170,000 per hour, every hour of the day, every day of the week. It was an enormous cost on Canadians. That was the product of the Liberal Government who put forward good legislation and then gutted it. It put together an open door agency. FIRA should have been called "Open door Canada".
The Liberals are not all bad.


Mr. Langdon:: They are an endangered species.


Raymond John Skelly: I think they are sincerely trying to repent after the disciplining that the people of Canada gave them.


Mrs. Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Too little, too late.


Raymond John Skelly: The Hon. Member says "Too little, too late". She is right. Unfortunately, the Canadian people did not go far enough. Canadians did this because of the Liberals' failure to address properly the question of foreign investment in Canada.
Investment Canada Act
That brings me to the amendment, which I feel we should support. Anything to delay this legislation in order to have a decent look at it-and now I am addressing my comments to my Conservative colleagues and appealling to their good nature and intellectual capability-


Ms. Mitchell:: Don't count on that!


Raymond John Skelly: Be nice. The Conservatives should consider this amendment. Their election promises to consult were worthwhile promises. Those promises were accepted as an honest attempt to clean up the Government of Canada and to make it more responsive to the people. I think it is fortunate that the Liberals have put forward this motion. They are not generally capable of good ideas; however, in this particular case there is a good idea before us and this Bill should be hoisted for six months.
The Liberals' record in foreign investment is dastardly. The House should be permitted the time to look at that record. Beyond that, the only thing that we have-


John V. Nunziata: Have a look at the past.


Raymond John Skelly: My hon. colleague says that we should have a look at the past. That is where Liberal heads are turned, back into the past to the glorious days of the Liberal empire in Canada. Well, it has collapsed and gone forever. Let's look ahead.


John V. Nunziata: We are resting.


Raymond John Skelly: They are resting! They are out to lunch is the truth.


Mr. Taylor:: They are dead and won't lie down.


Raymond John Skelly: My hon. colleague from Bow River (Mr. Taylor) says that they will not lay down. Let's string them up!
The concerns of the NDP have been expressed by many of my colleagues. We would certainly like to see the Bill suspended because it will create a worse situation than even the Liberals were capable of creating. One thing the Conservative Party can truly say for itself is that in the last election campaign it said: "Let us at the levers of power. We will do it better". I am afraid that by this Bill they are telling the Canadian people that they are prepared to sell out Canada faster than did the Liberals. They are prepared to sell us out faster than the rate of 92 per cent or 97 per cent of the applications. I am concerned that the Conservative Government, in its haste to acquiesce to the United States, is literally going to sell out Canada's opportunities.
We have stated the sins of foreign investment and the failure to establish Canadian control of our economy, as well as what happened during the Liberal regime-the loss of research and development in Canada. That will be accelerated. There is no doubt about it. There will be loss of jobs because of American parent companies shutting down Canadian branch plants. Once they have bought them out, they will simply eliminate competition to their domestic industries in the world

January 24, 1985
Investment Canada Act
market, even in the Canadian market. The purchase of parts and components will further drain money out of this country as well as the purchase of services from the United States, whether engineering, architectural, financial or accounting services, at inflated rates. That will continue to drain more and more money out of Canada.
Again, there is the question of dividends. If we allow foreign investment in, that investment, instead of coming to Canadians to reinvest in Canada, will certainly be sent back to the United States, which will represent substantial job losses for Canadians. We will be effectively following the pattern of the Liberals of destroying the attempt of Canadians to compete in export markets around the world. In fact, this Bill should certainly be hoisted for six months, if not withdrawn.
I see the time now, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder if I might call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not want to disappoint the Hon. Member but I do not think he will call it one o'clock.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I am not, as Hon. Members will know, a frequent speaker in the House, because I often think we can be more effective through our work in parliamentary committees, in caucus, and by travelling across the country to meet Canadians and listen to their major concerns.
My reasons for taking part in the debate today, however- and I will be brief, because our allotted time is very limited, only ten minutes to explain to Canadians what is happening. In other words, at this point we have had eight hours of debate on the main motion and we are now limited to ten minutes. Speed is therefore of the essence.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make several comments. First of all, I would like to talk about Canadian pride and what it means. Second, I would like to respond, without animosity, to my hon. colleague and friend from Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), who should, I think, read up on the history of Canada and the history of the Liberal Party. Third, I would like to explain how I see this Bill and the dangers I feel it contains.
I have no doubts as to the competence of the Minister sponsoring this legislation. In fact, I know him very well since he was a Member of the Standing Committee on External Affairs which I had the privilege of chairing for a number of years and of which I was a member for nearly twenty years.
The present Minister took an active part in the business of the House and that of the task force on Canada's relations with Latin America, chaired by my colleague from Labelle, Mr. Dupras, who is no longer a Member of the House, not because the voters decided it that way, but of his own volition.
I think it is basically a matter of pride. What does it mean to be Canadian? To be Canadian is not to be anti-American. To be Canadian is not to be anti-British. To be Canadian is not to be anti-French. I put it this way because these are concerns that are close to most Canadians. Our neighbours to the South, the Americans, are our friends, I say it and I say it again, but we do not have to be American! The countries by which this country was founded, France and England . . . England gave us its system of government, and I am very happy with it and 1 will always be ready to defend it because I think it is one of the best political systems in the world. I say it, and I am not afraid to say it, and I am not saying it in English, I am saying it in French, because I believe in the British system. So being proCanadian does not mean being anti-British or anti-French, as I said before. It means that every day, we want to help make our institutions truly Canadian.
You were not here, Mr. Speaker, and very few Members will remember the stormy debates we had, I think it will be twenty years ago next month, about the flag you see on your right. With respect, I may say that the word "right" is very appropriate in your case. The flag was to make us a little more Canadian. There were the traditionalists, and there were those who wanted to develop this idea of Canadianism for the benefit of the young people sitting in front of you, Mr. Speaker, and make Canada a place where our foreign friends, and they are our friends, will not take control of what is ours or undermine our pride in developing the economy of our country as we see fit.
My hon. colleague and friend from Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) put the blame on the Liberals, but he had his facts wrong.
The Liberals don't claim to be the best in the world. There probably are people in Canada who could do better, but they have yet to prove it. As for my friends in the New Democratic Party, they will never get the chance. What he did say however, and he said it very well .. . Actually, I know the Hon. Member from our frequent travels together. I am not so sure he said it in a spirit of friendship, but I do not think he has that much of a grudge against this great political Party that has presided over the destiny of our country and made it the world power it is today, but that is exactly what it means to be a Liberal.
I should perhaps lecture him on what it means to be a Liberal. I see the Hon. Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) smile pleasantly. She seems to agree. What does it mean to be a Liberal? I am going to hazard an opinion, Mr. Speaker, and say that it is a matter of balance. In this Bill, a Minister is saying: "Come to Canada, do what you want, and try to create jobs." We do not believe that this Bill will create jobs any more than it will promote research and development in Canada. We have to be very cautious in choosing between a door which is completely open and a door which our friends from the New Democratic Party would like to be completely
January 24, 1985

closed. They refuse everything. They are suspicious of our neighbours to the South, our American friends. For many of them, and I respect them a lot because I have admittedly much in common with their Party, anything American is necessarily bad. I do not share this view. My Party, which has done a lot to make Canada what it is today, does not share this view, nor does it agree with many members of this Government who believe, something which I simply cannot understand, that they just have to say: "Come to Canada, FIRA is no more."
I believe that the mistake of the Liberals was perhaps not to explain well enough to foreign investors, including the Americans who seem to be the ones this Government wants to attract to Canada, what were the true intentions of the review agency we called FIRA. We should have told them that we would behave exactly as they did, our purpose being similar to theirs. As a matter of fact they protect themselves thanks to a very powerful Senate and a very powerful Congress which look carefully at every economic sector in the country for any thing that might harm their businesses. How can these people deny a country as proud as Canada, a country as faithful to its friends, whether it be on military, social or economic matters, as Canada has been to the United States, how can they refuse us what their Congress gives them so easily because of their incredibly powerful lobbies in every industry, including wood and steel?
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid of what will happen to our young people in whom we want to instil a sense of patriotism of which Mr. Reagan spoke so eloquently. I know Mr. Reagan. He came to this Parliament. I saw him. I do not know him well, but I have met him. I have a lot of respect for him because he was able to do something when he was re-elected. He was able to instil a sense of patriotism in his people. Is there anything wrong Mr. Speaker, with making our young people feel proud to be Canadians and with explaining what is in the best interests of Canada? I have two minutes left, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Paproski):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, for several months I have been inundated with letters and phone calls about provisions in the Income Tax Act relating to workmen's compensation and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. I have introduced a notice of motion advising the House to amend the Income Tax Act in order to eliminate the hardships brought about by previous amendments which now make workmen's compensation reportable as income for income tax purposes and GIS purposes.
As many of the Members present are aware, I have been fighting for this change to a law which has greatly affected the already meagre incomes of many of my constituents, particularly senior citizens. It is having far-reaching consequences for many Canadians suffering from economic adversity. Previously this was a special tax break given to our senior citizens. I would urge all Members of this House on all sides, in all political Parties, to consider repealing these provisions of the Act so that it can revert back to the way it was previously.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Bob  Homer@Mississauga North: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention and that of this House a change in attitude which I have seen developing in the short time the Progressive Conservatives have formed the Government.
I have in my hand a copy of a letter sent to me by one of my constituents, a Mr. Mike Mallory, concerning a situation which arose in the course of his business. Mr. Mallory originally approached me last fall, concerned about an impending meeting with Canada Customs officials. I assured him that the meeting would be conducted in a most positive, business-like fashion, and I was hopeful his problems could be resolved. I am sure you will be as delighted as I am, Mr. Speaker, to learn that I have recently received a letter from my constituent praising the high level of professionalism and co-operation which he found. This occurred not only in dealing with people from Revenue Canada in the Customs and Excise Branch, but with all members of the Civil Service with whom he came in contact.
I think that all Canadians can be proud of and applaud the situation which has evolved a new spirit of co-operation between Government, the Civil Service, and private industry, one that will surely bode well for all Canadians in years to come.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 24, 1985



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call to the attention of the country the completely irrational plan of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates) to buy new uniforms for the Armed Forces at a cost of $36 million. The Minister knows that the majority of people in the Armed Forces have never worn a uniform other than the one they have. He should know that members of all ranks are now criticizing this irrational plan to spend 36 million hard-to-find defence dollars on new and unnecessary uniforms.
I would point out to the Minister that one of the most pressing needs of Canadians from the Department of National Defence is not new coats of many colours, or new, high-tech star wars machines. What we need is more search and rescue helicopters on the West Coast, and the proper deployment of the five existing helicopters at Comox. The Minister knows that the cost of doing that would be only $10 million. Why is the Minister spending $36 million on new suits when $10 million would save lives?



FINANCE


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, remember November 12, 1981? That was the day the Hon. Allan MacEachen promised equity in the tax system. The legacy of his disastrous Budget will haunt ordinary working Canadians forever. The unfair taxation of travel privileges of Canadian airline employees is just one example. Lost among regressive proposals like the revocation of tax deductions for Canadian pensioners and the attempt to tax Canadian workers on health plan contributions, the taxation of airline passes survives the massive public criticism which swamped the MacEachen Budget.
Here is how the tax measure was implemented. Any employee of a Canadian airline who receives a confirmed seat on a flight and who pays less than half of the regular economy fare would be taxed on the difference between the amount paid and 50 per cent of this fare.
This week Air Canada announced its new Red Tag fares. To travel from Toronto to Vancouver the new fare is $299 compared to the regular economy fare of $810, a reduction of more than 60 per cent. In the result, an ordinary Canadian travels for less than 40 per cent of the regular economy fare and pays no extra tax. An Air Canada employee paying the same fare is taxed on an alleged benefit of $106.
The former Liberal Minister of Finance has gone to his political reward, but airline employees will pay for his mistakes.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has placed great importance on Canada remaining silent, which can only be interpreted as support for star wars research and the escalating that will flow from it. The Minister believes in the theology that, once negotiations start, Canadian anxiety over star wars research should not be expressed for fear that our views would disrupt negotiations. He also believes that it is virtuous to resist pressures from home and refrain at any cost from conveying to the United States Government Canadian concerns on this very important issue.
This argument is spurious but, be that as it may, the Minister owes an explanation to this House and the country as to why, on the one hand, he is supportive of research programs in outer space which may one day destroy all of us, but fails to increase Canada's contribution to the United Nations environment program whose role is to find ways and means of protecting the environment on this planet and ultimately the protection of all of humanity.
If outer space research is to go on for the sake of negotiations, why does the Minister not at least ensure that environmental research at home and abroad, and through the UN environment program, is awarded the same support by the Government as it is now giving the star wars program?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, concerning the Department of National Defence let me say that with this Government a commitment made is a commitment kept. Some three years ago the Minister of National Defence of the day announced the stand-down of the operational squadron at Canadian Forces Base Chatham. That came like a bombshell because there was no other commitment, statement, or solution to the plight of hundreds of public servants who stood to lose their jobs. I believe the Minister's statement at the time was something to the effect that it was a wonderful opportunity for them to use their initiative. Well, they did, Mr. Speaker. For the first time in 42 years they turned out in record numbers to vote, and vote Conservative.
Just before Christmas our Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates) kept faith with the people of New Brunswick, kept faith with the people of Miramichi, by announcing a military package that will ensure the jobs, livelihood, and future of these loyal public servants well into the next century. On their behalf I thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of National Defence for keeping the faith and for keeping a promise.
January 24, 1985



AIR CANADA


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, the antiwest bias continues under Conservatives.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In spite of loud proclamations from the Conservative Party and its Leader before the election, and more since forming the Government, about a better deal for western Canada, this Government continues the ways of the old Liberal regime by allowing the removal of services from western cities, and by continuing the discriminatory actions of the previous Government.
The three latest slaps to western Canada are the removal of 43 Air Canada reservations employees from Regina and Saskatoon, some to Winnipeg and some to the unemployment line, and Air Canada's refusal to allow low-price seat sales in these same two cities. In addition, the Ministry of Transport intends to remove the RCMP security officers from Regina airport.
The Liberals denuded Regina of weather forecasters, air traffic controllers, customs and excise personnel, our income tax files, and now the Conservatives are continuing this discriminatory treatment. We call on the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to do his duty to his native west and use his powers to require Air Canada to retain its reservations offices in Regina and Saskatoon, offer seat sales in Saskatchewan, and maintain the RCMP officers on security duty at Regina airport, the city which is their home and the home of the RCMP.
The Tories promised us jobs. When are they going to deliver them, instead of getting rid of them?



STAR WARS


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my views on the new nuclear defence system proposed by President Regan.
The Star Wars project of the American President, which has the support of the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), is a revolutionary concept in defensive weaponry whose purpose in the long run is to make it possible to eradicate all nuclear missiles from the surface of the earth or at least to prevent their constant proliferation which has been worrying us for several years.
I am surprised that the Opposition should be so bitterly critical of a project which would allow us to reduce substantially the likelihood of a holocaust. This weapon system is much more moral than any other because its aim is to destroy enemy weapons and not people. Confrontation with our
American neighbours has been the attitude of the opposition for many years. This program has unleashed many passions. Certain experts question the fact that the Americans and their allies will ever be able to develop this new technology. They say that the basic principle, which is to install in space a 100-meter mirror 36,000 kilometers from earth, is unworkable. Of course, the risks are great and often impossible to evaluate, but it is important to believe in our potential. We have to support a partner which is spending enormous amounts of money for our security.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the Canadian people will understand and support our position, which is realistic and basically humane, because where weapons are concerned morality is not to allow one's destruction by claiming one is a pacifist, but rather by choosing the lesser of two evils.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government plans to create a super information agency in an effort tantamount to creating a Pravda Canada.
The year 1984 may be over, but the spirit of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is alive, well, and living within the Conservative Government. The Tory Big Brother, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), has imposed his authoritarian presence in all Government Departments. Typically, he has done it in the same covert manner which marked previous Tory communications schemes, such as the Public Service gag order imposed last September.
The Conservative Government is also continuing its arrogant and cynical disregard for promises and commitments made to Canadians prior to the election. The Conservatives in opposition were vocally opposed to Information Canada a decade ago, and opposed to the Canadian Unity Information Office. In Government, they are creating a giant system which dwarfs the Canadian Unity Information Office. Instead of open government, the Conservatives are providing closed government, in which all information is to be carefully manipulated by central government, real Big Brother government.
The centralized information agency will also further the politicization of the Public Service by putting major government information programs in the hands of the private sector. A fitting name for the super agency would indeed be Pravda Canada.

January 24, 1985
S.O.	21 AIRPORTS



CALL FOR INSTALLATION OF RADAR AT VICTORIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Ministry of Transport issued a press release describing the impending improvements to double the passenger handling facilities over the next 18 months at Victoria International Airport. The announcement indicated that possibly radar would be installed as early as 1987 or 1988.
Victoria Airport serves the provincial capital. Greater Victoria is a tourist mecca. Victoria International Airport is as described, an international airport, and is an emergency or diversion airport for Vancouver. Victoria is one of the ten busiest airports in Canada.
Radar, an essential safety device, is long overdue and long promised. I urge most strenuously that the Government reconsider its timetable and install this most necessary equipment as soon as possible.



VIA RAIL


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, one can only approve of recent announcements by the Minister of Transport pertaining to the reinstatement of passenger rail services that were cancelled by the Liberals, and one can only hope that the announced intention to upgrade, modernize, and expand passenger rail service will be followed up with real money and concrete action.
However, if such modernization and upgrading do take place, then sooner or later VIA must have a new repair facility in the West, and in Winnipeg in particular, if logic and common sense are to be heeded. I therefore regret that the VIA repair shop scheduled to be built in Winnipeg appears to be on indefinite hold, or even cancelled.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) ought not to make the same mistake made by the former Minister of Transport, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and be tempted to allocate such facilities on a political basis. It was the selection of the Fort Rouge site in Winnipeg, which just happened to be in the riding of the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, over other potential sites, without consulting the city or the railways, that endangered the project in the first place. The City of Winnipeg then compounded the problem with delay, thereby giving the new Conservative Government the opportunity to play its own brand of politics with the project.
I call on the present Minister of Transport to rise above the politics of the issue, show the foresight that I know he is capable of, and ensure that Winnipeg is indeed the place for new VIA facilities in the West.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House a matter concerning Air Canada. This was brought to my attention by a segment of the construction industry. Air Canada has used a method of select tendering for its Expo pavilion, which is perfectly legal and which it is free to do.
However, as a result of its selection process there has been the elimination of 10 to 12 companies that were interested in submitting a tender for the pavilion. The non union firms, of which there were two, were also not invited to submit a tender. I am suspicious of why the non union firms were excluded. Perhaps Air Canada feels that non union firms are incapable of building pavilions at Expo, even though a number of pavilions have already been awarded to non union firms. I fail to see how Air Canada's tender selection process can be the most cost effective if competition among firms is minimized.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, last December the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada made it clear that constitutional talks with Quebec were not a high priority for his Government.
This morning, the newspaper Le Devoir reported that apparently the Prime Minister was now prepared to start constitutional talks with Quebec and to accelerate the process.
My question to the Prime Minister is as follows: Since at its convention last weekend, the Parti Quebecois decided that the issue of sovereignty or independence would not be part of its election program in the next provincial election, and since, according to Premier Levesque, an election would be held in a matter of months, is it true that the Prime Minister of Canada is prepared to resume constitutional talks with Quebec with a view to reaching an agreement with the Quebec Government before the next election?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I said anything about encouraging the kind of proposals reported in Le Devoir or elsewhere.
I was asked yesterday whether I thought Mr. Levesque had a mandate to negotiate. I said: Of course. He is the duly elected Premier of Quebec and he has a mandate to negotiate in constitutional as well as economic matters. The fact that he
January 24, 1985

is nearing the end of his term does not in any way restrict, I would think, the scope of his mandate.
That being said, we have always stated that our concern was basically economic, but we certainly would not prevent the premier of a province from submitting proposals in another area.
This was in connection with a meeting we had with Mr. Levesque, at which he indicated his priorities and said he might be submitting some constitutional proposals after Easter. I said at the time that I would be delighted, as the Prime Minister of Canada, to consider objectively such proposals.
I still believe that Quebec's concerns are basically economic, but I am nevertheless willing to meet with the Premier of Quebec at any time with a view to seeking a formula for bringing Quebec within a Canadian constitutional agreement.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister referred to Mr. Levesque's mandate. He must be aware that in a motion passed by the National Assembly of Quebec on November 24, 1981, the Government of Quebec laid down its conditions for resumption of constitutional talks. Could the Prime Minister of Canada inform the House what his Government intends to put on the table to show its good faith, after the gesture made by the Parti Quebecois, the Quebec Government, last weekend, in order to achieve a speedy integration of Quebec within the new constitutional framework created following patriation of the Canadian Constitution?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think it may be somewhat premature and even undiplomatic on my part to submit any proposals when it is understood, as Mr. Levesque said himself in Quebec City, that the ball is in his court. And he was right. It is true that a number of proposals were adopted by the National Assembly in the fall of 1981, which probably will be part of a constitutional discussion. I am aware of that, and after Easter I will be ready to consider the situation outlined by Mr. Levesque, and see if the proposals are still the same, whether any minor or major changes have been made.


QUEBEC-CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's attitude does not seem to reflect the same enthusiasm as this morning's report. May I ask him whether he is prepared to put the issue of constitutional review for Quebec on the agenda of his meeting with the Provincial Premiers on February 14?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker, because our priority remains the economy. The agenda for Regina was set with the unanimous consent of all
Oral Questions
provinces and all premiers. The problems to be discussed are economic ones, and that is what we are going to work on.
Mr. Levesque said publicly that after Easter he would be ready and willing to submit specific constitutional proposals, and at that time I may start the negotiating or consultation process at the federal level.


PETROLEUM INDUSTRY DISCUSSIONS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources pushes that instant replay button on the benefits of consultation, or breaks her arm patting herself on the back-


Miss MacDonald:: That is John Turner.


Donald James Johnston: -I want to tell her that we support her in pre-budget consultations-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: -the preceding Government having carried on the most significant and broadest pre-budget consultations in the history of Confederation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: We even went so far, Mr. Speaker, as to consult with the head of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Dennis McDermott.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: The Minister knows that there is a difference between that kind of consultation and secret negotiations and secret commitments given behind closed doors to a particular sector or interest group. Would the Minister confirm that any commitments given in those secret negotiations with the petroleum interests were no different from the public commitments given by spokesmen for her Party?


Mr. Deans:: That is a home-run ball.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: No, it is a lob.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I can certainly tell the House that any commitments made were, as the Prime Minister said, commitments that we made in public during the election campaign. There were no commitments of any sort made at all to the oil industry or any other industry behind closed doors.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 24, 1985
Oral Questions


Donald James Johnston: I suppose we are left wondering why then negotiations took place behind closed doors if the only commitments were those made in public, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


IPAC PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources confirm, in response effectively to a question from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, that officials or Ministers in the Government contacted the IPA yesterday to suggest that Mr. Morgan issue a new statement changing the position he had initially taken? Could that be confirmed?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, first there are no negotiations taking place at all with the oil industry. As the Hon. Member does not understand, the only negotiations taking place are between myself and my provincial colleagues, and they are still in process.
In terms of the Hon. Member's other suggestion, it is just truly offensive.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You did not answer the question.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. Press reports this week have suggested that the Government may be considering unilateral action on the matter of compensation to the Japanese-Canadian community for the injustice that community suffered during the Second World War. In the light of the comments of the Minister on leaving the Planning and Priorities Committee of the Cabinet this morning, could he confirm to the House that the Government has not yet made any decision to take any such arbitrary action on this matter?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, the Government is attempting to pursue what we consider and what we hope is a just and honourable course. I hope that the Hon. Member and his Party, and members of the Liberal Party, join us in what I believe is a very worth-while task and objective.


Ian Deans: We are not involved yet.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It's been going on since 1942.


Jack Burnett Murta: What I indicated to the press this morning is that the Government House Leader is in the process of having discussions with the opposition House Leaders. Until those
discussions are completed, I am not in a position and I will not comment publicly on what may or may not transpire.


GOVERNMENT ACTION
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, given the complexity of the issues involved in this matter of appropriate redress to the Japanese-Canadian community, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will not take any action before it has arrived at an agreement with the National Association of Japanese Canadians?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, we have attempted to have as broad-ranging a discussion on this very important matter as is possible. As I indicated to the Hon. Member, certainly later today, and if not today, tomorrow, hopefully, the discussions can be concluded so that this House of Commons may proceed in some form at least to acknowledge what I think we all would agree has been something long overdue in this country.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Forty-three years.


DEADLINE INQUIRY
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. Given the statement from his own Ministry in December that a process of negotiation had begun, and given that there have been only a couple of meetings since then which served to explore the parameters of various questions and came nowhere near to an agreement, will the Minister assure this House and the National Association of Japanese Canadians that he will not impose early deadlines as a way of forcing an agreement on something that is so important to national honour?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows, I believe, and so does the National Association of Japanese-Canadians, as do the Japanese-Canadians themselves, that what we entered into in December was a discussion with them, not a negotiation of any sort. They know that. The Hon. Member knows that. In my opinion we have had fruitful discussions. We have been able to set down both sides of the issues. As I said to the Hon. Member in my two previous answers, we hope that this matter will be dealt with in the House of Commons by all Members in a very appropriate and honourable way in the near future.
January 24, 1985


CANADIAN UNITY
[Stage Direction]
, main CONDITION FOR QUEBEC ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and stems from an article published this morning in the Montreal daily Le Devoir. Could the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether he finds acceptable the first condition set by Quebec's Assemblee nationale as a prerequisite to signing the Constitutional agreement and which reads as follows: "It should be recognized that the two founding nations of Canada are basically equal and that Quebec forms within the Canadian federation a distinct society which has its own language, culture, and institutions, and which possesses all the attributes of a distinct national entity"? If he does not find it acceptable, what changes does he think should be made, so that Quebec might sign the Constitutional agreement as soon as possible?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that I cannot answer such a hypothetical question. I think that on such a vital issue as the Constitutional dialogue, we should avoid ambiguity at all costs. Elementary caution demands that I await, as agreed with Mr. Levesque, the specific written proposals which Quebec is to submit after Easter. Once we have had the opportunity to study and analyse them thoughtfully, I shall tell my counterpart what I think of these proposals as a whole and not only on some isolated parameter.


Raymond Garneau: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The question which I have just directed to the Prime Minister is in no way a hypothetical question. It has to do with a specific motion that has been passed unanimously by the Assemblee nationale. I should like to ask the Prime Minister under what terms ... I suggest that it is a thoroughly valid condition which could serve as an interesting basis for discussion. It seems to me that if the Prime Minister would indicate to the House and to the Canadian people under what terms his government is planning to negotiate-because for negotiations to happen both sides have to forward proposals-if he could give us some indication on such a simple matter, that could facilitate the forthcoming debate.


Martin Brian Mulroney: What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to restore a climate of confidence between the Federal government and the Quebec government, between all Quebecers and all other Canadians, and I suggest things are developing rather nicely. We are building bridges of trust and trying to bury the Liberal tradition of systematic mistrust which has existed far too long in Canada. That is what we are trying to do.
Oral Questions


PETROLEUM COMPENSATION CHARGE-ACCOUNT DEFICIT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy who is becoming quite a patsy for the oil industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Given that the Minister has committed herself to changing the PGRT to a profits based tax, resulting in more money for the oil industry, and that when the Government goes to world oil prices four large American controlled oil companies in Canada will make over $234 million as a windfall, will the Minister give a commitment to the Canadian consumer that the consumer will not have to pay the $1 billion deficit which is now running in the Petroleum Compensation Charge? Will the Minister give a commitment to the House and to the Canadian consumer that she will tax back that windfall to oil companies?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the $1 billion deficit in the petroleum account was left by the Liberal Government, with the full support and encouragement of the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: The Canadian consumer who is now paying more than world prices-it is not more than world prices but he is paying a high, high price for oil-


Mr. Riis:: You had it right the first time.


Pat Carney: -can thank the Hon. Member for the privilege.


REDUCTION OF DEFICIT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Minister that I do not care what the previous Liberal Government left behind. The Minister has a problem-from where will she get this money? She can smile, but she has a problem. How does she propose to pay for this $1 billion deficit in the Petroleum Compensation Charge? Will the Government absorb it, or will she take it from the industry? Will she get it from Premier Lougheed, or will she charge the Canadian consumer?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Hon. Member is addressing his question to the wrong Minister, because this is a budgetary matter and does not fall within energy. However, I could point out once again that the problems this energy industry faces, and the problems which are being experienced by consumers, are the direct legacy of the Liberal Government that was supported by the NDP.

January 24, 1985
Oral Questions


IPAC PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. How can the Minister say that the federal Government has not coached Mr. Morgan in what he should say in reply to his statement on CBC radio yesterday, when Mr. Morgan in his own statement today says the Government is consulting with the fishing industry on fishing policy, and with farmers on agricultural policy, something over which-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Well, we have just heard from "Incompetence Overload". Would the Minister tell us how Mr. Morgan would have information on those negotiations, something that did not happen before the campaign, unless the federal Government put those questions in his ear?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: What I would like to know from the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, I have heard one question.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to assure the Hon. Member that possibly the reason Mr. Morgan is aware of the consultative process is that, unlike the Hon. Member, he reads the papers. It is no secret that my colleague from Vancouver has been consulting with the fishing industry. It is no secret that my other colleagues have been consulting with a whole range of interests in Canada. This is because we are a new Government, and we intend to bring in changes in consultation and in co-operation with Canadians.


CONSUMER INTEREST
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, what do those consultations have to do with what happened before the election? That was the point of contention. The only point which was not contained in Mr. Morgan's statement was the fact that the consumer has been forgotten. What will the Minister do to tell consumers what the actual conversation and vested interest were with the industry?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Hon. Member follow the dictates of his leader to have caucus solidarity. We have already had one of his front-benchers say that he supports our consultative process.
For the record, let me quote Mr. Morgan's remarks after this dead horse had been flogged yesterday. He said:
The unfortunate problem was that the story-the lead-in to the story created the impression that we had some sort of a special deal. Nothing could be further from the truth.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. He will have had time to read at least the recommendations in the report of the Special Senate Committee on Canadian Air Defence. In the report the Senate calls for Canada to develop its own national military space program. In view of the fact that the Minister, the Prime Minister, and their Government have failed to repudiate the U.S. star wars program, will the Minister tell the House that Canada has no intention of going ahead with its own star wars program?


Hon. Robert C. Coates (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we in this Party appreciate very much the excellent work done by the special defence committee of the other place. It was a most useful exercise which will be of value to our Party and to the people of Canada as we move forward in the discussion of a white paper to determine what defence priorities Canada should be looking at in the next five years, and maybe the next 15 years.


CONSIDERATION OF GREEN PAPER
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer my question. He did not say whether Canada would proceed with its own strategic defence initiative. The Minister has made a lot of fudgy statements both inside and outside the House. Will he tell the House today when the green paper is coming on for consideration, and when the special defence committee will be able to look at it so that we can clear the air which the Minister has sort or murked over.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I will be very specific to the Hon. Member. The green paper should be ready and available in early March. As soon as it is available, we will proceed to have the white paper discussion. I say again that the Senate committee report will be very helpful as part of the total discussion that will be held by Canadians.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Recently, record low temperatures in Florida damaged citrus and vegetable crops. It was reported that Canadian consumers could expect higher produce prices as a result. As early as Monday of this week, grocery retailers in Canada were hit with wholesale produce price increases of as much as 100 per cent which will, of course, be passed on to Canadian consumers. This is existing stock, unaffected by
January 24, 1985

Florida crops. What protection can the Minister offer Canadian shoppers against this blatant act of price gouging?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the Hon. Member. Of course, we are concerned with food price increases. We are monitoring the situation very closely and we intend to made adequate representations to that effect in due course.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. As he knows, Lord Carrington, in a major speech in Toronto yesterday, said that the United States should consult Canada and its other allies when drawing up contingency plans for the deployment of nuclear weapons on their soil, and not leave consultation until times of crisis. The Minister of National Defence has already made it clear to this House and to all Canadians that he was uninformed about such proposals which dealt with Canada floating around the Pentagon. So much for in-depth briefings. Even though the Minister denied there are any such plans or proposals, will he give his absolute commitment to this House and to all Canadians that Canada will be involved in even the initial discussion stages of all such plans because, as Lord Carrington clearly states, it is too late to negotiate once a crisis exists?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague and friend that Lord Carrington is a very wise man. I am sure that our friends in the United States and our other NATO allies will pay very close attention to what he said here in Canada. We certainly will, and I am sure the people in the United States will as well.


CANADA-UNITED STATES CONSULTATIONS
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Minister was very evasive and took off on cloud nine instead of a CF-18. Because the Minister is so adamant about saying that Canadians will be consulted, and he said that before, will he explain to the House why he, as Minister of National Defence for Canada, was not even consulted or informed in any way about proposed Pentagon contingency discussions to deploy nuclear weapons in Canada when he had his in-depth meetings in Washington just a few weeks ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Is he, or is he not, in favour of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil?
Oral Questions


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I said last week, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs said last week, that we will be consulted, and that will be the case.


FORESTRY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Forestry. I am sure most Members know that forestry is the largest industry in Canada. A full 50 per cent of the timber harvested comes from British Columbia. In light of that, will the Minister explain why he and his Cabinet colleagues are only prepared to put forward $30 million per year for the five year Canada-B.C. reforestation agreement, when the University of British Columbia has identified a need for $600 million a year, and his own officials have identified a need for $200 million a year? Why so little money for B.C.?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, it should be no secret to the Hon. Member that this Government at least supports the industry with the appointment of a Minister. We have been able to sign two agreements, one with Alberta and one with Ontario. The negotiations are in the final stages with the Province of British Columbia and the Province of Quebec. Hopefully we will be able to announce something in the near future.


SIZE OF FEDERAL FUNDING
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet are now looking at the amount of money that goes to British Columbia. A study has been completed by the Canadian Forest Service which concludes that between 25 and 35 per cent of the forest industry will collapse if there is not a proper reforestation agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question?


James Ross Fulton: Is the Prime Minister prepared to put forward the amount of money that has been identified as required by the federal Government, $200 million a year?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we recognize the vital importance of the forest products industry to Canada and, I suppose in a special way, to British Columbia. I want to tell my hon. friend-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is it is, Mr. Speaker; we are talking about trying to help British Columbia and the NDP are laughing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 24, 1985
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is a typical NDP stunt. Notwithstanding the frivolous attitude of the NDP, this Government will bring substantial help to the forest industry in British Columbia because we believe that it is vital to national economic renewal.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. I asked the Minister questions with respect to the Peace Camp earlier this session. He suggested that the Camp would likely go away with the cold weather. The weather got cold, it is getting warmer, and it will soon be spring. What action will the Government be taking with respect to this use of public property, or is the Government going to allow other protest groups to establish protest camps on the front lawn of Parliament?
[ Translation]


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I feel inclined to say I am exercising as much patience as those people in the peace camp.
However, if my hon. colleague is concerned that other groups might want to set up camp on Parliament Hill, I would suggest that a decision might then be taken rapidly.
I said of course that I would wait and see. It seemed then that the peace camp would end before the holiday season but I will give every consideration to the representations made by my hon. colleague.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns the future of the Cyprus Anvil mine and the people of Faro, Yukon. As the Minister knows, in 1983 the Liberal Government re-opened this mine and kept the town alive. The mine has again closed and all the Minister has done so far is to appoint a special adviser. His report has been delayed three times. Has the Minister heard from Mr. Lassonde? If so, has he anything to recommend concerning the future of this mine and the people of Faro?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, I appointed Mr. Pierre Lassonde to represent the Government in discussions with the parties who could effectively open the mine. That process for opening the mine has
been going on since that appointment. I believe it is going reasonably well. I met with Mr. Lassonde a week ago. He gave me a preliminary report and asked for further instructions with respect to discussions with certain other parties. I gave him those instructions. I expect a report in the very near future and, when I reveive that report, I will advise the House and the Hon. Member.


GOVERNMENT PLANS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister if it is not time to be open and honest with the House and tell us clearly and unequivocally that, as a result of the Government's inaction, the Cyprus Anvil mine will not be opened and the Town of Faro has in fact been written off.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Hon. Member will know, I am always open and honest with the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: In that spirit, I hope he will not mind if I remind him that the mine was closed under the administration of the former Government. I am trying to open it. Further, I can assure him that as soon as I have the information that allows us to open that mine, I will hold nothing back and make sure that Members of the House understand it first.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Minister has promised to bring in a Bill to end the discrimination against Indian women which is contained in the Indian Act. Because of the complexity of the question, it is important that the committee have adequate time to consider it, and it is also important that this Bill be passed before the Charter of Rights comes into play early in April. I would ask the Minister if he could tell the House when he will be tabling the Bill, and if he could tell us whether or not the Bill will contain provisions for the reinstatement of Indian women which are in line with the Edmonton consensus reached last spring between the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member may know, the matter needs to be dealt with by the spring and, as a consequence, I expect to bring in the Bill within the next two or three weeks. I have been carrying on discussions with affected groups and parties across the country. I will conclude those discussions by the end of this week. Therefore, I think
January 24, 1985

the Bill will be in place for the House to discuss within about three weeks.


AMENDING PROVISIONS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer my question as to whether or not the Bill would provide for reinstatement. 1 would like him to answer that question, and also to assure the House that there will be adequate financial provision in the Bill so that the full burden of 100 years of government-imposed sexism will not be placed upon Indian Bands or left with Indian women. Will the Minister assure us that there will be reinstatement and that there will be financial provisions?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member will want to wait until he sees the Bill. Suffice it to say that I have discussed with a number of people the provisions that are contained in the Edmonton consensus. I understand the significance of the success of the Bill. I can also indicate to him that when this Bill is before the House I think it will receive the unanimous support of all Members of the House, because it will deal with the matters that have been raised by the Hon. Member.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. On two recent occasions the Minister of Finance told the veterans of Canada that they would receive increases in their pensions that would either reflect parity with the average income of five categories of public servants or the increase in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is the greater. Can the Minister explain why, effective January 1, 1985, veterans are receiving increases that reflect the lower of the two options?


Hon. Georges Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am really touched.
In answer to the Hon. Member's question, unfortunately the funds available do not make it possible to pay this very generous and well deserved increase to our veterans retroactively. If it were possible, it would be done. There is a limit to funds, and the funds that are available will be used in the most effective manner on behalf of our very deserving veterans.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVITY-VETERAN'S PENSIONS
Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, I would ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether it would not be better to stop telling veterans that we are being so tremendously generous with those who served this country well. My question is this: Is it possible to bring in amendments providing that the better of the two solutions would apply, in order that there be some sort of retroactivity- even though the funds are increasing you already have $22 million as announced by the Minister of Finance-so that as of January 1st, 1985, veterans might enjoy what we have so often promised them?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, last year, and for the last 12 years, despite the strong protests of veterans, the former Government insisted on making the increase in these pensions equal to the increase in the Consumer Price Index and not, as we are doing now, making the increase the larger of either the increase in the Consumer Price Index or the five categories of public servants' pay. That is what will be contained in the new legislation that will be presented. It will be part of a very generous and good package of legislation that will be introduced very soon. Last year alone, the refusal of the Government to give the veterans the benefit of whichever of those figures was the most generous, and its insistence on paying the increase according to the increase in the Consumer Price Index alone, cost each pensioner $611, money that they had to do without.


FISHERIES
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to point out that at this time British Columbia is not a happy place in which laughing goes on, but has the highest unemployment rate in the country created by his role-model, Bill Bennett, through the same kind of policies that he is putting in place.
My question deals with the West Coast salmon interception treaty. Would the Prime Minister assure the House that he is not preventing that treaty from being referred to the House of Commons and to the Fisheries Committee because he wants to have something to sign with Ronald Reagan when he meets with him in Quebec City in March? Could he give the House the assurance that he is not holding up that treaty that will affect every British Columbian who lives in a community on the coast of B.C.?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. The treaty was unsigned and in the negotiating process for some 15 or 16 years. We managed to conclude it. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is or very

January 24, 1985
Oral Questions
shortly will be on his way to British Columbia to sign the treaty so that we can begin the process of benefiting West Coast fishermen who desperately and genuinely need help. That is what it is all about.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, this treaty affects sovereignty, access to resources and the life of every British Columbian. If the Prime Minister would clarify the matter, everyone in the House would appreciate it. However, it is my understanding that the Government refuses to allow that treaty, which affects us all, to go to committee. Will the Prime Minister give us his assurance that he will halt the process of trying to get a show-piece for Quebec and refer the matter to committee?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is a classic NDP situation: "Move, but go backward". That is exactly what the Hon. Member is saying.
This morning, Cabinet passed an Order in Council instructing the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to proceed as quickly as possible in the interests of British Columbia fishermen and in the interests of Canada.


Raymond John Skelly: No consultations whatsoever.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This does not preclude any further discussion or consultation. However, we must move ahead in the interests of British Columbia and West Coast fishermen.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services concerning the super-duper communication agency, which would control everything from press releases to public opinion polls.
Last week, the people in the Minister's office denied having seen the document and stated that they could not comment on it. They thought it had been completed by over-zealous officials. Now that the Minister is better informed, can he appraise the House of his position, and tell us whether he intends or not to establish such a central communication agency within the Canadian Government?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, not only do we have no intentions of establishing any central, super, new Information Canada or CUIO, we have
never had any intentions of doing that. Furthermore, the document in question never suggested that. In fact the whole thing is a figment of somebody's imagination.


REQUEST THAT DOCUMENT BE TABLED
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if such a thing is a figment of two different reporters' imaginations, would the Minister then undertake to table the document in the House so that all Members of the House, the media, and the public at large can be reassured that the Deputy Prime Minister is not attempting again to control the flow of information from the Government to the public of Canada?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, what the Member is suggesting is that a discussion paper document which was drawn up by some public servants, and was never shown to the Minister, should be tabled in the House. The reality is, as the members of his Party and the Leader of the New Democratic Party have indicated, that advice to the Minister must be kept confidential. This advice which was supposedly being prepared for my attention. I have never received it. When the Cabinet makes a decision with regard to any changes, the Member, along with everybody else, will know. But I can assure the Member that Information Canada-the invention of the Liberal Party-will not be repeated by this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented on Wednesday, January 23, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46, I should like to table in both official languages copies of the White Paper on Copyright entitled: "From Gutenberg to Telidon."
January 24, 1985


PETITIONS
Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Citizens United for Safety and Justice believe that unrehabilitated sex and violent offenders should not be released into our communities. The undersigned 25,480 petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reinstate the death penalty for the killing of police officers and prison guards, premeditated murder and murder committed during forcible confinement and sexual assault.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of people from the community of Clearwater, British Columbia. They are concerned about the closing of Clearwater Timber Products and ask the Parliament of Canada to apply what pressure it possibly can, through the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), to assist the corporation to obtain a federal Government loan or other financial support to enable the Clearwater Timber Products mill to reopen.



AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION ACT


Hon. Charles Mayer (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with the Opposition House Leaders, and I think you will find a predisposition to accept the following order of reference motion at this time by unanimous consent. The motion is as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture be empowered to study all aspects of copyright revision;
That the document entitled "From Gutenburg to Telidon, A White Paper on Copyright: Proposals for the Revision of the Canadian Copyright Act", tabled
Business of the House
earlier this day, be referred to the Committee and that the Committee examine and report upon the proposals contained therein;
That the Committee be empowered to retain expert staff; and That the Committee report its Findings and recommendations no later than May 24, 1985.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Government House Leader have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if he could give us the program for the business of the House for the ensuing week.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. House Leader of the Opposition will know, there have already been a number of discussions this week with respect to the business of the House and other matters. It is my intention to see what progress we make today and then consult again with the Opposition House Leaders.
As far as the beginning of next week is concerned, my inclination is that we will carry on with the order of business on Monday as it is today if progress is not made. I intend to discuss the matter on the basis of what happens with the legislation today. I intend to have a discussion tomorrow, and at that time I will possibly be more precise.
I should reiterate that tomorrow has been designated as an allotted day. Once we have a chance to meet, I will know whether I can give further indication of the House business for next week.
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain) Mr. Speaker, on the question of House business, there may be a misinterpretation or misunderstanding in the House with regard to something called negotiations. I would like to have it made clear by the Government House Leader that we are not at this moment, nor have we ever been, negotiating the Japanese-Canadians Government agreement.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if I offended the sensitivities of the Hon. House Leader of the New Democratic Party, I apologize. It was not my intention to misinterpret the position of the Party with respect to the issue. However, he will know that we have discussed different approaches and I have mentioned to him, in a tentative way, the fact that there are

January 24, 1985
Business of the House
different approaches which might be taken with respect to the Japanese-Canadians issue, certainly, these negotiations have not called upon the Hon. Member to indicate a position. I did that purely and simply to keep him apprised of the Government's intentions, at the earliest possible date. I think I went further in indicating to him, without getting involved in presupposing decisions which would be made, some of the considerations which might be undertaken. Whether he wants to term that negotiations or discussions, I thought we were in the business of negotiating an agenda for House business.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in some difficulty, because I think we are moving away from the normal tradition of asking questions and getting answers about the House business agenda into what is beginning to veer on some conversation that probably belongs somewhere else. However, I will accept a question from the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, it is simply that I want to assure the Hon. House Leader that I was not casting aspersions and neither was I offended. I simply did not want there to be a misunderstanding that we were in the process of negotiating the content of whatever the Government has discussed with the Japanese-Canadian community. To this point in time, all that has been done is that the matter has been raised.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm that in so far as there have been negotiations involving the Government House Leader, myself as Opposition House Leader and the House Leader for the NDP, they have pertained to how the House might deal with the Government's proposals for resolving the issue of the treatment of Japanese-Canadians. We have not been negotiating the content of any such proposal by the Government.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, all I want to say is that that is exactly what I said.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River have a question on House business?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to have the House leader clarify that the Government has no intention this week of raising the matter of the west coast fishing treaty. Would he confirm that it is gone and is complete and that the Government has no intention of raising that matter this week, even though the Americans have not ratified and it will be appearing for consideration in the U.S. Senate? Could the House Leader give us any indication whether this matter will be referred to the House before it is written off? And will Canadians be given the same opportunity as U.S. citizens for some public input into this document?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I regard that as a third supplementary question to the two questions put by the Hon. Member in Question Period.


Mr. Speaker:: On a separate matter of House business?


Raymond John Skelly: Yes, it is on a matter of House business.


Mr. Speaker:: No, on a separate matter of House business. Does the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River have another matter of House business he wishes to raise, a separate matter?


Raymond John Skelly: I have a very important matter to raise.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 42, 45, 94 and 188.


Mr. Howie: During the period (a) April 1, 1983 through November 30, 1983 (b) December 2, 1983 to date were any persons employed by the Treasury Board in a temporary assignment pool and, if so, how many and, in each case, what was the person's (i) salary level (ii) duties?


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: The Temporary Assignment Program was established in 1974. The intention was to create a centrally managed pool of executives and other senior officers of demonstrated high levels of performance who could be loaned to departments on request, individually or in teams, for specific periods of time, to carry out policy reviews and similar activities without the need for, delay in, or cost associated with establishing continuing positions in those departments.
In the 10 years since its inception, participants in the program, which is managed on a cost recovery basis by Treasury Board Secretariat, have completed a total of 377 assignments in 54 departments.
(a)	During the period from April 1, 1983 through November 30, 1983, the number of persons employed in the Temporary Assignment Program ranged from 37 to 41.
(b)	From December 2, 1983 to November 30, 1984, there were from 33 to 40 persons employed in the Temporary Assignment Program.
Effective November 30, 1984, (i) the salary level and (ii) duties of TAP's participants were as follows:
(i) Three officials with salaries ranging from $68,870 to $80,970 (EX 4 level), thirteen officials with salaries ranging from $63,000 to 74,050 (EX 3 level), seven officials with salaries ranging from $58,050 to $68,500 (EX 2 level), five officials with salaries ranging from $53,210 to $62,530 (EX 1 level), seven officials with salaries ranging from $50,350 to $59,220 (SM level).
January 24, 1985

(ii) The duties of TAP officers comprise planning, directing, co-ordinating and implementing new or revised programs of major consequence to the Government of Departments, and carrying out program evaluations, policy analysis and planning of existing programs, particularly in areas where reorganizations are contemplated.
Typical assignments:
NHW, Chief Negotiator, Office for the 1988 Olympic Winter Games
CSC, Special Advisor, Conditions of Employment of the operational employees
DRIE, Advisor, Industrial Benefits Policy Program Implementation related to major Defence Procurements Project
SEC, Director General, Policy Coordination Management System and Analysis
RTP, Executive Director, Petroleum Industry Inquiry
PCO, Chairman, Indepartmental Working Group on Conflict of Interest
TAX, Special Advisor to Deputy Minister, Woods Gordon Review
DND, Task Force Co-ordinator, review of National Defence Activities
TBS, Director, Asset Management Study
EXT, Co-ordinator of the Management Plan Sector and Corporate Planning
NHW, Director General, Social Development
SEC, Director General, Promotion of Official Languages
CHR, Manager, amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act
SEC, Co-ordinator, Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministerial Conference dealing with Canada's participation in the United Nations World program concerning Disabled Persons
TBS, Acting Director, Communications Division
STW, Group Chief, International Relations
EIC, Revitalization of the Employment Service
TBS, Special Advisor, Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value
CCA, Advisor to the Federal Co-ordinator on Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Redway: How many applications were made by persons seeking landed immigrant status in (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) 1982 (e) 1983 (f) 1984 to date and what is the average time required to process an application for landed immigrant status?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Applications	Applications
	made overseas	made from within Canada
(a) 1979	93,404	13,324(b) 1980	94,873	13,255(c) 1981	105,857	15,179(d) 1982	96,522	15,891(e) 1983	64,714	13,706(0 1984 up to October 15	53,794	9,490Average time to process	221 days	415 days
Note that the total number of applications reflect only the applications that have passed paper screening. No count is maintained of the applications rejected at the paper screening stage.


Mr. Stackhouse: Has the Law Reform Commission undertaken any studies on criminal law effecting information stored in computer systems and, if so, has it published any reports or recommendations?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice):: The Law
Reform Commission has not undertaken any studies on criminal law particularly devoted to information stored in computer systems.

* *


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 91 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 91 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howie: In 1984, does the Department of National Defence plan to place orders for the replacement or acquisition of new ships and, if so, how many?


Mr. Robert Wenman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: No.


Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Since the inception of the Department of the Secretary of State's court challenges program, what individuals or organizations received support from the Government for (a) assembling the elements of a case (b) defending a case in court?

January 24, 1985
Investment Canada Act
2.	In each case, what was the subject matter of the challenge and in what court was it or will it be heard?
3.	What funds have been committed or promised to the program?
Return tabled.
[ Translation)


Monique Landry: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and on the amendment of Mr. Gray (Windsor West) (p. 1302).
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I welcome very much this opportunity to make a few comments with respect to Bill C-15. I am pleased to see my friend, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), the Hon. Member for York-Peel, in the House today.
This change of name from FIRA, Foreign Investment Review Agency, to Investment Canada, Mr. Speaker, is very much in keeping with the kind of approach which this Government has taken to date with respect to matters of government. Rhetoric, name changes, cosmetics rather than substance, seem really to be the order of the day when it comes to the policies or, I should say, lack thereof of the Tory Government since it assumed office on September 4. As Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and I suggest that that is the underlying theme of what the Minister is trying to accomplish.
We were already told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), during the election campaign when he was Leader of the Opposition, that as soon as Knowlton Nash on television tells us the Tories have formed a majority Government, investment is going to flow into this country. I think in fact he actually believed that. However, Mr. Speaker, as you know from your experience in public life and as a Member of this House for some years, history has shown us how nervous capital can be. You can scare capital through rhetoric of the kind we heard from the Parti Quebecois. It is very easy to destroy confidence through rhetoric coming from responsible people in public life. It is much more difficult, however, Mr. Speaker, to instil confidence, to create an investment climate,
simply through changing names and advancing rhetoric for consumption by Canadians and foreigners. We know that the warm Tory overtures to members of the business and investment communities have in fact produced nothing except warm expressions of appreciation.
I believe the Tories by this time should recognize that it requires more than name changes, rhetoric and dealing with Investment Canada; it involves dealing with a whole set of policies, none of which we have seen as yet. In fact, it is shameful when one considers that this Government assumed power in Canada on September 4 and we have to wait seven to eight months for a budget. We must wait that long for a budget from a Government which said: "When we arrive there, boy, are we going to do things". It has 211 elected Members to do those things. The Government was given a mandate by the Canadian people and it has refused to accept it.
As we in this House know, Mr. Speaker, and as Canadians soon will begin to recognize, I know this gang is not ready to govern Canada, but it is ready to offer us rhetoric, some tinkering around the edges, modifications and so on.
With respect to this particular Bill, Mr. Speaker, I attempted to actually read it in order to determine whether it really does what the accompanying literature says it does. I have come to the conclusion that perhaps it does but I cannot tell because it is so badly drafted. This document would give the Income Tax Act a run for its money, yet this is a document, Mr. Speaker, which is intended to simplify and streamline procedures and, we are told, to facilitate investment and create confidence.
I wanted to find out what the reviewable transactions really were so I turned to Clause 14, which provides:
(1) The following investments by non-Canadians are reviewable under this Part:
(a)	an investment to acquire control of a Canadian business in any manner described in paragraph 28(l)(a), (*) or (c), where the limits set out in subsection (3) apply;
(b)	an investment to acquire control of a Canadian business in the manner described in subparagraph 28( 1 )(</)('), where the limits set out in subsection (3) apply;
(c)	an investment to acquire control of a Canadian business in the manner described in subparagraph 28(l)(d)(ii), where the circumstances described in subsection (2) and the limits set out in subsection (3) apply; and
Finally we go on to another section where the limits set out as Subclause (4) apply, and the clause continues. My point is, Mr. Speaker, that this is a convoluted, complicated piece of legislation which in effect does nothing to simplify procedures.
I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a former colleague at the bar, who said his colleagues had been struggling to interpret sections of this new, simplified, streamlined Act which has been produced by the Conservative Government. We are told these initiatives are going to create jobs, and I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, that they are going to create a lot of jobs for the lawyers of this country who must once more educate themselves in the interpretation of this statute to determine whether or not it applies to the circumstances of their clients. This Government has indeed created
January 24, 1985

jobs for Tories, for task forces, for consultants and now for lawyers. When the Prime Minister pats himself on the back with respect to all of the jobs which have been created, the 100,000 he refers to, he knows, you know, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in caucus know, and those Hon. Members across the House and on either side know, that the reason those jobs are being created is because of the economic legacy left by the previous Government. More specifically, jobs are being created because of the rate of inflation which is driving down interest rates and encouraging investments. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything this Government has done because in effect this Government has done nothing to date. However, this document will add thousands of man-hours of non-productive professional work simply to determine whether a particular investment is reviewable or not.
The Government would have us believe the whole operation is simpler. That is the rhetoric we hear. So far Canadians have given the Tories the benefit of the doubt. They have, if you like, been seeing things but not observing. They have been hearing things but they really have not been listening. They have not attempted to measure the performance of this Government against the rhetoric. If I were to characterize the attitude of the Canadian public today, they see but they do not listen. How else can we explain the widening gulf between the declarations of Government spokesmen on this Bill with what it in substance actually is? This has been happening since the Tories assumed power. It is nothing new.
Let me offer a few examples, if I may, just to underscore the point. The Tories heaped blame and ridicule on the previous Liberal Government because of what they called corporate bail-outs. Do you remember Massey-Ferguson, Mr. Speaker? Do you remember Chrysler? You know how they heaped blame and ridicule on us over that. Even after coming to power the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said that throwing money at individual problems without treating or even examining the whole patient was surely unconscionable practice. The Government House Leader should listen to this; he is a member of Cabinet. When the first opportunity came to put this policy into action, what did the Government do? It succumbed to the temptation or solicitation of the Parti Quebecois and pumped $15 million of taxpayers' money into Petromont. Shame!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We did not say we had no option.


Donald James Johnston: That was an investment which my Government refused to make even in the heat of an election campaign. Was there a public outcry? Where was Alberta during that particular period? You, Mr. Speaker, know where Alberta was. Where were all the other supporters of this Government? They were praying that this was an aberration in the performance they hoped to see from this Government. I fear it was not. I fear their prayers will go unanswered. That is certainly clear from this Bill.
Investment Canada Act


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate once more in this important debate. I think we have reached the stage where it is interesting to reflect on what has been taking place during this debate.
I think at first there was a sense on the part of the Government that it would be able to whip this Bill very quickly through the House, get it into committee and passed. In fact, the Minister was even courageous enough at one point to say that he expected everything to be passed by the middle of March. I think, Mr. Speaker, that things are taking place in the country which make that prospect less and less likely.
As this debate has unfolded, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Government first try to get across a very simple, indeed simplistic, message-that this Bill, simply through its introduction and the changes it makes, will give us an extra $1 billion in new investment in Canada. The Government has tried to tell us there would be many new jobs created and that those of us oppose the Bill are somehow out of step, old-fashioned nationalists who are leading with our hearts instead of our heads.
Our response has been, in a sense, equally simple. The response has been to say that foreign investment is not part of the solution to our economic problems, that indeed controlling foreign investment is part of the problem. Unrestricted foreign investment is part of the problem because of the way foreign-controlled firms import from the parent company instead of buying in Canada. It is part of the problem because of high capital outflows that foreign investment creates. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), indicated this morning that over $2 million leaves this country each and every hour of each and every day as a result of foreign investment. So we have stated our simple sloganistic response to the Government's slogan of Investment Canada, that Bill C-15 is about Warehouse Canada. It is about establishing a branch plant economy even more than in the past and that will badly damage the jobs we so desperately need.
As I reflect on this debate, Mr. Speaker, I have a sense that we are moving into a new phase in which the public are now starting to recognize what has been happening with this Bill. I have just come back from three days of listening to groups, individuals and communities throughout Atlantic Canada. I can tell this House that there is a concern, a sense of unease, in provinces like Newfoundland and places like Cape Breton which have experienced what unrestricted foreign private investment can do to a community. They have experienced the shutdown of mines and mills and they are concerned that this Government is once more taking the country in that direction.
One sign of that concern is that on February 9, just a few weeks away, a group of people who want to give new momentum to the old Canadians For An Independent Canada are once more meeting. They are going to re-establish that organization and use it in what will become an increasing public fight against this effort to take away our first line of defence against foreign control and the problems it can bring to our economy. The letters come in every day from the people I talk to in my constituency and others. They come in from Ontario,

January 24, 1985
Investment Canada Act
from Atlantic Canada, and express their concern and unease. I think we will see as this debate continues that more and more Canadians recognize that what this Government is trying to do with this Bill is not to give us more jobs. It is trying to give more favours to the foreign investors who have always supported it in the past to whom it feels it owes favours in return after its election victory.
As our New Democratic Party action group on jobs moves throughout the country, another impression that I have is that the pot of gold approach to economic planning for our country, as referred to by Richard Cashin of the Fishermen's Union in Newfoundland, no longer makes sense. The idea of opening ourselves up and giving the invitation to come in and use our resources and build on Canadian benefits as the answer to our problems is one that I do not believe Canadians are interested in. I do not believe that people are interested in that kind of imported solution to the problems we face.
Instead, what I see and hear as an increasing theme throughout the country is a desire for self-reliance. It is a desire for community based and directed efforts to build our economy.
In Newfoundland it takes the form of new co-ops that are building jobs and playing the role that private foreign investment has never historically been able to play in much of our country and will not be able to play. In Glace Bay it takes the form of an attempt to set up what they call incubator malls, which are small scale malls that give small businesses a chance to serve community and Canadian needs and provide Canadian solutions.
We have seen a rather different direction in which this country wants to move. It is a direction which is totally undermined by Bill C-15, and we will continue to fight to make sure that Bill C-15 is abandoned and that a new approach of self-reliance and community direction is increasingly adopted.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-15. The new Government is so interested in implementing its policies that the Minister is not even here for the debate. I recall that the Conservatives, during the last Parliament, continually accused the former Government of not having its Ministers here. This new Government had an attendance of 2.5 per cent of Cabinet Ministers in the House. The Conservatives have 5 per cent, and now one is about to leave.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member confirm that there are only two Members from his caucus in the House right now?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), has the floor.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Indeed, it is not a point of order but that does not surprise me, coming from one of the Ministers in that
great new Cabinet. It seems to me that three out of 40 is a greater percentage than two out of 211.
I have much previous experience in dealing with the Department of DREE, the Department of DRIE, and in working with FIRA to encourage new industries to come to Canada. I never experienced this great, horrendous problem with FIRA about which we are hearing. It will be interesting to hear about the progress of Investment Canada.
In my constituency there is a Canadian-owned company called Magline. It is a small company which makes snowshoes and other items. It makes many snowshoes for the American and Canadian Armed Forces, and there are no problems with trade relations in this regard. In fact, that company makes such fine snowshoes that I will present a pair to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates) seeing how he has been skating in this Parliament in recent days. His skates seemed to have worn out, and perhaps snowshoes would be more appropriate for him at this time.
The Government's elimination of Canagrex is another disturbing example. We have heard much about Canagrex giving competition to private enterprise as a reason for bringing about such programs as Investment Canada. However, Canada has many agricultural products to sell abroad and Canagrex provided the facilities not only for shipment but for storage in countries where there was no place to store our exports. One of the new Government's first actions was to cancel Canagrex, but it has yet to replace it with an alternative for Agriculture Canada. Canagrex was going to promote the sale of agriculture products, yet the Government has not even provided an agency for export sales.
At a time when the Government is forming Investment Canada, there are two Senators in the United States who are renewing the call for quotas on Canadian wood products going south of the border. Investment Canada will welcome foreign capital into Canada to buy up our Canadian industries at a time when other Governments will begin to take steps to block our products from entering their countries. In fact, those Senators would like to see a quota of 25 per cent of the market place demand placed on wood products coming from Canada.
We have another Canadian-owned industry in the Ottawa Valley called Haley Industries. It does much work with American companies. One of the major accomplishments of Haley Industries was to produce engine moulds and other products for aircraft. I was concerned about the appointment of the present Minister of regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) because I know how much sympathy he has for the less developed areas of Canada. He comes from the wealthy part of Ontario and has very little feeling for northern and eastern Ontario.


Pat Carney: Shame!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I know it is a shame. I agree with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney).


Pat Carney: Shame on you.
January 24, 1985


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Government says that it is trying to promote jobs. The Government is welcoming capital into Canada to buy industries. I have nothing against foreign capital coming into Canada. But I do not want to see foreign companies control many of our Canadian industries. They must remain under Canadian control. I know there are clauses in the Bill dealing with this, but it is a much looser situation that even existed with F1RA.
This Tory Government should look at history and look to the days of the Arrow aircraft and the plant I just mentioned, Haley Industries. It made parts for the Arrow aircraft. What happened? The Tory Government of the day scrapped the whole plan, and even took the moulds out of the foundry at Haley Industries. The moulds were taken out into the back yard and smashed so they would not be used again. That is the kind of progress we see in job-making and future technology from a Conservative Government. If that program had been allowed to go ahead, we would not be bringing foreign capital into Canada in large globs today and we would not be shipping out our cash to buy aircraft. Instead, we would be selling the Arrow aircraft, which was one of the best aircraft built in the world and it would still be modern in terms of any aircraft that exists today. But the last Conservative Government destroyed one of the best domestic industries we had going in this country, and today we are buying an aircraft from the United States at a cost of billions of dollars to the Canadian taxpayer. That is what the Tories call progress. Here we have a Bill before us today ironically a Bill called Investment Canada.
What has happened in the area of wood products, Mr. Speaker? In that great area of Algonquin Park in the upper Ottawa Valley and in areas of northern Ontario, we have had foreign companies come in and be given leases by the provincial Government. One particular company from the United States took up a large section of good woodland in that area that contained some of the best timber. The company was from Missouri. It sat on the timber. Local companies in Canada could not even buy timber and if they did, they not only had to pay the dues which went normally to the Ontario Government but they also had to pay dues to the foreign company in Missouri. That is hardly progress. That can hardly be called Investment Canada. But that was done under a Tory Government in the Province of Ontario. We have so much talk about the fact that we must build up our forests, but this is something that should have been talked about years ago.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We did and you Liberals wouldn't listen.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The management of forests is in the hands of provincial governments. They have been destroying them for years. They have been selling them off for foreign capital. They have not been encouraging local entrepreneurs to get involved in the secondary industrial process in the wood industry in this country.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are giving me a signal. I shall try to accommodate you. If we are going to have a Conserva-
Investment Canada Act
tive Government in this country with 211 Members bringing in a Bill called Investment Canada, then let us have some better examples of progress in developing industry in Canada, developing industry for Canadians by Canadians, and let us see some of those tens of thousands of jobs that we were promised we would get the day after the election. Here we are back again after all the criticism about all the short-term programs and yet we have Canada Works about to be announced, a Liberal program. I would like to point out in closing that that was a Liberal program; it was a welcome one and I am glad that the Government sees a good thing.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives call this Bill Investment Canada. I call it Betrayal Canada. If ever there was a time to learn from history so as not to be condemned to repeat it, it is in the area of foreign investment in this country.
It is always desirable to have a measure of foreign investment. Canada historically has leaned over backwards to get foreign investment, to the extent that even the Liberals had to quit some of their supine acquiescence to foreign investments, particularly United States investments. We learned some bitter lessons in this country because of the amount of foreign ownership of our economy.
I believe a larger portion of foreign investment should be loan capital and a smaller portion of it should be equity or ownership capital. I give as an example what we did in my Province of Saskatchewan with a publicly owned power corporation. In almost ten years we increased massively our electrical generating capacity. We took electricity to every town and village in the province. We electrified 60,000 farms and borrowed something over $600 million in that time, most of it foreign money, but it was loan capital. The foreign investors who lent money to the Saskatchewan Power Corporation got a good and reasonable return on their investment. Those loans have been paid off and the people of Saskatchewan own their power corporation. Contrast that, Mr. Speaker, with other public-type utilities that are foreign-owned or foreign-con-trolled.
There is a lot of investment capital available here in Canada. I do not blame the U.S. corporations for the way they behave up here. We are to blame. Foreign investors need to know in advance what our ground rules are. We need firm ground rules that they know ahead of time. As long as they can make a reasonable return on their investment, they will live up to those ground rules. Taking the ground rules away just encourages more of what has occurred in the past.
Let me give an example of one of the experiences Canada had in the 1960s regarding foreign investment. Chrysler Corporation of Windsor, Ontario, had an opportunity to sell several hundred trucks to Cuba. The parent company, Chrysler of the United States, was told by the United States Government that it was not to allow its branch plant in Canada to sell trucks to Cuba. It was called Trading with the Enemy Act. There was the United States Government telling a corporation with its head office in the U.S. that Canadian workers and a Canadian plant could not produce and sell

January 24, 1985
Investment Canada Act
trucks to another country. That is a direct intrusion into our sovereignty and our independence. This type of thing has occurred countless times. The more we open up to foreign investment, as the Government proposes to do, the more we will have these occurrences.
There is lots of Canadian capital to be invested in Canada. Why do we not clean up our own house before starting to worry about how much foreign investment is coming in?
You may not be aware, Mr. Speaker, that there are some $35 billion of corporation tax deferrals lying on the books of the Government of Canada which will never be paid. We do not even collect interest on it. If one charged a modest 9 per cent or 10 per cent, the Government could do something more about medicare, hospitalization, housing and a few other things. What has happened with these corporate tax deferrals? Let me give you an illustration, Mr. Speaker.
Canadian capital has been taken out of Canada by the hundreds of millions of dollars for investment in other places. For example, Great Lakes Paper, a subsidiary of Canadian Pacific Limited, has something in the order of $150 million in corporate tax deferrals. It has received federal and provincial grants of $50 million to upgrade its plant production facilities in northwestern Ontario. What did it do? It invested $25 million in the United States to build a pulp and paper plant. Surely that is not good corporate behaviour or good corporate citizenship. Canadian jobs are being exported to the United States. Why? It is because Great Lakes Paper, a subsidiary of Canadian Pacific, wants to take the fullest advantage of our corporate tax laws, to the disadvantage of Canada. At least it should be made to give back the $50 million so that we can let someone else in Canada invest in a pulp and paper production facility here.
Canadian Pacific owes $1.5 billion in deferred corporation taxes. In theory, the corporation takes that money and invests it in fixing up its plant, in new equipment, more production, new technology and Canadian jobs. Well, that company invested it all right. All the years Canadian Pacific obtained corporate tax deferrals it was investing. It bought a pottery plant in Syracuse, New York for $20 million. It has parking lots, shopping centres and condominiums in California. It has mines in Central America and in other parts of the world. It does oil and gas exploration in other parts of the world. That is what it did with its benefits. That is not good corporate citizenship. That capital should have been invested in Canada. Corporations such as Canadian Pacific need to be told that they have to act as good Canadian corporate citizens and invest here where investments are needed.
We rely more than we need on foreign investment because of a system which allows corporations to act in such a manner in this country. International Nickel is another company which owes about $1.5 billion in corporate taxes. It has invested too. Where? It invested in Guatemala, Indonesia and Chile. It took the money and ran with it, money it was supposed to invest in its operations here.
As I said, I do not blame American corporations for acting in that manner. If an American parent company in the United States finds that it has too much production and that it has to shut down plants, it is perfectly natural for it not to shut down plants in its own country. It will shut down branch plants in other countries, namely in Canada. I do not blame those companies for that. Those are the ground rules. Naturally such corporations will take actions in the interests of their own country and their own parent company first, and the host company in which they invest gets second consideration. That has been endemic over the decades of our history. The first ones to get it in the neck are foreign-owned branch plants.
FIRA was weak enough. It was a toothless tiger. It allowed investments which should not have been allowed. It failed to work at getting more Canadian investment. I just sat back quietly while foreign investment came in that we neither wanted nor needed and that could have been filled by Canadian investment. It also cost us in the export of capital from the country by way of dividends and interest. I do not object to investors making a reasonable return on investment, but in many instances they have taken back to their home country three to four times as much as their original investment.
I noticed in an English language newspaper published in Mexico City a report of the experience of Mexico with $1.2 billion of American investment over a period of three years. American investors took $4.5 billion out of Mexico. It is a poor country. Most of its people are poor. That is the benefit it received from foreign investment.
The time is past when we should be laying out ground rules which are reasonable, fair and in the best interests of Canadian sovereignty, independence and jobs. Foreign investors, knowing the ground rules ahead of time, knowing they will receive fair and honest treatment, and knowing that they will be eligible for a reasonable return on investment, will be willing to invest loan capital or equity capital. To throw open the doors so that foreign investors can come and go as they please is surely not in the best interests of Canada's nationhood or of jobs for Canadian people. The instances which we have seen recently with Great Lakes Paper and other examples which could be cited show once again that this blind, irresponsible crawling on hands and knees to got foreign investment at the expense of our sovereignty and independence has to be stopped.
We hope the Government will reconsider this legislation and that it will not only maintain an investment review agency-I do not care what it is called-but will strengthen it and make it more effective than anything we have had before.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Investment Canada Bill. At the outset I want to state that Hon. Members of the Opposition should feel pleased that the Government has at least acknowledged the value of having some form of foreign investment review. Without the evolution of both opposition Parties over the years, there would never have been public awareness of the need for a review of foreign investment in Canada.
January 24, 1985

I should like to refer to some of the background. Until roughly 1952 most of the foreign investment in Canada was in the form of portfolios, bonds and pension fund management. However, beginning in that year and going through a series of both Liberal and Conservative Governments, there was a growing awareness by Canadians of the importance and implications of having significant sectors of our economy dominated by foreign investment. For example, over the years from 1952 to roughly 1971, foreign ownership, largely American ownership, in some key sectors such as energy-not too much in financial institutions-and transportation made succeeding Governments become more aware of some of the bad side effects of foreign investment in our economy.
Some of the rhetoric from the government side would indicate that, since 1971 and because of the fact we began in 1972 with the Foreign Investment Review Agency, in fact there has been a decrease in the amount of foreign investment in Canada. With the exception of 1981, when the National Energy Program played a significant role in the net export of Canadian capital in order to have Canadian ownership of the energy field, foreign investment in Canada has continued to flow in despite the existence of FIRA. After listening to the government side one would think Canada was the only country in the western industrialized world which had at its disposal a tool such as FIRA.
For people who are following the debate, it is interesting to note that there are other countries in the western world which, over the years, have found it necessary to restrict foreign investment in key sectors of their economy for the purpose of protecting the national interests of those countries. In the United States, whole sectors of its economy, such as shipping, broadcasting, air transport and all defence production, are simply off limits to foreign control. Australia has a foreign investment review board which is very similar to FIRA. I need not remind Canadians that the Japanese have extensive controls and foreign investment. These were two examples which I wanted to cite.
Other countries have seen it to be in their best national interest to have some direct government control of the amount of foreign investment entering their borders. I want to point to the United States and get into some greater detail. In the United States, any foreign investment in shipping on the coastal and fresh water systems is strictly prohibited. The shipbuilding industry is barred from government benefits. I could go on and on. Television operators and nuclear power facilities are prohibited from foreign investment.
There are some very good reasons why national governments enact legislation in order to have some form of control over foreign investment within their boundaries. One would like to ask the question about the prospects for future foreign investment in Canada. In a speech which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made in New York some six weeks ago, he gave the impression that no foreign dollars flowed into Canada during the administration of Prime Minister Trudeau and Prime
Investment Canada Act
Minister Turner and that it is only since the election of the Conservative Government on September 4 that one can expect, because of the new open mat policy of the Conservative Government, that billions of dollars of foreign investment will flow into Canada as a result of the so-called changes in the Foreign Investment Review Agency, replacing it with the Investment Canada Act.
If that is the premise, one should look at what is expected in the United States between 1986 and 1990. If you look at the flow of investment originating in the United States for the past 30 years, you find that beginning in the mid-seventies the United States has changed from a net exporter of capital to a net importer of capital during those years. In fact, the international debt accumulated by the United States during the past few years will fully offset all international assets built up over the last 30 years.


Mr. Fennell:: That will change.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: The Member say that will change. One can have that optimism, but clearly the Conservative Government has embarked on a direction which it hopes will result in the creation of thousands upon thousands of jobs domestically in Canada as a result of the inflow of capital. From the standpoint of Canadians, I hope the Government's optimism will show in results as well as in rhetoric. If not, I remind Members opposite that there will be several Members on this side of the House who will kindly remind the Government about the promises it made during the last election campaign and the complete faith they have placed in the ability of foreign investment to come through on behalf of Canadian interests.
Some of that faith has been misplaced. I will review for the purposes of Members opposite some of the results of the way in which foreign subsidiaries have operated in Canada. The facts do not justify the faith they have placed in the ability of foreign investment to come through in terms of Canadian interests in this country. Time after time there have been cases in which research and development in the subsidiary has been cut back at the expense of Canadian jobs so that the home company, particularly in the United States, could maintain its research and development with respect to its home borders.
I need not go any further than to suggest the case of the Iron Ore Company of Canada. Decisions made in another country, namely the United States, adversely impacted on its subsidiary operations in Canada. I am not suggesting that the particular case of Iron Ore should be dealt with any differently than in other areas. However, I would suggest that the fact that Canadian-controlled firms have, to a large extent, protected Canadian self-interests in other than research and development and employment opportunities indicates to me that we should not place all our faith in the ability of parent firms lying outside our national borders to look after our best interests.
Lastly, one may wish to investigate some of the proposals which the Conservative Government has in its Investment Canada Bill which are significantly different from the Foreign Investment Review Agency which was created by past Liberal

January 24, 1985
Investment Canada Act
administrations. Evidently it will remove the requirement that we had previously to show significant Canadian content and reason for investing in Canadian firms. In addition to the mandate of the agency for the undertaking of investment performance reviews for foreign-controlled and Canadian firms and of policy development to increase the autonomy of Canadian subsidaries, there are things we proposed in the last election campaign that could have answered some of the problems which had developed over the years with respect to the performance of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. They would have been used to establish constructive self-interest for Canadians.
I said at the beginning that I am pleased that the Government has at least indicated that it wishes to keep the basic premises in the Foreign Investment Review Agency, with some changes. To Members on this side of the House, I suppose small news is good news. In essence, at the heart of the Investment Canada Bill are some extremely good features. What might happen during this debate is that the Government might listen to some of the proposals made here constructively by Members of the Opposition and incorporate them into the new Bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-National Revenue-Taxation of death benefits; the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Budgetary cut-backs-Effect on Windsor television station, (b) Request for consultations.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and on the amendment of Mr. Gray (Windsor West) (p. 1302).
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the debate being resumed today is on the amendment proposed by one of my colleagues to have Parliament postpone consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, for a period of six months.
As a Member of this House and as a Canadian citizen who has worked for some time in other areas, including the private sector, I am very concerned about our country's economic future, the future of our children and the future of our workers, the future of the young and not so young. I want our colleagues on the Government side to understand the reasons for the position we have taken in this very important debate and the reason why we are asking for a six-month hoist.
Bill C-15 does not deal with the fundamental problems of the Canadian economy. Furthermore, the fifty or so clauses the Bill contains do not reflect the Bill's title, the "Investment Canada Act". In addition, as far as Bill C-15 is concerned, the premise that foreign investment is to be seen as a stimulus for creating additional economic wealth is ambiguous and uncertain to say the least. A number of statements by American and other foreign businessmen have confirmed this.
On the Government side they keep saying and there is some truth in this and I agree more or less with some of the things that have been said that economic recovery and job creation depends partly on the private sector's confidence in the economy and on increased investment by the private sector. To this I would like to add, for your consideration, that confidence cannot be generated unless the economic agents who make the decisions, that is, investors, managers, workers and consumers, are all aware of the rules of the game. Today, this applies both to Canadian citizens and to prospective foreign investors.
To ensure that everyone knows the rules, the Government must specify its policy on industries like the petrochemical industry, a very important one in the Montreal region where most of my riding is located, and also on the aerospace industry, which employs hundreds of thousands of people at Canadair in Ville-Saint-Laurent. The Government must also be specific about its policies on transportation facilities.
I am thinking, for instance, of the cuts at VIA Rail and the decision to scrap construction of a modern maintenance centre in Montreal that would have created about 3,000 jobs. This may mean that many workers currently employed by VIA Rail or the CN will be laid off, depending on what the Government decides to do.
There is also the telecommunications industry and the important textile sector. Can we consider allowing foreign investment in Canada in one of those sectors without knowing what specific policy the Conservative Government intends to formulate?
Another major industry in this country, especially in Quebec, is forestry. Can we consider letting foreign investors
January 24, 1985

set up business in Quebec, under the provisions of Bill C-15, without knowing the Canadian Government's policy on the forestry industry, a policy we have been promised for some time?
In the same vein, the Government will also have to make it clear what it intends to do about the changes it has promised in matters relating to financial institutions.
In addition, we are still waiting for clarification, and this could have a major impact on potential foreign investments, about the conditions which the Conservative Government will set before accepting to sell certain public corporations. We do not know what the policy of the Government is.
As long as these policies are not made clearer, we should not be surprised if European and American brokers and bankers tell us, as some of us who follow the statements of certain New York businessmen saw in the newspapers recently, that Bill C-15, as introduced by the Conservative Government, will do nothing to increase foreign investments in Canada. I can understand quite well what these businessmen mean. I can understand why an American bank president or broker could not, in all honesty, advise his customers that, if adopted, Bill C-15 would make it more beneficial for them to invest in Canada.
Moreover, Bill C-15 in itself does not help Canadian businessmen to invest in Canada. Yet, many reports have confirmed that Canadian companies are under-capitalized compared with American companies. This problem is especially serious for small businesses. However, Bill C-15 contains nothing which would give any hope to small businessmen that passage of this legislation will be of some benefit to them. On the contrary, the only other Bill under consideration in this House, which is the Bill to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, will reduce the benefits provided to small businesses by lowering the ceiling of the guarantee which the Federal Government can provide for small businesses. In fact, representatives of small and independent businesses were quick to voice their disagreement about this initiative.
As I have already said, Canadian small businesses are under-capitalized. There is nothing in this Bill to solve this problem.
Some people will probably say that section 5(e) of Bill C-15 mentions the fact that the Minister will help to develop economic and industrial policies which will affect investments in Canada. However, neither this Bill nor any related proposal announced in the House by the Minister in his second reading speech have given any details about possible initiatives to increase investments by Canadians in Canada.
It is to allow the Government to take its responsibilities properly and to reflect before requesting passage of this Bill that Members on this side of the House have proposed a six-month hoist of Bill C-15.
Investment Canada Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is as follows. Mr. Stevens, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moved that Bill C-15, an Act respecting Investment Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development. Mr. Gray (Windsor West), seconded by Mr. Ouellet, moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-15, An Act respecting investment in Canada, be not now read a second
time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence".
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the amendment lost.
Is the House ready for the next question?


Mr. Hnathyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I have had recent discussions with the Opposition House Leaders and, in view of the time, I think that there would be unanimous consent to call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
letter to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in connection with the same matter. Today I want to speak further to the matter because during Question Period I could not give the details. I was referring to Section 56(l)(a)(B) of the Income Tax Act. The Department has advised that this Section permits the taxing of death benefits and it is this Section with which I would like to deal.
In my view, the death benefits which come from the Canada Pension Plan were not paid to the taxpayer in the two cases which I will cite. The benefits were paid to the estate of a young man who was killed in an accident in the first case, and in the second case the benefits were paid to the estate of a sister who died. Under the legislation, which has been in force over the last several years, the administration is now levying a tax against the parents of the young man and against the brother of the young lady. I want to deal with these cases from the viewpoint of the legislation.
I will quickly cite the two cases. A young man was killed in an accident. He was just over 20 years of age and had no estate. The parents, who could ill afford it, sacrificed and came up with enough money to bury their son. The Canada Pension Plan assisted with a grant of $1,500, which was payable as a death benefit to the young man who had paid into the plan. The funeral costs were well over $3,000, and the parents were very happy to receive this help. However, later they received a tax bill from the Department of National Revenue which taxed them on the $ 1,500 as if it had been income which went into their pockets. It did assist in the funeral expenses, but it was not income in any sense of the word.
In the second case, a young lady died. She had no parents. Her brother, out of the goodness of his heart, decided to pay the burial expenses. Again, a Canada Pension Plan payment was made to the estate. However, the brother later received a bill, as if the money had been paid to him.
I feel there is something wrong with this legislation. Surely we should not tax the dead and make the parents or other relatives pay, especially when, out of the goodness of their hearts, they pay the funeral expenses.
I would like to read into the record Section 56 of the Income Tax Act. It reads as follows:
(1) Amounts to be included in income for year.-Without restricting the generality of section 3, there shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year,
(a) pension benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, etc.-any amount received by the taxpayer in the year as, on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of,
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question in connection with death benefits to the Hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty). The Minister advised that he would look into the matter. As well, I sent a
In each case it is the taxpayer who is getting the money, and the taxpayer is dead so it goes into the estate. Surely, we are not going to make the people who are paying the bill the taxpayer. Let us go back to Section 3. Section 3 states, and I quote:
The income of a taxpayer for a taxation year for the purposes of this Part is his income for the year determined by the following rules:
(a) determine the aggregate of amounts each of which is the taxpayer's income for the year... from a source inside or outside Canada, including,
January 24, 1985

without restricting the generality of the foregoing, his income for the year from each office, employment, business and property;
Again, we are talking about the taxpayer. The taxpayers were the sister and the young man who were killed, but they are dead and they have no estate. The Department is now charging the $1,500 payment from the Canada pension against the parents and the brother who paid the funeral and all other expenses. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the death benefit was solely for the benefit of the deceased. The parents under this Act are not the taxpayer and the brother is not the taxpayer. I would like to see this legislation amended to be made much clearer.
This is a sample of much of the Liberal taxation policy which tried to squeeze every cent out of the people of this country, even taxing the dead. I would like to see it made very clear that when Canada pension is paid to an estate, the taxpayer's estate is the recipient, not the parents or the brother who pay the bill. I bring these points to the attention of the Government because I feel they do need to be clarified.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, when the Canada Pension Plan was introduced in 1966 provision was made to pay a benefit to the estate of a contributor on his death. The death benefit payable under the Canada Pension Plan is tied into the amount of pension to which the deceased individual would be entitled up to a maximum of 10 per cent of the yearly maximum pensionable earnings. In 1984 the maximum death benefit was $2,080. Any person who has contributed to the Canada Pension Plan for any three years qualifies for the death benefit.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, premiums paid under the Canada Pension Plan are deductible in computing income for tax purposes and, similar to other deductible amounts such as contributions to registered pension plans, registered retirement savings plans and unemployment insurance, the proceeds from the plan are included in computing income. This is a fundamental principle which facilitates compliance and ease of administration.
The Hon. Member has suggested that most people believe that the Canada Pension Plan death benefit is associated with funeral expenses. The amount of funeral costs is in many ways a reflection of personal choice-some spend much and others only a minimal amount. In view of the nature of such costs, it has always been considered as personal expenses for which no deduction from income for tax purposes has been allowed.
As I am sure the Hon. Member is aware, there are many individuals who are not eligible for death benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. To exempt Canada Pension Plan death benefits from tax under the premise that they serve to pay for funeral expenses would be unfair to those taxpayers who incur such costs but are not eligible for a death benefit under the Canada Pension Plan.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the benefit received as a lump sum from the Canada Pension Plan and paid to the estate or to a beneficiary is a final payment based on a set formula. As
Adjournment Debate
indicated the contributions a taxpayer makes during his or her lifetime are fully deductible and distributions received are included in income. This is in keeping with well established principles of taxation and provides for equitable treatment to all beneficiaries; that is those in high marginal tax brackets pay proportionately more tax on the benefits received whereas those in low tax brackets pay little or no tax on receipt.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-BUDGETARY CUT-BACKS-EFFECT ON WINDSOR TELEVISION STATION. (B) REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I rise in respect to a question which I directed to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) some time ago. It is apparently more timely to now pursue the issue raised than it was then because, when I posed the question in respect to cuts which were threatened to CBET and the other CBC stations in Windsor, we were informed by the Minister that it was too early to deal with such issues on the basis that those cuts were merely rumours.
It turns out, Mr. Speaker, that the cuts at Windsor were even more vicious and more serious than had been anticipated. While between 8 per cent and 10 per cent of staff and funding were cut at CBC stations across the country because of budget cuts, Windsor experienced cuts in both in the order of 25 per cent to 30 per cent.
We in the City of Windsor consider it a very serious matter. As I pointed out at that time, geographically, Windsor is almost surrounded by the United States because it is on a peninsula in the middle of Michigan, Ohio, and New York, at the periphery of the Great Lakes. It is a community in which some 12 American television stations can be easily received. Indeed, Windsor has been described-as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary recognizes-as an area in which there is the highest density of broadcast reception in the world, the bulk of that being American.
However, it is not only the overwhelming influence of the broadcasting media which affects Windsor. The Parliamentary Secretary will also know that Windsorites are as likely to read the Detroit Free Press for the Detroit news. As I pointed out this morning, we are Detroit Tiger fans, Red Wing fans and Piston fans, and so on. At times it is difficult not to consider ourselves American, and this kind of attitude is not helped by the fact that the rest of Canada sometimes regards us, indeed, as being American and appears sometimes to cede us to the United States. Therefore, the issue of CBET in Windsor is a very serious one.
To be specific, some 63 jobs were lost and about 25 per cent of its budget shaved. There is deep concern that Windsor have access not only to Canadian programming generally, but that CBET fulfil its significant cultural function in presenting an opportunity not only for emphasis on local news and happenings but, as has been pointed out by the local musicians union and others, a significant opportunity for the exhibition of performing talents in the City of Windsor and the surrounding areas. As a result of those cuts that role has very seriously

January 24, 1985
Adjournment Debate
been affected and we are now left only with our evening news broadcast. We have lost our weekend news and virtually all local programming.
There is another aspect of Canadian broadcasting in the Windsor area of which we should not lose sight. As I pointed out previously, Windsor is a significant window to the United States. Indeed, Channel 4 as well as Channel 7 have now assumed the role of broadcasting material from the Windsor area which reflects an interest on the part of Americans as to what goes on, not only in Canada but in the local Windsor area. CBET has a prospective audience of some eight million people on the other side of the river and that is not without significance in terms of communicating what Canada is all about to the United States.
In raising the question, I sought a meeting with the Minister of Communications, which request was not responded to either when the question was posed in the House or when I subsequently communicated with him by letter. We have since met with Mr. Juneau and heard that the financial cuts to CBC were not simply applied to Windsor, a fact that we recognized, but seriously affected other communities which are isolated in peculiar ways across this country. To deal with the peculiar Windsor problems would only mean some other location would suffer, because there would not be any serious attempt to shift funds from the big centres such as Toronto and Montreal. So it seems unlikely that any profit is to be gained by talking to Mr. Juneau.
The people of Windsor still seek a meeting with the Minister and I would ask that such a meeting be arranged. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to advise the Minister of our interest and make every possible representation to ensure that we will have an opportunity to engage in that consultation. He can perhaps think about how those telefilm funds not presently being used may be given to CBC, as requested by other groups, and perhaps relieve the financial burden imposed on the CBC and open up a window to treat the situation in Windsor and other locations with respect to local production a little more leniently.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased, now that I am on somewhat more familiar ground than in my previous intervention, to address the concerns of the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), from really two points of view. First of all, as a representative of the constituency of Hamilton-Wentworth I come from the same corner of the Province of Ontario as the Hon. Member. More importantly, I reported from the Parliamentary Press Gallery
to CBET Windsor for a number of years before getting into my current profession. So I am very sensitive to his concerns with respect to maintaining the regional programming mandate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
With specific reference to the CBC's programming mandate and the over-all cuts from the corporation's budget, the Minster of Communications (Mr. Masse) has requested the CBC to attempt to make budgetary reductions primarily in administrative areas. In this regard, the Minister was pleased to note that the corporation has managed the reductions so as to protect programming as much as possible. The Minister made this request so that the reductions would minimize the negative impact on Canadian producers and artists whose development the corporation and Government wanted to encourage. The objective is to ensure that public resources now devoted to the support of artistic and journalistic expression are employed in the most effective manner possible, and that budgetary restrictions do not jeopardize the federal Government's investment in the cultural development of the nation.
Regarding consultations, the Minister specified that they take place with due regard for the respective responsibilities of the Minister of Communications and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and not infringe on their respective mandates. While some reduction was announced in radio and television network expenditures as part of the corporation's reductions, the CBC has promised to do its best to maintain the basic volume of network programming, particularly as it affects regional programming. As well, it must include the needs of smaller and more isolated locations and the interests of minority language groups.
As an aside, Mr. Speaker, of interest to the Hon. Member, CBET Windsor has a bigger news staff than its Montreal counterpart in the corporation.
The corporation has, since last June, been conducting internal reviews to assist in revenue reductions. A number of erroneous reports and remours concerning regional programming and services may have come from that process. Given the complexity of the task and the inevitable review of different options for the CBC, any decision attributed to the CBC would of course not be official until formally announced by the Corporation.
In conclusion, I suggest that it is not up to the Government to determine where those cuts should take place. It is up to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.06 p.m., the House adjourned.

Friday, January 25, 1985