1985-05-02

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 1, consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and Motions No. 19 (Mr. Axworthy) (p. 4313) and No. 20 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4314).
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when my remarks were interrupted by the adjournment of the House last evening I was discussing the reason we need an agency to review foreign investment. Canadians ask themselves, very legitimately, if we want foreign investment which cannot meet the test of being of significant value to the Canadian economy, which the previous Bill required. I also mentioned that the Government seems to be putting great stock in this Bill as it is the first and only economic measure which it has proposed in an attempt to turn around the dreadful unemployment rate in Canada. The Government seems to be throwing the responsibility for job creation to the private sector. Regrettably, with the rhetoric we have heard concerning this Bill, the Government seems to be relying almost entirely on the foreign private sector to create jobs. It is time we asked ourselves if that makes sense. I suggest that it does not.
The Investment Dealers' Association of Canada has pointed out that more than 95 per cent of the investment needs of Canada can be met by internal sources. If the economy was functioning at full capacity, instead of the restricted capacity at which it is functioning now, the investment needs would be surplus to the amount of investment which Canada could absorb.
The Government seems to spend a great deal of time attempting to copy the example and policy of the United States. I think the Government has missed the very significant differences between the U.S. and Canadian economies.
First, the savings rate in Canada far exceeds the savings rate in the United States. The Canadian rate is double or triple that of the rate of savings in the United States. That is one of the reasons, which the Investment Dealers' Association of
Canada has pointed out, that even with the depressed state of the economy Canadians can still raise over 95 per cent of Canada's investment capital.
A second significant difference between Canada and the U.S. is that the U.S. has had a trade deficit for the last four years and Canada has generated a trade surplus. Canada generates plenty of investment funds. It does not have to rely on foreign investment to get the economy moving.
If we look at the current account, we will see that for the first time in some months the Americans have a deficit. That tells us that the U.S. is beginning to rely on foreign investment, so much so there is beginning to be some question about the possibility of the U.S. being able to refinance its investment needs. In fact, most analysts have agreed that interest rates are so high in the United States because of the shortage of investment funds. The United States is hiking up interest rates and cannot attract money from outside.
I submit that Canada would make a great mistake if it followed that practice. Canada would end up charging more interest than it needs to, given the strong underpinnings of our economy. In short, the Government would be much better off concentrating on "made-in-Canada" interest rates in order to make use of the great amounts of money which are generated within Canada. If that were done, Canada could become self-sufficient in investment needs, and would be able to reap the benefits of the continued and accelerated ownership of Canadian goods and services by Canadians.

When we do set out to achieve Canadian ownership of key resources and sectors of the economy, we can be successful. While there were some problems with the National Energy Program, I think that programs preceding it and that program itself as it applied to Canadianization of the industry showed some progress. We went into that particular program owning about 11 per cent of our natural gas and oil reserves and refining capacity. Seven or eight years later that proportion of ownership had approached 30 per cent. I think that is a very good turnaround for Canadians in that period of time.
This assisted the creation of more control and ownership in Canada. It has meant that head offices are employing people in Canada. It has meant that the technology which the industry uses, because the decisions are made in Canada, tends also to be contracted within Canada. I am using that as an example, but it presents all of the arguments for some Canadian control over the type of foreign investment we have.
Because of the lack of time, I won't be able to describe a couple of recent cases where foreign investors received an advantage over potential Canadian investors, a form of dis-

May 2, 1985
Investment Canada Act
crimination which has gone on far too long in this country and which passage of this Act will only make worse.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to have an opportunity to participate in another debate on this Bill, particularly on Motion No. 19. I was somewhat hesitant to rise, Mr. Speaker, because I wanted to give the opportunity to Hon. Members of the Conservative Party to speak. I know that deep down inside they want to participate. Be that as it may, I guess they just won't be able to do so. They have probably been prohibited by someone on the Tory side. They have been whipped into line again and won't be able to say what they want to say. So I would like to take this opportunity to say it for them, as I think those Hon. Members opposite need and are looking forward to our help.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: I can tell from some of the noises coming from the book-ends over here, Mr. Speaker, that that is indeed the case.
The position of our Party is that the Minister and the committee chairman, of course, had rejected Liberal efforts in the past to make a positive contribution to this Bill by giving the Minister the power to promote investment by Canadians. The Minister only wants to exercise negative powers, as we all know, and then very rarely. The Minister seems not to be interested at all, unfortunately, in either participating in this debate himself or even to avail himself of those powers and then share them with his cabinet colleagues. He wants to exercise that authority himself and have that secretive type of discretion which we know is becoming an all too familiar approach of this Government.
I thought that some of the Hon. Members of the Conservative Party, who want a more open Government and who have campaigned on that theme during the last election campaign, would have stood today and demanded from the Minister that this whole process be changed.
I received a little pamphlet which I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker. It is entitled "Speakers Bureau of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada". It says that if one has a meeting someplace, one can phone that group and they will send back-benchers, Members of Parliament, Senators and Parliamentary Secretaries to speak in one's riding. This is misleading advertising, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) should investigate this. We in this House know that Conservative back-benchers do not speak. I have yet to see a Conservative back-bencher speak on this issue, save and except, perhaps, the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) who spoke for a few moments a few days ago. But the Hon. Member who is sitting at the other end here today should be making an important contribution to the debate on this Bill. He has factories in his riding, and the workers in those factories who want their jobs protected want him and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Ms. Jacques), and all the others, to participate in this debate.
We would hope that they will say that they want this Bill to be modified in the way that Liberals propose.
S)


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Of course, if the Minister really had the interests of the Canadian people at heart, if he really wanted to do the proper thing, he would withdraw the Bill entirely. But we know that that is not likely to happen, so we have attempted to put forward a series of strong and constructive amendments to convince this Government that the Bill could be salvaged somewhat, given a certain willingness on the part of Conservative members to understand that the modifications are indeed very necessary. We have not had the opportunity of convincing them so far, but we will continue to make our point and speak forcefully in this House on behalf of the people of Canada because the back-bench Conservative members are either unable or unwilling to do so. I am sure you understand this, Mr. Speaker, and that at an opportune time you of course would want to say this on behalf of the people of Canada because of the unwillingness of the Conservative members to do so.
We in our Party want to make the sharing of information with other Departments and agencies a formal duty of the Minister. We remember from the Domtar case and others that this particular Minister, and perhaps others who will succeed him in the future, does not have the regional interests of this country at heart.
I see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) sitting across from me. He will know, because he knows how government does business, being in charge, in a way, of letting government contracts, that this can sometimes lead him into controversy. But the fact that he is familiar with how government does business, and being a Minister from Quebec, he will know, and so will the Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner), that it is important to have that regional input into those kinds of decisions which may have an adverse effect on Canadian jobs. One of the best ways to prove this is to look back at the Domtar issue and several others in which unilateral decisions were imposed on everyone by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). I see my friend across the way is shaking his head in disapproval but he knows, being the good Member that he is, that many, many people had to lobby the Minister, and ultimately the real power in the Cabinet had to tell the Minister what to do, otherwise that province would have been forgotten. Well, on many other issues there may not be the intervention that there was in this particular case. Ministers would have their way individually and not act in the best interests of our country.
That holds true on several other issues. We know the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has some rather unique views, shall we say, on the issue of foreign investment. He believes all investments should be allowed to come in, even if it means eliminating Canadian jobs.
May 2, 1985

I remind you again of the issue I raised with you only a few days ago about the member from the Simcoe area who stated publicly that FIRA had not been strong enough to stop the take over of the Black & Decker factory in his riding and the eventual loss of hundreds of jobs. This was a Conservative member saying that FIRA was not strong enough. I am sure that when he is given the opportunity to vote on this Bill he will stand up and vote against the proposed Investment Canada legislation; he has already stated that the existing legislation needs to be strengthened, not destroyed. I find it unusual that that Member, who made such strong statements, did not participate in this debate. I challenge him now to stand up and make a contribution on the record, indicating how his constituents feel about this issue. He was quite forceful during last summer's election campaign when he talked to the good people of Barrie. He told them that he, as a Member of a Government of his Party, would not have allowed that takeover. They won that election and are in power-not that I like it, but nevertheless they are in power temporarily until the next election. They had promised to strengthen the legislation to ensure that there would not be take-overs that would unduly affect their constituents.
Rather than introducing measures to help small business, to assist the farmers of the country, or the people on social assistance, the Government's first priority was to help out the large multinational corporations. That is the priority of the Tories, Mr. Speaker. What happened to the beautiful promises they made to the people of Canada? They forgot them. They made 338 promises and probably around 325 of them will never be fulfilled.
That is enough to cause a backbench revolt by some of those very forceful Tory backbenchers who want the Government to do something to help small business and want to strengthen investment review legislation in order to ensure that jobs are not lost. Instead, they sit on their hands in the House, not even making a contribution. They do not say a word while the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is perpetrating this vicious attack on the Canadianization of our industries. When the Bill was introduced all Members on the Government side who were in the House that day applauded the legislation. They sat in their places applauding legislation which was contrary to the promises they made to the voters of their riding in the last election campaign.
The Government should withdraw the Bill entirely. However, the very least it can do is to approve whole-heartedly and speak in favour of Motion 19 as proposed by my colleague.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to make a few remarks on this fourth group of amendments and to indicate my support, as well as that of other New Democrats, for Motion Nos. 19 and 20. Motion No. 19 was moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and Motion No. 20 was moved on behalf of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).
Investment Canada Act
Both of these motions relate to Clause 6 of the Bill which reads:
There is hereby established an agency, to be known as Investment Canada, to advise and assist the Minister in exercising his powers and performing his duties under this Act.
Both of these motions are intended to ensure that this agency known as Investment Canada will have a degree of independence and will be able to perform the functions for which it is intended. While Investment Canada is supposed to assist the Minister, we believe that the assistance the Minister needs must be of a very broad nature.
Motion No. 20 reads:
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 14 at page 5 the following:
"(2) The Agency shall have the power to ask for policy directives from the
Governor in Council as it deems necessary."
Very simply, we on this side of the House believe that Investment Canada should be able to appeal to the entire Cabinet rather than be completely under the thumb of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens).
Clause 7 of the Bill states that the Governor in Council shall appoint a person to be the president of the agency, to hold office during pleasure. Clause 9 points out that other officers and employees of the agency will be appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act. The president will be appointed by the Governor in Council. We hope that the president will not simply be another patronage pay-off to another Tory hack.
We urge the Government to implement its promise that there will be an all-party committee of the House that will vet senior appointments such as this to ensure that we do have a president of Investment Canada who will have an independent mind, a broad grasp of the issues and an understanding of the implications of Investment Canada, particularly with respect to investment by non-Canadians Ih-a great many areas. Some of those areas that are particularly sensitive include culture, energy and resource development.
We believe it is necessary to appoint someone of independent mind, with a broad capacity to be aware of the implications affecting these many areas. That person should be able to receive advice from employees in the agency, because many concerns will go far beyond the scope of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Although there are 40 Cabinet Ministers, far too much power is already concentrated in the hands of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. A number of Ministers, such as the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew), do not have their own departments and we believe that if we are to have 40 Cabinet Ministers they all should have some real power. That is the reason for our Motion No. 20 that would give Investment Canada the right to appeal to the entire Cabinet.
Bill C-15 will increase the power of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to a dangerous level. We have already

May 2, 1985
Investment Canada Act
seen how the views of the Minister are not necessarily those of his Cabinet colleagues. For example, he was completely opposed to doing anything to help the Domtar situation, yet some of his Cabinet colleagues who were closer to the situation and more sensitive to it saw that there was a need for Government action in this area. Thankfully, the Minister was overruled.
Our Motion No. 20 simply provides that the agency will be able to go directly to Cabinet. This is particularly important when we are dealing with non-Canadian investment in such areas as culture or energy. I see we have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) with us this morning. I would be interested to hear his opinion on this amendment. Would the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans like the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to have the absolute discretion about investment in fish processing plants and aquaculture? Does he agree with leaving that absolute discretion in the hands of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, a person who knows absolutely nothing about the field with which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is concerned?
[DOT] (M30)
We want to see a more independent agency that has access to Cabinet at times of real concern. If the Government follows our suggestion and appoints a person of some independence of thought and mind, if the Government follows its own promises and establishes an all-Party committee to vet senior appointments like this, then we would not simply have just another Tory hack, another patronage pay-off, but someone who might have some legitimate concerns that he or she would want to take to committee. I urge support for Motion No. 20.
Motion No. 19 moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry spells out the powers of the Minister that this agency is supposed to assist. Those powers, as spelled out in this motion are to help:
-the Minister in exercising his powers under this Act, to secure notifications and conduct reviews of investments by non-Canadians under this Act, and provide to other relevant federal Departments and agencies information about means to stimulate investment by Canadians in Canada.
These powers are very important, Mr. Speaker. We believe the intention of the Bill should spell them out.
Investment Canada should have information about notifications of investment. The Investment Canada Agency should be able to look at and examine these investments and determine whether or not they really are in the best interests of all Canadians. It should be able to conduct reviews. While we are abolishing the Foreign Investment Review Agency, there will has to be an element of review even though Members opposite might not like it. There still has to be somebody charged with the responsibility of ensuring that investment is for the benefit of Canada. There should be somebody charged with coordinating information and making sure that other government Departments are responsible. This fits in very well with our Motion No. 20 that would give Investment Canada direct access to Cabinet. It should have access to other federal Departments and be able to call them in to make sure that any
investment is co-ordinated to serve the best interests of all Canadians.
What we want is to strengthen Investment Canada so it can serve the real purposes of all Canadians. This is not a good Bill. We are not happy with it. We would like to see it improved in certain key areas, by strengthening Investment Canada, by giving the Agency access to Cabinet and by spelling out the powers and duties of the Minister that Investment Canada is supposed to assist. We do not want the Minister simply to have carte blanche for his open door policy. We want to see some vestige of a review process, and we want to see wherever possible that Investment Canada will have the option of going to Cabinet when it has a concern, and not be completely under the thumb of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief words on what is taking place today on Motion No. 19 and Motion No. 20. Having listened again to the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) and the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), it is very apparent that hon. gentlemen opposite have run out of things to say on this Bill. They have become extremely repetitive. I would admit that on occasions these two gentlemen do have good ideas and do have something to contribute to debate in this House. At the present time though they have run out of ideas. What we are witnessing is something we very often get at report stage on a Bill where there is a wide difference of opinion between the Parties represented in the House of Commons.
A number of motions have been introduced, not with the idea that they add or take away anything from the Bill, but just as a vehicle for debate and prolongment. The motions we are dealing with here are frivolous motions. They are meaningless. They are senseless motions.


Mr. Gauthier:: That's nonsense.


Dave Nickerson: The Opposition is using the occasion for delay. I do not mind the Opposition doing that. I spent a lot of my life on that side of the House. I am glad I am not there any longer. I am quite happy to be on this side. But what we will have to think about in the future is changing the Standing Orders of the House of Commons dealing with report stage on Bills.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Speak to the motion.


Dave Nickerson: When we have a Bill of this nature the Opposition feels obliged to put motion after motion on the Order Paper and have these debated ad infinitum, thereby forcing the Government to bring in time allocation. That is something we do not want to do. We have been very lenient so far in this debate. There is no threat of time allocation closure as long as Opposition Members behave themselves-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 2, 1985


Dave Nickerson: -are nice and get this over with in a reasonable period of time. I ask Members of the Opposition not to force us to bring in time allocation on closure. I think we have to look at the rules of the House of Commons so we can allow the opportunity for a certain amount of delay-that is the only real power the Opposition has-but at the same time not force the Opposition into forcing the Government to bring in time allocation on practically every Bill where there is a great difference of opinion between the two sides of the House.
With respect to Motion No. 20, this is one of the most peculiar motions I have ever read in this House. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) who introduced this should go back to law school and take a course in legislative drafting, because the motion is meaningless. It purports to give to the agency the power to ask for policy directives. Any one can ask for a policy directive. I can ask for a policy directive. One does not have to write that into legislation.
If we really want to take a look at what it says here and draft it properly, what we would be saying in the Bill would be the other way around. It would say the Governor in Council shall have the authority to give policy directives to the agency. If that is what was said here, can you imagine, Sir, the howls of indignation that would come from the benches opposite? The Governor in Council is the Cabinet for all intents and purposes and we would be hearing that we have in law set up an agency that is supposed to conduct its affairs with some degree of objectivity, yet here you are giving a bunch of politicians who form the Cabinet the power to overrrule them. That is what is really being said here. If that was translated into proper, legal legislative language, I am sure opposition Members, particularly those in the New Democratic Party, would be absolutely against what they are trying to say here. It makes no sense whatsoever.
If we look at the motion introduced by the former Minister of Transport, we see that it is completely superfluous and redundant. All one has to do is read Clause 5 of the Bill. The agency is supposed to advise and assist in the exercising of all the powers and duties of the Minister by virtue of the existing Clause 6. They are all listed already. They are precisely the things which are repeated again in Motion No. 19. There is absolutely no need for it. All it is is a vehicle for debate and prolongment. There is no way that we on this side of the House will vote for something which is as nonsensical and as redundant as Motion No. 19. All these authorities are already given; all the directions are given to the Minister by the House of Commons, by the Parliament of Canada, in Clause 5.
In conclusion, I would like to make an illustration or give an example. When we had FIRA in the country, it was the big brick wall. Everybody was up against FIRA. It was an agency of Government, and its objective appeared to be to stifle investment in Canada. It was the agency which always said no. It was a very negative agency.
Investment Canada Act
In this Bill we are trying to do quite the opposite. We are trying to establish a positive agency which can be a repository for advice, knowledge and expertise in the field of investment in Canada, both by Canadians and by non-Canadians. When people walk into the office of the new agency, they will be welcomed. They will be told that we want them to invest and to create jobs in Canada. They will be told that we want profitable businesses in Canada. If they are profitable, then we can tax them. We will not subscribe to the old Liberal ideas where we have to say no to everything. We will not tell them to keep out, that we do not want their business or that we are not worried about jobs and profits.
Two or three years ago I had the opportunity to visit Malaysia which had an agency in some respects similar to the one we are trying to establish under this Bill. In talking with the members of that agency, in comparison with crossing the street and talking with FIRA people here, it was like night and day. Although there were the same kind of political problems there as there are in Canada, in that they were worried about an excess of foreign ownership and having to put on some degree of control, just as we are doing with this Bill, the whole emphasis or attitude was different. It was: "Come on in and we will try to facilitate the making of your investment because it will be to the benefit of both of us". That is what we are trying to do with this Bill.
I hope the Opposition Parties will quit using delay, will state the case and be prepared to vote on the Bill so that we can get the Act into effect as quickly as possible and start creating jobs and investment opportunities in Canada.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House after the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). As far as the Hon. Member saying that the motions proposed by Opposition Members were stupid, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that I have never heard a stupid person make such a stupid speech in this House.
Mr. Speaker, while Opposition Members have from the outset been trying to explain the logic of-


Mr. Lanthier:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for La Salle (Mr. Lanthier), on a point of order.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, is such language really parliamentary? I know there was a previous occurrence, but I would appeal to your experience. Is it parliamentary to use such language or to address remarks to Hon. Members instead of debating their arguments?


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a point order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), on a point of order.

May 2, 1985
Investment Canada Act


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member for La Salle (Mr. Lanthier) that his colleague said Opposition Members were stupid. I think he should listen more carefully and refrain from political partisanship.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Concerning the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for La Salle, I would like to point out to the House that the word used by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is parliamentary. However, it is not appropriate in the circumstances.


Mr. Rossi:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I notice that Government Members, as usual, take delight in holding up the debate when our colleagues address the House, so that they will run out of time and not be able to say what they want to say. Mr. Speaker, I urgently request that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) be given the time to which he is entitled so he will have his full 10 minutes.


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, since this is a point of order, I would ask the Chair not to include the time used to make my point of order as part of my speaking time.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with your ruling, namely that the expression, though parliamentary, is inappropriate, but I think it is appropriate when used in referring to people who really are that.
Mr. Speaker, to continue the debate concerning the comments of the Hon. Member who was criticizing Opposition Members both on the Liberal and the New Democratic Party side for proposing amendments to a Bill-in fact the aim of these amendments was mainly to protect jobs-I realize that the previous speaker is more concerned with protecting the multinationals and the wealthy. However, I think that in this House, every Member has the right to express his views as he sees fit and to defend the groups and individuals he wants to defend. If the previous speaker only wants to defend the wealthy, he will suffer the consequences. However, I think the Members of the Official Opposition and Members of the New Democratic Party are here to defend all Canadians, whatever their income or beliefs, Mr. Speaker. The amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and the previous amendments rejected by the Conservatives were in fact aimed at ensuring that all parliamentarians would be informed of all investments made in Canada, and not only that a foreign company was taking over a company in one of our ridings, but also whether that
company was going to guarantee existing jobs. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and this Government cannot be trusted, because when Bill C-15 was tabled, the first thing they said was that now Ottawa could easily get rid of Canadair. All the Bay Street Minister is interested in is selling Canadair, at any price, but he could not care less about the company's employees. I think the Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner) should wake up to this fact, since Canadair is in his riding. The Member for Lasalle, instead of worrying about whether a term is parliamentary or not, should start worrying about the employment situation in this area which affects the people west of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, this shows a complete lack of. . . The Progressive Conservative Members from Quebec will have to stop listening to these people who keep telling them that the Prime Minister is always right, that the Ministers are right, and that their job is to applaud or make sure they are in front of the camera so they can be seen on television when somebody else is speaking. It is appalling. On the weekend in my riding, people were asking where the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) had his seat, because every time a Member rose to speak, he would change seats. They wondered whether his seat had wheels. And the same applies to the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins). All they do, besides opening doors, is move from one seat to the next to make sure they are in front of the camera. Mr. Speaker, I think Progressive Conservative Members should listen-


Mr. Desjardins:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Temiscamingue, on a point of order.


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) would speak to the amendment. I think his attacks are uncalled for. We, that is, the Committee, accepted 17 amendments to this Bill, and I think Canadians would like us to get to work on other Bills they are waiting for. His attacks on us are uncalled for. We would like to hear him speak to the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that it is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I will be nice to the Hon. Member. He is not familiar with the Standing Orders, so I will be patient with him, he will learn them some day. It is just a matter of time. Mr. Speaker, he will learn the Standing Orders the day he will stop playing up to the camera and taking seats close to the speakers. He ought to go by the Standing Orders, get up on his feet and defend proposed bills.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians will understand the fears of both Opposition parties if they consider the choices and priorities of this Government. It is not a matter of one party being more
May 2, 1985

fussy than the other, for both Opposition Parties have introduced amendments to guarantee employment, to make sure that Canadian investors do not lose faith in their country, and to promote regional development throughout Canada, particularly in Quebec.
Here is the kind of headlines we see these days, Mr. Speaker:
Complete reversal of federal priorities. Military expenditures favoured over regional assistance.
Statements by ministers and Government priorities are quite enough to worry Canadians, and the whole exercise cannot be left in the hands of only one individual. Let us say I have confidence in this Minister, but all Hon. Members know that he will not be alone to monitor the situation. Officials and various people will be there to assist him. I would suggest that Hon. Members are in the best position to advise the Minister. They are supposed to be familiar with their region, their riding, and regardless of political affiliation-Conservative, Liberal and NDP alike-each Member must have a role to play because his first responsibility is to uphold the interests of men and women in his riding who elected him in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, when we consider the decisions made since September 4, or November 5 when the session began, including Summer Canada programs budget cut-backs in most ridings, no wonder people have lost faith in the Conservative majority. Various projects have been handed over to officials who make honest and sincere efforts to do their job properly, but those people cannot possibly be thoroughly familiar with our ridings and, as elected Members, we must answer to our electors for every decision made, good or bad. No Sir, I suspect the Government may have been through bad experiences with some of the Conservative Members with respect to Canada Works. The Minister did not waste time before telling those Members-Liberal Members were told automatically-that they could no longer participate with community organizations and businesses in the development of their region. That was the first sign of mistrust between them. The fight has broken out within the power hungry Cabinet. It is no secret, we all know that the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) does not get along with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). Those two are fighting, and one does not know what the other is doing. They are always looking over their shoulders. The best proof, Mr. Speaker ... The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) just said something. The best proof? The president of the national caucus was appointed, not elected. It shows a lack of confidence-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the two motions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Investment Canada Act


Jean-Claude Malépart: I am sure you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, and when you stood up, it clearly demonstrated that I was right on and that the problem is truly there. That is why all the amendments introduced both by the NDP and the Liberal Party aim at ensuring that Parliamentarians get the proper respect. These amendments call for the Cabinet to be advised of the terms of any planned takeover. That is quite normal. Why try to hide anything? Why object to public disclosure? What is there to hide? Is someone plotting anything? I wonder, because of the position of the Conservatives towards these amendments. If we consider the proliferation of the little clubs with a $100 admission fee, we become increasingly suspicious about the concentration of privileges. I can understand the Conservatives' reaction, because they cannot stand being told the truth. Otherwise, if they had nothing to hide, why would they refuse the amendments proposed both by the NDP and the Liberal Party?
Have you ever seen ordinary citizens trying to hide anything? Ordinary citizens are open, Canadians are open, and what we are trying to do, first and foremost, is to protect thousands of jobs in every part of the country.
In this regard, if we consider the substance of the amendment moved by my colleague, as well as those moved by NDP members, we realize that the purpose of all these amendments is to make sure that when foreign investors take over existing plants or build new ones in Canada, it will not result in a loss of jobs as is the case at the present time. Also, they would have to agree to continue the development of the region together with community groups. And finally, to make sure that they are not setting up shop just to be able to dump their products in our market and to force the closure of a competitor who is doing just fine.
We know that the textile industry is rather shaky. Are we going to let foreign investors come to Canada and jeopardize the future of our own companies which can hardly survive? It would be unthinkable! I believe that the information should be made public and that the member of Parliament representing the area should be the first to know, or perhaps the Progressive Conservative members do not give a damn about their constituents, preferring to travel extensively, ignore the problems and enjoy the good life. But I do not think there are many like that, Mr. Speaker. I know a number of them who are honest and sincere and who are eager to work for and defend their constituents. These people should support our amendments, Mr. Speaker.
I notice that the time allotted to me is about to expire, Mr. Speaker. I could add a great many things to try to convince them, but, unfortunately, they will not listen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) has the floor.

May 2, 1985
Investment Canada Act
[DOT]	(U50)


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: I should like to point out to my colleague that if he intends to speak about the Progressive Conservatives in his constituency, as a Progressive Conservative member, I intend to speak about some Liberal members and especially him. I am told that the Progressive Conservatives are quite bright people. They do their homework seriously instead of shouting as the Liberal member is now doing. And it is not with shouts or with charges of inaction that this country will be soundly administered. In that respect, I have been receiving complaints in my constituency and I am asked: What are they doing? And they refer to that well-known statement of Mr. Mulroney who said: "The clowns of the Liberal party are not all gone."


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I intervene again on Bill C-15 and the amendments to Clause 6. The reason for our Motion No. 20 is very obvious. We think there should be some separation between the Minister and the agency. We believe we should not give the Minister the authority to make judgments. We have a good basis for our feeling of insecurity about giving the Minister that kind of power. Consequently, we moved this particular motion which would eliminate, as far as possible, the kind of control and power that is given to the Minister by this Bill.
If we were to look at the long-term Tory position we would find first that there is not that much difference between the present Tory position and the past Liberal position, although the periphery of that position is being defended very strongly these days. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that he would put FIR A on the back burner and would establish a new screening process, and that looked as though it might be a good idea. However, we now find that the screening process is made up of a pretty big net through which everything can fall.
[DOT]	(1200)
I would like to quote from a statement by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). He said:
Let us look at foreign investment. The test now is whether that investment is of significant benefit to Canada. I say, Mr. Speaker, that almost every investment in Canada is a benefit to Canada-We do not need to turn it off-What we must do as part of our industrial strategy is to remove the shackles put on foreign investment.
We need to have another strategy, Mr. Speaker, a strategy of hands off.
That is the Tory policy as far as investment in Canada is concerned. It is unfortunate.
Over the years the policy has changed considerably. It seems that the Conservative Party has taken on the mantle of C. D. Howe, the mantle of unfettered continentalism, in opening the doors to investment, particularly investment from the United States. I wonder what the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker would say, if he were listening to this debate, with respect to the policy of the present Conservative Government. I wonder what John A. Macdonald would say if he was listening to this
debate and hearing what the Conservatives are attempting to do by removing FIRA and any inhibitions to foreign investment in Canada. I can imagine what Mr. Diefenbaker would say. He would be on the floor of the House every minute of the day saying that this policy would make Canada the fifty-first state of the United States. We do not trust the policy and, therefore, we believe that making it difficult for the Minister to have these powers under the Bill is worth-while.
Motion No. 19, which would also amend Clause 6 of the Bill, is an attempt to have more Canadianization. Nothing could be better. This Party knows, as does the Government, that the net amount of investment in Canada during the last 25 years has been negative. More Canadian money has been invested outside Canada than has been invested by foreigners in Canada. More money has left Canada in research and development, profits and interest than has come into Canada during the last 25 years. If the Government wants to establish Canadianization, it should look at investment and turn it around. It should not increase foreign investment, because it has a domino effect. The more investment, ownership and money which foreign companies have in Canada, the more they will spend increasing the size of their companies. Those foreign companies will become larger and expand into other areas. Canadianization over the years has had some impetus as far as the Government is concerned, but this Bill will turn that entirely around. Canadian nationalism will no longer be a basis for development in Canada.
I spent a number of years in Nigeria. That country is considered to be part of the Third World. At that time the Government of Nigeria was what we in Canada would call a benevolent despot; it had a military government. However, Nigeria had the courage to realize that if it was going anywhere, it had to own Nigeria. That Government put into place a Nigerianization policy, which allowed it to take over small businesses and large corporations. Nigeria did that, even though it was having problems maintaining its status as a democracy. The people in that Government had the courage, foresight and understanding of foreign ownership which enabled them to eliminate, as far as possible, foreign ownership of Nigeria's businesses and industries.
For example, the Nigerian policy dictated that any industry which was worth under 400,000 naira had to be owned and operated entirely by Nigerians. Nigeria gave those companies two years to find Nigerians buyers. If no buyer was found, those companies would be closed down and Nigerians would take over. The same policy existed for large corporations. The Nigerian policy dictated that within a certain amount of time a major portion of the shareholders of the companies had to be Nigerian.
Canada is a much more sophisticated and developed country than Nigeria, but it is unable to control investment in Canada. In fact, this Government thinks that the more investment, the better. The Government thinks that the closer Canada gets to the United States, the better, and the more the U.S. owns in Canada, the better. The idea of Canada becoming the fifty-first state of the United States must be looked at very closely.
May 2, 1985

These amendments form step one in the process of considering and possibly stopping that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to speak to Motion No. 19 as proposed by my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and try and convince Hon. Members that the amendment in question is indeed an important one.
What the motion means is that the Minister is being asked to do two things. First of all, he is being asked to carefully consider foreign take-overs, making sure he has done everything in his power to encourage other Canadian companies to take an interest in a company that may be purchased by foreign interests. Second, the Minister is being asked to exercise the powers he has to inform his Cabinet colleagues about what is going on in his department and, conversely, to receive from those same Cabinet colleagues the information he needs to ensure that everything is proceeding in an orderly fashion, that everything is co-ordinated, and that all parties are working together to create jobs and attract investment for the benefit of our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the amendment in question, and without quoting extensively from what was said in committee and in various public forums where people have asked that the Minister be given such authority, I simply want to comment on a recommendation by the President of the Science Council, Dr. Stuart Smith, because he appeared before the committee and asked the Government to carefully examine the following suggestion, namely that... As the House is aware, there is a $5 million threshold, which means that the Government must carefully examine any foreign take-over of Canadian assets worth more than $5 million. On the other hand, there are of course companies, and I know several... I see my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote), I see my colleagues from the Ottawa-Carleton area ... there are many communities in Canada where industries with assets worth less than $5 million and provide employment might be the subject of a foreign take-over or might be of particular interest to a foreign company, and this might be a lumber mill or a sawmill or a paper mill, whatever, a local industry, and of course I am not talking about a shoe store, for instance, that might be bought out . . . That is not what I mean. I am referring to established industries that are important to the community where they are located.
Mr. Speaker, every year, the Government gives grants to companies and industries in the private sector. Sometimes there are very good reasons for helping a company. For instance, a company may be given a grant of $100,000.
When Mr. Smith proposed the amendment before the committee, he said: Any company which receives $100,000 in five years or over five years should be the subject of close scrutiny by the Minister to make sure that the company was not sold to
Investment Canada Act
foreign interests at a profit, thus taking advantage of the $100,000 grant.
I think it is serious, I think it is necessary, and I think coordination is required at the departmental level to be sure that grants to companies benefit Canadian companies and, therefore, Canadian workers. That is why, first, I urge the Minister to find out whether there might be a Canadian company interested in buying the company and continue to create jobs and operate the factory, the plant or the sawmill. Second, I think it is important that the Minister should know how much the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon), for instance, contributes to development or research. I think he has to know what the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) may have given in grants to such or such company, or such or such organization, just so he might be able to say: My colleagues and I will coordinate the whole thing, see to it that everybody knows what the left and right hands are doing so that, one way or another, Canadians will become interested in the economic activity of their country.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the motion under consideration has a dual purpose: first, to secure notifications and conduct reviews of investments by non-Canadians and, second, to provide to other relevant federal departments and agencies information about means to stimulate investment by Canadians in Canada.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, we feel it is very important that these reviews be conducted on all proposed foreign investments, especially those which deal with the high tech industry and research and development and those that have received grants of $100,000 or more in encouragement from the federal Government so that they can continue operating in our country.
Everyone knows that Ottawa-Carleton has a very active high tech industry. That high tech industry has been the object of federal and provincial grants. That industry has received these grants to encourage it to establish itself and to create jobs in the Ottawa area. Recently, the Chairman of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton wrote to the Premier of this province asking him to put more money into the Ottawa-Carleton area so that its high tech industry can really grow and prosper. The Minister responsible for this legislation before the House could, in my opinion, co-ordinate not only with his colleagues in Cabinet but with the provincial Government, and possibly with the municipal Governments so that, indeed, we could look at a program of encouragement, co-ordination and working together to encourage these industries to grow.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record the statements made by Mr. Haydon in his letter to the Provincial

May 2, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Government. Ele was asking for more extensive economic activity in the Ottawa-Carleton area, adding that Ottawa-Carleton, after having contributed in promoting Ontario's international reputation in the area of high technology, is now demanding greater attention. Those are his terms, and I am reading from a report published April 27, 1985 in the newspaper Le Droit. The Provincial Government to provide the following programs, and hopefully they can be implemented with the co-operation of the Canadian Government:
Assistance to firms that want to invest in the construction of research laboratories, research and development loans, financial help up to $100,000-
As you see, this agrees with the recommandation made by Dr. Stuart Smith, President of the Science Council.
The Chairman of the RMOC is also asking the Provincial Government to provide grants for the universities of Carleton and Ottawa for new technology facilities, and to exponentially increase research grants to the Ottawa-Carleton Research Institute.
Recalling the role of high technology-
Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Regional Municipality, Mr. Andrew Haydon, goes on to say:
-job creation, Mr. Haydon stressed the fact that such selective programs for Ottawa-Carleton would catalyze the energy needed for high technology industries to reach the critical mass needed to settle down and face competition.
There is the objective: create jobs and expand our high technology industry in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I think this is worthwhile. I am wondering what the MPs for Ottawa-Carleton, that is Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner), Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) will do about this issue. I wonder if they will also show concern, rise in this House and suggest that we are in fact requiring some sort of coordination between the federal, provincial, municipal and probably regional governments in order that the leaders may know that the Canadian Government is in a position to co-operate with all those participants and in this way promote and create jobs, making sure that the high technology sector can develop through full co-operation a meaningful industry, an industry which is vital to all of us, an industry which will create jobs, an industry which, as far as we, residents of Ottawa-Carleton, are concerned, Mr. Speaker, has made a significant contribution to the local economy.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 too wish to join in the debate today on the amendments proposed by my Party and by the Liberal Party. These amendments are aimed to strengthen the Bill and make it at least a little more palatable to the people of Canada. I very much think that as a whole, the Bill is a backward step.
I know that Hon. Members of the present Government and, in previous years, members of the Liberal Government as well, have bowed to the notion that foreign investment is good. They have never really critically examined that proposition. It has been shown in the history of our country, surely, Mr. Speaker, that it is not necessarily good at all times. Simple logic would tell you, Mr. Speaker, that a person invests in an enterprise hoping to get back than what he puts in. We have seen over the
years the amount of money which eventually leaves Canada in the form of foreign investment, return on interest and dividend payments of past investment in Canada. The capital which leaves this country is greater than the capital which comes into this country.
Essentially, we are digging a hole and we try to attract foreign capital to fill that hole but in doing so we have just dug ourselves that much deeper into the hole. The foreign investment we receive, we will in time pay out many, many fold. Therefore, it has always seemed to us in the New Democratic party that it becomes more desirable to have Canadian ownership and Canadian control over our economy. Unfortunately, the Bill which we are debating today is a backward step from that notion of Canadian control.
The first amendment introduced by the New Democratic Party attempts to give the Cabinet a little more power over the Minister. As things stand now with the present legislation, it is the Minister and the Minister alone with his agency who will make the decisions as to what type of foreign take-over should be allowed. In other words, it is the Minister who decides whether a take-over of some cultural agency or research facility or energy corporation by some foreign agency should be allowed.
We suggest it is not just the Minister responsible for this Department who should make that decision; the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) should be involved when decisions have to be made which affect their particular field.
We feel the legislation as it stands now gives the agency and its Minister too much power. We have attempted in our amendments to be more specific, but unfortunately those amendments were ruled out of order so all we have left is the amendment which now stands before us. All it does is call for the Cabinet to have the power to give some broad policy direction to the agency and the Minister.
The amendment introduced by the Liberal Party is also a worthy amendment. It attempts to foster greater concern by the agency in developing Canadian investment. When we heard government members explain the Bill to us, they paid lip service to the notion that there should be greater Canadian investment in Canadian industries. Yet we found there was precious little in the Bill which would have the agency actively go out and attempt to foster greater Canadian investment in Canadian industry.
Both ourselves and the Liberals attempted to introduce other amendments which would be more specific concerning direction to the agency to seek more Canadian investment, but those amendments were not considered to be in order. Therefore, we are left with the amendment before us today, but the intent is both worthy and important. We believe there should
May 2, 1985

be something in the legislation to direct the agency to be more active in seeking investment by Canadians.
These two amendments will improve the Bill. They will give greater responsibility to the Cabinet as a whole in setting policy so that cultural agencies and scientific intensive companies would not be taken over, based on the decision of one person, the Minister in charge, but that the responsibility be shared by the Cabinet as a whole.
We feel as well that the Bill should be more specific in directing the agency to seek greater Canadian investment in Canadian industries. They are important amendments which I had hoped the government members would find to be worthy and positive additions to the legislation. Instead we have heard the few government members who have stood up accuse us of attempting to fillibuster. I am somewhat amused when I hear some of the Hon. Members across the way make that accusation; less than a year ago some of them were participants in tactics which should make them blush when they make that accusation about us.


Dave Nickerson: We have matured since then.


Simon Leendert de Jong: It is amazing how government members claim that they have seen the light since they have crossed the floor. I would suggest they have lost the light.


Mr. Blaikie:: They went into the cave.


Simon Leendert de Jong: If the Government is really concerned about developing a more co-operative attitude in the House where the Opposition need not resort to attempting to drag a Bill out, which is one of the few instruments we have of making the Government accept some of the changes we are proposing, then the Government must also view the Opposition and its amendments as legitimate representatives of the people of Canada, having legitimate points to make, and the Government should cease rejecting out of hand everything we have proposed just because the bureaucrats in the back room and the few power Ministers have said no, this is the way it is going to be and damn what they say across the way; we are going to push this through whatever may come.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Tories just do what the bureaucrats tell them.


Simon Leendert de Jong: If the Government is interested in a new co-operative attitude in this House, it has to start looking seriously at the ideas we are proposing. A good example of that is the amendments we are proposing today. These amendments will strengthen the Bill. They will be of benefit to the people of Canada and therefore the Government should give serious consideration and support to these amendments when they come to a vote.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on the amendments before us, it seems to me that anything which will improve the living conditions and lifestyle of Canadians is the kind of thing we want. You have to use a litmus test to examine whether this legislation will meet some
Investment Canada Act
of the basic values and principles which we have the responsibility to move forward in any agenda for all Canadians.
With respect to the definition of the role and responsibility of the Minister, he should be very grateful that the amendments say in a sense that we want to remove this onerous task from his shoulders alone and have him share it with the other members of his Cabinet, share the responsibilities he has to direct the future of Canada, because he has chosen to throw down this welcome mat at a most unusual time in the history of our country and the world.
We are part of a world of competition, a world that is facing some very difficult times. I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister, and particularly his staff, an article which I came across entitled "Canada For Sale, But Who's Buying?". It was written by Deborah McGregor, who points out that there is growing evidence that all the developing countries are desperate for economic growth and they are now winning a bigger share of the world-wide potential of $550 billion in annual foreign direct investment. In fact, the proliferation of free trade zones in developing countries where corporations are given a host of tax incentives and other concessions to produce exports is causing the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund new concern, because this is adding to the fiscal burdens of those countries. In that light, Canada could be compared to a high-priced boutique open for business when all the surrounding shops are holding half-price sales.
If the Minister is serious in considering the well-being of Canadians and wanting to promote an improved lot for us, he is not addressing the issue. If he would accept an amendment of this kind, he would share his responsibility with the entire Cabinet, and it would not rest solely on his shoulders. I would like to bring to the minister's attention, and that of the members of the Government certain realities. They are of the opinion that by just changing the name from FIRA to Investment Canada we are going to have an automatic inflow of dollars. Well, I would like to share some realities which The Globe and Mail brought to our attention.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the conservatives have been blaming FIRA and the NEP for scaring away foreign direct investment. They have attempted to bolster their point by pointing to StatsCan figures on net U.S. direct investment into Canada. I think it is very hard to argue with StatsCan figures, so in that sense I would like to bring them to their attention.
The article goes on to say:
Indeed, these figures seem to show U.S. capital fleeing Canada in 1976, the year after FIRA was set up, and in 1981-83 after the imposition of the NEP.
Yet, on their own, these net figures are misleading because they are made up of two quite distinct component parts: actual U.S. direct investment into Canada (called gross inflows by Statscan); and the buying back of branch plants by Canadian firms (called gross outflows by Statscan).
When these component parts are examined, the picture is significantly different from that painted by Mr. Mulroney. For until 1982, the gross inflow of U.S. direct investment into Canada continued to expand-in spite of FIRA and in

May 2, 1985
Investment Canada Act
spite of the NEP. Gross inflows varied between $l-and $ 1.4-billion throughout most ot the 1970s, before skyrocketing during 1980 and 1981.
FIRA and the NEP did, however, seem to affect significantly the other side of the ledger, the so-called gross outflows of capital from Canada to the United States as Canadians bought back U.S. branch plants.
This trend to repatriation, accelerated by the NEP in particular, peaked in 1981. That year, a massive $6.9-billion left the country, mainly to pay for the purchase by Canadians of U.S.-controlled energy firms resident in Canada.
But while the NEP affected repatriation, it did not seem to turn off the gross inflow of U.S. direct investment into Canada. For that too peaked in 1981, at $3.2-billion. Gross inflows of U.S. direct investment began to decline significantly only in 1982 as the world recession took hold and raw material prices plummeted.
We are not going to cure the problems of Canada by merely changing the name. I strongly recommend that this amendment be considered most seriously. If you look at the responsibilities the Minister has arrogated to himself under Clause 5 you will see that he is really not rendering the country any service. I suggest that he review what he has undertaken and what his standing committee decided to accept. He should take a good hard look and be open-minded and open-spirited with respect to this amendment.
All amendments should withstand some of the litmus tests of our society. If the Minister is to share his perspective with Employment Canada and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), he might be in a position to ensure that the goals which the Government has been enunciating on employment equity are applied and followed through when foreign companies come in to purchase our companies.
The Minister and the Government have thrown down this welcome that. They are inviting the global corporation-which I gather is the new word for multinationals-to come in. They are saying that we are open for business. They must be reminded that we were always open for business, but in this time of stiffer competition money flows where it can be productive. If this money is to be productive the Minister should share his power with other members of the Cabinet, involving as many Ministers as possible.
We must recognize some stark realities. This is not the way that unemployment, particularly among our youth, the need for education and training, the problems of our aged, and the area of ecology and peace will be addressed. Those are the issues which need to be addressed. This Minister and his ministry can certainly do something. Perhaps it can be partly accomplished through this Bill.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I sincerely hope that some attention will have been paid, both to me and to the issue, and I hope that the amendments will be adopted.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on the amendments which have been put forward on Clause 6 of Bill C-15. That clause establishes the agency, to be known as Investment Canada, to advise and assist the Minister in exercising his powers and performing his duties under this Act.
The amendments before us, which I hope the Government will consider accepting, seek to increase the power of the
Investment Canada agency in relation to the Minister who now has the final decision-making authority. These amendments suggest that in certain areas of ambiguity or uncertainty with respect to exercising its mandate, the agency be able to go directly to Cabinet for a decision. The objective of this, Mr. Speaker, is to put some distance between the agency and the Minister without changing the advisory role. This is part of a set of amendments aimed at strengthening the agency itself, as opposed to the Minister.
I regret that so little attention is being paid by the media to the clause by clause consideration of this Bill at report stage. The amendments we debated yesterday dealt with the secrecy aspects which are built into the new agency, as they were in FIRA. The first set of amendments we dealt with were with regard to giving some indication, in the purpose of the Bill, that we wanted the federal Government to show some discrimination in what form of investment it deemed to be beneficial. All these amendments are very helpful in pointing out some very fundamental differences between the Opposition Parties and the Government with regard to the issue of foreign investment.
This is not an ordinary Bill, Mr. Speaker. This Bill represents a drastic change in the way in which we see ourselves as a country and the way in which we understand our national economic integrity. For that reason, much more attention should be paid to the arguments which are being made on both sides of the House. The Government offers a view of Canada's economic future and integrity which is accepted by many Canadians. The Opposition also offers a view which is accepted by many Canadians. I find it regrettable that there is no reporting of the debate as it proceeds in the House.
The issue of foreign investment is absolutely central to the future of any country and to its understanding of itself. Only minutes ago I came from a meeting with Dr. Allan Boesak from South Africa. One of the things which we had occasion to speak about during that meeting was his contention that a change in the foreign investment activities of other countries in South Africa would have a beneficial effect on the struggle of black people there to achieve their freedom and get rid of Apartheid. I realize that that view is not accepted by a great many people. However, it is a view held by increasing numbers of people who are concerned about the situation in South Africa.
They know that not just South Africa but the whole world is sitting on a time bomb that will eventually go off if countries like Canada do not put pressure on the South African Government to radically change its attitude and do away with apartheid.
While that is not a widely held view, I raise this question because it is an example, that is also evident in other countries, of how decisions about foreign investment not only affect the marketplace but the future of those countries in which the investments are made.
May 2, 1985

Although Canada does not face the same situation as South Africa, that is an extreme example which shows that foreign investment is not only economic in nature but affects the social, cultural and environmental dimensions of the countries in which investments are made. That is why we very much regret the uncritical attitude of this Bill toward foreign investment.
When I spoke to previous amendments that our Party proposed for the purpose of the Bill, I said that we wanted the Bill to indicate a willingness on the part of the Government to exercise discretion and simply not accept the premise that all foreign investment is beneficial. We want the Government to learn from the experience of other countries as well as ours that not all investment is beneficial and not all technologies are beneficial. That discretion will be impossible as a result of the Government's actions. Not only is the Government making these judgments impossible, it is saying that it is undesirable to make those judgments.
The Progressive Conservatives often say that we are open for business. What does that mean? It seems to me that in the context of what the Government has done until now and what is contained in this Bill, "open for business" means sending out the right signals to the investment community. Unfortunately, the Government signals its attitude toward working people and labour-management relations by postponing the amendments to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code. Its signal with respect to the environment has been to cancel research and monitoring programs in order to tell those who want to invest here that they can do what they want to the environment and the Government will not do anything about it. The Government's message with respect to social programs is that it is more willing to tamper with universality than to reform the tax system and collect revenue that would help offset the deficit and eliminate the need to tamper with the social programs.
While it may appear that the Government has made a series of mistakes with respect to these issues, there is an internal coherence to all of its actions. While the Government's other actions were a matter of policy, this Bill is the singlemost legislative action on the part of the Government which is part and parcel of the Government's over-all strategy. Therefore, it is very important that Canadians pay attention to this very fundamental debate about our position in the economic community.
Our Party believes that we should not capitulate and follow the trend in the world to play one country against another. We should resist those trends and work toward a new international economic order in which countries do not have to engage in such a policy by seeing who could be more obsequious to the investment community in order to get jobs.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, the amendments we are discussing today concern the powers of
Investment Canada Act
the Minister responsible for the administration of the future agency known as Investment Canada.
Our amendment aims at extending the scope of the Bill so that the various departments and agencies can be kept adequately informed in order to be in a position to promote Canadian investments in Canada.
The main concern of this Government is to open our doors to foreign investors. Its first action as a Government was to introduce legislation to facilitate the takeover of Canadian markets by allowing foreign interests to invest in Canada without inquiring about their intentions or future projects.
Of course, foreign investment should be promoted in Canada. We do not refuse any capital inflow, but if foreign interests develop our markets and our resources, they must contribute to the social, cultural and economic development of this country.
Would the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) be willing to entertain people as guests in his home without knowing where they come from, what they do and what they intend to do?
If he had to share his house with these people, would he not ensure that it would be of benefit both to himself and his guests, and that they would help to upgrade rather than degrade his property?
I am certain that, before sharing his house with strangers, the Minister would consult the members of his family. If he then decided that it was to his advantage to share his house, he would ask his friends, relatives and acquaintances to suggest someone suitable in the vicinity rather than a foreigner.
Before concerning himself with foreign investors, did the Minister think about Canadian investors? What legislation promoting Canadian investment have we had in the 8 months since the Progressive Conservative Government came into power? None, Mr. Speaker! On the contrary, to discourage Canadian investments, the Progressive Conservative Government has increased the sales tax, the price of gas and unemployment insurance premiums, which all increase the direct costs of businesses. Those were the first decisions of the Progressive Conservative Government to discourage Canadian investors. It is now introducing a new piece of legislation called "Investment Canada" which is aimed, not at Canadian investors, but rather at foreign investors, so that they will have every opportunity to lessen the entrepreneurship our young people had developed because they were assured that their efforts would be protected by FIRA. Even though we welcomed foreign capital, we ensured that everything would be under Canadian control and that Canadian business would be protected.
Mr. Speaker, our figures show that the savings rate in Canada is twice as high as that in the United States. If we have so much money in this country, why do we not encourage Canadians to invest in our businesses?
We all know that our small businesses create most of the new jobs in this country, but why do we not encourage

May 2, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Canadians to invest in this sector in order to create the hundred thousand jobs our young people need?
It is clear that foreign investors will not come to Canada to start small businesses. We know full well that because large corporations prefer to operate with robots, they create such a limited number of jobs that they should not be allowed to use our wide open-door policy to jeopardize the future of our small businesses, which account for 80 per cent of our jobs.
Mr. Speaker, this government does not understand the importance of small businesses. The Minister clearly demonstrated that when he introduced his amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act. This legislation which in the past had helped thousands of Canadians to start their own businesses, this government, in one of its earliest initiatives, made it less accessible to businessmen, thereby discouraging Canadian investors and stopping the development of a great many small businesses.
And what about the Domtar mess? Again, the government failed to encourage Canadian investment, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion refused categorically to help, without even considering the benefits which would accrue to both Canada's and Quebec's economies. The Minister has chosen to deal with our neighbours instead of encouraging our own people.
Just how many Canadian projects have failed because of this government's incompetence? Just how many jobs have we lost because of this Conservative government's ineptitude which favours foreign investment at the expense of Canadian investment?
As recently as this morning, I read the following heading in the economic section of the Le Devoir daily:
Ottawa attaching too much importance to foreign investment in Canada.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put on the record a couple of paragraphs from this article:
The head of the Quebec General Delegation emphasized that he did not mean to go to war against the federal government. Even at the height of the Constitutional crisis, the Canadian embassy has always demonstrated its willingness to co-operate on economic issues ... Yet, its concern is legitimate, in his opinion, considering that the federal government's interest in the promotion of foreign investment is new.
In fact, this interest is as new as the election of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney who, as soon as he assumed power, announced his intention to abolish the Foreign Investment Review Agency (FIRA). During his official visit to England, he even made it the main theme of his trip.
After selling Canada cheap to the United States in January, the Prime Minister is again trying to sell it to Europe. That shows the little consideration this government has for Canadian investors and small businesses which are responsible for the majority of jobs created in this country.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today not so much to make a speech but to comment specifically on these two very important motions before us. One of these motions was submitted by the Liberal caucus and one was submitted by the New Democratic caucus. Both motions in a sense attempt to do the same thing.
First, i want to be specific about Motion No. 20. This amendment seeks to increase the power of the Investment Canada agency in relation to the Minister who is now the final decision-making authority. It suggests that in certain areas of ambiguity or uncertainty with respect to the exercise of the corporation's mandate it is able to go directly to the Cabinet to get a decision. The aim of this motion is to put some distance between the agency and the Minister without changing the advisory rule of the organization.
This comes forward after, I think it is fair to say, the New Democratic Party having been on record time and time again suggesting that this Bill in total is not in the best interests of Canada. This motion is an attempt to improve an already inappropriate or bad Bill. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you are asking what the Hon. Member means when he says it is a bad Bill. I want to pose the question to Hon. Members assembled through you, Mr. Speaker, namely, do we want foreign investments in Canada that cannot meet the test of significant benefit to Canadians? That is basically the fundamental question. Why do we want to fall over ourselves as a country attracting foreign investment, foreign control of our economy, without assuring that this foreign control of our economy is in the best interests of Canada and Canadian citizens generally?
As responsible parliamentarians, we must not get caught up in the assumption that any business is good for the country, that any kind of technology will obviously benefit us. I do not have to go through the long list of corporations operating in Canada, some of them foreign, some of them domestic, that have not been operating in the best interests of Canada, in a whole variety of ways. I think of some of the petrochemical companies, the Love Canal situation and the acid rain that is now falling on this part of Canada. I looked at my deck early this morning. While I painted it last fall, as a result of the rainfall and snowfall I have to repaint it this spring-because of the penetrating influence of the acid rain continually falling from our skies.
I see the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is in the House. He will recall that it was about 18 months ago when there was concern about the building in which we are sitting today because acid rain had caused parts of it to crumble and fall. These situations arise as a result of companies like Inco-both public and private corporations-which have not, in spite of many an attempt by Government to regulate, always acted in the country's best interests. That is all we are saying. Let us not get caught up in the rhetoric that whatever is business is therefore good; what is good for the Bank of Montreal is good for everyone, what is good for Inco is good for everyone. It is that assumption that we are attempt-
May 2, 1985

ing to challenge by suggesting foreign-owned corporations in Canada, and this is supported by our own studies in the House of Commons, import much more of what they need from their home countries than they do from Canadian sources.
Put simply, if a foreign company opens up a branch plant in Canada its tendency is to obtain services and goods from the parent corporation as opposed to the Canadian company that is down at the end of the block, at the other end of town or, at the other end of the province or the country. One respects that. It is keeping the cash flow within the family, but it is not necessarily in the best interests of Canadian companies, large and small.
Companies tend to discourage competition with their parent company. Again that is totally understandable. If a branch plant from an American corporation is operating in Canada, it will not want to go into the international markets and attempt to compete with a parent company. I think that is only common sense. These branch plants are here to serve this little market and this little market only. Any attempt to sell more lumber or finished products on the world market is not part of their mandate. It is not part of their raison d'etre-, it is not part of the reason for their presence in Canada. In that case, the restriction is on a foreign company operating in Canada which is not necessarily here to expand in the best interests of the Canadian economy, Canadian suppliers, Canadian exporters and the like.
One could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I think I would choose to end my comments by quoting from the Progressive Conservative Party's own task force on high technology. In the report we find the following:
Recent data indicates that the research and development intensity of foreign subsidiaries in Canada tends to lack behind domestically-owned operations of comparable magnitude.
Perhaps I will have an opportunity to enlarge on that point this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, once again this year ice is blocking many of
the bays around the Island of Newfoundland and along the coast of Labrador. As in past years, fishermen, particularly inshore fishermen, are unable to get their boats out and to fish as they usually do. This has happened before; it has now happened again.
Fishermen cannot collect unemployment insurance benefits after May 15. After that time there is no income for them whatsoever. This situation has gone on and has not been corrected. I call upon the Government to correct the situation by bringing in measures to amend the regulations so that fishermen are treated on a par with other workers, and are allowed to collect unemployment insurance benefits until such time as they are able to go to work once more.
Failing that, I call upon the Government to do what has been done before, to make an ex gratia payment, a special allotment, for those fishermen who will have no other income after May 15, so that they will be able to feed themselves and their families until such time as the ice has gone and they are able to fish again.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, Canadians heaved a small sigh of relief yesterday at the news that we would not be going along with the American embargo on trade with Nicaragua.
President Reagan's failure to consult, or even to notify the Canadian Government, should tell us that it is very difficult to be a paranoid's best friend. President Reagan's bully-boy tactics do not even reflect the majority American opinion as expressed in the resounding House of Representative's defeat of his $14 million program to help right-wing rebels. President Reagan's cowboy diplomacy poses a grave threat, not only to the fragile economy of Nicaragua, but also to the equally fragile stability and peace of our world.
Canada has a responsibility to tell President Reagan that we do not support his fantastic goal of overthrowing the Nicaraguan Government. Rather, we should increase our aid to the people of Nicaragua and take immediate action to widen our trade. Let us tell the people of Nicaragua that we are indeed open for business.



NATIONAL FOREST WEEK


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my hon. colleagues that next week is National Forest Week, making forestry the focus for many celebrations across Canada. These festivities will provide Canadians with an understanding of the resource and its benefits. It is time for

May 2, 1985
Canadians to appreciate our forest resource and to learn more about it.
I am particularly proud that the City of Grande Prairie in my riding has been chosen as this year's capital of Alberta. I will be with the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merri-thew) this weekend as he presides at events in my own riding and in other communities throughout Saskatchewan and Alberta. The forest is a vital element in these communities. It provides economic, recreational, and ecological benefits.
As a nation we have been blessed with the wealth from this resource for centuries. Only recently we have realized the importance of preserving it through proper management, reforestation, protection against insects, disease, and forest fires, and through the use of improved forestry methods.
To mark these festivities the Minister of State for Forestry and the Forestry Service will provide Hon. Members of the House and members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery with a seedling of a genetically improved white spruce. This is our chance, through the care of this fragile gift, to show our concern and support for forestry in Canada.
In closing, I urge Hon. Members of the House to support the activities of National Forest Week taking place in their communities.



FORESTRY


Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, on April 30, 1985, the Canada-Quebec subagreement on forestry development was signed. Under that agreement, both Governments will promote forestry development in order to increase the availability of that resource, and foster the setting up of basic nursery equipment and, of course, of research facilities. This is a $300 million agreement over the five next years.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, for too long we have felt that our natural resources were inexhaustible. For too long we have utilized our forests without carrying out any real policy. This agreement is the trademark of a responsible Government. And believe me, the constituency of Champlain will derive more than significant benefits from it.
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec forestry is one of the main sources of jobs. And since 1970, the number of jobs has been on a steady decline. From 14,815 that it was in 1970, it decreased to 8,994 in 1982, in logging operations alone.
To conclude, I am proud that we now have a forestry policy, and this means jobs. This also means an insurance policy on that national resource, because this Government will safeguard the heritage we will be leaving to the younger generations.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbel: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the statement made by the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Romp-key). Indeed the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr Fraser) knows that the situation in Newfoundland this year with respect to ice conditions is almost unprecedented. The Minister knows that all along the great northern peninsula, the White Bay region of the province, and on the northeast coast, severe winter conditions are still being experienced and that we have pack ice going off the coast for miles. Also he knows that in 1984, and indeed in 1974, special incentives or payments were provided to fishermen who were unable to acquire an income at this time of the year because their unemployment insurance expired on May 15.
The Minister of Fisheries met with the President of the fishermen's union within the last 24 yours, who was here in Ottawa to underline the urgency of this matter. I ask him to respond through the House to all Canadians, and in particular to the people of Newfoundland who really have no other form of income to which to turn, as quickly as possible, in respect of this matter.
I know the Minister has the welfare and well-being of fishermen at heart. I know he will be able to convince his Cabinet colleagues, particularly the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), to come forward with some kind of answer very soon.
[DOT] * *


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, all friends of Riding Mountain National Park, and those concerned with the preservation of our dwindling heritage of natural habitat, should be aware of a matter which poses a threat to the integrity of that park, the proposal by a Progressive Conservative MLA in Manitoba to construct a new road through the west end of the park.
Riding Mountain National Park is a world class heritage area. It is one of the richest, most diverse wilderness settings in North America, surrounded by intensive agricultural towns and villages. It is an island of wilderness, surrounded by human development. This home to thousands of elk, moose, deer, and beaver, dozens of wolves and coyotes, and the elusive lynx and cougar, is in its present healthy state because it has been protected by wise policies and laws over the past 50 years. We cannot permit this rich heritage to be violated by new roads into pristine wilderness areas. This road would disrupt vegetation and wildlife patterns, increase poaching and road kills, and increase the incidence of forest fires caused by the
May 2, 1985

carelessness of passersby. The integrity of such a rich natural wan exports is its ingenuity which contributes to Canada's environment in southern Canada should be kept intact.	future prosperity.
*
[DOT] *



FORESTRY


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Champlain (Mr. Champagne) has done, I would like today to stress before this House the importance of the recent Canada-Quebec subagreement on forestry, which was signed this week in Quebec City. Indeed, on Tuesday, April 30, 1985, I had the privilege of attending with some of my Quebec colleagues the signing of the subagreement on forest development.
Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth regional economic development agreement to be reached between this Government and the Quebec Government. This shows how much this Government has succeeded in reinstating a fruitful dialogue with Quebec, to the benefit of both levels of government.
Our Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) has succeeded in reaching with his Quebec counterpart a historical agreement. Mr. Speaker, this new $300 million, five-year agreement is the best ever signed by Quebec and Canada. Of that amount $190 million will be allocated to public forest development and $90 million to private forest development, on the whole representing the creation of 16,000 person-years of work.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress the importance of this agreement for the Abitibi-Temiscamingue area. This agreement, in addition to solving in our area the problems of supply, will have important economic spin-offs, both in terms of job creation and with respect to the millions of dollars that will be invested in my area.



IMPORTANCE OF SASKATCHEWAN EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
I feel the excitement of future international trade potential growing in Saskatoon. The combination of the research genius of the university, the innovation of the private sector, and the commitment of all levels of government, provide a formula for the prosperity that translates into jobs for Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and Canada.
With the assistance of my colleagues in the new Government we can develop the tremendous international trade potential that exists in Saskatchewan. The initiative exemplifies the commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to get Canada going again and to get Canadians back to work. I applaud this initiative.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, once again President Reagan, the President of a superpower composed of 250 million people, has launched vicious threats against Nicaragua, a small country of 2.5 million people, a country that only five years ago overthrew two generations of Samozan dictatorship and is now trying to build a democracy based on political, economic, and social justice.
The President has decided to impose a total trade embargo on Nicaragua, and to abrogate a U.S.-Nicaragua friendship treaty. The President has not taken similar steps against such "models of democracy" as South Africa, Chile, Guatemala, or even the Soviet Union, but in his opinion Nicaragua is just too evil and too dangerous. What complete hypocrisy and nonsense!
We must do everything in our power to denounce this misguided U.S. policy and to support those many Americans, including many Congressmen, who oppose it as well. I would likewise ask the Canadian Government to take a strong position against this U.S. policy, and to make its views known to the President of the United States.
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, recently the City of Saskatoon hosted one of the international trade consultations which the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary initiated in 16 centres across Canada. This initiative reinforces the importance which international trade plays in our economy, including the more than three million Canadians who depend upon international trade for employment.
In northern and central Saskatchewan wheat is not the only major export. We export potash, uranium, canola, plant and animal biotechnology, high-tech electronics, and agricultural machinery. As everyone knows, one of the major Saskatche-




Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, people here in Canada and around the world are praising the new course of action being led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), an outstanding world statesman.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
4336

May 2, 1985



AGRICULTURE

Gerry St. Germain: In eight short months he has re-established respect for Canada as a key player in the arena of international relations. The Prime Minister has made it clear that Canada is committed to meeting its international commitments, developing international trade, promoting world peace, and meeting its moral obligation to international aid and development assistance.
From the high priority the Prime Minister has attached to our extensive relations with our greatest trading partner, the United States, to the lead role that Canada intends to play at this week's Bonn Economic Summit, our country stands front and centre as an example of a modern nation committed to harmonizing global relations. The Prime Minister's performance under the international spotlight makes all Canadians proud.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, CBC Television in Regina is going to lose its national television reporter position. Henceforth, news of national importance from the Province of Saskatchewan will be covered from either Winnipeg or Edmonton, but not Regina. This is but the latest insult to the Province of Saskatchewan, perpetrated first by the Liberals and now by the Tories. The Liberals took away the taxation centre and transferred it to Winnipeg. The weather office was the next target of the Liberal Government to be taken out of Saskatchewan. As a result, services have deteriorated.
The Tories promised change. They told the people of Saskatchewan that they would do things differently. So much for promises. We are finding the same insensitive behaviour coming from this Government as came from the former Government. Tory restraint has meant an end to the Air Canada reservations desks at Regina and Saskatoon, and now Tory restraint has stripped Saskatchewan of its national television reporter who worked for the very network which was established to provide equal service for all Canadians.
If the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) and the mandarins of the CBC have their way, Regina CBC which is considered to be one of the finest facilities of its kind in Canada, will no longer produce the Peter Mansbridges, Eve Savorys and Paul Workmans of the country. What will the Minister of Finance's Budget take from Saskatchewan next? Tory Ministers from Saskatchewan sit on their hands while the Government is turning Saskatchewan into a forgotten province.



SITUATION OF QUEBEC PORK PRODUCERS

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I represent a predominantly rural riding, Beauce, and I am very much interested in the lot of Beauce farmers. Beauce now has some 900 pork producers who have been penalized since April 3 last when the American Government decided to impose a 5.3-cent excise tax on every pound of pork from Canadian producers.
I would ask the Minister of Agriculture of Canada (Mr. Wise) to make personal representations to Washington and undertake immediate negotiations with American authorities. I would suggest that spokesmen for the pork industry and the two levels of Government form a common front in this respect. Quebec pork producers export about 25 per cent of their production to the United States, and this tax will cost them more than $11 million in 1985.
We in Beauce riding consider that such an excise levy on pork exports is unwarranted since it is related to pork industry assistance programs, at a time when the already stagnating production is declining even further every month.
That is why I strongly urge the Minister of Agriculture to go to Washington at the earliest opportunity. The survival of thousands of Quebec and Beauce pork producers is at stake. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) may grumble all he wants, I will continue to defend the interests of my constituents.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans told us yesterday that he would inform the Chamber what action he intends to take regarding a blatant violation by the West German fishing fleet of the long-term Canada-EEC fishing agreement. The Minister knows that the West German fleet has exceeded its quota by 300 per cent and is Fishing a stock which is managed by Canada, a stock which we claim is a Canadian resource, and is implicitly realized internationally as being a Canadian resource. What will the Minister do about this shocking situation?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to echo what the Hon. Member has said. It is a shocking situation, and it is a blatant over-fishing and breach of understanding between this country and the

May 2, 1985

European Community. Unfortunately, the German vessels have indeed taken over twice the allotted amount of fish from this stock which is viewed as being a Canadian stock. As well, there is a very serious conservation problem.
Earlier today the Secretary of State for External Affairs met with Mr. De Clercq, the EEC Commissioner for External Affairs. A meeting is scheduled on Saturday between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Foreign Minister of West Germany. I will be meeting with EEC officials on Monday, and I will be meeting with the Fisheries Minister of the Federal Republic of West Germany on Wednesday. I would like to assure the Hon. Member that this matter is viewed as being serious and is at this time being pursued vigorously at the highest level.


CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is not only shocking what the West German fleet is doing, but the Minister's inaction is shocking as well. I would like the Minister to verify to the Chamber that Canada sent a diplomatic note to the EEC one month ago protesting this overfishing by the West German fleet. Will he confirm to the Chamber that the EEC responded bluntly on April 17 to the Canadian mission in Brussels, saying:
We do not recognize Canadian jurisdiction over this stock.
Will the Minister verify that, and will he tell the House why he did not close ports, impose sanctions, or cancel this agreement a month ago?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member points out very correctly that protests have been launched. He also points out that there has not been a satisfactory response. What the Hon. Member also knows, and what is important for the public of Canada to know, is that in addition to cod stocks which the German vessels took within the Canadian 200-mile limit, the recent fishing has been taking place outside the Canadian 200-mile limit. We do not have the authority to interfere physically with that.
The Hon. Member asked me to close ports. That has been considered, but we do not think that at the present time that would be conducive to finding a solution. The options which we have, with respect to future relations with the EEC and the Federal Republic of Germany in this matter, will be discussed in the next few days. I am sure the Hon. Member would not want me to comment on those discussions before I meet with them.


REACTION TO EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY RESPONSE
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has confirmed that the EEC ignored Canada's diplomatic protest which was made a month ago. So, the question remains. Why has the Government taken this lying
Oral Questions
down? Is it true that the reason is that the Prime Minister is in West Germany fishing for friends? Is that the real reason? While he is fishing for friends in West Germany, the West German fleet is here overfishing our resources.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that the probability of getting a resolution to this complex problem which, as I said, we do not have the jurisdiction to interfere with physically, is probably much better with friends than with enemies.
The Hon. Member, having raised a legitimate question, is now destroying the credibility of his outrage by trying to play politics. As I said earlier, extensive discussions are ongoing. I will be at those discussions on Monday, and again on Wednesday. I am sure that we will find an appropriate answer. The appropriate answer, in view of the fact that this stock is recognized as a Canadian-managed stock, is not to destroy the contractual agreement under which that understanding exists.


ACCESS TO CANADIAN WATERS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans told us yesterday that he only heard about this matter on Tuesday. We now find out that a diplomatic note was sent a month ago, and that it was ignored two weeks ago. I do not know about the credibility and the outrage in the House today, but the Minister should get his facts straight.
The Minister said that the stock which is being overfished is outside Canada's 200-mile zone. He knows that the Spanish have been denied access to Canadian waters for the last half a dozen years because they overfished the same stock. Is he telling us now that the EEC can have its cake and eat it too? Is he telling us that the EEC can have a quota inside the Canadian zone, yet overfish just outside the limit and maintain that quota? It is one thing to try to use the Queen for a photo opportunity, but it is quite another to sell out the fishermen of Atlantic Canada in order not to upset the applecart in Bonn. What actions will the Minister take?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, who has just risen in a state of high dudgeon-


An Hon. Member:: Spurious indignation.


John Allen Fraser: Yes, it was indignation. It was justified indignation, except that it would be more helpful if members of the Opposition would put forward something constructive.
It is quite clear that unilaterally breaking our relations with the European Economic Community is not the answer to this problem. It would solve absolutely nothing. In fact, it would play into the hands of those particular German companies which are taking advantage of the situation. I would hope that Hon. Members would use some common sense and let us work this thing out.

May 2, 1985
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF FISHING QUOTA
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that we should unilaterally break off relations. I am suggesting that we should follow the EEC example. When EEC members decided that the import of seal fur into those countries, was not in their best interests, it was banned. That ruined the economy of Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: If we decide that the EEC is overfishing our stocks and ruining the economy of fishermen in Atlantic Canada, it is quite simple. We do not break off diplomatic relations with those countries; we tell them that their licences are withdrawn and that they have no more quotas in Canadian waters unless they are prepared to live with the agreements which they signed. That takes courage and commitment. You have got to show some leadership to have that kind of action take place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the options which the Hon. Member has shouted across the floor of the House are, of course, options which are available. It would not surprise me, or others, if the concern of the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members in the House in all Parties will be very vigorously put-or, indeed, is being very vigorously put-to our friends in the EEC and our friends in the Federal Republic of Germany. I can assure the Hon. Member that I shall let the appropriate people know just how enraged he is today.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the unilateral American decision to impose a trade embargo on Nicaragua. It is an utterly disastrous decision, as I gather the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have said.
I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, in addition to the social and economic assistance to Nicaragua that the Secretary of State for External Affairs said would be continued, and in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, will the Government consider compensating for at least some of the U.S. trade by encouraging Canadian trade in the crucial areas of machine tools, pesticides, fertilizers, and other products which have now been denied to Nicaragua by the U.S. embargo?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: As I told the media yesterday, Mr. Speaker, our diplomatic
and trade relations with Nicaragua remain normal, and we intend to go on promoting international development. I would think that the trade embargo which has just been imposed by the United States has no extraterritorial connotations and, as a country, we will of course follow the situation very closely.


SUGGESTED ROLE FOR CANADIAN COMPANIES
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer. Perhaps I could turn to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to ask him that if no extraterritoriality will be applied-that is to say, that American subsidiaries which are operating in Canada can continue to export various goods to Nicaragua-can he also assure the House that the Canadian Government will give some active encouragement to Canadian firms and, indeed, Canadian subsidiaries of American firms, to fill up the slack which will be grievously difficult for Nicaragua, in fields such as machine tools, pesticides, fertilizers, and similar products?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that there has been absolutely no indication of any pressure being brought by Washington or other American sources to restrict Canadian companies from carrying on whatever trade relationships they feel are appropriate with Nicaragua. Of course we will monitor that type of thing. I can assure the Hon. Member that I do not anticipate that there will be any pressures of the nature to which she has referred.


BEEF QUOTA NEGOTIATIONS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that there would have been some active encouragement for Canadian firms to fill the slack, particularly in products such as machine tools. I hope that the Minister will give that encouragement.
In my final supplementary question I will return to the Acting Prime Minister, as neither the Minister for International Trade nor the Minister of Agriculture is in the House. I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister about the very critical matter of Nicaraguan beef quotas. For four months the Nicaraguans have been negotiating their 1985 beef quotas and they have not as yet received an answer on those quotas. Could the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion assure us that the quota on beef imports from Nicaragua will be kept at least at the 1984 level, which was 9.7 million pounds?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that in relation to beef quotas generally, including those which might apply to Nicaragua, the Government of Canada will be equitable and fair. Those quotas will be announced in due course.
May 2, 1985


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for External Relations, and I also wish to inform her that we agree with the Government's policy of continued assistance to Nicaragua. Considering the fact that the Prime Minister said in London a few days ago that he wanted to speak on behalf of the Third World at the Bonn Summit, could the Minister give the House the assurance that the Prime Minister will raise the subject of the trade embargo imposed by the President of the United States on the people of Nicaragua and will tell the President of the United States that Canadians deplore a decision that will have a destabilizing effect on the poor people of Central America, and that here in Canada, people are asking him to encourage a process that is very important to the quest for peace in this part of the world, that is, to encourage the Contadora process?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I think that in Bonn, the Prime Minister will certainly mention the fact that the Third World should be present at the discussions because of their international impact. As whether there will be any discussion about Nicaragua and any kind of action in the light of the information we are receiving today, I do not think that is the primary objective of the Bonn Summit. I think it would also be premature to make any predictions as to what the Prime Minister will be saying on that occasion.


CANADIAN PEOPLE'S POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
I simply want to ask the Minister to let the Prime Minister know, while he is over there, how outraged Canadians are about this decision. The President of the United States lost the battle with Congress on his policy regarding Nicaragua, and today, he intends to make the citizens of Nicaragua pay for his defeat in Congress. I therefore hope that the Minister will forward this message to the Prime Minister and clearly explain the position taken by all Canadians on this issue.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, Canada's position is clear. I think our role has always been to promote dialogue and conciliation, and we are convinced that the best way to bring peace to the situation in Nicaragua is by helping the Contadora process, and we shall continue to provide assistance in this way.
Oral Questions


SOVEREIGNTY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. He will be pleased to know that I have just been in touch with an official of the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control in the U.S. Treasury Department, who said that the United States will be bringing forward regulations within the next few days to restrict the ability of Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies to export to Nicaragua. Specifically, the official said that if a Canadian subsidiary sells a product to Nicaragua which contains a significant of American content, then the parent firm will pay a significant penalty. This might mean, for instance, that General Motors Canada, Ford Canada, and Chrysler Canada will be prevented from exporting parts to Nicaragua.
Will the Minister, in spite of his earlier comments, immediately request a meeting with U.S. officials so that this unilateral action on the part of the U.S. Government will not end up preventing Canadian exports, and costing Canadians jobs?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, I am sure that the House would be quite interested to know what his source is. All I can say at the present time is that if such regulations are received, we will naturally review them. We will certainly get in touch with American officials if we receive such regulations.


CANADIAN POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, to be precise, Ms. Catherine Mann with the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control was the individual who conveyed to me that regulations are presently being put together to restrict Canadian exports to Nicaragua. Other than being simply concerned, is the Minister prepared to say to the House and to the people of Canada, if it is the case that Canadian firms operating in Canada will be restricted in their export policy, that Canadians are quite prepared to take action on their own and do not need to be dictated to by the United States in terms of their export policy?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, it is very difficult to respond to a hypothetical set of circumstances such as he has indicated. I can only say that if it would satisfy the Hon. Member I would have no hesitation in asking one of our officials to get in touch with the source to which he has referred, and at least learn more detail.

May 2, 1985
Oral Questions


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). Yesterday, the Minister said that the Canadian Governement was considering guaranteeing a fixed percentage of the Canadian market to the Canadian textile, clothing and footwear industries. In Bonn, the Prime Minister wants to urge rich countries to open up their borders to goods from southern countries. We saw what little influence the Minister had in the Domtar affair. If the commitments of the Prime Minister are kept, it is obvious that the Minister has once more been telling us fairy tales. The Minister says one thing and the Prime Minister another. My question is this, Mr. Speaker: Who speaks on behalf of the Government?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member may I say that the comment to which he is referring was simply a comment which was made with respect to a general discussion concerning the so-called sunset industries of this country. I pointed out at that time that in talking to textile manufacturers, the shipbuilding industry, and like companies, we thought a longer term perspective, to the year 2000, for example, was most appropriate, and we would like to learn from them-and in our discussions we are learning-what they feel they need from government to give them some confidence to build the factories, to create employment, and keep Canadians working. That is the main concern of this Government, and I wish the Official Opposition would give us more support in getting Canada back to work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TEXTILE INDUSTRY
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the North-South dialogue policy established by the previous Liberal Government has been retained by the present Prime Minister, does the Minister intend to strengthen the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board in the next budget so that the regions where textile industries are located can modernize and convert to new technologies, which would allow the Prime Minister to keep his commitments to developing countries?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the CIRB organiz-tion to which the Hon. Member has referred, I would be very
interested to know what his view is, because his colleagues, when in government, proposed a sunset at March 31 next year. Is that still the position of the Official Opposition?


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: What is your position? You are the Minister.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In spite of the Prime Minister's assurance that native programs would not be cut, provincial organizations such as the Council of Yukon Indians have not yet received their funding for the current year. Because the Deputy Prime Minister's task force called for a "go slow" policy in settling comprehensive land claims, many Indian organizations worry that the delay in funding is part of the new government policy for native programs, and that cut-backs are coming. Could the Minister assure the House, and assure the Indian people, that the level of funding for the Council of Yukon Indians, and for other Indian organizations, will not be cut back from the current level?


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mg Speaker, in response to the question by the Hon. Member I would like to indicate to him, and to the House, that the funding has been approved for the Council of Yukon Indians. I had meetings with the regional director of my Department in Vancouver on Monday. Any questions were dealt with and final review was undertaken at that time. Next week myself and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development intend to make a more comprehensive announcement about the matter of funding for other organizations.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State.


Mr. Crosbie:: Your beard has gone.


James Douglas Manly: That is true, it is. So is yours, John.
Could the Secretary of State assure the House that he is not attempting to undermine the funding for provincial and territorial organizations by funneling more money to the bands and not making money available to the provincial organizations?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will recall that the Prime Minister issued a statement. The guidelines of any announcements made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or myself, will be within the frame of reference outlined by the Prime Minister in his statement.
May 2, 1985


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Pierre H. Cadieux (Vandreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment or the Acting Minister.
In view of the obvious danger of any PCB spill and the outcry among the residents of the western part of Montreal, can the Minister tell us what he intends to do about the proposal of Reliance Power Equipment Ltd. to store 227,000 litres of PCBs in Pointe Claire?


John Allen Fraser: The matter raised by the Hon. Member is very important. Unfortunately, the Minister is not here today, but I shall take due note of his representations.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As he knows, under the Aeronautics Act, federal authorities must rule on the purchase of Nordair shares by the Societe quebecoise des transports. Can the Minister tell this House what position the Canadian Government will take in this regard? Yesterday, the Minister of State for Transport said that the federal Government was in a quandary. What does the Government plan to do? Will it approve this transaction or not?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Member is absolutely correct. There is a provision in the Aeronautics Act, Section 15(1), which governs that type of proposed transaction. There is also a provision in the National Transportation Act, and in the CTC regulations. When a formal presentation is made, the Cabinet will certainly consider it. But as of this date the latest information I have is that no such proposal has been presented.


REGIONAL CARRIERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Yesterday, the Minister of State said that it could take several months and I would like the Minister to tell us the reason for such footdragging. This is a very simple question. The transaction will be either approved or rejected. Relations between this Government and the Government of Quebec seem to have changed because it would be quite simple indeed for this Government to approve the request of the
Oral Questions
Quebec Government. Why this delay? Mr. Speaker, if the Minister refuses to answer this question, he might tell me what are the Government's intentions with regard to regional carriers. Is the Government in favour of a merger or does it want to promote greater competition?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, before we are in a position to accept or reject the deal, we will have to see the deal.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport will be aware of the widespread concern in Winnipeg which followed the creation of a new position in the CNR, that of senior vice-president, to be located in Edmonton. Can the Minister assure Winnipeggers that Winnipeg will continue to be a regional headquarters for the CNR, that there will be no amalgamation of regions, and that there will be no outflow of CNR management jobs from Winnipeg to Edmonton?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, yes, I can give the Hon. Member that assurance. As a matter of fact there will be a new CN regional vice-president appointed in the next few days or weeks. There is no contemplation of a mass transfer of people from Winnipeg to Edmonton. As I said earlier, this is a restructuring of management, and I think the Member should applaud the fact that the decisions affecting investment plans by CNR in western Canada will be made in western Canada. Clearly the management team which will be situated in Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Vancouver will be in a position to make those decisions in the West.


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, we want more than an assurance that there will be no mass transfers; we want an assurance that there will be no significant outflow of management jobs from Winnipeg to Edmonton. We went through this a couple of years ago when, under the previous Liberal Government, there was a rumour that there would be a significant downgrading of Winnipeg in relationship to Edmonton. We now have a Conservative Government in power which said, before its election, it would look after western Canada, Winnipeg being part thereof.
I would like the Minister to say to Winnipeggers not that there will not be a mass transfer but that there will not be a significant outflow of management jobs from Winnipeg to Edmonton. This is what we need to know.

May 2, 1985
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this Government has no intention of downgrading the role of Winnipeg as a transportation centre and as an important part of the CNR. The fact of the matter is that the growth in western Canada should augur well for the future of the CN operation in Winnipeg, including Transcona, because as the traffic increases it will clearly provide more jobs and more activity in western Canada, particularly in Winnipeg.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. This past Sunday HMCS Nipigon fired two shells into the partly submerged fishing vessel Lady Marjorie in order to sink it completely. I ask the Minister to instruct his officials to conduct a full and urgent inquiry so that the vessel owner can count on having his vessel replaced as fast as possible.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: The short answer to that question by the Hon. Member for South West Nova, Sir, is yes. The vessel he speaks of, the Lady Marjorie, found itself in conditions of heavy seas about 60 miles northeast of Halifax on April 28. It took on water to the point where it was awash to the gunnels, its crew had abandoned her, and when asked whether they wished to reboard in order to attempt to salvage her, the response was in the negative and, because the vessel constituted a hazard to navigation, it was sunk.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Around the shores of Newfoundland and along the coast of Labrador there is a very heavy ice blockade this year, heavier than we have seen in some years. He will know that after May 15 inshore fishermen will be unable to collect unemployment insurance benefits. That means until such time as the ice disappears there will be no income for thousands of inshore fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask the Minister what steps the Government is taking to deal with this very serious emergency. Specifically, is it prepared to amend the unemployment insurance regulations in order to treat fishermen on a par with other workers and assure their income until such time as they can get back to work again?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a matter of serious
concern to the area that he and others represent. In the absence of the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration I can say that the Government is watching this very closely on a daily basis. As the Hon. Member knows from the time he came to see me with a delegation from Newfoundland and Labrador, the matter is being treated very seriously, and I know he had the same response from the Minister of Employment and Immigration yesterday as well.


REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PAYMENT
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that response, but I want his assurance that he will speak to his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and if the Government is not prepared to amend the regulations, which I think is the first course of action, can the Minister in any case assure us that he will ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration at least to make a special payment available to fishermen this year to ensure some income will be in their hands between May 15 and such time as the ice leaves those bays?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Fisheries I understand full well the representations which are being made. The Hon. Member has my undertaking that I will be discussing this with my colleague, and other colleagues if necessary. I will pursue it vigorously.


QUOTAS ON EUROPEAN BEEF IMPORTS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and the Minister of Agriculture, my question probably should be put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. Last December the Government put a stop to the importation of cheap, subsidized beef into Canada, by placing quotas on beef imports. A few months later we are hearing rumours that the Government is crumbling under EEC threats to take retaliatory actions against other commodities. Will the Parliamentary Secretary assure Canadian beef and veal producers that the Government will hold its position and not crumble under the pressure of the EEC?
[ Translation]


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is indeed aware of this pressure. One should understand that beef imports are only one part of the import and export activities of the Canadian government, and that the Minister and his departmental offcials are presently negociat-ing in an effort to find a solution. You can rest assured, Mr. May 2, 1985

Speaker, that we will do our utmost to promote and defend the interests of Canadian producers.


REQUEST FOR COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that answer. Will he suggest to the Minister that he stand firm against the EEC retaliatory threats? Has the time not come to take retaliatory action against them? Is it not now time for Canada to establish countervailing duties against this highly subsidized beef coming from the EEC?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the EEC retaliatory threats. It is important for the government of Canada to make sure that whatever measure it may take will not have desastrous consequences, because if it should bring the issue before the GATT, win or lose, it could find itself in a difficult situation. The high level of imports could be raised even higher, which would be disastrous. One should also understand that the government of Canada must also defend the interests of Canadian producers in other areas, for example honey and maple syrup producers in this country. We will make every effort to defend the interests of Canadian producers.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Ever since the Minister announced what he calls the new era in labour management relations in the Public Service, I have been asking him in the House to table the memoranda that he has signed or negotiated with the Public Service unions. The Minister has persistently said no to my request. In fact, the documents have been leaked to the press. Public servants are quite concerned. Superannuates are very disturbed. Will the Minister table those documents today so that people can rest at ease, read them, and understand them clearly?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place, I should like to point out to my colleague that those documents which have been described in the media as being signed agreements are agreements in principle which are the basis of the negotiations now under way. I will be pleased, Mr. Speaker, to table those papers in the House today because there is nothing confidential about them. We have to understand that they lay down the basic principles to be followed in the bargaining now under way and which I hope will be completed in the near future.
Oral Questions PENSIONS


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in order to allay any fear and apprehension among retired civil servants, can the minister assure the House that they will be represented on the pension management board? Will he make sure that the 50,000 retired Canadians will be well represented?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can say that I have already held discussions with the advisory pension committee in which the pensioners are represented. I have had some discussions with the unions on the matter. And it is the wish of the government to have in the new advisory committee representatives of-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert René de Cotret: It is absolutely true, you were there. You can argue but we clearly intend to promote the representation of pensioners in the committee looking after the plan which at last, after so many years, will be financially sound.


TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
The day before yesterday, Canadian spokesmen for the textile industry held a press conference to ask for a toughened Multifibre Arrangement to stem the tide of imports from low-wage countries which is disrupting our markets.
In view of that problem, is the Minister considering the establishment of a parliamentary committee to give Hon. Members an opportunity to study the matter and see for themselves how important that industry is to Canada's and Quebec's economy?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's suggestion is very interesting. I think it might be fitting for me to remind him that we do have a study under way at the present time concerning this industry. We have certain other representations to come from industry sources. When we have those it may well be that, rather than setting up a special committee, we could at least consider making a reference to the appropriate committee so that the matter could be looked into as the Member is suggesting.

May 2, 1985
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


PLANTING OF UNLICENSED SEMI-DWARF WHEAT
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I will direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. I sent notice of this question to the Minister's office some time ago. I hope he has received some briefing on it.
The Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has estimated that over two million acres will be seeded this year to the unprescribed, short-strawed semi-dwarf wheat varieties. Since these varieties are not licensed for use in Canada, and cannot be imported into Canada, will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House where the seed will come from for this crop and how it will get into the country?
[ Translation]


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the question of my colleague and I can assure him that I will convey his remarks not only to the Minister of Agriculture, but also to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.


IMPORTATION OF SEED
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could refer the rest of the question to the Minister of Agriculture who is in charge of this particular aspect of our law. Have any charges been laid for illegal importation of seed in the past? Will there be charges laid in the future to make certain that importers comply with the laws of the country?


Pierre Blais: I noted the question, Mr. Speaker, and my colleague may rest assured that he will have an answer at the earliest opportunity.


SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, on April 17 of this year, the Minister met with representatives of the Quebec Federation of Committees of urea formaldehyde foam victims, and according to newspaper reports and comments I received from these people following that meeting, they were very disappointed. Today, Le Devoir reported some very important information, namely that a clinical study had been made of 75 children examined at Sainte-Justine Hospital. Dr. Jacques Lacroix revealed that an abnormally high percentage-65 per cent-of these children
who had been in contact with UFFI had suffered from headaches, emphysema and similar disorders.
I would like to know whether as a result of this new medical study, the Minister intends to ask the Minister of Finance to reallocate funding for scientific research, because we must not forget that our children's lives are at stake.


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that we have been informed of the latest findings concerning the health of these children. I shall be completing our analysis of the facts on urea formaldehyde foam, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will do everything that is necessary to protect the health of Canadian citizens.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, as the spokespersons for the Federation remarked, it has been seven months since they gave you the facts, and considering the results of this study and the very real threat to our children's health, I do not think we can afford to wait another seven months. Could the Minister give the House the assurance, here and now, that he will obtain additional funding for scientific research to study the health problems of these people?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that we shall be completing our analysis of the facts and we will take action as soon as possible, in the interests of all Canadians.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Petition presented by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis) on Wednesday, May 1, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
I am also in receipt of a Question of Privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when I raised this matter of privilege yesterday, I was provoked specifically by what appeared to be a double standard in enforcing regulations on Parliament Hill as between Members of Parliament and other citizens of Canada. I have had a chance to look at some of the precedents.
I believe there are matters of freedom of expression and freedom of contact with Members of Parliament which are perhaps more appropriately raised here than the matters of the
May 2, 1985

administration of the grounds of Parliament. The precedents indicate that, for whatever reasons, the parliamentary precinct under your direct control includes the buildings but not the grounds of Parliament Hill. Therefore, my question is not so much about whether or not it was appropriate for the RCMP to remove tables at which Members had been distributing literature a few hours before, but now relates to a new set of regulations that were adopted by Cabinet last week.
These regulations now impose what I believe are quite extreme restraints on the time honoured right of citizens to petition Members of Parliament, demonstrate their points of view and to communicate their points of view to the public as well as to Members of Parliament here on the grounds of Parliament Hill. I suggest that that is the question which must be considered.
Let me point out that under the regulations it is now an offence to occupy a public work if a peace officer says it is. The dictionary definition of "occupy" is "to be in". Let us say that someone is on Parliament Hill for five minutes. If a peace officer who may be acting under the direction of the Minister of Public Works says that that person is "occupying" and therefore violating the new revised nuisance regulation, that individual can be asked to move. If that person refuses to move, he or she can in fact be arrested and removed from Parliament Hill. Their personal property can be removed from Parliament Hill and they can be subject to a fine of $400.
I believe that constitutes very arbitrary police power to interfere with the time honoured right of persons to in fact demonstrate on Parliament Hill. Joseph Maingot in Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, refers to the fact that it is not the precinct of Parliament that is sacred but the function.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, contempt of Parliament can lie in interfering with the work of parliamentarians or in actions which might have the effect of interfering with the work of parliamentarians. I suggest that that is what is happening now as a result of a new power that did not exist in the past to interfere with access to parliamentarians by people who wish to demonstrate.
Mr. Maingot states in the book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada that since Parliament Hill has always been a public place, restricting the movement of the general public on the grounds would probably be considered excessive.
In 1971 the Committee on Procedures and Organization spoke of the need to strike a reasonable balance between the importance of allowing the public reasonable access to the House of Commons on the one hand, and the necessity of preserving the security of the House on the other.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that I am required to ask him, in his presentation of his case of privilege, to indicate his point of privilege early in the proceeding. The Member is citing precedents but I must know to what his precedents refer. Could he tell me how his privileges have been breached?
Privilege-Mr. Cassidy


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it is a time honoured privilege of Members of Parliament to have and enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of access. I am suggesting that the freedom of access to Members of Parliament by people who wish to come to Parliament Hill is now impeded by the creation of a power in the hands of the Government and the RCMP to prevent people from coming to Parliament Hill and staying there to express a point of view.
There was evidence last week that that power is in fact applied in a discriminatory fashion. One demonstration is permitted and another form of demonstration is not permitted. One object or structure is permitted and another is not permitted.
I suggest that it would be extremely difficult for Members of Parliament to carry out their duties if members of the public were not allowed access to Members of Parliament. For example, if police officers were to prevent access to a Member's constituency office in Toronto or Vancouver, that would be a contempt.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the Hon. Member make it clear if he is saying that his privileges are breached if someone is not allowed to have a demonstration on the Hill? Is that the case he is making?


Michael Morris Cassidy: I am saying that my privileges as a Member are breached if an arbitrary and excessive right to interfere with demonstrations on Parliament Hill has been created, and therefore prevents the expression of opinion on Parliament Hill.
I am prepared to move that the matter of restrictions to freedom of expression in the vicinity of Parliament Hill which have been recently decreed in regulations by Cabinet be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Of course, I understand that that motion will depend on your ruling as to whether there is a sufficient case.
However, I suggest that because there have not been restrictions on public access to Parliament Hill, apart from the Criminal Code restrictions and reasonable arrangements made with the RCMP, something new has been injected which is potentially of grave concern. It could be used to stop all demonstrations on Parliament Hill, and I do not believe that that is in the interest of parliamentarians, but represents potentially grave interference with our traditional privileges. For that reason I wish to see this matter referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Public Works on the same point.
[ Translation]


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to put everything in perspective with respect to the question of privilege. The Hon. Member who is raising the question of privilege today is not providing full information to the people, I am sure of that. First of all, we must be honest. The new regulations now in

May 2, 1985
Business of the House
force authorize the Minister of Public Works to protect the grounds which are the responsibility of the Department, and they do not favour any group. Contrary to what the Hon. Member said, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that some groups would not be allowed to demonstrate. I told the media over and over again that it will still be possible to demonstrate in support of certain ideas or principles, but under supervision and to the extent that a request has been made to the proper authorities. That is clear.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that most Canadians got the message that certain people wanted to get across. It should now be clear to Hon. Members and everybody else that, particularly on Parliament Hill, rules must be observed, and those rules are defined in an order in council of which the Hon. Member is fully aware, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not need to reserve on this question. The Hon. Member believes that citizens have and should have a right to demonstrate within the precincts of Parliament. I take his representations seriously, but he must make a prima facie case that the privileges of Members of the House have been breached. That is the question of privilege that must be put before the House.
If I understand the Hon. Member correctly, it is his view that a citizen's privilege has been breached and he believes that there may in fact be some different application of rules so that someone's right to hold a demonstration may be different from others. While that may be true, the Hon. Minister says it is not. That is a question for debate as to the fact.
Perhaps the Member is trying to extend the concept of privilege. While I fully accept the right of Members to receive citizens and I fully expect citizens to be received by their Members in offices, or anywhere that is appropriate, it is difficult for me to find that there is a question of privilege. In fact, I cannot even find that there is a prima facie question of privilege put by the Hon. Member with regard to the argument he is making, that somehow access to a Member has been prevented in any way whatever.
Therefore, I cannot find a prima facie case of privilege.

ers as to the legislation and how long the various pieces of legislation might take. At the present time the President of the Privy Council is waiting to get more information from his counterparts in the Opposition Parties. He will have more to say in the House tomorrow about legislation next week when he has received that information from them.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture in both official languages.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the agreements in principle between Treasury Board and the two unions concerning ongoing negotiations on the master agreement on pension plans and the dental plan.


TELESAT CANADA
Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of the Annual Report of Telesat Canada for the fiscal year 1984.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to ask the usual business question. Is there someone on the government side to let us know what the Government plans to bring to the House in terms of business?


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow has been designated as an Opposition Day, as the Opposition already knows. Some discussions have been going on among the House Lead-


PETITIONS
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed by 14,000 fishermen in the Province of Newfoundland calling upon the House to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act so that fishermen who are obliged to stop fishing before the season ends as a result of quota restrictions or regulations may
May 2, 1985

continue to qualify to draw unemployment insurance. I have the honour to support the petition.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House a petition concerning the reinstatement of VIA Rail passenger service between Montreal, Hull and Ottawa.
Close to 5,000 residents of the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau have signed the petition, humbly calling upon this House to consider favourably their humble request.



CRIMINAL CODE


John Carnell Crosbie: for leave to introduce Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that there has been consultation among the representatives of the Parties in this House and that it has not been possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 80 or Standing Order 81 with regard to the allocation of time on report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-15, an Act respecting Investment in Canada.
Therefore, at the next sitting of the House I shall propose a motion pursuant to Standing Order 82 to allocate one sitting day to each of the said stages of the said Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 117, 147, 278 and 322.


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Were unilateral cut-backs made by the Government in the Canadian Wildlife Service and are additional cuts contemplated and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Were some 84 positions cut from the service and, if so (a) how were they made (b) which employees lost their jobs (c) were employees with 20 years seniority or more considered (d) will whole services be closed?
3.	Did consultations take place before the final decision and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: 1. Yes; none contemplated.
2.	Yes, (a) The activities-wildlife interpretation and wildlife toxicology, not pertaining directly to the federal mandate of migratory birds and rare and endangered species were eliminated, (b) 68 employees have received surplus notices effective March 31, 1985. The following gives a breakdown by occupational groups: one senior manager; 31 biologists; eight research scientists; one research manager; one chemist; 13 engineering and scientific support; six general technicians; one social sciences support; one program manager; three clerical and regulatory; one steno and typing; one general labour and trade. However, every effort is being made to ensure that these employees are re-employed in other areas of the Department and the federal Government, (c) Yes. (d) No; see (a) above.
3.	Yes, with senior officials of the Department.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	What was the cost to the Government for the Christmas trees and decorations located in the Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings including the cost of decorators, movers, and any person directly or indirectly involved in the project?
2.	Did the Canadian taxpayer pay for any part of this?
3.	Were there any contracts awarded by public tender and (a) if so, in what amount (b) if not, for what reason?


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. $4,406.11.
2.	Yes, $4,406.11.
3.	No, because of the short time frame involved.


Mr. Ouellet: 1.	Did the Government provide for major improvements to the airport infrastructure and services network in the transportation sector under the Canada/Gaspe and Lower St. Lawrence economic development plan?
2.	Did the Government approve an improvement project for the Pabos-Chan-dler Quebec landing strip and, if so (a) what works were provided for (b) what amounts were allocated (c) on what date were the amounts approved (d) on what date did the works begin?

May 2, 1985
Investment Canada Act


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1. Yes.
2. This project is being reviewed, (a) The work planned included paving the runway, taxiway and apron, purchase and installation of a rotating beacon, runway identification lights, two lighted windsocks and a light marking system, (b) $845,000. (c) August 17, 1984. (d) The agreement with the municipality has not been signed and the work has not been started.


Mr. Boudria: During the months of January and February, 1985, within the Ontario region, how many loans were approved by the Farm Credit Corporation and, what was the (a) interest rate on each loan (b) total value of the loans?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: There were 53 loans approved at the following rates: (a) 43-12.750 per cent, 2-13.250 per cent, 7-13.375 per cent, 1-13.625 per cent, (b) $7,630,100.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and Motions No. 19 (Mr. Axworthy) (p. 4313) and No. 20 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4314).
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very disappointed, as I rise to conclude my few comments on Motion No. 19 and Motion No. 20, that the Government has decided on what I think is the first Bill to muzzle the voices of the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada, perhaps one of the most important Bills this Parliament will debate. 1 think there are many other Bills that certainly would have moved much more quickly through the House of Commons, but we are talking about a Bill entitled Investment Canada that will in a sense set out the economic agenda for our country for possibly many decades.
We are sending out a message to foreign investors, foreign entrepreneurs and foreign industrialists. We have made countless comments to this point in terms of identifying ways and means to improve this legislation. We have submitted thoughtful amendments to this Bill from the Liberal caucus, as well as from the New Democratic caucus-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Ninety-nine.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Ninety-nine says the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), and I thank him for that clarification.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Forty-seven were ruled out of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: These amendments are proposed in an effort to improve legislation. That is why we are here.
The Government comes forward with a Bill that, in its wisdom, it feels is in the best interests of Canada. We have concerned Members of the Opposition Parties who have gone through the Bill clause by clause thoughtfully in committee and have made a number of suggestions and recommendations on how we feel the Bill could be fine-tuned. One could comment about the Bill itself; but we recognize there is a majority of government Members and we thought we owed the Government a favour in terms of trying to identify how we could improve clauses of this Bill. After thoughtful deliberation as we moved through that very appropriate process, the Government says "We are not interested in hearing any more comments from Members of the Opposition. We are not interested in hearing any more comments from our backbenchers, or the thoughtful reactions of these duly elected representatives of the people of Canada. That is it." We are being muzzled.


Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Enough is enough.


Nelson Andrew Riis: "Enough is enough", says one of the Tory Members. This is, as I say, perhaps the most important Bill that we are going to debate in this session of Parliament in terms of what it is going to do to the future of the Canadian economy and Canadian companies attempting to operate in conjunction with foreign subsidiaries in Canada.
We have just seen dowing Question Period the reason we are concerned about this Bill. The United States has decided in the last number of hours to curtail trade with Nicaragua. We can debate that issue and the merits at some length. Setting aside the wisdom of that decision, that same American Government has now said to its subsidiaries operating in Canada, of which there are many-as a matter of fact, most of those foreign branch plants in Canada are American-owned-if the products they are putting together, manufacturing or creating in Canada have a significant amount of American content, like automobiles, machinery and all sorts of other items, they cannot be exported to Nicaragua. Canadians at this time might be quite encouraged to expand trade with Nicaragua.
Where do those people now turn if they cannot turn to the United States and its allies? To where did Cuba turn? We are right back with the Cuban issue. Cuba had nowhere to turn but to the Soviet Union. Now the United States is saying the
May 2, 1985

same to Nicaragua. It is saying to Canadian branch plants and subsidiaries in Canada that if the content of their product is sufficiently American they cannot trade with Nicaragua. That is influencing our trade policy.
Now can the Minister sit there, a toughtful Minister on this particular issue, without saying that we will not accept that, that we will not have anything to do with a foreign power dictating export policy for companies in Canada?


Mrs. B. Tardif:: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Opposition Member who just spoke, I would like to stress the point that the debate has been going on for quite some time, first here in this House, then in committee. We had 102 amendments for consideration in committee, and we now have 99 amendments here before us. More than 80 hours have already been spent on this legislation. Compared with the FIRA Bill, which was discussed a number of years ago, we have already spent more time on Investment Canada than the Government of the day spent in this House considering the old FIRA legislation.
I would like to remind the House that we have already spent enough time, and Opposition Members have had all the time needed to express their views.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the Minister's arbitrary action in deciding that the Government will impose closure on the remaining stages of Bill C-15, the Investment Canada Bill. As my colleague just said, this Bill is probably the most important economic Bill we will see in this session or, quite possibly, in the entire four-year life of the Government. Under those circumstances, the Government's action in deciding to take some 80 amendments, which have yet to be considered in the House of Commons, and simply throw them out the window and dispose of them in one day is arbitrary and unjustifiable.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They were dealt with in committee.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Minister is perfectly right. However, he realizes that the committees are not televised. People interested in seeing the debate and in knowing what is happening were unable to see the debate in committee on the particular amendments put forward by the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, and quite possibly the Government as well. Yes, they can read them, I suppose, but it is appropriate that Parliament deal with them in a measured and reasonable way. They are important amendments, particularly when there are some serious and important differences of views in terms of what the Government is trying to do with the Investment Canada Bill, and what we have tried to do in terms of improvements by means of the amendments we have proposed.
The particular amendments now before us relate to an attempt to free up Investment Canada, the new agency which
Investment Canada Act
is being created, from being completely under the thumb of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). That is an important point. In theory, Investment Canada is being created in order to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians, as well as by non-Canadians, and in order to ensure enforcement of conditions and undertakings which are entered into by non-Canadian investors who are making investments in Canada. In practice, so long as the agency is under the thumb of the Minister there will be no guarantee that those particular provisions will be implemented.
I recognize that Parliament is a talking shop; it is a place where people talk about these issues. In the end, the legislation is passed and has to be implemented by the Government of the day. However, when the issues relate to foreign investment, and when foreign investment is responsible for close to 60 per cent of the manufacturing industry of Canada, and inhibits to such a degree the ability of Canadians to export into our major natural market in the United States, those questions are worth more than a few days of debate, followed by the decision of the Government to impose closure.
For example, if the Government had said that there were six or seven groups of amendments still to be considered and gave one day to each group of amendments-perhaps we on this side of the House would have objected to that-the citizens would have said that it was not totally unreasonable. Then in each area of amendment it would have been possible to have some debate in Parliament itself, in the House of Commons, not just in committee. That was not the Government's decision.
Is the Minister suggesting that 25 minutes should be given to each of the remaining groups of amendments, so that we can get through them all in the course of the remaining day of debate which will come after the guillotine motion has been put down? Does he honestly believe that we can have any kind of reasonable debate on groups of amendments which in some cases may be 10 amendments with different ideas, albeit in a related area? Does he believe that we can have a debate on all those amendments in 25 minutes, with 10 minutes from the Opposition and 10 minutes from the Government-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You have already had 80 hours.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Of course we have had time in committee.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: And here.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I am talking about the right to debate here. We have been moving along at a measured pace. The pace is not the pace the Minister likes. The Minister is impatient. He wants to sit down in the Chateau Laurier and talk with his friends from the business community.
I would like to comment on a matter raised a few minutes ago. It is very interesting that when the Opposition wants to say things the Government does not like, the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion comes into the House and announces that he will impose closure on the debate which is taking place. If there were huge amounts of legislation to be

May 2, 1985
Investment Canada Act
considered, the case would be stronger. We all know that the House has been spinning its wheels because the Government has effectively had no legislation on the plate of Parliament. There is no pressure of stacked-up legislation; Parliament is not faced with a bottleneck. We have lots of time to consider these matters, but the Minister has decided that it is uncomfortable.
In the meantime, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) has decided that it is equally uncomfortable for Parliament to have a handful of demonstrators outside seeking to communicate an opinion. This is a Government which promised openness and accessibility when its Members campaigned for office during the course of the election campaign last summer. Somehow what was promised then and what is being delivered now is very different. Like the Liberals who went before, they will be secretive and restrictive. They will restrain debate, take away the rights of citizens to come and protest, do things in a quiet way and try to prevent any sharing of information with respect to this particular Bill. If the Minister has a comment, I will listen.
We have tried to open up the process. We have tried to inject an element that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion does not ride roughshod over Investment Canada without at least having the backing of his Cabinet. At least Motion No. 19 provides that Investment Canada will carry out the function of conducting reviews of investments by non-Canadians and will provide to other federal Departments and agencies information about means to stimulate investment by Canadians in Canada. Can anyone object to that kind of provision? Is the Minister really saying in opposing these amendments, as I believe he is, that he is opposed to measures to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians? Is that his position? From time to time that seems to be his position.
The Government came to power determined to do one thing in the economic sphere. It said it would open our doors to business around the world and that somehow that would get the Canadian economy moving. It will ignore the talent and initiative which exists among Canadians. Instead it will court by every means possible investment coming into this country. The Minister should know that there are too many examples of companies and foreign investors taking advantage of the Canadian openness that already exists in that particular regard.
I think of the way the Government and the people of Manitoba were treated by the promotors behind Churchill Forest Industries some 12 years or 15 years ago. Those promoters came in, took dollars away from Canada, took lots of profit away for themselves and left virtually nothing in return. That kind of history has been repeated again and again. I think of the way the rights of working people in Nova Scotia were trampled by the pressure of Michelin Tires when it twisted the arm of the Nova Scotia Government, until the point that that Government passed one of the most repressive anti-labour pieces of legislation the country has seen in order to prevent the workers at Michelin plants from having the
right to acquire a trade union. These kinds of things have happened many times.
The Minister will say that some good things have come out of foreign investment in Canada. I am sure that is the case as well. However, every other country recognizes that there must be pressures from Government to ensure that foreign capital acts responsibly and in the interests of the host country. Somehow I believe that this country is really no different.
We have consistently experienced Canadian initiative, invention and companies being restrained from developing products, from carrying out research and development and from developing markets in the United States because those companies or organizations were controlled by multinationals based in the United States. That, my friends, is the kind of thing that leads me to have grave misgivings regarding the degree to which the Government is bending over backward to accommodate foreign multinationals through the Investment Canada Bill. That is why we in the New Democratic Party believe it is important that we strengthen the powers of Investment Canada, and that the Bill puts at least as much emphasis on the encouragement of investment in Canada by Canadians as it does on the regulations and surveillance of investment in Canada by non-Canadians. That is the reason for the various amendments and that is why I believe this matter must be debated further.
I am adamantly and categorically opposed to the decision of the Minister who has simply gotten bored with listening. The Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary may have spent 80 hours in committee listening to people speak about these matters. But, as the Minister knows from his time in Cabinet and from his time in Opposition, it sometimes takes a long time before arguments made in the House of Commons begin to be heard by the people of Canada. That is why it is important that this debate continue. I would call on the Minister and the Government to withdraw the misguided decision to stifle debate in the House of Commons on this important Bill.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise at this point of the debate to address not just the motion now before us, but also to reflect on the Minister's action which actually imposes closure on the bill.
I am not at all surprised at the Government's action, Mr. Speaker, because this is the second time the Progressive Conservative Government has imposed closure on this legislation. They did so through the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary on second reading, and now it is done once again, this time by the Minister himself, at report stage.
Canadians certainly will be surprised to see the impatient, high-handed ways used by this Government which given its overwhelming mandate, its overwhelming majority in this House, should not have to use such tactics, to use the guillotine
May 2, 1985


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) has the floor.


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the Investment Canada Bill in a way which is entirely different from the way the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part) just did. The Investment Canada Bill will create jobs. We have introduced this bill to make it possible for investors-


Carlo Rossi: How?


André Bissonnette: Because I listened very politely and attentively while the hon. member was speaking, Mr. Speaker, I should appreciate if Hon. members opposite kept quiet and allowed those who want to contribute something positive to the debate to do so, contrary to the Liberals who have contributed only negatively over the past 70 hours.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill will create job opportunities, develop new technologies, put Canadians back to work and restore what Liberal governments have destroyed over the past 16 years.

May 2, 1985
Investment Canada Act
I think that this bill should be implemented as soon as possible. I think also that we should welcome foreign investors intelligently-


Carlo Rossi: Intelligently! That's not like you!


André Bissonnette: -and politely, and use their know-how and capital to create new jobs opportunities in Canada. The reason we are here is to restore what the previous government has destroyed over the past 16 years. I urge you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to expedite these matters and make it possible for the House to adopt this bill without any further delay.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak again, today, to Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, because I think the amendments we have on the table of the House are extremely important. However, before speaking to the amendments, I would like to say that the Government advised us at 3.15 this afternoon that it would impose closure on this Bill. What that means? It means that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) has decided to gag the Opposition. He does not like what he is hearing, and he obviously has no intention of accepting any amendments. This is an affront to democracy. It is despicable and intolerable.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: They are going to vote for 470 minutes!


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I did intend to speak to the two amendments now before the House, namely Motions Nos. 19 and 20.
The clause proposed by the Government is far too vague as it stands. This is how it reads: "There is hereby established an agency, to be known as Investment Canada, to advise and assist the Minister in exercising his powers and performing his duties under this Act."
That is what it says in Clause 6. We believe the two amendments being proposed, one by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and the other by the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) are extremely important, since they are aimed at expanding the agency's role.
Mr. Speaker, 1 shall, if I may, read the amendment we are proposing in order to make sure my hon. friends opposite know what they are turning down. The first two lines remain the same. We want to add the following and I quote:
-in exercising his powers under this Act, to secure notifications and conduct reviews of investments by non-Canadians under this Act, and provide to other relevant federal departments and agencies information about means to stimulate investment by Canadians-
Why do the Members opposite object? I am sure I do not know, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, it is all very straightforward. We are trying to give a clear definition of the agency's raison d'etre that will prevent any problems due to lack of communication and result in better decisions. First of all, we
want the agency to obtain advice on investments by non-Canadians, and second, to provide information to other federal departments and agencies.
It is perfectly normal to try and encourage Canadian investors to invest in this country. We could not tolerate opening our doors to foreign investment, if it meant closing them to our own investors. It is the only way for the Government to ensure that Canadian investors will be considered first.
Many of my colleagues have mentioned the importance of keeping Canadian money in Canada. It is just as important to make it attractive for our investors to put their money on the Canadian economy. By informing other departments and federal agencies on ways to promote investment by our entrepreneurs and industrialists here in Canada, we will be promoting the development of a healthy competitive climate.
As I said before, I think it is vital for Canada to monitor the quality of investments made in Canada. We have every reason to welcome foreign investment, but we must not discourage our own businessmen and women from undertaking new ventures here in Canada.
The results have already shown that it works. Investments made in Canada by Canadians are of far greater benefit to the economy than foreign investment, as a result of higher levels of research and development and better export opportunities, and would also reduce our dependence on imports.
Another reason why I think it makes sense to present that motion is that it would enable us to screen and control investment requests. Indeed, if we carefully screened the various investment requests, we would be in position to inform the departments and agencies of the Government about the possibility to ensure an adequate Canadian participation.
If we consulted other countries likely to invest in Canada and put their suggestions to good use, Canadians would be assured that their rights and their funds are protected.
The pride of our businessmen and businesswomen is badly shaken by this Government. It is not a matter of appropriating the ideas of foreign entrepreneurs, but one of finding a common ground leading to more satisfactory co-operation between non-Canadian and Canadian entrepreneurs.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, our jobs are at stake. We must protect them. We are told that we must open Canadian markets to foreign investors, but we must not forget that Canadians who are in a position to participate in this country's economy may give up any interest they might have had, as a result of the Government's lack of action.
We have said many times that lay-offs are a very real threat in a company controlled by non-Canadians. I think that if we encourage Canadian investors, we will not run this kind of risk. As it stands, the Bill ignores the plight of Canadians. In the
May 2, 1985

past, through the FIRA program, we have always tried to consider the Canadian content of investment in this country. In very recent years, Canadian businessmen and women have regained confidence in this country and in the possibility of being considered full partners. The Bill as it stands does not provide any protection for Canadians who want to invest in our country. That is why our amendment is so important. It guarantees that the Government will not turn its back on Canadians and offer foreign investors the whole pie. In fact, I find it hard to understand why the Government should try to attract non-Canadian investors, when many Canadian investors would be delighted to get the kind of encouragement they need to market their ideas.
This Government claims it favours consultation and co-operation. We also know that it has great plans for affiliation with the United States. We agree that Canada is a country that welcomes entrepreneurs. However, it is our duty to ensure that the autonomy of Canada and the rights of Canadians are not affected, especially in the small- and medium-sized business sector.
After more than six months, the Government opposite has no excuse for its inertia. Putting the blame on the previous Government is no longer an excuse. Canadian men and women are fed up, and it is high time this Government showed it can act responsibly. The time has come to take the concerns of Canadians seriously and to defend the interests of our Canadian industrialists and entrepreneurs. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I support the motions proposed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset how shocked I was moments ago when the Minister announced that debate would be cut short by imposing closure on this bill. If I have used the word "shocked" it is because, I remember not so long ago when we sat on the other side, that the Opposition would rake us over the coals and call us everything under the sun precisely because after a while-I am not talking about days, but weeks and sometimes months- the Government would invoke closure. I was shocked and I am surprised to see that my colleagues on the other side of the House do not seem to be overly enthusiastic about this Bill. Fewer and fewer of them take the floor, excepting the Minister, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jean (Mr. Bissonnette), who came in a while ago to practice speech-making, probably because he is planning to make another depressing announcement later on.
For all practical purposes, Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Investment Review Agency is dead. Naturally, we must have another organization to replace it, but I am wondering whether Investment Canada is really designed to replace FIRA. In my opinion, they have turned the whole thing into a political issue instead of trying to improve the existing structure of FIRA, something which could have been done by introducing
Investment Canada Act
more radical changes. But no, everything has been thrown overboard and now the Minister alone will be responsible for foreign investments in Canada.
I am sure the Minister is an intelligent man, no doubt about that, but I wonder where he will find the time to deal with all the investments that will be made in Canada. I agree that we need investments in this country, because with a small population of 26 million we simply cannot keep all our industries operating at full capacity. We do need foreign investments.
If we want to instill some kind of confidence in investors, perhaps we should just put our own house in order. We should streamline our legislation. We should also remove from the sphere of politics the problem of foreign investment in Canada. How come the government is going to set up another agency which will report to the minister and tell him whether particular investments are good, not as good, really bad or against the national interests of Canadians?
Let me turn to another phenomenon. In the past, many companies based in the United States, especially in the pharmaceutic industry, chose to set up Canadian subsidiaries. According to the reports they filed with the federal government, they merely said that they had spent a certain amount for research. In fact, it was merely for income tax purposes. There was almost no scientific research done in Canada. Such research was done in the United States. Thus, our researchers could not work in their own country and Canada could not create the jobs normally related to research work.
In fact, when we started putting some pressure on them, the drug companies, for all practical purposes, moved to the United States. If you have no control over foreign investors coming into Canada, you cannot expect them to behave just like Canadian companies with research rights and funds for research which might be expected to create jobs. But I do not think that an agency inside some kind of government department or under some minister's responsibility will amount to much.
Mr. Speaker, as for the person who will be appointed head of the agency, I shall not of course mention patronage, because it is all in the mind of some people-I have nothing against patronage, Mr. Speaker, nothing at all. It has become normal practice, normal political practice, but the problem with the Progressive Conservative Party is that throughout the election campaign, they behaved most improperly by suggesting to the Canadian voters that patronage was a thing of the past, that patronage was out. Mr. Speaker, patronage is with us more than ever before!


An Hon. Member:: Right on! Right on!


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: To come back to the appointee to that most blessed position of head of the agency, I am sure it will be a man that we do not know yet, but who certainly had some

May 2, 1985
Investment Canada Act
dealings or connections or some link with the Progressive Conservative Party during the last election campaign. Mind you, once again, I have nothing against that, but I do not think it is the right way-


André Bissonnette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) on a point of order.


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, I feel the Liberal Member is sounding off about patronage which has nothing to do with the Bill before us respecting Investment Canada. He is straying from the subject-matter of the Bill, and 1 would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call him to order and ask him to speak to the matter under consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must unfortunately inform the Minister that this is not a point of order. I recognize the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle).


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion, I simply want to say that patronage does not exist, because I am quite certain that the eventual appointee will be completely independent, without any connection with the Progressive Conservative Party, nor indeed with the Liberal Party, but will certainly be a school buddy of someone we know quite well in this House.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, if an agency such as the one that will eventually be established can be biased from the start, how can it provide independent advice about some foreign investors? I am certain that those appointed president and directors of the agency have friends in the United States or in Great Britain. I was listening to our Prime Minister, who is on a marvelous trip, and we wish him every success in the mother country, namely Great Britain. He will be travelling throughout Europe trying to prove that Canada exists, and I hope that he will keep up the good work, but he has opened our door or at least given some hope to the British who would like to invest in this country. The door is wide open. However, we should perhaps keep in mind that, a few years ago, when the EEC was established, we had some problems, not with British investments, but with our trade with Great Britain. We should perhaps remember that little game, which the British have never really forgotten, I am quite sure.
Naturally, the Liberal Party has some experience in Government since we had the confidence of the people for 20 years and perhaps even more. We suffered some setbacks in 1957 and 1984, but such setbacks are not eternal. They last but a moment. As I was saying, with its long experience, the Liberal Party moved many amendments, perhaps 47 or 50, and I can promise one thing, and that is that we will make the Canadian people aware of our amendments which were aimed at improving investment in Canada by having all propective investors in this country follow the same rules as the Canadian companies.
To conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, we should also help small businesses. Often, small businessmen are in a quandary for lack of money. So the federal Government might help them out, Mr. Speaker, instead of allowing several of them to be taken over by American interests. And I am not sure whether a few years from now, some people, looking back on the Bill before us today, will not be reminded of the passage in the Holy Scripture that says: It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he cast into the sea. I doubt that some will actually say this about the Progresssive Conservative party, but I believe some will entertain this thought that will not, I know, come true.
Mr. Speaker, as for us we have made our contribution, and I hope that my colleagues who howl here and there in this House will at least rise and try to prove that their Bill is sound, otherwise I shall have to conclude like all Canadians who follow our proceedings on television across the country that this Bill is definitely a bad one because even the Conservative Members do not want to stick up for it.


David Berger: In speaking to this motion today, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the House that when the Minister announced his intention to introduce this bill setting up Investment Canada, he indicated that it would have a positive role, that its purpose was to encourage both foreign and Canadian investors to invest in Canada.
I think therefore that this bill is inconsistent with the stated goal, for there is not in this clause a single mention of the main purpose of the bill which is to promote investments in Canada.
We are dealing today with Clause 6 which establishes an agency to advise and assist the Minister in exercising his powers and performing his duties under this Act.
But, as I said, nowhere does it state that the agency's role will be to promote investments in Canada. As a matter of fact, in committee, the Minister and the Chairman of the committee turned down the amendments Liberal members had proposed authorizing the Minister to promote investments by Canadians. And it seems to us that the government is not prepared either to accept Motion No. 19 which suggests that the Minister should exercice his powers to stimulate investment by Canadians in Canada. If the minister claims that we have adopted a negative attitude, it is simply because each time we have proposed an amendment for the purpose of clarifying the goals of this bill or increasing the powers given to the Minister to fulfil his responsibilities, the government turned it down. The government is now seeking to impose closure, which clearly demonstrate its unwillingness to listen to our suggestions or to consider our amendments. They often urge us to come up with suggestions. And when we do come up with suggestions, they refuse outright to listen.
I mentioned yesterday a suggestion made not by our party, but by the Science Council Canada, to the effect that it would be normal in a bill of this kind to have provisions allowing the
May 2, 1985

government to review all takeovers of Canadian firms which have been the recipients of government research grants.
I understand the government simply rejected this suggestion in committee, without trying to understand our point of view or explain its refusal to consider any amendment proposed by the opposition.
The unwillingness of the Government to accept any amendment which attempts to clarify the role of the Minister or to permit him to encourage Canadian investment in a well specified manner, is totally contradictory to the words of that Party during the election campaign. We all remember the famous promises that investment would flow into the country the minute the Government was elected. The famous Investment Canada Bill has been tabled and we are still waiting.
I think most Canadians knew that the actions would not meet with the rhetoric. Most Canadians knew that it would take more than the election of the Government and the introduction of one Bill to bring about the economic changes which the country needs. Most Canadians know that a whole range of economic policies in the tax and regulatory areas must be presented to enable our economy to compete in the tremendously competitive world in which we live today.
It is nine months since the election of this Government and we have yet to see a Budget. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this far surpasses the record of the Clark Government which, in spite of all the errors it made, took only six months to introduce its Budget. We know what happened to that Government. Perhaps that is why the new Government has taken so long to introduce a Budget. Needless to say, the expectations of all Canadians are very high in this respect.


An Hon. Member:: Fifty-seven per cent today.


David Berger: Fifty-seven per cent today. We will see whether it is 57 per cent one month after the Budget that we are all awaiting at the end of May.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to what I was saying a moment ago, that is the need to encourage foreign investments in Canada, or rather the need to have this kind of policy. This government said that the former Foreign Investment Review Agency prevented foreigners from investing in this country. That is why the old act is being repelled and this change is put forward. But I would like to bring to the attention of the House an article published in today's Le Devoir where if is said that, according to the Quebec's agent-general in London, Ottawa gives too much importance to foreign investments in this country. So what did Mr. Patrick Hyndman have to say in an interview he gave yesterday to a Quebec journalist in London? He said that he was a little worried to see this
Adjournment Motion
governement make the promotion abroad of foreign investments in Canada its top priority. He noted that in the past Ottawa's priority, that is our Liberal government's priority, was instead the promotion of export. We had set up a wide range of initiatives: the Export Development Corporation, the efforts the previous government made to enable Bombardier to get contracts for the New York subway and the Mexico subway. We had set up a wide range of initiatives to encourage exports by Canadian businesses.
The general delegate of Quebec is somewhat disappointed with this new direction the Government is taking, but then, he says that federal involvement may not be necessary because he notices in London an ongoing competition for foreign investment. No less than six provinces have delegations in the British capital, namely the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia. He says that the Ontario Government in Toronto has a delegation of 40 members, seven of whom do nothing but foster foreign investment in Canada. He notices that the province of Quebec has only some twenty employees, three of whom are responsible for all aspects of economic promotion.
Therefore, as shown by a distinguished representative of a provincial Government, namely the Quebec Government, some remarkable efforts are being made at present to foster foreign investment in Canada. Foreign investment will not bring about economic recovery; it is through the promotion of Canadian companies and exports, and thus the creation of our own economy, that we will maintain our current standard of living. That is the reason why we have introduced this amendment which, unfortunately, the Government has rejected offhandedly, and I strongly deplore the fact that this Government rejects all positive amendments put forward by Opposition Members.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley)- Highways-Yellowhead Highway-Request for designation as National Highway; the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)-Social security-Benefits for widows and widowers aged 60-64-Exclusive of single, divorced and separated persons; the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker)-Fisheries-Codfish-Size of West Germany catches-Government position.

May 2, 1985
Investment Canada Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and Motions No. 19 (Mr. Axworthy) (p. 4313), and No. 20 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4314).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming the debate. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time since the beginning of the debate on Bill C-15 that I rise in this House to speak and call the Government's attention on-


An Hon. Member:: No need for that, you are wasting time!


Raymond Garneau: Government members speak about time being wasted. I wonder who wastes more time in this House. Would it be the Liberal Members who are working hard to improve legislation, or those Members blissfully seated in the fat of their regained felicity, as a brilliant Member from Quebec once said, sitting there and applauding but never saying a word on any legislation?
Mr. Speaker, I am amazed because since the opening of this debate, we have called attention first to the principle, and, of course, the huge Government majority won the day, even though the arguments put forward were limited to a few speeches. We resumed the debate in committee, a number of suggestions were made to try and improve the wording of the Bill to make it more operational.
This time, the debate is on Motion No. 19. It seeks to a certain extent to break down the divisions between the various responsibilities of the Agency. It is beyond me why they should want to create an agency, appoint a President to hold office during pleasure which is somewhat like the appointment of a judge, and he cannot be removed-but the Agency to be headed by that President, that high official during pleasure, that Agency has no power because in the final analysis, the Minister alone can make decisions. And when we proposed amendments to clause 5, in the first series of amendments which will be voted upon a little later, and hopefully a few will be passed, the few remarks we heard from the Opposition were negative which leads me to believe that, in spite of my hopes, the amendments will not be passed.
We come back with this Motion no. 19 to amend clause 6 creating the agency; we would like to circumscribe somewhat those powers of the agency which remain extremely ill-defined, and given the fact that the responsible official or the chairman
of the agency who is still removable because those powers are not defined, the agency itself will not be able to take any initiative. We would like to be able to amend clause 6 to enable the agency, to be known as Investment Canada, to advise and assist the Minister in exercising his powers and performing his duties under the Act, but we would also like this agency, this person who is to play almost the role of a judge in a quasi-judicial court, an administrative commission, this person whose position is considered important enough to make him or her removable, to have the power to receive opinions, to have investment by non-Canadians reviewed under the present Act. We would also like to see the chairman of this agency who will be, as I said, a person with a very special status, have at least the power and the responsibility to offer the other departments concerned the information available to the agency in order to favour foreign investment, and particularly investment by Canadians.
If all this is not done openly, Mr. Speaker, if the agency does not have the power under the Act, to communicate information . . . Let us take for example a foreign company wanting to buy a high technology company and let us say the asking price is $5.1 million . . . Would the Progessive Conservative Members in this House not wish that the chairman of the agency could have the opportunity and the power under the Act to get in touch with the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) and tell him the following: Listen, Mr. Minister, here is a company which is going to be taken over by foreign capital for a price which exceeds the maximum by only $100,000. We are forced to give an opinion, to make a decision. Would you not have, in your area, businesses of another size, a little larger or even a little smaller, which could buy that company with adequate financing? But in the context of this legislation, the Minister alone may take action and the Agency is not empowered, as set out in Clause 6, to go and consult the Minister of State for Small Businesses or any other Minister such as the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) when his own area of communications is at issue.
We would like the mandate of the Agency as described in Clause 6 to be broadened somehow and the President of the Agency to be allowed a certain amount of discretion that would enable him to consult his colleagues. Otherwise, all facts remain confidential and he can divulge them to no one but the Minister who alone has the power to make decisions. Amendments to Clause 5 that would have made the Minister exercise his powers not alone but within a ministerial committee were rejected. It is most likely that the proposal now under consideration will be rejected as well.
We asked first that the powers be granted to a ministerial committee. That was refused. A ministerial committee? Denied. The Minister is now the only authority. We say that
May 2, 1985

the Agency should have at least the chance to consult and to relay information. Of course, Mr. Speaker, people who have been in office for a while are often a lot more careful about legislation than people who do not have that experience.
Members of the Opposition as well as Members of the Government should mark my words. After this legislation has been in effect for a while they will be the first to react negatively to decisions taken by the Minister alone or by an Agency that lacks the power to consult them in their area, either through small businesses, the Minister responsible for Technology or the Minister of Communications. There is no way to override the law and, since the Minister is almost like a judge, he can disregard all objections and hide behind the law, saying that the Act and the powers referred to in Section 6 do not give him any leeway. Members will see what will happen if they have in their riding, companies which are doing better than average. If a company is worth $100 million, there cannot be very many buyers. Smaller companies, in the $5 million range, Mr. Speaker, can employ many people, but the investment is not so high that money cannot be found for a takeover. We believe that this amendment would improve the Bill and I do not understand why the government is acting so stubbornly by refusing to broaden slightly the extremely limited scope of these sections as they now stand.
Mr. Speaker, the second part of the proposed amendment deals with information. Would you not like, as government members who are not part of the inner circle, to be informed of what is happening? Things are going to happen in government departments and you will learn about them in the media. Would you not like to be officially informed? The Science Council of Canada mentioned the importance of publishing information. Imagine for a moment a company which would have received from the Department of Technology $300,000 or $400,000 in subsidies to develop a project. A foreign investor comes along, and the Minister responsible for granting that sum of money does not even know, since notices are not required, that the $300,000 he has given to Company X are going to be used by foreign investors, when Canadian interests might have wished to use it or to buy that company!
Mr. Speaker, I hope that government members instead of viewing this as an exercice in futility will look at our representations and warnings as a positive input which might be of some benefit to all Members of this House, and in particular it might be advantageous for Canada to have the greatest possible number of businesses owned and operated by Canadians thus giving Canadians the opportunity to buy businesses that would otherwise be sold to foreign interests. If government members do not see all of this, it is due to the fact that they are not aware of it, and according to clause 6 of the bill, the agency does not have the authority to give this information through the various departments involved.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 19 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 79, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred. [English]
The next question is on Motion No. 20 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 79, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next motion for debate is Motion No. 23. However, the mover of Motion No. 23, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), is not here. Is there unanimous consent to allow another Hon. Member to move the motion on behalf of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Simon Leendert de Jong: May 2, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 6 to 10 at page 6.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry) moved:: Motion No. 24
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 43 to 48 at page 6.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 25
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 49 and 50 at page 6 and lines 1 to 43 at page 7.

He said: Mr. Speaker, before addressing myself directly to the amendments at hand, I think it is worth commenting on the recent actions taken by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) who introduced closure to the House. This Minister has never been known for his delicate sensibilities when it comes to Parliament. I think we can now say that his nickname, which used to be "Sine the Slasher", can now be turned into "Sine the Slink." He is hiding behind his huge majority, afraid, as is his Government, to face the music-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: -afraid to face what they know to be the truth that this is a bad Bill, bad legislation and bad economics.


Mr. Towers:: You should be the last one to make that comment.


Lloyd Axworthy: This is perhaps the worst kind of authoritarianism when a Government uses its majority to hide behind, to suppress debate, to suppress the opportunity for the public to know exactly what it is facing and what the consequences are of the legislation.
What about those fine virtues that Conservative Members of Parliament used to promulgate when they were members of the Opposition after 40 days of debate on the Western Grain Transportation Bill when we brought in closure? After five days of debate on this Bill, the Conservative Government finds it necessary to slink with its tail between its legs away from the hot and important glare of public debate and discussion about a matter that affects the economic welfare of millions of Canadians. That is a sign of what a lousy Government we have. Its Members are afraid to speak up for their convictions and their own rights.
It will not be long before the Canadian people will understand what a group of mealy-mouths we have on the other side of this House. Government Members do not have the ability, the will or the motivation to defend themselves on their own legislation.
Nowhere is that more clearly seen than in the amendments we have brought forward under this grouping. We are dealing here with a section of the Bill dealing with exemptions for those categories of companies or activities that are totally
excluded from any form of notification or review. They get a free ride. They do not even have to register with Investment Canada to make their investments known. Let me point out, for the edification if not the endorsement of Members opposite, just what this means. In Motion No. 24 that we have brought forward we are suggesting that it will be almost a criminal act of folly for this Government to exclude from notification foreign transactions dealing with real estate developments. This Government exempts any form of foreign enterprise dealing with the investment in rental real estate the revenue for which comes from the rental market.
It was but a year ago that some 13,000 tenants in the City of Toronto were faced with total eviction from apartment blocks and the total disruption of their living accommodation in the famous Seaway-Greymac affair. The principal operators were a group of numbered companies that had their registration in that wonderful free enterprise area called Lichtenstein. Under this Bill, this group of numbered companies will be totally excluded from having to notify Investment Canada of their intentions or willingness to buy into real estate in this country. Can you believe that we are now exempting a whole category of investment in what is perhaps the most vital and delicate areas affecting Canadians, their housing and their habitation, from any form of review or notification? That is the intent of this legislation. It is hard to believe, Mr. Speaker. I would think that those 13,000 tenants, who were faced with the most dire consequences last year because of the financial shenanigans and finagling that was going on using numbered companies registered in foreign locations, would not find it so amusing that this new Government of theirs, for which some of them may have voted, is totally relinquishing any protection for real estate development.
My colleague has argued time and time again that this is a Government that must be sensitive to rental housing. We see just how sensitive this Government is in Investment Canada. I am not saying the Government should have to review every transaction. Real estate deals do not even have to be notified or registered. Anybody can buy a group of condominiums in downtown Vancouver, Toronto or Winnipeg, get into the kind of flip deals that we saw in the Seaway-Greymac Affair, put tenants out on the street, and then this Government can say, "We did not know. We had no responsibility". Why? Because this Government has excluded this category under the Investment Canada Bill.
How can Members opposite consider that to be a good piece of legislation? How do they consider that they are protecting the interests of Canadians when they are providing a wide open screen for wholesale transactions in the housing field without having any set of responsibilities placed upon the foreign investor or upon the Canadian investor who wants to use a foreign location as a cover-up for fancy deals as we saw in the Seaway affair? I am not making this up. It was on the front page of every newspaper for four or five weeks. The former Government of Ontario, the Conservative Government, former as of about nine o'clock tonight, was faced with one of the most serious embarrassments of its life because of this
May 2, 1985

transaction. Yet here we have the new Mulroney Government, the great defenders of Canadian interests, throwing it away, not even interested in that kind of transaction.
Similarly, in Motion No. 25, what else is being excluded totally from any form of notification? Investments by life insurance companies. That is a $4 billion portfolio annually. Life insurance companies, according to the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), are part of this new system of what is called one-stop shopping arrangements. These companies can get into a whole variety of investments. They can circulate funds from Canada through foreign subsidiaries and back again. They too are excluded not only from review in Investment Canada but from any notification.
1 do not attribute any undue motivation to those people in life insurance industry, but this is an open invitation to avoid the other requirements of the Act by channelling portfolio investments through insurance companies in order to get themselves into deals which will not be subject to any form of assessment or judgment. I would make the same comments on the proposal put forward by the New Democratic Party in Motion No. 23 dealing with forms of financial assistance. Once again we are dealing with a case where properties or enterprises are acquired and, because they are used as collateral, they become a form of indirect acquisition which under the Act is subject to review if it happens in the normal fashion. If a company gets an indirect acquisition because of its collateral holdings, because it gave financial assistance to another company, it is not covered by any notification or review procedure.
I can only assume that the Minister and the drafters of the Bill were in one of their sort of nocturnal moments when they were not paying much attention to the finer points of the legislation. How they would let a matter so crucial to ownership in the country once again escape any assessment or judgment really boggles the imagination. But they have done so. I think I have shown the key areas-real estate, life insurance or indirect acquisitions through financial assistance. All three are very common forms of enterprise and transaction, and they totally avoid any accountability under this legislation. This opens a wide area of investment where there will be no information or no ability on the part of the Government of Canada to ensure that the interests of Canadians are protected in this area, nor will there be any opportunity provided for remedial action.
I put the proposition to the House that if ever there was a set of amendments which could be used and adopted by the Government to improve its own legislation, clearly this grouping fits that particular definition. As I said yesterday, I am afraid the Government has become a know-nothing Government. It does not want to know what is good for it. It does not want to listen to constructive proposals. It does not want to accept amendments which make sense. The Minister laughs. That is the attitude of the Government. It has a large majority, so it does not have to pay attention to the Opposition. Government Members can proceed in an arrogant fashion because
Investment Canada Act
they have a majority. Many countries have been ruined by that kind of attitude. They simply say that Parliament does not mean anything any longer. They feel that they do not have to listen to Parliament. They can go to committee and invite people to make representations, but they do not have to listen. They do not have to listen in committee. They do not have to listen at report stage. They can steamroll whatever they want through the House.
That is a Government which is doomed to destruction, for all its protestations about consultation. It is a facade, it is phoney. The Government does not want to listen. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is simply a Sammy Slick, interested in getting headlines. Real consultation means that there is a response at the end. There has to be a willingness not only to listen but to respond. The Government has absolutely no intention to do that. We have seen this in spades in this Bill- nothing in committee and nothing at report stage. It brings in closure, closes down the House, gets the legislation through and goes ahead and makes mistakes, even though, for all intents and purposes, the Opposition is here to do nothing else but try to help the Government in terms of its own folly and its own mistakes.
We are presenting these amendments to try to ensure that Canadians in the rental market will not be subject to the kind of disturbance in their lives which they faced in the Seaway affair, and to ensure that life insurance companies are at least required to notify the Government when they make foreign investments and collateral arrangements for investment purposes. We are proposing measures to improve the legislation. If the Government is not interested in improvement, it can live with the consequences.


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to some of the remarks made by the former Minister. I should like to correct the record. For the Hon. Member's information, with regard to the Greymac sale, the number of people affected was 25,000, not 13,000. Those people made submissions to FIR A and to the Liberal Government. They were advised that that sale was none of FIRA's business. They were turned down by the Liberal Government. The tenants then went to the provincial PC Government and were protected by legislation passed in the Province of Ontario.
It is not a matter of what rules we have or do not have. The question is whether or not a Government is sensitive to the needs of the people. The Liberals have proven in the past that even though they had all the rules, regulations and laws in place-they do not care, whereas Conservatives have proven the opposite.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate, but unfortunately, the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) has left, and that is too bad, since he is responsible for protecting a sector that creates the most jobs in Canada and Quebec.

May 2, 1985
Investment Canada Act
As all Members of this House are aware, this sector is particularly vulnerable to the impact of foreign investment. 1 think the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) explained this very well, and I think it is quite easy to understand. If only the Conservative Members would understand there is a real threat to the housing sector. In addition to the threat to the small- and medium-sized business sector, if the amendments proposed by my hon. colleague are not adopted, this may have very considerable repercussions for the housing industry, an industry that is extremely important and essential to all Canadians because after all, everyone needs accommodation.
Mr. Speaker, we know this Government . . . Why are we afraid? Why are we proposing amendments? To protect Canadians. It is our duty to protect the men and women of Canada. It is not our role to protect the Government or the Ministers. It is the duty of every Member of this House to ensure that all Canadians across the country, whatever the province, region, town, city or municipality they happen to live in, have the assurance that their homes are protected.
Let us take a look at what the Government has done in this area. It has cut unilaterally the funding for residential rehabilitation assistance. Mr. Speaker, if we look at Bill C-15 and at what this Government has done in the way of cutbacks in its housing program, the question arises whether it is not opening the door wide to speculators. If the Government no longer helps small landlords renovate their accommodation and maintain rents at reasonably low levels, someone is going to offer to take their property off their hands and that someone is foreign investors, who will have plenty of money to invest. However, as soon as they buy up buildings, streets and whole villages, they will completely change the social and economic climate in a community, Mr. Speaker.
I know of a case in the Laurentians where people were sold condominiums that have yet to be built. They have already paid $7,000 each. There must be some form of protection for that which is most important to every Canadian, namely, his home and property. Is there a Member in the House who does not think his or her home is important? I think it is, Mr. Speaker. And I think it is only reasonable to ensure that information is available. It will be too late, when in our ridings or maybe in the riding of the Minister responsible for small-and medium-sized businesses, one day he will wake up to find that a whole block has been bought up by foreign investors who may decide to convert rental accommodation into condominiums and evict the tenants, thus completely disrupting their lives. Is there a way to make at least one or two Progressive Conservative Members aware of this problem, not to make speeches about it here in the House, Mr. Speaker, but to rise in caucus and say: Listen, some things make sense, it is simple and clear, our duty is to protect the people? With respect to this Bill, everybody agrees that we need foreign investments, but I would much rather see Canadian men and women take the lead and assume that responsibility. I am sure that all
Members in the House are in favour of programs to help our young people become entrepreneurs to promote Canadian industry and create the jobs we need. It does not mean we should prevent foreign investors from coming here to buy goods and help us grow, but we have to make sure that any development, any investment and any measure taken here meet the needs and aspirations of all Canadians. Mr. Speaker, we in Canada have long-standing traditions in the fields of labour relations and social development. I have in mind a sector which may be threatened if not enough information is made public. Perhaps we should not roll out the red carpet for some investors who might come here and create the odd job, Mr. Speaker, while at the same time doing a lot more harm than the few jobs they might create in the long run would be worth.
I am referring to the social field. Mr. Speaker, Canadians are blessed with the best health care and social security system in the whole world. We enjoy free and universal health care. But, Mr. Speaker, if we lack information and are without means to control foreign investors, what guarantee do we have that those people in every province and every region of the country might not change the systems which Canadians have built up over the years? Speaking of Conservative Governments, it seems that former Premier Miller is having a hard time tonight. His mandate will have been short-lived, and I know he said that he was in favour of extra billing. Mr. Speaker, this shows the influence of people from other countries who are used to two types of medicine, one for the rich and one for the poor. We have to keep a balance in Canada and the amendments moved by my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and by the members of NDP, therefore by two different parties who agree on this matter, should make the Progressive Conservatives more aware of our views, Mr. Speaker. I feel this is important and I trust that some of the Progressive Conservative Members are thinking about it, because the impact will be felt in all our constituencies.
Mr. Speaker, not only do they refuse to listen to reason, not only do they refuse to listen, not only do they refuse to make amendments, but they have now reached the point of imposing closure. Mr. Speaker, they are taking unfair advantage of the majority they won in the last election, and I warn them to be careful. I remember what happened in Quebec when I was a Liberal Member in the provincial Legislature. At one time, there were 102 Liberals and 6 PQ members, but three years later, the Liberals were gone. I warn the Members opposite not to take unfair advantage of their majority because the voters do not like to be muzzled in this place. The House of Commons is the place where the differences of opinion of the people should be voiced. I am happy to see that the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) is back.
May 2, 1985


An Hon. Member:: He is the best of the lot.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, when someone has to say that he is the best, it is because not too many people will say it about him, which means that he is not that good. Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to tell the Minister and all the Progressive Conservative Members is very serious when we see what their Government with its enormous majority is doing by gagging us and passing motions to prevent people from speaking up in the House of Commons.
Second, Mr. Speaker, there were two persons who expressed the views of a number of Canadians on Parliament Hill, namely the peace camp. This Government, early one morning, shamefully sent policemen armed to the teeth to send these peaceable people away. Those people and the rest of the Canadian population will remember.
Mr. Speaker, three harmless persons were chased away early one morning. This Government sent the police after them as though it wanted to arrest criminals. All that was missing was a tank and an F-18.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) on a point of order. He will probably say that the comments of the Hon. Member are irrelevant.


André Bissonnette: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. How long will we have to listen to such nonsense?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has 30 seconds to conclude his speech.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the previous Minister is in charge of a chicken coop-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) does not have to speak to the point of order, because I have already ruled on that. He has the floor again to conclude his speech. He has 30 seconds left to do so.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, we were having an intelligent debate until the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) barged in. He thinks he is still in his chicken coop taking advantage of his employees.
Finally, I would like to remind all those people, all the Conservative Members, that in one or two years' time, if the amendments are not passed and nothing is changed, those same people will be crying out loud, but it will be too late then and you will be responsible.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this part of today's proceedings is nearly over. As pointed out by some of my hon. colleagues, I have noticed that no Progressive Conservative Member has spoken today. On one of the most
Investment Canada Act
important Bills to come before the House of Commons in this session, virtually no Progressive Conservative Member has spoken, with the exception of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


Thomas Gordon Towers: If you had been here Five minutes ago, you would have heard one.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My comments-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Binns:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Hon. Member would allow me as a government Member to speak before five o'clock, he would not have to worry about the point he has just made.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I heard what the Hon. Member said. I hope he does have an opportunity to share with us his views on this Bill. However, as he will know, the Government has virtually imposed closure on this Bill. The Government has decided that there will be no more debate on the most important piece of legislation to come before Parliament in this session. I do hope he does have an opportunity to speak.
I find it peculiar that although representatives of the NDP and the Liberal Party have stood in their places for the last number of days to pose questions, with the assumption that Hon. Members opposite would rise to attempt to answer those questions, we have heard virtually no response. One can only assume that government Members are unable to answer the questions that have been posed.
Let us deal with the fundamentals of this Bill. Since we in Canada have more foreign control over our economy than most nations of the world, why is it that Members opposite feel that the solution to our problem is to have even more foreign control over our economy? That is not a rhetorical question. It is a reasonable question to pose. I see that the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) is present. I expect to hear from him in response to that question within the next two days as there are only two days left in which to debate this issue.
If a debate on foreign control of the economy were to take place in any other Parliament of the world, the place would be in a total uproar at all times. What other country of the world would tolerate a manufacturing sector that is 40 per cent owned and controlled by a foreign country? What other country of the world would tolerate for a moment having 80 per cent of its petrochemical industry owned and controlled by foreigners? No other country in the world would tolerate this; yet the Government says it wants even more foreign control without monitoring what it has monitored before.
The Government says that it does not want any reviews or notification. If sources from Saudi Arabia came to Canada to purchase huge tracts of land or sectors of rental accommodation, the Government would say that that is quite Fine. According to government Members, we do not want to be notified of or to have to review such takeovers. We assume that what any

May 2, 1985
Income Tax Act
foreign business does in Canada will be good for the Canadian economy and good for the people of Canada.
1 could stand here for days and days and list all sorts of very specific instances in which foreign business has not been in the best interest of the Canadian society. Foreign companies have not always behaved in a positive and productive manner in terms of Canada's interest. A number of foreign subsidiaries were operating in my constituency, but they closed down. They closed down not because they were not profitable, not because they were not performing the proper research and development, and not because they could not expand their operations. They closed down because their parent companies, in the United States or in Germany, decided that in their corporate interests, those businesses should be closed. That is not in the best interest of Canada.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

['Agreed.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 174?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface) moved:: That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be empowered to study and report on the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act to permit the registration of amateur sport bodies created under provincial statutes as amateur athletic associations in order that donations to them be treated in the same manner as donations to registered Canadian amateur athletic associations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion I bring before the House today is very straightforward. It is, however, of great importance to amateur sport bodies created under provincial jurisdiction and, in particular, to the young athletes which those associations support. The purpose of the motion is to enable provincial sport organizations to raise funds within a province in a manner which is consistent with that which is already acceptable under the terms of the Act with respect to federal amateur athletic associations.
I would like to compare the national and provincial organizations, and to do so I will read into the record the objects of a provincial sports organization in Manitoba and compare it with the objects of a national sports oranization. One of the objectives of the provincial organization is:
To foster, through the provisions of funding, the development of national and international calibre athletes in Manitoba for all nationally recognized sports.
I would like to compare that with a national organization which has the objective of selecting and training members- and in this case it is the National Ski Team-to represent Canada in national and international competition.
The objective of the provincial organization is:
To assist in the development of proper coaching programs for Manitoba athletes.
The objective of the national organization is to:
Provide guidance, information and assistance to the divisions and zones of the association in respect of these objects and in the development of programs for competitive and non-competitive skiing.
The objective of the provincial organization is:
To promote sporting and recreational activities for all Manitobans.
The objective of the national organization is to:
Encourage support of its programs by the public generally.
I am trying to point out that provincial sport organizations, provincial amateur athletic organizations and their federal counterparts, try to support the same thing, that is, sports in general and young athletes in particular.
In order for the House to understand why I am suggesting that the Act should be amended, I will deal with the structure of the current Act. The current Act states that for the purpose of computing taxable income, a taxpayer may deduct amounts which are applicable under Paragraph 110.1(a), for example, charitable donations or the aggregate of gifts made by the taxpayer in the year to registered charities or to registered Canadian amateur athletic associations.

This Section clearly shows, Mr. Speaker, that registered Canadian amateur athletic associations are charitable organizations. The donations they receive are deductible for income tax purposes. This Section must be amended in order to include as well provincial amateur athletic associations. [English]
Certain questions come to mind. The basic question is: What is a registered Canadian amateur athletic association? The definition in the Act states that a registered Canadian amateur athletic association means an association that was created under any law in force in Canada, that is resident in Canada and that has, as its primary purpose and its primary function the promotion of amateur athletics in Canada on a nation-wide basis. Section 149 of the Act further defines amateur athletic association as non-profit associations.
The current Income Tax Act goes out of its way to define, for tax purposes, a registered Canadian amateur athletic association in order to permit it to issue tax receipts as a non-profit organization. The Act goes out of its way to ensure that
May 2, 1985

national associations operate on a nation-wide basis. However, as I have previously indicated, the objects of national associations and the objects of provincial associations are almost identical.
If we look at the regulations of the Act, we realize that the Act had to go out of its way to ensure that amateur athletic associations, which are regional in nature or provincial in nature, are excluded from giving tax receipts. To redress that discriminatory provision, the following amendments would have to be made. With these amendments, the Income Tax Act would read as follows:
Section 110(8)(b)
"Registered Canadian amateur athletic association" means an association that was created under any law in force in Canada, or any province of Canada, that is resident in Canada, and that
(i)	is a person described in Paragraph 149(1 )(L)
(ii)	has, as its primary purpose and its primary function, the promotion of
amateur athletics in Canada on a nation-wide or province-wide basis-
In those two amendments I have added the words "in Canada or any province in Canada" and "on a nation-wide or province-wide basis". Under paragraph 149( 1 )(L) non-profit organizations would be amended to read as follows:
-a club, society or association that, in the opinion of the Minister, was not a charity within the meaning assigned by Subsection 149( 1 )(L) and that was organized and operated exclusively for social welfare, civic improvement, pleasure or recreation or for any other purpose except profit, no part of the income of which was payable to, or was otherwise available for the personal benefit of, any proprietor, member or shareholder thereof unless the proprietor, member or shareholder was a club, society or association the primary purpose and function of which was the promotion of amateur athletics in Canada or in any province or Canada;-
The purpose of the amendments is to redress the discriminatory provisions which currently exist, which are designed exclusively to prohibit amateur athletic associations within a province from raising funds for deserving young athletes in their communities.
In 1983-84, the Government of Canada had a substantial involvement in amateur sport. From the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I discovered that in 1983-84, fitness and amateur sport programs in Canada received contributions of over $29 million toward the administration and project costs of national sport governing bodies to assist in the promotion and development of amateur sport for Canadians. The total contribution of this Government to fitness and amateur sport was over $50 million.
The purpose of my motion, Mr. Speaker, is to try to suggest that the private sector has a role to play in the support of amateur sports associations in this country. If it were given the opportunity to support young athletes in the various regions, it would do so. Then, perhaps, we could consider over the long run having the Government of Canada withdraw its paternalistic support of sports and have the private sector contribute more on a local basis.
It is significant to note, Mr. Speaker, how much the federal Government is involved in supporting amateur sport. Hon Members should understand very clearly that I want our
Income Tax Act
Government to indicate its support in just as categorical a fashion as have previous Governments. Sports organizations in this country are deserving of our support, and it is essential that we give it to them. However, we have a responsibility to try to place the emphasis back on local direction, control and support of athletic associations. The motion which I am proposing would ask the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to study those provisions and see if they can be included in the Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am proposing this motion today so that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs can be empowered to study the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act. These amendments would allow donations to provincial athletic associations to be treated the same way as donations made to registered Canadian amateur athletic associations.

Raising funds for local athletes is a lot easier when one is not trying to get a local company to sponsor an athlete it does not know. It is very difficult for a national association to get local companies across the country to agree to give funds to support a national calibre athlete they do not know. In the Province of Manitoba, we have a large number of private companies which would very much like to contribute to the development of local athletes, but they are prohibited from doing so under current income tax legislation. It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that if we made this change in the Act, we would encourage the private sector to do what it really wants to do in terms of helping young athletes in Canada.
With the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary quickly approaching, I think it is high time that we enabled provincial sports organizations to raise funds for the purpose of developing the national and international calibre athletes whom we would want to represent us in Calgary. We currently allow the Canadian amateur athletic associations to be registered, and it is my belief that we should allow the provincial groups as well to be registered.
On September 4, Canadians told us that they wanted to stand on their own two feet. These changes would give them the opportunity to support their own young athletes in the same way as they support national athletes. I think that provincial associations have indicated that they want to do more. The private sector has indicated that it wants to do more. This change would permit these organizations better to support young athletes in this country.
I think all of us share the view that it is certainly a desirable goal to promote young athletes. Therefore, I urge Hon. Members of this House to support this motion by referring the subject matter to committee for further study. We have asked to refer it to committee for further study because we know that the Income Tax Act is very complex and the implications of the changes I have read into the record are far reaching. However, we think the principle of allowing provincial sports organizations and the private sector to help in the funding of

May 2, 1985
Income Tax Act
young athletes is well worth the support of all Hon. Members, and I ask for that support.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay). Many provisions in the Income Tax Act should be underlined and examined from time to time. The suggestion contained in the motion under consideration gives us a welcome opportunity to take a closer look at the tax provisions with respect to tax-exempt donations to amateur sport bodies, or even to charitable organizations in general.
In this motion, the House is being asked not to judge on its merits the amendment proposed to the income tax provisions respecting amateur sport bodies established under provincial statutes, but indeed to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for study and report. We are in no way trying to prevent the matter from being referred to the Standing Committee. We do recognize, however, that it might be somewhat difficult for that Committee to add another subject-matter to an already heavy agenda. But it is always possible to set aside some time to look into the matter, and it will certainly be considered in a more thorough and thoughtful way than would be possible in just an hour's debate in the House.
I would like, however, in these few minutes to make a few considerations which I believe should be taken into account in reviewing that suggestion. I am afraid that the public is not very familiar with the present legal status of those amateur sport bodies, particularly with respect to the Income Tax Act. Although this confusion may be understandable generally speaking in relation to some parts of the Tax legislation, the Income Tax Act is fairly clear, simple and specific on the subject-matter of the motion under consideration by the House.
Under the Act, donations to registered Canadian sport bodies are tax exempt. Such associations are defined under Paragraph 110(8)(fe). It must be a non-profit body, also a body which, and I quote:
-has as its primary purpose and its primary function, the promotion of amateur athletics in Canada on a nation-wide basis.
Any sport body that meets those requirements may be registered quite easily with the Department of National Revenue, and may thereby receive tax-deductible donations.
As our colleagues will note, that definition in no way specifies that the sport body must have been set up under a provincial or federal statute. This means that a sports organization created under a provincial statute definitely can be registered, provided its purpose is to promote amateur athletics in Canada on a nation-wide basis.
The motion now before the House refers to the registration of amateur sport bodies created under provincial statute.
Under the current provisions of the Act, such organizations may in fact be registered and receive tax-exempt donations, provided the amateur sport body so created under provincial statute is active on a nation-wide basis. It does not have to be established under a federal statute.
What about amateur sport bodies created under provincial statutes that are only operating on a provincial or regional basis? Are they excluded outright by the current provisions of the Income Tax Act? Not at all. A registered Canadian amateur athletic association may, at will, use tax-exempt donations it receives to grant financial support to provincial amateur sport bodies. In fact, many of our amateur sport bodies are grouped under national federations, and this allows for such a circulation of funds. In the final analysis, the only general requirement that must be met by the organization receiving tax-exempt donations, is to operate on a national basis, directly or through a federation.
Another provision of the Income Tax Act also applies. Section 168(l)(f) provides that the Minister may revoke the registration of a registered Canadian amateur athletic association that accepts a gift or donation the granting of which was expressly or impliedly conditional upon the association making a gift or donation to another person, club, society or association.
The barring of conditional donations merely reflects the general spirit of the Act. For example, a provincial sport body could not launch a financing campaign under which donations would be made to a registered Canadian amateur athletics body if, mandatorily or because of some underlying agreement, all those donations should end up in the coffers of that provincial body. That kind of apparent loophole could allow getting easily around the obligation for a registered Canadian body to promote sports on a truly national basis.
To sum up, the Act quite explicitly allows a provincial amateur sport body, member of a Canadian sport federation, to receive from that federation funds obtained by way of tax-exempt donations.
After all, it should not be that difficult for our provincial amateur sport bodies to join a national sport federation. Since Canada is a political federation, such a federal approach should not be that unusual when it comes to Canadian sport bodies. That form of organization may require from those bodies that they be willing to make compromises of course to harmonize certain local aspirations with the national general interest, but that aspect is inherent in a federation such as ours, and should not be a problem for us Canadians, whether on the political or athletic level.
This is not the only area where under the Income Tax Act a federal organization which operates at the national level can
May 2, 1985

take advantage of a tax arrangement which is denied to its provincial counterpart. The tax credit which can be applied to donations made to political parties is another case in point. Our Canadian Parliament has already decided that this credit should be granted when a taxpayer makes a donation to a federal as opposed to a provincial political party. No doubt that one of the main reasons for this decision has been the understandable firm belief that the federal Treasury should only support federal parties and that any financial support given to provincial parties should come out of provincial Treasuries. Similarly, it could be argued that the same principle should apply to provincial organizations dealing with amateur sport. On the other hand, if we decide to exempt from tax donations made to provincial sport organizations, are we prepared to be consistent and to apply the tax credit granted to federal political parties to donations made to provincial political parties, whether or not they believe in federalism?
1 would like to deal now with a more general matter which might be implied in the motion of the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay) although not clearly stated. This question is as follows: Under the Income Tax Act should direct donations to provincial amateur sport organizations be tax exempted? If so, the National Revenue Minister (Mr. Beatty) should allow these organizations to be registered, even if they only operate at the provincial level.
I would humbly suggest that, looking at it that way, we will soon discover that the questions become more difficult and the answers much less obvious. What factors would have to be considered? The increase in the costs to the federal Treasury is certainly one of them. It is impossible at least for the time being to fix an exact figure on the costs involved. Obviously, there would be a major increase in the number of sport organizations collecting funds from the public thus accepting tax exempt donations. The cost of this tax arrangement would increase significantly. Hon. Members will no doubt wonder if it would be justified to let the federal deficit grow bigger when the cost of our public debt is already too high.
The Hon. Members will also surely want to examine if indeed there are provincial athletic organizations with urgent financial needs that warrant such a measure and should take precedence over other equally justified applications for funds made to the federal treasury. It is not necessary to list those applications here. We hear about them every day. Considering the substantial federal deficit, we have to set priorities since obviously the federal Government cannot hope to respond favorably to all applications for financial assistance however deserving they may be.
In that context, it would perhaps be relevant to consider also to what extent provincial amateur sport organizations take advantage of those large lotteries under the sponsorship of the provincial governments.
I think that the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs could also consider in what way the proposed
Income Tax Act
amendment would fit in the comprehensive federal policy on assistance to amateur sport. Such an aspect of the issue goes beyond tax policy considerations since the amendment advocated would unavoidably influence the organization and general financing of sport in Canada. In the context of a review of that extensive issue it could be useful to study the present Income Tax Act and the general direction taken in that regard.
One of the important elements coming out of a study of the relevant clauses of the Income Tax Act is that such a legislation makes a clear distinction between registered Canadian of amateur sport associations and charitable organizations. The gifts made to one or another of those organizations could obviously be tax free, but it is equally obvious that the tax legislation does not consider amateur sport associations as charitable organizations.
The Income Tax Act defines the words "Registered Canadian Amateur Sport Association", but does not indicate what is a charitable organization, a charitable activity or a charitable goal. Generally speaking, the legal position in that regard has been to use the Common Law definition, that is an organization that tries to relieve poverty, to propagate a religion, to promote education or something else for the good of the community. Legislators seem to have tried to apply to charitable organizations criteria allowing them to receive tax-free donations, but they made sure local and provincial sport organizations would not fit in that category; The same distinction is to be found in the Income Tax Act regarding the specific definition of activities for which a registered charitable organization is allowed to spend money. One of these goals is to help "recognized donors" which include registered Canadian amateur sport associations. However, a provincial athletic organization which cannot be registered under the Income Tax Act cannot get any type of financial assistance from a charitable organization. Therefore, the legislation makes a clear distinction between charitable organizations and amateur sport associations dealing only at the local or provincial level.
The most important possible reason for this distinction may be that charitable organizations usually work for other people while most amateur sport organizations take care only of their members.
We know that each year Revenue Canada receives some 3,500 registration requests from organizations wishing that donations given to them be tax-free. Approximately 10 per cent of these requests are turned down and these come mainly from organizations which are not really charitable organizations, but whose goal is rather to promote the direct or indirect interests of their own members. Of course, that does not mean such a goal is unacceptable. I hope however that Hon. Members will want to make sure these organizations have good reasons for claiming the tax status given to charitable organizations.

May 2, 1985
Income Tax Act
To conclude, we would like to thank the Hon. Member for St. Boniface for raising this matter in the House and suggesting it should be studied further by the Standing Committee. I hope my remarks helped Hon. Members to understand some financial matters which the Committee could study with the other points raised more directly by the Member for St. Boniface.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Hon. Member for St. Boniface for introducing this motion, for considering this most important issue which I feel is all the more important since I heard the Parliamentary Secretary so beautifully read out the well-written speech that was prepared by the people in the Department.
Mr. Speaker, I am shocked whenever I heard someone make a distinction between charitable organizations and sport organizations that look after their members-
Mr. Speaker, it is most outrageous. I have had the experience of a similar case. A baseball organization in my riding was asking for leave to issue receipts for charitable donations for the purpose of helping young people practice their favorite sport not so they would train to play some day for the Expos, but to stop juvenile delinquency and prevent youngsters from hanging around on the streets. The reply I received from the Department read just like the one the Hon. Member mentioned in his speech. Is it not a charitable purpose for an organization to look after its members? I commend the Hon. Member for St. Boniface because Members will have to express in that committee the wishes of the population they represent. The old legislation still applies.
How was charity defined fifty or sixty years ago? Things have changed since that time. We all have in our ridings athletic, recreational and social organizations at the provincial as well as the local level. The Parliamentary Secretary should tear up the speech he has just read and throw all the pieces back at the public servant who wrote it. We do not want any more replies of that kind. No more! Tenants' associations in Montreal and Quebec City were refused a registration number that would have allowed them to issue receipts for charitable donations. The United Appeal in Montreal refuses to grant them money because those associations are not registered as charitable organizations with the federal Government, Mr. Speaker.
Tenants' associations defend those people that are least organized, and then the Minister of Finance comes around and tells us that they are not charitable organizations. But what do you do when you help people? Is that not charity?
I think it is important that this committee . . . And I congratulate the Hon. Member for St. Boniface, but the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) gets no praise for having read his text, for having stuck to what the public servant told
him to say. He must be reminded, as every members in this House, that he has been elected to say what must be done, not to read what public servants tell him to say. In that area, it is very important for all the young of this country, and not only for the organizations at the national level, not only for sport organizations, recreational organizations, cultural organizations, community organizations throughout this country, at the local level, in every village, in every city, in every parish, that they be entitled to some benefit when they try to raise funds.
If we did not have in Canada those thousands and thousands of unpaid family men and women to work in all those organizations, what would happen? The government could never pay the cost for all that manpower, all the quality and all the dedication of those people. It would cost a fortune. Compare that with the parliamentary secretary's answer which was prepared by officials in the Department. It is totally unacceptable to tell those people: Sacrifice yourself, spend your money to help the youth, to help senior citizens, to help tenants, to help needy people. Sacrifice yourself, spend money from your own pocket. But don't come to us asking to be entitled to issue tax receipts as a registered charitable organization for your fund raising campaigns. We, the federal government, deal with big concerns. We, the federal government, are above all that; $56 millions to change the colour of soldiers' uniforms, that's our business. That's no way to talk to citizens. The Hon. Member for St. Boniface knows them, he knows the local organizations at home, as evidenced by what he is asking for, Mr. Speaker. And I will have to go around with the Hon. Member for LaSalle to remind him that there are in his constituency organizations which need that help to finance themselves.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is going ... the Parliamentary Secretary or aspiring Minister of Finance is going to try to defend us. Here, we agree; there are hundreds of people who earn $100,000 and who manage not to pay a penny in taxes. No problem. This is money not received by the government. No problem. There are tax havens for the better off people, and it costs $18 billion to Canadian taxpayers. No problem. But the previous speaker was a Conservative member, not a Liberal, not a member of the NDP, an Hon. Member from the same party as the Hon. Member for LaSalle. We should figure out the costs. How much is it going to cost to give a mere $500 for organizations? They are poor. So who cares? The Conservative government is not interested. No. When multinational companies come here they are greeted with open arms, with champagne; the door is wide open. That is what is called class. No, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for St. Boniface. I know that in each of our constituencies, and I am convinced that every Hon. Member is going to hear about it when they go back to their constituencies over the weekend because I am going to make sure that all
May 2, 1985

sport and recreactional organizations remember that their Member of Parliament said: No, we are not going to study that. You do not need financing. Manage on your own. No, Mr. Speaker. Those organizations play a very important role in Canada, and I think it is very important not only that the committee examine that matter in order to give the same privileges to sport organizations at the provincial level but that we also consider sport, recreational, cultural, social organizations at the local level, Mr. Speaker.
When I see this government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of "social injustice", the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) in Canada, supported by the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier), I ask the question: Do the Canadian people want to go on paying for tax benefits, tax havens which cost billions of dollars and which benefit the rich? That is the question. Can we go on like this, Mr. Speaker?
In conclusion, I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay). He can count on the support of Liberal Members against people like the Parliamentary Secretary and the Hon. Member for LaSalle who, without stating his opposition, has eloquently read the speech prepared by a public servant. I look forward to hear a speech of his own some time, stating what he really thinks, and to study the matter and to help all these organizations, all these voluntary people, because they play an important role for our youth, for older people, for people in the cultural area. I think it is very important to agree to the motion before us, Mr. Speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, that is quite an act to follow. I congratulate my hon. colleague, the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). I also want to congratulate the Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay) on bringing forward a motion that is long overdue. Sports and athletic organizations play an important role in the communities, small towns and rural areas of Canada.
There is usually no assistance from the federal Government for these groups. People in the communities should be encouraged to support these very worth-while organizations, whether in amateur hockey, soccer, baseball, fastball, gymnastics or riding schools. These organizations provide a legitimate outlet for people who are genuinely interested in pursuing some form of sports or athletic activity. An incentive could be provided through the tax system by identifying these organizations as legitimate charities to enable donors to receive a tax benefit. There is no one in the House who would say that these organizations do not provide good work in their communities.
I am concerned that once this motion passes through the House and is referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, that will be it. From what I have heard in the few short minutes during which we have debated this motion, I can say that government Members will vote against this Bill because we cannot afford it. They will say that we cannot afford the few millions of dollars that it will cost the
Income Tax Act
federal coffers to assist thousands of small communities of Canada to build up their amateur sports organizations. I can hear them saying it now, Mr. Speaker. If that is not the case, I will eat this paper on my desk when the motion returns to the House in the form of a Bill. That is a promise. I just cannot believe that Members opposite will volunteer to spend additional money.
I phoned the Department of Finance today and asked what they thought of this motion. They said that they have some concerns because of the tax expenditure aspect of it. They said that since we have a big deficit in the country we cannot afford these things, but that they would look at it.


Gerald J. Comeau: Who did you talk to?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I talked to officials in the Department of Finance, to respond to the Hon. Member.
However, there has been no discussion about the fact that the Government falls all over itself trying to raise a few tens of millions of dollars to help out a bank when it gets into trouble. Also, it can find a few million dollars overnight in order to help a trust company.
What about a corporation like Domtar? That is a profitable organization but it wants a few tens of millions of dollars. Yet the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) can find that amount of money overnight for a corporation that is not in financial difficulty. I could go on and on with more examples.
Corporate tax expenditures alone cost the taxpayers of Canada in excess of $18 billion. When we talk about corporate tax expenditures in this country, we are not talking about small or medium businesses, because 80 per cent of the $18 billion goes to 1 per cent of the companies in Canada. We know that those companies are ones like the Bank of Montreal and Imperial Oil. My hon. friend, the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, has already indicated that although many banks make hundreds of millions of dollars in some years, they pay no tax. Individuals who earn in the vicinity of $500,000 a year pay no tax. However, Hon. Members opposite say that we cannot afford to provide assistance to the small athletic organizations in our communities. They say that we cannot afford to provide assistance to small business in the country.
However, let us look at the reality of our corporate tax expenditures. The businesses that often support athletic organizations in our communities are almost inevitably the corner stores and small plants in our towns. They are the ones that come up with the $100 donations and sponsor the Little Leaguers with their baseball uniforms. The multi-nationals cannot afford it because they must balance their balance sheets on a quarterly basis. Essentially, the small business sector is being penalized by our corporate tax expenditure system. When these organizations request support, I suspect that the Government says that it cannot afford to provide assistance.
4368

May 2, 1985
Income Tax Act
I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for St. Boniface. I believe this particular motion is long overdue because it identifies a critical component of Canadian society-the sporting and athletic component-which provides our young people with an outlet for their energies and creative talents through participating in competitive or non-competitive sports. Competitive and non-competitive sports could include amateur hockey or baseball as opposed to gymnastics.
This motion provides parliamentarians with an opportunity to assist this vital sector of our society. As the representative of the New Democratic Party, I look forward to our discussions in committee as we find a way of enacting this motion into legislative form. I guarantee that the NDP will support this motion at every stage of its evolution.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 also take pleasure in rising in the House today to lend my support to Motion No. 174, moved by my friend and colleague from Manitoba, the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay).
The purpose of this motion is to enable provincial sports organizations to raise funds for purposes of developing national and international calibre athletes within the province. This could be done in a manner which is consistent with that which is already acceptable under the terms of the Income Tax Act with respect to federal amateur athletic organizations.
As my friend from St. Boniface has mentioned, the portion of the Act in question is Section 110(1 )(a) dealing with charitable donations.
At present, sports activities are not deemed to be charitable in nature and thus, a non-profit sports organization cannot register as a Canadian charitable organization for income tax purposes. Any qualifying organization, in accordance with the Act, must have, as its primary purpose and function, the promotion of amateur athletics on a nation-wide basis. According to paragraph (a), an organization which purports to operate for the improvement and development of sport must qualify as a Canadian amateur athletic association in order to be eligible for registration and therefore to be able to issue tax receipts to donors.
A Canadian amateur athletic association by definition includes federal associations but does not include their provincial counterparts.
If the legislation could be amended, as it would be following the recommendation under Motion 174, it would make it such that provincial associations would be eligible to issue tax receipts for donations received. 1 think everyone would agree that if such provincial amateur sports organizations could issue tax receipts, then funding for them would increase substantially. In other words, even though the amendments recommended today are quite simple and straightforward, the impact on provincial and local sports associations would be tremendously positive.
Amateur sport at the local level has played a very large role in my life as it has in the life of my colleague from St. Boniface. My involvement as a participant as well as the many
years that I have spent coaching at various levels have shown me how important sports activities and associations are to young athletes, particularly activities and associations at the provincial and the local level.
The very existence of Section 110( 1 )(a) of the Income Tax Act shows that the lawmakers of Canada also believe in the development of amateur sport and in its importance to our country's people.
We must begin building a solid base in this country for sport, one that is accessible to all Canadians, not just a select few. In order for an amateur athlete to benefit from the present legislation-and the benefits are quite real-he or she must reside in a major populated area of our country. In other words, a dedicated, talented amateur athlete from my riding of Dauphin-Swan River in west central Manitoba is at a disadvantage right from the start. He or she does not have access to the funding and thus does not have access to the facilities and training that this money can buy. There are athletes who succeed in overcoming the barriers, but they have to be enormously gifted young people. Still, the question remains: How many others, given the opportunity, could have enriched their lives through amateur sport?
I am speaking about a very fundamental principle of Canadian life. I want my children and my neighbour's children to have and to enjoy the same opportunities as does another person who happens to come from a certain part of the country that is more heavily populated. I believe that the development of our young athletes can be quite successful at the provincial and local level as well as at the national level.
The creation of a sound provincial and local sports structure encourages all Canadians to participate and to compete. This infrastructure will not only provide an opportunity for all amateur athletes to partake in healthy sporting activities but will also create a sports pool of athletes from which our future sports stars will rise. This is our Government's interpretation of what a sports pool should be. It is not a gambling sports pool lottery but the creation of a pool of athletes.
The people of Canada must work together at the community level to develop amateur sports. It must be a community resource. It must become a community adventure. The amateur sports enthusiasts want a strong structural base for sports for all the people of Canada.
At present, funds are being spent to develop a select few athletes in the hope that they will become international sports stars. I am holding the 1983-84 annual report of Fitness and Amateur Sport of Canada. Let me illustrate some examples by reading from the summary of contributions in the annual report. In that year, for instance, the Canadian Amateur Basketall Association received over $880,000; the Canadian Amateur Diving Association received just under $400,000; the Canadian Amateur Football Association received close to $225,000; the Canadian Amateur Rowing Association received $653,000; the Canadian Amateur Speedskating Association received $575,000; the Canadian Amateur Swimming Association received over $1,100,000; the Canadian Association of Sports Sciences received $115,000; the Canadian Council for
May 2, 1985

Children and Youth received $17,000; the Canadian Curling Association, a sport with which I am familiar myself, received close to $75,000; and the Canadian Field Hockey Council received $45,000. These are amounts which associations at the provincial or local level would be more than happy to receive to form that base and pool of athletes of which I spoke. The Canadian Gymnastics Federation received over $750,000; the Canadian Institute of Child Health received $64,000; the Canadian Ladies' Curling Association received $107,000; the Canadian Old Timers' Hockey Association received $65,900; the Canadian Racquetball Association received $140,000; the Canadian Ski Association received $103,000; and the Alpine Skiing Division of the Canadian Ski Association received $1,161,000.
I would like to mention just a few more examples, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Volleyball Association received $653,000; the Canadian Women's Field Hockey Association received $421,000; Curl Canada received $93,000; Lawn Bowls Canada received $92,000; the National Karate Association received $64,000; the National Sport and Recreation Centre Incorporated received $4,300,000; Participaction received over $1.5 million; and the Royal Canadian Golf Association received $55,000. The list goes on and on.
As you noticed from the list, Mr. Speaker, these are all Canadian federal associations. None of this money is being spent at the local and provincial level to develop our athletes and create that solid base that can make Canada a truly international force in amateur sport.
As I mentioned, virtually nothing is being invested at the local level for our local amateur athletes. If we can work toward establishing a strong and solid sport base in Canada, the huge amounts of money that I mentioned earlier need not be spent only on a select few. A wide national sports base will make it such that the cream will naturally flow to the top.
I have to say also that my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for St. Boniface, has been much too modest in his remarks today. He has played a very strong role himself in the development of amateur sport in our great province of Manitoba. It is because of dedicated people like my hon. friend from St. Boniface and the thousands upon thousands of others who dedicate much of their lives to the service of local sports organizations, both provincially and at the local community level, that the federal Government must support and encourage the development of a better structure. I believe that a better structure would flow from Motion No. 174 brought forward by my colleague and friend from St. Boniface, Manitoba.
In order to develop this structure for sport, Parliament must put in place the machinery which would allow provincial sports organizations to raise the money more easily.
As is presently the case with federal amateur athletic associations, provincial sports organizations should likewise be eligible for registration numbers. It only seems logical to me that they, like their federal counterparts, should be eligible to issue tax receipts with respect to donations received. This is
Adjournment Debate
why I urge this House to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for fur-' ther study.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Duguay) agreed to.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the adjournment debate this evening on an issue of great importance to many people, not only to the western Canadian Provinces of Manitoba through to British Columbia but to my own town of The Battlefords, Saskatchewan, and many communities that extend across our great western area of Canada.
The issue I would like to address is the status of the Yellowhead Highway. This highway is western Canada's major interprovincial highway. It spans over one-half of continental Canada and is over 3,106 kilometres in length. It begins in Winnipeg, Manitoba, connects with Merritt and Prince Rupert, B.C., and extends to the Queen Charlotte Islands.
As early as the 1870s, Sir Sandford Fleming identified the Yellowhead Pass as "the most accessible route through the Rockies to the Pacific Ocean". Many of us who were raised and grew up along the Yellowhead Highway have seen this highway as one of the most basic forms of communication. Before the emergence of the electronic mass media, even before there were telephones or telegraphs, the most basic form of communication was the roadway. Those of us who have lived along the Yellowhead Highway see this as an integral part of communication. A highway transports people across western Canada and, in areas like my home town, it encourages a high degree of tourist travel and encourages people to stop and to stay awhile to enjoy northwestern Saskatchewan and the rest of western Canada.
There is the concern that I have raised in Question Period of the federal Government's commitment to the Yellowhead

May 2, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Highway. This highway, although recognized by many travellers as one of the foremost major methods of road transportation in western Canada, is not officially designated for federal assistance. For that reason, there has not been a commitment by the federal Government in the past to provide funding to build twin lanes on this very important highway.
In my community of The Battlefords, which is a major stopping point on the Yellowhead Highway, an average of 5,750 vehicles travelled through it in 1983 when the last statistics were taken. This made our community the second most travelled community behind Saskatoon on the Yellow-head Highway. It gives great credence to the claim by many of us that the Yellowhead Highway for western Canadian travel is now surpassing the Trans-Canada. The Trans-Canada, of course, is recognized presently by federal initiatives and federal funding.
There is an organization called the Yellowhead Highway Association that represents over 100 rural municipalities and counties and towns and cities that lie along the Yellowhead Highway. The Yellowhead Highway Association has been very actively involved in recent years-with the Progressive Conservative Government of 1979, with the Liberal Government thereafter, and now with our new Government-in talking with Members of Parliament and Ministers of Transport about the importance of the Yellowhead Highway to the economy, tourism and growth of western Canada.
I would like to put forth, with the strongest degree of conviction, my belief in why the Government must see to it that the Yellowhead Highway is designated as a national highway and, further, that there is some funding committed for the twin-laning of this highway. I recognize, along with many good and concerned Canadians in the Yellowhead Highway Association, that the degree of federal involvement, given limited financial resources, is something that will not happen tomorrow or the day after. However, I would like to request of the Government that every serious consideration be given to designating the Yellowhead Highway as a national highway and to securing the much needed funding.
When one looks at the Yellowhead Highway and the service it has provided to the people of western Canada, one discovers that the Yellowhead Highway Association goes back to 1921. Over 60 years ago people recognized this highway for the good means of transportation that it was, and it has been for over 60 years that people of the western Canadian towns and villages have asked the federal Government to do something about it. The Yellowhead Highway, among many other gains and benefits which it provides to road travellers in western Canada, also provides a very good means of transportation through the Rocky Mountains. Having travelled this road many times, I can attest for those who have not had the opportunity to travel it that it is indeed one of the most scenic routes through western Canada. The Trans-Canada Highway in the 12 years from 1970 to 1982 was closed for a total of over 2,000 hours because of snowslides and snowfalls, whereas the Yellowhead
Highway was closed for 50 hours. Obviously we see the benefit of mountain travel and regular, consistent travel which adds to the movement of goods and services, to tourism and to the basic link of communication, people being able to see one another throughout western Canada and taking advantage of one another's offerings, lifestyles, businesses and communities.
I ask the Government to give very serious consideration to the designation of the Yellowhead Highway as a national highway and to give every consideration to the much needed funding.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall).
The Yellowhead Highway is a link of the primary highway network and is becoming increasingly important to economic development in the western provinces. The highway runs from Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, to Prince Rupert, British Columbia. It follows a more northerly route than the Trans-Canada Highway and passes through Saskatoon, Edmonton, Jasper National Park and Prince George. A southern arm branches off the main route near the British Columbia-AIberta border at Tete Jaune Cache and terminates at Kamloops.
For several years the Yellowhead Highway Association, an interest group composed of communities located along the Yellowhead Highway, has made representations to have the highway upgraded under a federal-provincial cost-shared arrangement.
The Hon. Member will remember that the Government undertook discussions in 1979 with the four western provinces which sought agreement in principle for a multi-year Yellowhead Highway improvement program worth $ 120 million, with costs to be shared on a fifty-fifty federal-provincial basis. The Liberal Government chose not to pursue these discussions.
At the present time there are no federal-provincial highway agreements in place under which federal funding could be provided for the upgrading of this highway. In fact, all existing federal-provincial highway agreements are under review. These, too, are subject to the economic parameters within which we must work.
Indeed we are fortunate to have the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) note this worthy debate as he had a long and positive relationship with the Yellowhead Highway Association, and I am sure we can look forward to further productive discussions on this subject.


SOCIAL SECURITY-BENEFITS FOR WIDOWS AND WIDOWERS AGED 60-64-EXCLUSION OF SINGLE, DIVORCED AND SEPARATED PERSONS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, on November 30, I asked a question to the Right
May 2, 1985

Hon. Prime Minister regarding Bill C-26. I recall that at the time, the legislation had not been tabled. It had been announced in the Throne Speech, and the economic statement that the Canadian Government intended to extend the spouse's allowance to single people but that unfortunately, it would only apply to widows and widowers, which was discriminating against older people who are single, separated or divorced and who have the same needs. I would like to quote the answer given by the Right Hon. Prime Minister:
I can inform the Hon. Member that our objective is to help those people in our society who are most in need, and I think that is the basic purpose of any decent social program in this country.
Mr. Speaker, we believe there is a real need for such measures among people between 60 and 64.
Mr. Speaker, at that time, the Prime Minister agreed to my request that the spouse's allowance should be extended to single people who are in need and whom he mentioned in his answer. He made no distinction between widows, widowers, single, divorced and separated persons. At that time, the Prime Minister agreed to the statement of the Canadian Welfare Council in its report of March 1985, where it said about the poverty level:
Single older people, those who are living alone or in a household where they have no relatives, have a greater chance of being poor. Recent data indicate that about 56 per cent of them, or 434,000, are poor. Almost half of women who are heads of single parent families live at poverty level.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had indicated at the time that the aim of his Government was to provide help to all Canadian men and women between 60 and 64 years of age who needed it the most, without differentiating between widows and widowers. What has happened, Mr. Speaker? Something entirely different. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has introduced a Bill which unfortunately restricted to widows and widowers the spouse allowance program which made it possible for these people who, year after year, had worked, paid income taxes, raised children and contributed to society, to get off welfare. This Conservative Government penalizes a great many Canadians, the vast majority of them women, simply because they have remained single or have been forced to separate. There is no more pitiful case than that of the poor woman abandoned by her husband and who must raise alone five or six children, provide them with a good education, and who is told, at 60, that she is not eligible to the spouse allowance because she could no longer stand her husband. I feel sorry for the Hon. Member who will have to deliver such a message in his office should this legislation not be amended, Mr. Speaker.
Last week, I talked about 80,000 people in need, according to the Department's own estimate, but the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) questioned those figures at that time. 1 have them here, Mr. Speaker, and I say again that 80,000 needy persons between the ages of 60 and 64 are not
Adjournment Debate
being taken care of. Of this number, 37,000 separated persons will not be looked after and 45,000 single persons will be penalized if the Government maintains its position and does not revert to its former response as given to me on November last by the Prime Minister.
Government Members often stated that it is a matter of money, that they have no choice because of the deficit. But no Conservative Member ever rose to question the Government's financial capabilities when it became known that the Western Accord would cost $2.5 billion. Even they did not know what that accord was all about but they did applaud it all the same. Not one of them suggested that our deficit was too high. No one stood against changing the colour of the armed forces' uniforms because it would cost $56 million. I repeat that no Conservative Member opposed such actions or mentioned the deficit for that matter.
But when it comes to helping people in need, those who live on $430 a month, Mr. Speaker, they say that the cupboard is bare. Those are not wealthy people, Mr. Speaker, and the proposed increase would only provide them with $536 monthly. Such an increase is not likely to make them millionaires but the Conservative government is opposed to it. As far as they are concerned, they are only prepared to help one group of the population.
I did mention earlier that this government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) were indeed considering the costs of our social programs. The Conseil du patronat and spokesmen for the multinationals have been talking about the deficit, claiming that social programs must be watered down because they cost too much money, Mr. Speaker, but nobody talks about tax shelters.
There are tax benefits for people who contribute to Registered Retirement Savings Plans. But the head of a family or a mother who earns $35,000-or even if both work every week and earn about $40,000-cannot set aside 10 or 20 per cent of their income to contribute to an RRSP and reduce the tax load. Poor people cannot afford to do that. It is always the same class of citizens who can take advantage of it.
Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to hear the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps she will tell me that, as we are speaking, the Prime Minister has reconsidered the decision he mentioned in his first answer. He told me that elderly people between ages 60 and 64 are most in need, that those are the people he wanted to help without discriminating against people living alone and those who are separated.


Gabrielle Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, the proposal to extend spouse's allowance to all widowed individu-

May 2, 1985
Adjournment Debate
als aged 60 to 64 was a definite commitment made during the election campaign.
Nobody denies the fact that this group has been identified as one of the most vulnerable groups amongst all the 60 to 64 year olds who are not yet entitled to pension and need help. What surprises me is that a parliamentary task force on pensions, set up in previous years, has produced a report which recommended the measure we just passed. The Hon. member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is so interested in social affairs that I suppose he was a member of that task force.


Jean-Claude Malépart: No.


Gabrielle Bertrand: That surprises me. I thought he would have been.
Then, I inform you that your committee, this task force set up by your party, proposed that very same idea. There is a real and urgent need to help that group, given the fact that more than 60 per cent of widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 would be eligible to the spouse's allowance program whose benefits are income tested.
The proposed measure will do away with the discrimination against widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 which exists in the
present Old Age Security Act. As you know, at the present time, spouse's allowance is only paid to widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 who were in receipt of that allowance before their spouse died.
In brief, this appears to me as a logical means of helping further some people in need, before they are entitled to a pension. About 85,000 people, mostly women, will benefit from that measure as of September 1985, when it becomes effective.
However, I admit that other groups in that same age bracket have financial difficulties. But, we have such fiscal constraints that we must set priorities. I hope the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is not suggesting that we refrain from helping widows and widowers in need as long as the government cannot give the same help to all people in need who have not yet reached retirement age. And as I said before, the government does not have the means to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 3, 1985