1985-11-22

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the week before we adjourned, the issue of Canada's sovereignty dominated the concerns of many Canadians. Despite repeated calls from the Opposition for the Government to come clean and tell the people of the country what will be on the table when free trade talks begin with the United States, the Government seemed satisfied with the answers it provided, as circumspect as they were. The country still wants a clear definition of what is vital to the national identity.
With the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) saying one thing and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) saying another, it is no wonder Canadians believe the Government is either confused or covering up its real intentions.
Culture is the essence of sovereignty, Mr. Speaker. It is not a commodity that can be changed for the questionable favours of a neighbour. To put culture on the auction block is to put a "for sale" sign on our independence. The Government has already thrown out its own policy with respect to the book publishing industry to keep American interests happy. What next, Mr. Speaker?
Culture is a great contributor to the national wealth, spiritually and economically speaking. The Secretary of State for External Affairs says free trade talks could help the cultural industry grow and prosper by opening up the American market. Later he contradicted himself, saying that protectionist measures in the United States are the type that can be altered by the American Government. Why the indecision, Mr. Speaker? Culture is not a minor economic factor. The combined cultural industry is the fourth largest employer in Canada. The Government should immediately state that the cultural industries are not to be bargained away. Instead, our objective should be to increase-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry).


AIR SAFETY
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's current non-directional beacon air navigation system places Canada in the steam age of flight. In this day and age air travel is a necessity, and all parties involved in this mode of transportation, including our federal Government, should be concerned with increasing air safety.
The Loran-C, long-range radio navigational system, is well proven and is a highly accurate system whose service, if extended, would increase air safety across the country. The aviation management committee of the Roads Transportation Association of Canada recently passed a resolution supporting the expansion of the Loran-C system. This system has the support of the provinces and the territories. The United States is currently testing Loran-C, with the U.S. National Association of State Aviation officials campaigning for its adoption.
With 55 per cent of flights in this country made below 5,000 feet altitude, and 58 per cent made under visual flight regulations, how can the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and his Department be strongly considering the Omega VLF system which is too expensive for the majority of general aviation pilots to consider?
The provinces see the need to adopt the Loran-C system. It is time for the federal Government to wake up to this need and improve air safety in Canada by extending the Loran-C system.


FINANCE
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's farmers, business people and investors were justifiably pleased when our Government introduced the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption. On Budget Day this measure was greeted with a standing ovation in Parliament and resounding support across the country.
But what do we hear now, Mr. Speaker? From the opposition benches there is an open attack on both the principle and content of the capital gains tax exemption. Most recently in this House the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) boldly stated that our Government should rescind the capital gains tax measure. It would appear that in his zeal and enthusiasm,

November 22, 1985
the Opposition Leader has forgotten the thousands of farmers and small business people who will benefit from this measure.
How can this big city corporate lawyer callously turn his back on the farmers and small-business people, particularly those in my area of western Canada?
Next door to the Liberals, Mr. Speaker, in the Party of perpetual righteousness, the NDP, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) told the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix newspaper this summer that the capital gains tax exemption was too generous for farmers, and he objects to the fact that it applies to other business gains.
Although the NDP is not in touch with reality at the best of times, on this occasion its members have shown their contempt for the initiative and spirit of free enterprise and business. Again, in trying to make the rich pay, these socialists are jeopardizing the very fabric of the Canadian way of life.
The Government is serious about the capital gains tax measure, and despite the misdirected efforts of the Liberals and the NDP, we will fight to save the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, so much has been said, written, and discussed about this matter that I am reluctant to raise it in the House. I do so precisely because, while so much has been said, so little positive demonstrative action has been taken within our own definable area of responsibility.
I am speaking, Mr. Speaker, about the lack of enforced no-smoking areas in our parliamentary restaurant, our cafeterias, our committee and caucus rooms. While I do not quarrel whatever with the right of anyone to smoke, I know that smokers also agree that everyone has the right to breathe clean, toxic-free air.
One study has pointed out that in a smoke-filled room over an eight-hour period non-smokers will inhale as many noxious fumes, tars, nicotine and carbon-monoxide as they would by smoking cigarettes in the same period. That would make a non-smoker a two-pack-a-day person.
I would ask, in an attempt to protect the health of all Members and employees of this House, that early steps be taken to designate at least no smoking areas in all dining facilities, and to ban outright smoking in all committee and conference rooms where ventilation is either inadequate or non-existent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the committee report on Bill C-70 is to be tabled later this day. As is well known this Bill is inhuman and unacceptable not only because it will deindex family allowances but especially because, under Clause 5, the Minister seeks discretionary powers to issue a presumption of death certificate to a family whose child has disappeared.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, all Hon. Members-Tories included-seemed to be opposed to calling this Bill.
I would therefore urge all Conservative Members in the House to pressure the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) so that for once he will show compassion by introducing an amendment whose purpose would simply be to advise families of missing children to close the file rather than have the Minister issue a certificate presuming the demise of the child.
Mrs. Sirois' child has been missing for a year and yesterday she stated she will never accept that a Minister might declare him dead, because she still hopes her child will be found alive.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Conservative Members to make strong representations to the Minister so that the Department might find a more acceptable and more human approach since this certificate can only-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his allotted time has expired.

[DOT] (mot [English]


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, at the very time President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev were meeting in Geneva, Canada failed once again to take up an opportunity to break the momentum of the nuclear arms race. At the United Nations First Committee, Canada voted no to a mutual, balanced, verifiable nuclear weapons freeze. Like the Liberals before them, Conservative Members continue to reject the almost universal call for the nuclear superpowers to freeze the testing, development, and deployment of nuclear weapons.
This year at the First Committee, our friends, including Australia, Norway, Denmark and New Zealand voted in favour of a freeze. A total of 113 countries supported the freeze and only 11, including Canada, voted against it. Despite the fine words of peace of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)
November 22, 1985

and the earlier record of Canada's Disarmament Ambassador who supported a freeze when he was a Conservative Member of the House only two years ago, Canada has failed to take even this modest action to halt the nuclear arms race.
Canada can and must do more for peace than send the Prime Minister to Brussels to be debriefed by President Reagan. It is time for initiative and action. At the very least Canada should support the initiatives being taken by others at the U.N. and elsewhere. I urge the Government to change its vote when the freeze issue comes before the General Assembly of the U.N.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, Dennis McDermott, President of the Canadian Labour Congress, made a statement on CTV's Question Period on Sunday to the effet that the recent increase in air accidents in the United States occurred as a result of its deregulation of the airlines. I feel that he is exploiting the public's natural fears regarding air safety, either in the cause of some personal vendetta or on the basis of a total lack of understanding of a very complex problem.
No union head in the United States has made statements comparable to those made by Mr. McDermott. Perhaps he is not aware of the fact that deregulation will create many new jobs in safety and in operations, and will bring flying within the reach of millions more Canadians.
The fact is that there has been no increase in accidents involving fatalities in the United States, or elsewhere in the world, in spite of our pereceptions based on the two recent tragic and terrible crashes and the fact that traffic has increased greatly. However, the United States is under fire for having failed to increase its safety facilities and personnel in proportion to increase traffic. I can tell Mr. McDermott that we will not make the same mistake.
Our record since partial deregulation over a year ago shows no increase in accidents in spite of increased airline activity. A perception of increased accidents has probably arisen because what are called incidents or near-accidents have been reported mandatorily since last June. As well, we are even now in the process of designing supplementary new radar equipment to improve air safety. Safety has been and remains our number one priority.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the future success of practically all Canadian businesses will depend on their ability to develop or adopt innovations based
on semiconductor technology. It is in this context that the Canadian Micro-electronics Corporation submitted its business plan a few days ago. The plan recommends the building of two advanced microchip research centres with the main purpose of training engineers and scientists in leading edge semiconductor technology.
The CMC plan calls for $155 million to be spent over five years to set up two centres designed to work on advanced silicon production techniques and process technology. Technology developed through these centres will be translated into the creation of wealth and new jobs. Economic analysis shows that 100 jobs in semiconductor research and development lead to over 31,000 jobs in the rest of the economy.
I urge the Government to consider favourably the proposals of the CMC. Investment in intellectual capital now will have high returns for our country's economic well-being and will enhance productivity and create new industrial opportunities. The business plan recommends Ottawa-Carleton as the best location for one of the research centres. I applaud this choice and strongly recommend that the Ottawa-Carleton region be considered for one of the facilities. It has the right infrastructure and expertise at hand to meet the challenges set by the microelectronics industry.

S)


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, recently citizens of the Town of Sackville in my constituency were informed that the federal Government intends to relocate the Animal Pathology Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture from Sackville to Charlottetown, a move which will likely cost the taxpayers of Canada in excess of $10 million.
Although the relocation is not scheduled to take place immediately, it is nonetheless a very serious blow to the Town of Sackville. In fact it would represent a loss of 18 jobs to a town already devastated by two important closures, not to mention the loss of part of its Canadian Wildlife Service staff, compliments of the former Minister of the Environment.
The laboratory was established in Sackville in 1948 for important reasons, but primarily because of the location and the presence of Mount Allison University. These reasons still exist today. The reason given by the Government for the relocation is that the lab should be located closer to the new veterinary college being built in Charlottetown. That reason is not good enough.
The Government says it wants to reduce the deficit and control unnecessary expenditures. It says that it is opposed to the costly relocation of facilities. Why then will it not act in this instance and cancel the proposed relocation of this facility? The taxpayers of Canada will approve-

November 22, 1985
Oral Questions


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. However, before I start I would like to say that this morning some members of the NORAD sub-committee were shocked when representatives from the Canadian branch of the Physicians for Social Responsibility, who are concerned with the prevention of nuclear war, and are recipients of this year's Nobel Prize, were gravely insulted and could not finish their presentation for peace to the committee. This was terrible, especially at a time when Canadians are pleased that, after a long period of cold relations between the United States and the Soviet Union, the two superpowers finally met in Geneva to start rebuilding the bridges for peace.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Question, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We are happy because of the vital rapprochement at Geneva this week. Is it the intention of the Government to pursue this rapprochement and to make sure that, through the NORAD agreement, Canada will be in a position to state clearly that we will not participate in any form of deployment of the star wars program, which is presently a stumbling block to any meaningful rapprochement between the Soviet Union and the United States?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the NORAD agreement which is now in existence is the agreement which was designed and negotiated by the previous administration of which the hon. gentleman was a member. That agreement is quite clear in its terms. It is not inconsistent with the often stated policy of the Government that there will be no Government-to-Gov-ernment participation with the United States in the Strategic Defence Initiative but that it is a prudent course for the U.S. to be following at this time.
[ Translation]


STAR WARS-CANADA'S POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, could the Deputy Prime Minister give the House the assurance that, at a time when we are negotiating renewal of the NORAD agreement with the United States, it is imperative that no
activity should be deployed in Canada that would make us clear participants in star wars, since the Government has clearly established that even if we were in favour of this research which we do not want to do but the Government wants to do, the NORAD agreement would never allow the United States to use Canadian territory to further its strategic defence initiative?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is searching for a linkage which is simply not there. He knows that as one of the Ministers of the day who supported the agreement as it now stands. He also has, as do all Members of the House and the Canadian public at large, the repeated assurances of the Government that it is not the intention of the Government of Canada to participate on a Government-to-Government basis in the Strategic Defence Initiative. Equally often stated has been the Government's position that the U.S. pursuit of the Strategic Defence Initiative is prudent at this time.


REQUEST THAT REGISTRATION SYSTEM BE ESTABLISHED FOR CANADIAN COMPANIES PARTICIPATING IN STAR WARS PROGRAM
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does he intend to consider a proposal according to which Canadians will be informed of any steps being taken by Canadian businesses to take part in the star wars research program? Is the Minister of National Defence prepared to consider setting up a system to register all companies that will take part in this research program, so that we will have accurate and public information on who these companies are and whether they are receiving assistance from a Government agency?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, by its very wording the question is hypothetical and based on an assumption which may or may not occur. I can only repeat once again that it is not the intention of the Government of Canada to engage on a Government-to-Government basis in the strategic defence Initiative of the United States.

[ Translation]


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Woife):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister for International Trade is not in this Chamber, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The
November 22, 1985

Anti-Dumping Tribunal's report was used to justify lifting the quotas. Now, anyone who has read this report will realize that the conclusions arrived at are entirely at odds with the content of the report, which is absurd and an insult to the intelligence of Canadians.
Why did the Government follow these recommendations when it had the legal and constitutional authority to circumvent these conclusions and make a decision to safeguard the 20,000 jobs that are at stake?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman raises more of a debate than he does a question. The question was answered yesterday by the Minister for International Trade at which time the House heard him say that the policy was based on the conclusions in that report. The Hon. Member may take a different view, but that is the view of the Government which has been stated by the Minister in response to questions and in his statement earlier this week.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT HAS NOT TAKEN JOBS AT STAKE INTO ACCOUNT
Alain Tardif: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The second justification for the decision was the interests of the consumer. However, the Government knows perfectly that according to a study, eight out of ten Canadians supported the quota policy. It was also estimated that it will cost $3 billion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


Mr. Tardif:: Considering the present circumstances, why did the Government not make its decision exclusively in terms of the 20,000 jobs at stake in the footwear industry?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. gentleman's question is more of a debate than it is a question seeking information. He heard the Minister in response to questions which have been asked of him this week stress the importance of the consumers of Canada with respect to this decision. I heard him say, as I am sure the Hon. Member did as well, that there would be a savings resulting to the consumers of this country, 25 million of them, of half a billion dollars.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we received no answer on the implications of the Genstar tax ruling so I would like to ask the Minister of State
Oral Questions
for Finance a question. Before the tax ruling was made, did the Minister of State for Finance, or her Department, conduct a study on the tax lost to the people of Canada on this particular ruling? If she did, what was the amount of that tax loss? If she did not, why didn't she?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that that is not a subject which we, or any other Government, could responsibly discuss in this House. The amounts on tax rulings are confidential information. The tax ruling was made under the existing law within the purview of the Minister of National Revenue.


EFFECT ON REVENUE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Genstar decision and the Government's change to capital gains legislation, the Minister's own tax expenditures from the last Budget indicate that this could cost well in excess of $1 billion. I don't think it is unrealistic to say that the implications of this tax ruling are horrendous in terms of lost tax. Is the Minister saying to us that she, or her Department, did not bother to carry out any investigation at all into what this was actually going to cost the taxpayers of Canada?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this Government did a great deal for tax fairness in the last Budget by closing some less legitimate measures, and the Hon. Member knows what they are. This is an ongoing process with us. Our departmental officials are constantly looking at tax policy and the implications not only for revenue but for fairness.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we found over the last couple of days, with the tax book coming out, that the number of Canadians in upper-income brackets not paying any tax at all increased 48 per cent over the previous tax year. Once again this particular ruling will result in many, many more people not paying tax.
I want to ask the Minister for the last time, is she saying to us that when the Government makes a tax ruling there is no calculation and no study, that it is an open-ended situation in the sense of what it will cost the taxpayers of Canada? We have seen a billion dollars given away time and time again in other tax rulings in the last few months. Is this an ongoing process?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do hope that this is the last time the Hon. Member asks that question. I would like to point out that it is this Government which said there will be a minimum tax in this country for the first time. The Minister of Finance has already assured this House that those provisions will be avail-
8710

November 22, 1985
Oral Questions
able very soon. The elimination of tax shelter financing on yachts and hotels, as well as action on the scientific research tax credit are just some of so many things this Government has done in the Budget. We are doing that on a continuing basis.

[ Translation]


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Government's decision concerning footwear imports will have a very serious impact on the provinces which will be called upon to assume its social costs, could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether, before making this decision, the Federal Government had consulted the provinces and, if so, what their position was?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman, indeed all Members of the House, would understand that I would not know the extent of consultations which took place between the Minister of International Trade and the provinces on this issue.


Mr. Ouellet:: Why not?


Erik Nielsen: I can take that question as notice and bring it to his attention. Why not? Because the responsibility for conducting those conversations and consultations with the provinces lies with the appropriate Minister.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY CONCERNING MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. On the same subject, it is a well known fact that there will be many adjustment problems. Could the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House whether the Government intends to extend the mandate of the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board for the purpose of allowing the affected communities and the laid-off individuals to adjust?


Erik Nielsen: I can only draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the responses given yesterday by the Minister of International Trade when he outlined in some detail, I believe, the attention being paid to caring for the workers concerned should any disruption be caused as a result of this decision.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of State for Finance. Does she think it reasonable that low and middle-income Canadians should be asked to pay more income tax this year and next year and the year after while people like Genstar and O&Y have been able to use the tax system to avoid paying in excess of $1 billion in tax which ought to be paid to ease the burden on those very people?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this Government has moved to help low-income people in a number of ways. I remind the Hon. Member about the change in the child tax credit. One of the things which I think is grossly unfair and misleading is a political Party which sends out envelopes that say "Taxation Notice" on the outside.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Ian Deans: That does not match a political party which says it is going to bring about tax fairness and then imposes higher taxes on low-income Canadians and gives more to those who have.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Ian Deans: We now know that there are almost 50 per cent more Canadians earning over $50,000 who are paying no tax. We now know


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please! Just a question, please.


An Hon. Member:: How's the Cadillac these days?


Ian Deans: Very good, by the way. It cost me $5,000 second hand.
Does the Minister think it is fair that, having promised to put a minimum tax on those who paid no tax, the Government has allowed that group to increase by 50 per cent and, at the same time, allowed the corporate sector to rip off the public by more than $1 billion during the Government's first year in office?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that the Hon. Member continues to raise this issue. Even today the papers quote the Canadian public as saying that the private sector is the place where jobs should be created. They have more confidence in the private sector than they have ever had before. We, too, have confidence in the private sector. That is where the jobs that we have been creating are coming from and they have been permanent, long-term jobs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Genstar paid no tax at all.
November 22, 1985


Ian Deans: No tax at all.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about tax fairness. The Government has done more for tax fairness and for job creation than any other Government.


Ian Deans: Nonsense.


Pauline Jewett: It hasn't done a thing.


Ian Deans: You shovel money to all your friends and rip off everybody else.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: I liked you better with your moustache.


Ian Deans: Typical Tories.


Mr. Rodriguez:: There are no typical Tories; they are all lousy Tories.


Mr. Speaker:: Please.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I point out to him that the situation on the Island of Cape Breton has reached crisis proportions. Many thousands of people are unemployed and many thousands are turning to welfare.
Can the Minister explain to the House why it has taken in excess of 58 days for the recommendations of the Cape Breton Advisory Board, which was appointed by the federal Government and the Government of Nova Scotia, to be acted upon? It made 34 recommendations. I ask the Minister to inform the House why there is this delay when the situation in that economy is so devastating.


Hon. Jack Murta (Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I, as well as all Members of the House of Commons, sympathize with the concern which the Hon. Member has expressed. As the Member knows, the Government is committed to working toward development in the Cape Breton area. We are working as hard and as fast as we can. The Member's concern will be duly noted by the Minister. I assure him that we are doing everything possible to bring as much development and activity as possible into that area of Canada.


SYDNEY STEEL CORPORATION-CANADIAN NATIONAL RAIL CONTRACT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In July of 1984 the Prime Minister made a commitment with regard to the Sydney Steel Corporation. As the Minister knows, the Premier of my province has been
Oral Questions
talking about a long-term contract for the supply of rails to CN. Would the Minister inform the House today what has taken place with regard to discussions between the Premier and the Minister with regard to Sysco supplying rails to CN?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: I am sure that the Hon. Member is aware that CN has been purchasing most of its rails from Sysco. Ongoing discussions have been taking place between CN officials and Sysco officials. I can assure the Hon. Member that, to the extent possible, CN will continue acquiring rails from Sydney Steel.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. With regard to the horrendous matter of tax discounting, why is the Government allowing an American company, H&R Block, to rip off Canadian taxpayers through vicious tax discounting when it is forbidden by law to do so in its home country?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to my hon. friend that we have of course been involved in a great many consultations over the past few months throughout the country. We have announced a series of measures to correct the shortcomings of the system already in place. Moreover, we have announced the Government's intentions to protect the interests of Canadians, especially those with the lowest incomes.


REQUEST THAT LEGISLATION BE REPEALED
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister must know that anti-poverty organizations and consumer organizations in Canada have rejected his so-called solution.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Everybody has.


Pauline Jewett: In view of the fact that tax discounting was created by law by the previous Government in 1978, why in the world can the Government not "uncreate" it by law today?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think we have announced a policy which gives consumers the right to equity and freedom of choice.

November 22, 1985
Oral Questions


REBATE DISCOUNTERS-AMENDMENTS CONCERNING INCOME TAX CREDIT PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-I should say of Corporations.
Unfortunately, the Minister did not have enough courage and decided once again to compromise.
Firstly, could the Minister tell us why he did not have the guts to do as the Quebec Government did and ban discounters completely, and secondly, can he explain his announcement concerning amendments to his income tax credit scheme when the Minister of Finance says the opposite?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think 1 have already answered the question.
As I said, we want to give consumers the right to a certain equity as well as a freedom of choice.


HIGH INTEREST RATES-REQUEST FOR APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, under the Criminal Code any lender who charges over 60 per cent interest computed annually is guilty of a criminal offence. Instead of announcing the complex formula which the Minister has announced, why would be not bring discounters under that provision of the Criminal Code which applies to every other lender in the country?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, if my colleague could be aware of all the terms and conditions of that policy, he would know that this announcement involved measures whose costs would be entirely within the limits allowed under the Criminal Code.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Yes, Mr. Speaker, those policies are still in effect. This has obviously been a problem for the trucking industry and I understand its concern. I will be meeting with representatives of the industry later this morning. I have been steadily in touch with the industry this morning to attempt to come up with a solution.


ROLE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: In recognition of the Government's obligation to the protection of the public in these instances, what instructions, if any, have been given to the Superintendent of Insurance in the event of a series of large liability claims due to a spill or other such expensive accident which would use up the reinsurance trust?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the company has assets of its own so there will continue to be coverage beyond that which has been indicated in the press. I will be exploring a number of options for solutions with the trucking people. The Superintendent of Insurance is steadily in touch with the industry and is developing solutions now.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister must be aware of the takeover of Eastern Provincial Airways by CP Air. The operations of EPA in Atlantic Canada will be merged with CP in 1986. There is a growing concern in Atlantic Canada that jobs will be lost in this merger.
Will the Minister examine the proposal for the merger of the operations of EPA and CP Air and take whatever steps he can to ensure that jobs maintained in Atlantic Canada with EPA, particularly at the Halifax International Airport?


INSURANCE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. With the seizure of the assets of Carrier Insurance by authorities in the United States, the Canadian subsidiary, United Canada, is left with no reinsurance other than a $2 million trust fund. Since United Canada insures about 40 per cent of the Canadian trucking industry, can the Minister explain the insurance status of these trucking companies? Are their liability and accident policies still in effect and, more important, are they viable?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern. Currently there is some restructuring of the airline industry throughout Canada. I note that while there has been a rumour that Air Maritime is going to be closing its operations, nothing official has been received by the CTC.
I should point out to the Hon. Member that there are several other carriers that are willing and anxious to get involved in providing that service, namely, Air Atlantic and Air Nova. Both have already applied to provide that service. Of course there will be new jobs created by those companies which will engage in that service.



November 22, 1985

[Translation]	TOURISM


REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF JOINT STUDY GROUP TO DETERMINE BEST ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Tourism, who has just returned from a federal provincial conference which 1 hope was successful.
My question concerns the National Tourism Conference held recently in Ottawa, where 350 members of the industry unanimously supported the following recommendation: [English]
"We recommend that a joint industry-government task force be formed to determine an appropriate organizational structure for the tourism industry throughout Canada". Will the Minister act on this recommendation and, if so, when?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. We have acted on that issue and, as the Member knows, shortly after Question Period 1 will be making a statement on the tourism conference.
We have agreed to set up a group to study advertising from a national point of view, both provincially and territorially, along with the industry. Hopefully it will be in operation within a month.


GOVERNMENT'S PLANS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the industry representatives recommended a task force to look at the organizational structure of tourism. Is the Minister saying that such a task force will be formed?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, rather than setting up a task force to look at the whole question of the organizational structure of tourism, we are studying the tourist industry on a more specific basis. We have agreed to set up a working group who will look at the cultural aspects of tourism and how that can be promoted in a more beneficial way for the country. It will report back to the Governments involved and the people involved in multicultur-alism and other cultural industries so that this asset which we believe is very beneficial to Canada can be given a greater profile in terms of advertising.


REPORTED APPROVAL OF DEPO-PROVERA AS CONTRACEPTIVE
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Women are concerned about the imminent approval of Depo-Provera as a contraceptive in Canada, by the Department of National Health and Welfare. They would like the Minister to intervene and hold public hearings into this matter.
Oral Questions
Is the Minister prepared to do that, particularly in light of the fact that Depo-Provera has been refused approval as a contraceptive in the United States because of a lack of adequate research? Furthermore, does he see the irony of two men in the Department of National Health and Welfare advocating a contraceptive with which women would take the risk?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the issue brought forward by the Hon. Member. Some of his points are valid but they are not all based on the actual case.
His concerns and the American example which he gave are valid. However, when he says that the decision is to be made shortly, or that additional information will not be required, I say that it will be some months yet. 1 remind him that a regulatory process takes place first.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister be a little more clear? Will he approve public hearings before there is any contemplation of approval of Depo-Provera for use as a contraceptive in Canada? If not, does he agree with the spokesman for the Upjohn company that this is simply a private matter between the company and the Department of National Health and Welfare? When will the women have the opportunity to have their input with ragard to this decision which affects them?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the regulatory process, including clinical tests and trials and the work at the health protection branch, is designed for protection and safety. That principle remains in place and is operative.
With regard to his specific request for public hearings, I remind him that the requirement for information to make judgments is still in place.
If he read the article in the paper today, he should not draw conclusions that the article is accurate or that the timing indicated in the article is also indicative of the reality. That simply is not the case.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport. We are aware that the decision-making process related to the construction of a second ferry for CN Marine has been initiated. Can the Minister give us some information on when we might expect a decision?

November 22, 1985
Oral Questions


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question which I know to be very important for the workers in his constituency. We are now considering the matter and I shall be able to provide the answers he has requested within a few weeks.


HOUSING
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister responsible for Housing. Montrealers are rightfully proud of an architectural landmark that was built by the federal Government as part of Expo 67. Of course, that is Habitat 67.
We now know that the Government has decided to put Habitat up for sale and has received five offers to purchase. Why is the Government refusing to negotiate with the tenants of Habitat who have submitted an offer that has the immense advantage of protecting the architectural integrity of Habitat 67?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for Housing, I will certainly take the Hon. Member's representations to him. I would also assure him that the Minister is one of the ablest negotiators in the Government. I know that he will be prepared to carry out his responsibility in the most forthright manner,


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION CONCERNING CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Jacques Guilbault: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. While the Minister is chatting with the Minister of Labour, could she ask him why the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation in this case is violating its usual practice of first offering units for sale to their current tenants? And why it is considering letting a real estate promoter make a fast buck on the backs of the tenants? Would he be a Tory promoter?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be glad to see that the Minister responsible for the CMHC reads the Member's question and gives it all the consideration that it merits.


MINES AND MINING
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. I have given him notice of it.
Earlier this year Falconbridge Mines Limited was given a licence by the Atomic Energy Control Board to import 300,000 pounds of scrap metal. That metal contained 21,000 pounds of uranium. Falconbridge proceeded to smelt the scrap metal, thereby exposing the smelter workers to very elevated levels of radioactivity. Was Falconbridge given a licence to process uranium?


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Copper Belt-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is Nickel Belt.


Robert E.J. Layton: Nickel Belt, Mr. Speaker. The remark was only to credit my hon. friend for the fact that he constantly represents the safety of workers and I am proud to respond to his question.
First, I bring to the attention of the House that this was an incident that occurred in the spring of 1984, actually a full year and a half ago.
The importation of the scrap metal, including some uranium, was under licence from the Atomic Energy Control Board. Certainly there was no attempt on the part of the company to deceive the workers or anyone else. The barrels in which this material was contained, as it was imported, were clearly marked to show that radioactive material was included in very minor quantities.


André Ouellet: Statements on motions.


Robert E.J. Layton: It has been safely disposed of.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John R. Rodriguez: At least he did not call me the Hon. Member for Black Belt.


PROCESSING OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister. In view of the fact that that scrap metal contained 21,000 pounds of uranium, which is approximately 40 times higher than the ores of Elliot Lake contain, was Falconbridge given a licence to process material which was radioactive?


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, the regulations governing the proper disposal and use of waste uranium materials are under discussion with the prov-
November 22, 1985

inces. I will be meeting with the Minister of the Environment of Ontario in the coming week to discuss it.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question today is directed to whomever is answering on behalf of the Solicitor General. Yesterday, The Globe and Mail, in a story dealing with the Air-India disaster, indicated:
RCMP investigators believe Indian Government agents to be responsible for the bombings-
Is there any truth to this extremely serious allegation?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is not a customary practice in the House, when a matter involving the security of the country is raised with security implications such as the one raised by the Hon. Member, to respond to it in the House. I can only assure him that-and I am aware of that article in The Globe and Mail-any consular activities of any country which might interfere with citizens and residents of Canada would be inappropriate. If there is anything of substance to it, the inappropriateness of that action would be so. However, in today's Globe and Mail I noticed that there was a denial of that story by the RCMP and other parts of the Government.


AIR TRANSPORT
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport. I would like to know if it is true that Canada has refused permission for a team of investigators from Air-India to come to the Toronto airport to continue its investigation. If it is true, I would like to know why. Would the Minister explain whether he is trying to hide an apparent security lapse which exists at the Toronto airport, as was substantiated recently by the Canadian Air Line Employees' Association?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member and all Hon. Members of the House that we are not attempting to hide anything. The fact of the matter is that the investigating team for the Indian authorities visited not only the Pearson International Airport, but Mirabel and Vancouver. They had the full cooperation and support of Transport Canada and other government officials.
Oral Questions
I think the Hon. Member is referring to the incident which occurred on November 5, I believe, when legal representatives of Air-India showed up at the Pearson International Airport, unannounced, wanting to do an investigation without any prior knowledge at all. They were not doing an investigation on behalf of the Indian authorities. In that connection, the Government of Canada responded and co-operated fully with the Indian authorities to ensure that all aspects of the investigation could be carried out.
[ Translation]


EFFICIENCY OF NEW SECURITY MEASURES
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that a witness in his submission to the Standing Committee on Transport, which held hearings this week in Vancouver, stated that despite the announcements made by the Minister of a whole series of new security measures at airports, in fact these new-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there a question?


André Ouellet: I guess I have the right to ask a question. Jesus!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: I was asking the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Temper.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member had started his question and I did not hear him begin it, I apologize. However, I did not hear him begin the question, which is why I rose. Does the Hon. Member wish to repeat the question which he says he asked?


André Ouellet: Yes. I prefaced my question by saying "est-ce que", which means in French: "does" the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Laurier.


NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS LIMITATION ON HIRING OF PERSONNEL-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The Minister is certainly aware of the significant contribution of the voluntary sector to our society.
Now, the survival of many community agencies in Quebec is being jeopardized by the rigid criteria set forth in her Employment Development Program.

November 22, 1985
Oral Questions
My question to the Minister is this: Is she ready to change her program criteria to relieve community agencies from the requirement to hire only employees who have been unemployed for six months?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Hon. Member was not in committee this morning when we had a very full discussion of this issue. The position was put very well by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. I was able to respond at that time that applications coming in under the Canadian Jobs Strategy from municipal Governments and from non-profit organizations indeed amounted to something like 80 per cent of the over-all applications. There is no exclusion of non-profit organizations from the Canadian Jobs Strategy.


SITUATION OF LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the Minister's answers in committee this morning, and it is those answers which have many hundreds of organizations deeply concerned. How can the Minister help the long-term unemployed if there is no one to work with them or no one to train them? How can community organizations help people if they close their doors? Is this what the Minister really wants?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, applications come from a variety of organizations, including non-profit organizations. That is what the Hon. Member does not seem to understand. However, we ensure that the criteria which we are putting into effect are directed toward providing jobs for long-term unemployed people. What the Government wants to do is to help those who are most in need. That is why the criteria have been designed in the way they have. If one reads the newspaper this morning, one sees that in the Province of Quebec there is the largest number of long-term unemployed anywhere in the country. Those are the people whom we are trying to help most.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The City of Windsor is committed to full development of riverfront lands which are held by CN, and feels that CN and the Government have a past commitment to help in realizing this dream. Will the Minister do everything he can to co-operate in realizing this project and putting it forward as quickly as possible, for the future of our community?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take the Hon. Member's representation and discuss it with CN officials. I will be meeting with them early next week. I will certainly make the feelings of the Hon. Member known to them.


PROPOSED TRADING OF LANDS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, since past Governments agreed to a trade of lands to assist this project, will the Government make a commitment of resources of similar magnitude and significance so that the project can be achieved, despite the fact that they have gone back on the commitment to a lands trade?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to what significant commitment the Hon. Member is referring. I do know that CN has a vital interest in the development of the land in question in the Windsor area to which the Hon. Member referred. As I indicated, I will be very pleased to make sure his representations are made known to officials of CN as early as next week.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of three, presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, November 21, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Certain petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) and the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINTS OF ORDER


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, you have often remarked on the desirability of all Members behaving in a mature and civil fashion toward one another, with which 1 totally concur. Would you draw these observations to the attention of the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) and the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) who this morning in a meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that the Hon. Member is making a reference to something that occurred in a committee. She knows that it would be improper to raise a matter of committee activities here, whatever her views of the views of others might be.
November 22, 1985



ALLEGED USE OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE IN THE HOUSE-RULING OF MR. SPEAKER

['I think the Hon. Member knows that no such comment is allowed. The Hon. Member may also know that this matter was reported on October 17, a month ago.']
Mr. Speaker:: May I now say to the House-

-that yesterday, at the end of oral question period, the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) raised a point of order regarding the use of allegedly unparliamentary language by the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).
I have now had a chance to consult Hansard, and my conclusion is that the words of the Hon. Member for Shefford can be interpreted in various ways. The reaction of a number of Members to the language he used created some disruption during oral question period. Considering that reaction, it would have been preferable for the Hon. Member to use a different vocabulary. Because of the various possible interpretations, I have not concluded that the Hon. Member must withdraw what he said this time, but I feel I must inform him it was on the borderline.
The Chair has reminded all Members of this House a number of times that the use of vulgar and insulting language does not contribute anything to the proceedings of this House and in fact reflects very badly on the dignity and reputation of this Chamber.

I am in receipt of a notice of a question of privilege. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has given me notice of his desire to raise a question of privilege at this time.



Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege that I want to raise is on behalf of the collective rights and functions of the House of Commons, which I believe have been restricted and undercut in the procedural activities of the Government concerning Bill C-66. Specifically, a share issue took place this past summer prior to any chance for this House to consider Bill C-66. The share issue took place not under existing law but under the terms put in the proposed new law, namely, Bill C-66.
Subsequently, when this Bill came before the Legislative committee to be considered, the fact of that earlier prior summer share issue was used as a threat and a barrier to our being able to consider fully and freely amendments made within the committee. I wish to give some specific evidence to that effect.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What is the point of order?


An Hon. Member:: It is a privilege question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is not privilege.
Privilege-Mr. Langdon


Steven W. Langdon: In particular, Mr. Speaker, I would point to discussions of the legislative committee on October 15-


Mr. Speaker:: On a question of privilege that is being raised,
I think the Hon. Member will know that before he can make the case with regard to whether a privilege was breached, he is supposed to put to me very quickly something on which 1 can make a decision as to whether there is a priori a matter the House should consider.
Therefore, I invite the Hon. Member to be as brief as possible.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, as I see the question of privilege it is that the Government, by its actions in setting out a share issue prior to consideration of Bill C-66 under terms which assumed the complete and detailed adoption of the Bill as it presently stood, made it impossible, quite explicitly, by bringing to the legislative committee the fact that the Government could be sued for its share issue in the summertime-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect that may all be true. What is the question of privilege, please?


Steven W. Langdon: If 1 could finish-


Mr. Speaker:: Sorry. May I say with great respect that the Hon. Member has something he believes in very strongly, and I accept that. He is embarking upon debate about whether the Government should or should not have done something. He is presumably asking me to consider a question of his privileges being breached. Would the Hon. Member come immediately, please, to how his privileges have been breached?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is not quite as easy a matter as points of privilege usually are. If you could give me a minute to draw the connections, please-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, it may not be easy to draw, but the Hon. Member has yet to begin to tell me what is the question of privilege. He must, at least, tell me please what the evidence he wishes now to adduce is supposed to prove.


Steven W. Langdon: If I could summarize it very briefly, Mr. Speaker, it is my contention that the action which the Government took in the summer was followed up in the legislative committee with suggestions from Government spokesmen that amendments could not be considered by that committee as a result of action which took place during the summertime, making it impossible for the committee to consider fully and freely amendments before it. Amendments would have resulted, we were told by the Government, in law suits against the Government on the basis of the share issue put out in the summer.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the Hon. Member a question to help me? Is the Hon. Member saying that he was prevented from putting an amendment? Is he saying that something was done to prevent him from trying to put an amendment? I am trying to understand how he thinks his privileges have been breached.

November 22, 1985
Privilege-Mr. Langdon


Steven W. Langdon: 1 make the point again, Mr. Speaker, that it is the collective privileges of the House I am raising which, I take it from Beauhesne, are something that can be brought forward as a question of privilege. The opportunity for the committee to give free consideration to all amendments that were put before it was restricted unduly by the actions the Government had taken. I can bring evidence to demonstrate that.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the argument, but on the face of it there is no question of privilege. As 1 understand what the Hon. Member said, a case was made in the committee that it would be wrong for the committee to do certain things and to adopt amendments. I take it that is the case he is making to me. However, he is not making to me a case that indicates that somehow the committee was prevented from amending the Bill. I presume it could have done so if the committee wished to do so. I take that from what the Hon. Member said. Therefore, with great respect, I think he is asking me to get into the areas of law or propriety. I think that is quite a different matter and goes well beyond the powers of the Speaker, who is restricted to dealing with questions of restrictions that relate to matters of privilege. I believe the Hon. Member is aware of that. Does the Hon. Member wish to add one more thing?


Steven W. Langdon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In point of practice, what I have described is more serious than you have interpreted it to be. It is that the capacity of the committee to consider amendments was severely and unduly restricted by the fact that the Government had taken prior action on this Bill in the summer which was subsequently brought back to the committee as a point of pressure against our considering such amendments. As I have said, I can demonstrate from the textual exchanges within the committee explicitly how this took place.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the Hon. Member thinks that the Government did something it should not have done from what he has told me. He wants me to find somehow that the committee could not have done what the committee wanted to do. 1 cannot find that from what he has told me. Therefore, I cannot find that there is a question of privilege. Presenting reports-


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have heard the Hon. Member four times.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I regret persisting but if the point is as you have raised it in your last comment that I have not been able to demonstrate that there is a case, I would say again that to demonstrate the case, I have to read the excerpts from what happened in committee, excerpts that will demonstrate the excessive pressure applied which restricted the ability of the committee to operate in a legislative function. The point I am making is that it was prevented and restricted
from operating as a legislative forum. I will gladly read those points into the record if 1 am permitted to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest respect, 1 think that the Hon. Member is misunderstanding the question of privilege. If the Hon. Member is alleging that he or other members of the committee were threatened-I am now entering into what is called an obiter dictum-but he is not even doing that; he is saying that the Government behaved in a way that he thinks is improper. It is his privilege to think that. However, from what 1 have heard, I cannot find an argument that would sustain putting the matter to the House or suspending debate to put the matter to the House on the basis of what I have heard. Presenting reports-


Steven W. Langdon: On a point of order, please, if I could Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


Steven W. Langdon: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the Hon. Member's point of order?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is with respect to the points raised in your ruling and your comments-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member knows that no such comment is allowed. The Hon. Member may also know that this matter was reported on October 17, a month ago.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973.


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
November 22, 1985


TOURISM
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, knowing the interest in tourism of Hon. Members on both sides on the House of Commons, I am pleased to have the opportunity to report briefly on the results of the fortieth federal-provincial conference of Tourism Ministers held this past Tuesday and Wednesday in Vancouver. Hon. Members are undoubtedly aware that the meeting was the culmination of an extensive public discussion and consultation process which has taken over a year to conclude. That consultation process involved all the provincial and territorial Governments, all the major tourist associations and literally thousands upon thousands of Canadians.
The Government said from the outset that Canada's economic growth would be best achieved through a co-ordinated effort by the public and private sectors. The Vancouver meeting demonstrated a joint effort by all the levels of Government to respond to the advice that we received from the private sector. One result was a detailed statement of principles regarding the roles and responsibilities of the provinces, the Territories and the federal Government with respect to tourism.
By setting out their positions and views, Governments enabled the private sector to take directions in the full knowledge of the framework in which it operates. For our industry, this framework sets out the guiding principles for marketing and particularly consumer advertising and indicates that both orders of Government have a role to play.
The agreement also sets out specific actions for both orders of Government in research and the development of a Canadian product. It emphasizes that consultations among the various partners are essential and will take place. Finally, our agreement outlines government repsonsibilities in terms of the awareness of the general public and of visitor reception to this grand and glorious country of ours. Our agenda did not attempt to set out every action for every Government in Canada. What it did set out was a framework for doing business together in the future. That was but one accomplishment.
Knowing as I do the importance of the tourism industry to so many Canadians and indeed to so many Members of the House of Commons, I am pleased to say that the Government responded specifically and positively to the major recommendations put forward by the private sector over the consultation process. Those recommendations were for marketing, training, product development and research. Understandably, Canada's image abroad was the area of most interest throughout the consultations. We are all concerned of course about how others see us.
As Hon. Members will be aware, the Government has commissioned the largest tourism study ever carried out in the United States, our largest potential market. Its results are
Statements by Ministers
nearly all in and early next year, as I have assured my provincial and territorial counterparts, the information will be made broadly available not only to Governments but to industry and generally to any Canadian who would want it. The Government believes that one of our tasks is to ensure that accurate data is made available to our industries so that they can be best equipped to make the business decisions necessary to carry the industry forward.
At the Vancouver meeting Ministers also agreed that a more specific marketing campaign than those which have been held in the past is essential. The market-place is changing rapidly and dramatically and marketing programs have to respond to that reality. I assured my counter-parts that the federal campaign was developing along the lines suggested by them, which indicated a greater emphasis on destination and product-specific advertising which, of course, coincides with the research we have obtained over the past number of months.
Further, we agreed to consider how to involve the provinces and the Territories in the American launch of the federal marketing program which will commence in early 1986. Responding to the private sector's advice that a better coordinated marketing effort is needed in the international market-place, the Ministers agreed in principle to create an advertising council with both government, public and private sector members. The precise role and operations of the council will be developed over the next month or so; but the broad intent is to have Canada's major players who are involved in the international marketing of tourism to meet regularly in order to discuss their own plans and to comment on the plans of others. Hence, this will give us all a better understanding of the direction which we should be taking in terms of our international marketing. I believe this is a major step toward coordinating our efforts and perhaps in the long run toward integrating our various marketing campaigns.
Consultations suggested that the Canadian product line had to be improved and extended. In response, Ministers agreed that making more extensive use of Canada's cultural industries would be a major improvement. The rich mosaic of the country is one of Canada's most appealing qualities, both to the international traveller and buyer and to our own domestic consumers. Over the course of the next short period of time we will hold discussions with members of the arts and cultural communities across the country, with multicultural groups and, of course, with native cultural groups to ascertain how we can improve the role which we see as being important and how we can co-ordinate it. As has been mentioned, we will discuss setting the particular aspect of our unique land forward for our visitors to see.
I believe that the commitment to the tourism industry by the federal, provincial and territorial levels of Government has been made abundantly clear by the signing of subsidiary agreements valued at some $375 million. There can be no doubt that the Governments firmly believe in the economic potential of this industry, one which employs 600,000 Canadi-

November 22, 1985
Statements by Ministers
ans and which generates economic benefit in the neighbourhood of $18 billion to $19 billion per year. I believe we have made significant progress over the past year in addressing the issues affecting the tourism industry.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the major efforts of my provincial and territorial colleagues, both in respect of their own jurisdictions and in support of federal efforts. The meeting was a good one. I can inform Members of the House that federalism in the country is alive and well. I have never seen a group of politicians from all poitical Parties work together as well as we did this past week.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the industry and the thousands of individual operators who gave of their time and efforts, in many cases at their own expense, to come to the point at which we find ourselves with respect to improving this major industrial sector. Their advice went well beyond narrow interests. We have completed the major phase of our work, which was set out in September of 1984 which, in some respects, was a redirection of our industry.
We are now well prepared to enter the second phase which is, of course, the implementation process. However, consultation is and will remain a cornerstone of how the Government operates. I can assure all Hon. Members, and through them the industry interests that each of them represents, that 1 will continue to seek counsel and advice from all corners of the House of Commons and from all parts of Canada. It can be said to all those involved in the past process that significant progress has been made, progress resulting from joint efforts of the public and the private sectors. Tourism is well on its way to becoming Canada's number one industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on a matter of great interest to me, tourism. The report the Minister has just made does have positive aspects. What strikes me most is the Minister's intention to maintain consultations with the tourist industry. It would have been unthinkable to exclude the private sector from the decision-making process. In my estimation, the Minister's initiative as a whole is a step-I repeat, a step in the right direction, but I dare hope he will eventually go beyond the consultation stage and take action.
I should like to remind the Minister of his own remarks to the tourism conference delegates hardly a month ago.

This conference will achieve results. I expect you to give clear choices and make hard recommendations to me and my provincial colleagues .. . tourism's voice is really starting to be heard and this conference is a key opportunity for you to speak out before we convene in November to take the decisions that will give further direction to the industry. We will make the decisions that are needed.
I must say that hard decisions or hard recommendations were made at this conference but were not adhered to at the provincial-federal conference.

The Minister must wish he could take back his fine words which, in fact, did not cause much of a ripple in Vancouver. Truth to tell, I am disappointed but not surprised, for after all the Minister has the same shortcomings and feels the same pressures as his Conservative colleagues. One day they make tantalizing promises, the day after they conveniently forget them. It is a hazardous game which seldom fails to backfire. I have a telling example of that, Mr. Speaker, and I imagine that Members opposite still recall when they were on this side of the House. Be that as it may, we should not be overly concerned if some of them have a short memory, they will soon have an opportunity to sit across the way. It being so, I would like to remind them-and the Minister should indeed lend an ear-of the Progressive Conservative Party's position respecting tourism.
The present Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek), who was in the House a few minutes ago, will certainly be familiar with his own statements. Here are some of them:
Unfortunately the Minister did not come to grips with the major problem of the Canadian tourist industry, namely excessive taxes on hotel and restaurant services as well as on gas and alcoholic beverages which are driving the industry to bankruptcy.
Here is another one:
By freezing at their current level all taxes which are harmful to tourism and seeking ways to reduce them in certain sectors ... in our capacity as politicians we have to realize that we cannot raise taxes without first knowing what their impact will be. We must stop milking businessmen for all they are worth.
And a third:
By taking " ... steps to tackle the bane of tourism-overtaxation."
Mr. Speaker, I have many more such quotations and I could go on putting them on the record.
And I will continue with a quote from the Party Leader, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), of course, who promised during the election campaign that he would:
Review taxes on gas, alcoholic beverages, food and accommodation that are making Canada's tourist industry less competitive.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note how concerned the Conservatives were then about our tax system.
Those same Conservative Members have now made a sudden about-face. Today they are saying the exact opposite of what they said before, and worse, they are trying to evade the subject. This is not the way things are done, and the party now in power has no right to deal with the tax problem in this frivolous manner.
The Minister has repeated time and time again to the tourist industry that taxation is not a problem. Easy to say for him, but it just shows he refuses to face reality. Our taxes are too
November 22, 1985

high here in Canada, and that is a serious problem. There are no two ways about it. It is as plain as the nose in your face. I do not understand why the Minister keeps turning a blind eye to this fact. You advised the industry to submit recommendations before the minister's meeting in Vancouver. These recommendations included one that was repeated many times, and that was to restructure the tax system.
At this point I would like to quote the President of the Canadian Association of Restaurant and Food Services, Mr. Robert Degrace, who, in concluding, warned the Minister at the national conference:
At this Conference ! have heard that cost is not a significant competitive factor. I want to tell you that it is, Mr. Minister. When are we going to look at the tax structure in Canada and their impact on the price of tourism services?

The Minister will agree that the message was clear. In any case, one cannot deny reality. Canadian products are becoming less and less competitive with American products. Even with our devalued dollar, we are still losing. First of all, if we look at the price of gas, which costs from 25 to 30 per cent more in Canada than in the United States. And then-
Is there a time limit, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Yes, the Hon. Member has the same amount of time as the Minister had to make his speech.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize my time was limited. Well, I just wanted to mention the price of alcoholic beverages in Canada, which is very high, and I would like to go on to discuss the impact of prices on the competitive position of our industry. At the present time, the industry is in the red. In fact, during the first quarter of this year, the industry's deficit had increased compared with the situation last year, during the same period.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister certainly missed the boat at his conference in Vancouver, since they did not deal with the problem of overtaxing the tourist industry, and 1 am thinking especially about the excise tax on gas, on alcoholic beverages, and the latest tax on airports and airplane tickets. In fact, in this respect, Mr. Speaker, their timing in perfect. Expo 86 will be opening next spring, and they have now raised the ceiling on the tax on airplane tickets. So now the tax on a plane ticket for a flight from Montreal to Vancouver has gone up from $30 to $52. Perfect timing indeed.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak in the House, but I would have liked to hear more concrete recommendations, and I would have liked very much to hear from the Minister that he was going to act on a recommendation to form a study group that would examine
Statements by Ministers
the whole structure of the tourist industry in Canada, a recommendation made by representatives of the industry.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, as spokesman of the New Democratic Party for Tourism. I am pleased this afternoon to reply to the Hon. Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. Murta).

I would like to begin by saying, Mr. Speaker, that we appreciate the Minister's initiative in reporting to the House on this meeting with his provincial and territorial counterparts. The general direction of the Government's efforts in promoting tourism within Canada is, of course, one thing which, like motherhood and apple pie, is not very easy to question. The consultation process, indeed, has a great deal of potential in terms of unifying the efforts of different levels of Government and in moving the country's industry in a single direction, one which will, hopefully, benefit all parts of the country and all the Parties represented at such conferences.
Nevertheless, there are significant problems with the consultation and inter-ministerial process. These are problems which are worthy of remarking upon in this House. My understanding of the Accord is that it is largely a rewriting of the 1980 Accord which was signed in Saskatchewan, and while the consultation process, as I have said, has great potential, we must, of course, over the months and years to come, look for some realization of that potential and some achievement which can be directly traced to what after all is an expensive process in time and effort.
The Conference which was held here in Ottawa, I believe, last month, attracted considerable participation from the private sector. I would caution the Government that participation is not something which can ever be taken for granted. 1 am very glad to hear the Minister thanking the private sector for coming along in significant numbers and making a contribution. However, I caution the Government that unless there are results from such a process, the commitment of the private sector will diminish. The private sector, naturally, is looking for favourable results for the industry.
Frequent mention was made at that particular conference at which 1 attended several sessions-and I was grateful to the Minister for the invitation to do so-of the study which is presently being carried out in the United States, our largest market and presumably continuing to be so. The study was based on interviews and was done in considerable depth. The results will be shared throughout the industry and with our provincial partners. I think that such a study has great potential for revealing the reasons our American friends come to Canada in significant numbers, but it also has some potential pitfalls which 1 believe the Ministry would do well to review. I am afraid that when that size of a project is set in motion, it generates a sort of halo effect, an interest and receptiveness which might not necessarily be there when we come to the real life situation of making those hard choices and decisions as to where the holiday makers' earnings are going to be spent. For this reason I think the Ministry would do well to try to apply

November 22, 1985
Statements by Ministers
some control to those interviews and to review whether or not the results obtained are somewhat coloured by the very intimate and attentive manner in which the basic data is being gathered.
Turning to advertising, I am glad to see the Government's commitment to advertising in the international market. The previous Minister of Tourism made some good points when he made a critical review of some of the previous advertising. However, my understanding is that the 1986 Budget has been almost totally committed to international advertising, and if there is a lesson to be learned from the geography of our country, surely it is that we cannot take it for granted that Canadians are aware of the full range of attractions in their own country. We cannot take it for granted that Canadians will automatically consider Canadian destinations which might very well fill the needs and values that they are looking for in their vacation experience. Increasingly, of course, with the lifting of the ceiling on airfare taxes and the rise in the gasoline tax, we cannot assume that Canadians can afford to visit other parts of their own country.
I am glad to see that the conference produced an emphasis on the potential of Canadian culture to attract visitors. As one who represents more Indian people and certainly more reserves and bands than any other Member of this House, I was also pleased to see the emphasis on the involvement of native Canadians in tourism and not simply on exploiting them. Much more important, we are ensuring their participation and a fair share for them in the benefits from the tourism industry. However, I feel there are a couple of cautions which have to be made here. I do not think the traditional values of Canadian tourism and its attractions can be discarded. They have to continue to be emphasized.
[Translation}
When we review the main tourist features of Canada, we notice that moose, red-coated police officers and mountains attract a great many visitors from the United States, as well as countries of Europe and the Far East.

These are factors which cannot be ignored and must continue to be emphasized. Therefore, as I said to the previous Minister of Tourism before he was appointed Minister of the Environment, it is important that there be considerable coordination between those two Ministries to ensure that our national parks continue to provide a refreshing and innovative recreational experience of quality at affordable prices, without excessive barriers involving fiscal or non-fiscal control such as the rationing of visitors to national parks. We have had a commitment from this Government to increase training in the industry. That is good but it has to be put into concrete terms through funding because, by and large, it is fair to say that as a large country we do not have that intense awareness of tourism which our European competitors do.
My colleague from Westmorland-Kent addressed the problem of taxation and it is a very considerable one. The Government has not put into motion any form of study to determine whether the tourism industry does, as has been alleged, bear a disproportionate tax burden in relation to the total economic activity in the industry. The barriers to tourism which we have are large. They are large by virtue of geography, awareness, and by virtue of the fact that this country presents very disparate and different images. Let us see a Ministry which ensures that those barriers are not increased by making Canadian tourism non-competitive from the point of view of price.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: 350.


Mr. Desrosiers: 1.	What is the 1985-86 operating budget of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for (a) security (6) entertainment (public relations) (c) support (d) the library (e) the record library (/) stage (g) stage designing services?
2.	(a) How many employees are there in each service (A) what was the (i)
1983-	84 (ii) 1984-85 budget of each service (c) how many employees were there in each service in (i) 1983-84 (ii) 1984-85?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Acting Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration, as the budgets allocated to certain departments. The reason for this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question 2530, answered on November 6, 1975.
2.	For the CBC in Montreal: (a) Security at Maison de Radio-Canada, the International Broadcast Centre, Cite-du-Havre and the Mont-Royal and Brossard transmitters, 88 including 80 guards from the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. Guide service, 2; support, this department does not exist; library, 11; record library, 35; staging, 296; stage designing, 192.
(b)	See answer to part 1.
(c)	For the CBC in Montreal: (i) 1983-1984. Security at Maison de Radio-Canada, the International Broadcast Centre, Cite-du-Havre, and the Mont-Royal and Brossard transmitters, 109 including 100 guards from the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. Guide service, 18 including seven temporary employees; support, this department does not exist; library, 13; record library, 40; staging, 316; stage designing, 198. (ii)
1984-	1985. Security at Maison de Radio-Canada, the International Broadcast Centre, Cite-du-Havre, and the Mont-Royal and Brossard transmitters, 94 including 85 guards from the
November 22, 1985

Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. Guide service, 7; support, this department does not exist; library, 13; record library, 40; staging, 301; stage designing, 198.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-66, an Act respecting the reorganization of the Canada Development Coporation, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, consideration of Govern-menlt Orders will be extended by 29 minutes this day. Therefore, Private Members' hour will begin at 4.29 p.m.
There are four report stage motions on Bill C-66. Motions numbered 1 and 2 will be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 3 and 4 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.


David Charles Dingwall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a disposition, at least in my discussions with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mrs. Tardif), to call it one o'clock.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to give serious and affirmative consideration to this suggestion, knowing full well that we will make progress this afternoon. I am sure that was part of the discussions which took place with the Parliamentary Secretary. 1 see everyone nodding in the affirmative; I guess it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 12.50 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Canada Development Corporation
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We are now on Bill C-66 and we will deal first with Motion No. 1. Mr. Langdon, seconded by-no seconder?


Some Hon. Members:: Out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If I do not have a seconder the motion will have to be dropped.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed. Drop it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I have a seconder for the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must declare the motion dropped then. Still on Bill C-66, Motion No. 2, Mr. Langdon-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Here is someone now. Let us go back and start again. Do you want to start again? On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should go back and, by unanimous consent, start again with respect to Motion No. 1 now that we have a seconder in the House for the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-66, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 41 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"attached more than ten percent of'.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the willingness of the House to recognize the difficulties of Friday lunches. We have here what appears to be, on the face of it, an innocent amendment which attempts to make a relatively small change in the existing Bill. It is a change which arises from the considerable difficulty which, I think it is fair to say, witnesses expressed throughout our hearings with regard to the logic of the 25 per cent rule. For Members of the House who have not been forced to dig into the arcane details of this Bill quite as deeply as I have myself and as has my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary opposite, the Bill seeks to set a restriction on how a private company can operate in this country, because CDC will be a private company in the future.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that there were Conservative Members who quite properly asked whether it was sensible to have any restriction of this kind in a Bill. This restriction of 25 per cent means that no single corporate entity can purchase more than 25 per cent of the shares of the privatized CDC. There were Conservatives who said that if this is to be a private company it should follow completely the rules of the private enterprise market-place. In response to that, the Minister and other Conservatives replied that it is important to have some kind of safeguard of the future independence of this corporation and of the capacity of the organization to enjoy the benefits of the outside shareholders, but not to be coerced overwhelmingly by those outside shareholders.

November 22, 1985
Canada Development Corporation
If this clause passes in its present form in the Bill as it is reported from committee, we will have enshrined a precedent in how we treat certain private companies in this country. To my knowledge and the knowledge of the legislative committee, there is not a single other example of a 25 per cent limit in existence in any legislation concerning private sector companies in this country. Indeed it would be the first time that such a procedure would be put into effect.
We believe that rather than put this new precedent into the books, we should look at the cases where we presently restrict private companies in certain ways. For instance, the figure used for the banks is 10 per cent. No individual or corporate group can have a holding larger than 10 per cent of the over-all shareholding. Therefore, we have moved this amendment to achieve that same kind of limited corporate partnership entry into CDC.
We do this for a number of other reasons besides consistency. First, the President of the CDC himself indicated that this would be best for the company. Second, we are concerned with a process which has taken place by which close to 15 per cent of the shares in this company have already come under the control of the Brascan group which has clearly indicated from its past that it is interested in restricting competition in an arrangement with the Kidd Creek mine which CDC owns.
In addition, it is quite possible that a situation could develop with a 25 per cent shareholding. We in the committee asked our witnesses about this and they told us what could happen when a company had a 25 per cent shareholding. A company like Brascan-we should be aware that Brascan played a major role in the shaping of this legislation-would be able to establish such a paralysis within the company itself that CDC would be forced to sell off the Kidd Creek mining properties to Brascan, in which it has always had such interest, in order to placate a partner that was not prepared to co-operate.
A partner that has only 10 per cent of the shares can prove to be helpful when problems arise. It can provide an incentive or apply some pressure on management to perform. However, when such a company can have 25 per cent of the shares, that useful pressure can be translated into a dangerous threat. Therefore, I urge Members of the House to accept the argument, which was put to us by the President of the Canada Development Corporation, that it would make sense to accept the logic we have applied in the case of the banks with a 10 per cent shareholding and accept this constructive and straightforward amendment in the first block of amendments to be voted on.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I also want to address a few remarks to this particular amendment. It should be noted that this amendment that was put forward by my colleague is his own amendment, unlike the others that will follow. They were really suggested by the President of the Canada Development Corporation while in committee.
The Hon. Member is correct in his analysis that the evidence which was adduced during the committee hearings with regard to the foreign investment factor in this particular Bill would lead one to conclude that a 10 per cent or perhaps 12 per cent or 14 per cent shareholding as would be more reasonable. The logic of the 10 per cent shareholding referred to by my colleague was echoed quite eloquently by the President of the Canada Development Corporation when we had an opportunity to cross-examine him before the legislative committee.
We also had an opportunity to cross-examine individuals of the divestiture committee of CD1C as well as officials of CDC and the Minister responsible. I believe that their arguments against the suggestion of foreign investment being less than 25 per cent-whether it is 10 per cent or the 14 per cent to which I alluded earlier-was practically null and void because on the subsequent day to the Minister's appearing before the committee, the President of CDC said that it was logical to live by the provisions of the Bank Act which provides for 10 per cent, and therefore why not provide for 10 per cent in this Bill?
While I rise to support the amendment, I also want to indicate my disappointment in the framework of the Legislative committees. I believe that those of us who have been in the Chamber for more than a year had hoped that legislative committees would function in such a way as to improve upon a Bill. However, when evidence was adduced from various sources in an attempt to improve the legislation, I say quite sincerely that we found to our dismay that Government Members were either under duress or some direction, which meant that the objective to improve legislation was not being achieved, notwithstanding that there had been a consensus about the new committee system of the House.
While we will support Motion No. 1, it was my hope that during our deliberations in the legislative committee there would have been a disposition by Members to recognize the benefits not only of the evidence which we put forward as Opposition Members but indeed of evidence put forward by individuals involved with CDC on a daily basis. They are the ones who have to live with this legislation in the market-place. Although they did not recommend it specifically, they found nothing inherently wrong with going to 10 per cent and felt that that perhaps would be the best way to proceed.
[ Translation]


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Under the proposed amendment, Mr. Speaker, a Canadian investor might be barred from holding more than 10 per cent of the shares. The Bill as drafted sets the limit at 25 per cent. In my opinion, this has been the subject of lengthy debates in committee and we came to the conclusion that if a shareholder could not acquire more than a token CDC share he might find himself in a position where he would carry little weight with the board of
November 22, 1985

directors who would then run the risk of keeping to themselves in their ivory tower.
When we considered the advisability of lowering the limit from 25 to 10 per cent, the main argument was that a 25 per cent holding might enable the investor to cash in his investment at consolidation value, which is important, and the other advantage was that no shareholder would be able to acquire all the shares. So there was an advantage on both counts.
Concerning the objections raised by my colleague from Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), I might remind him that the provisions of Clause 5(2) were mentioned on several occasions during committee proceedings, for they do establish mechanisms designed to stave off any prospective take-over by a group of shareholders. 1 would suggest that those clauses are good enough and would defeat any take-over attempt. With respect to the 10 per cent ceiling proposed under the amendment, I think the shareholders would be very hard pressed to participate fully in the activities of the CDC or convince management to steer a new course should it ever become advisable to do so. Therefore 1 am opposed to the amendment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to say a few words about this particular motion. I listened with interest to the Hon. Member who just spoke, attempting to make a case for 25 per cent participation in CDC. Quite frankly, that debate has gone on in the House many times. 1 think the most obvious time that it occurred was in the last revision to the Bank Act. At that time witness after witness- and I cannot recall the exact number of witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-emphasized and re-emphasized the point that in something as critical as a bank, we needed at least a 10 per cent ownership rule. That simply ensures adequate participation so that there is not an overdue influence by any particular individual or group. I think 10 per cent is the general rule of thumb one would find not only in the Canadian banking system but generally around the world. It is considered to be a rate which provides for adequate participation in terms of corporate decision making and ensures a wide enough ownership base so that no individual, particular firm or particular group would have undue influence.
When the Government asks that this be 25 per cent, it goes against a trend with the new Government. The most obvious reflection of that trend was when the so-called Blenkarn report of the Finance Committee was presented. It was felt that all ownership provisions on financial institutions should be taken off; that if an Arab prince or an enterprising wealthy Hong Kong entrepreneur wanted to buy one of our major trust companies or banks, so be it; and that there was no concern about single domestic ownership, so much power in the hands of an individual, be he a Canadian or a foreigner. That betrays a rather interesting view of what is in the best interest of Canada and what is in the best interest of Canadian control of our financial institutions or other institutions.
Canada Development Corporation
It seems to me that there is a mind-set developing with the Government, saying that it has faith in the system, that if a single individual owns 25 per cent, that is fine; if a single individual owns the Bank of British Columbia, that is fine. Quite frankly, I do not think that is fine. I cannot imagine where one would find evidence to suggest that that is in the best national interest. Everything I have read, at least anything credible, would certainly indicate that that kind of concentrated financial, economic and therefore political power, seldom acts in the best interest of the country per se.
This is why the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has put forward a motion indicating that the 10 per cent rule should be followed in the case of CDC as well. I think we should give serious consideration to this particular proposal. If we really believe in building in a sense of fairness and equity into the corporate sector, this principle would be maintained by following the provisions of this particular motion.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments in support of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). The motion, as has been stated, would simply reduce the percentage of shares which could be held by any individual or group in the reorganized CDC from 25 per cent to 10 per cent.
The Bill is aimed at the privatization of the Canada Development Corporation. We have not seen any real justification for that, but presumably the Government would want to say that it is to lead to greater competition and to a possibility where more Canadians would have the opportunity to participate in one of the 10 largest corporations in Canada. This year, the corporation has total assets of some $7.8 billion. If we want to see that greater diversification, at the very least we should support a motion such as this one which would limit the total shares that can be owned by any individual or group to a maximum of 10 per cent. That is a very healthy amount which can be owned by any individual, group or corporation. Ten per cent seemed like a logical upper limit, a very generous upper limit, if we are concerned about reducing the amount of corporate concentration in Canada. I am not sure that is what members of the Conservative Party are interested in. If they look at the effects of the Bill, they will see that it will lead to greater corporate concentration.
We would at least like the same type of protection built into the Bill as is in the Bank Act, where any individual is limited to a total ownership of 10 per cent of the assets.
On that basis, I urge Hon. Members opposite to take very seriously the argument put forward by my hon. colleague and to support the motion.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Langdon) negatived.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-66, be amended in Clause 5
(a) by striking out lines 5 and 6 at page 4 and substituting the following
therefor:

November 22, 1985
Canada Development Corporation
"forfeiture of dividends, the removal from or refusal of registration of securities and for the sale of securities held or beneficially owned in contravention of the constraints".
(b) by striking out line 5 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor: "sons, owns more than 20 per cent of the".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendment that we have before us now is an amendment that comes to us directly from the board of directors of the Canada Development Corporation, which has reviewed this piece of legislation carefully. The board of directors appeared before the committee to give their judgment.
This is a privately, entrepreneurially run corporation, which will shape the future of that enterprise. The board recommended that we accept this amendment. They did so very specifically because they believe the Bill as it is presently drafted does not protect the independence of the CDC and the capacity of the CDC to do a job for the country as a whole.
The board talked to us in committee about various recommendations. 1 would like to quote to Members of the House from the testimony of the President of CDC, Tony Hampson dealing with this amendment. He said:
We also recommend that subclause 5.(2) be revised to provide CDC with authority to sell shares owned in continued contravention of the constraint provisions of this legislation.
1 asked Members of the House to follow this very carefully. He went on:
Without CDC having power to enforce a sale-
This is on the legal advice that CDC received. He continued:
-it would be possible for a shareholder to exceed the limits on share ownership and achieve control even though the excess shares could not be voted. For example, as now proposed, a non-resident investor-
This is not me speaking, but the head of the private corporation with whose affairs we are dealing in this Bill. He said:
-who accumulated 90.1 per cent of CDC's voting shares would have everything above 10 per cent neutralized;
That is, the last 80 per cent they could not vote but neither could anybody else vote those shares. Let me continue. He went on to say:
-but the unaffected 10 per cent holding would still outvote the shares held by all the remaining shareholders.
In short, Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about an extremely dangerous loophole in the Bill pointed out to us forcefully and unanimously by the board of directors of the Canada Development Corporation. They said that if we do not close that loophole and if we do not make it possible for the board to force those shares to be sold, which are held in contravention of the 10 per cent and the 25 per cent limitations, then they can be held on to. They cannot be voted, but because the company holds this vast number of shares, which it cannot vote plus a number of shares which it can vote, more than the remaining shares in the operation, it becomes possible for a single powerful company, either a foreign company or a single Canadian company, to take over the enterprise, despite the fact that the enterprise is set up to serve the country
widely, to meet employment needs across the country and to fill a great many different business needs.
CDC, as Members of the House know, is a holding company which has under its auspices such important businesses as Connaught Laboratories, producing insulin in Canada, Poly-sar, producing artificial rubber, Petrosar, producing specialized chemicals, and Kidd Creek Mines in northern Ontario, which has perhaps the richest concentration of lead zinc mines and smelters in the province. CDC is an important company. Yet the small technical loophole identified by the lawyers of the Canada Development Corporation leaves completely open the possibility that our purposes as a House in trying to build in some safeguards, safeguards that will keep this company Canadian controlled and will keep it subject to 25 per cent control, will be contravened.
This corporation could be subject to a back door raid which would take it out of the hands of people here in our country. It is not a loophole which would have jumped off the page to me as I read through the legislation, but it is a loophole which the corporate lawyers of CDC themselves take very, very seriously. It is a corporate loophole which the entire board of directors of Canada Development Corporation requested us as a Parliament to correct.
I hope that with that kind of support from the groups of people, who will hopefully make this company a success in the future, Members of the House will be prepared to accept the amendment which follows the wording proposed by the CDC board and will give CDC the protection which it requests from this kind of back door raiding practice.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the proposal as suggested by Mr. Hampson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Development Corporation, would ensure that no one, or several affiliated companies if the parent company holds less than a 50 per cent interest in each of the subsidiaries, would be able to take control of CDC.
Anyone with any background in business knows that one need not own 50 per cent of the stock to control a company. In that regard the 20 per cent restriction which the President of the CDC proposed was, in my view, a very wise move to ensure that CDC does not become a puppet of other corporations. That, of course, would reduce the chance of having monopoly situations arise.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe it is actually Motion No. 2(a) with which we are presently dealing, or are we in fact dealing with (a) and (b)l


M. Hnatyshyn:: Both. They are lumped together.


Steven W. Langdon: I see.


David Charles Dingwall: 1 hope that will not be taken off my time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It won't be included because it was probably constructive.
November 22, 1985


David Charles Dingwall: As I said earlier, this particular amendment was suggested by the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Development Corporation.
It was interesting to note that during the deliberations of the legislative committee, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the CDC came before the committee with the clear impression that it was his duty and moral obligation to present for committee members ideas and suggestions which he believed would improve upon the legislation without deviating from the Government's objectives. It was his clear understanding that he was to appear before the legislative committee to make suggestions and draw to the attention of members ways in which this Bill could be improved. He did make a number of suggestions and this is one of them.
Government Members, and particularly the Minister responsible, were of the view that if this amendment as suggested by the individuals who work on a daily basis with CDC was accepted, it would somehow interfere in a negative way with the prospectus which was offered earlier by CDC. That argument is a fairly substantive one. Government Members spoke of the right of rescission or damages if in fact there was an amendment made which would subsequently interfere with the prospectus. In that case, there is provision under the Ontario Securities Act for individuals to take action against the Government.
The President and the Vice President and General Counsel of the Canada Development Corporation came well equipped to the committee meetings. They retained the services of a very prominent and distinguished law firm by the name of Fasken and Calvin. This law firm spelled out very clearly that the amendments that were being sought by the officers who were entrusted with carrying on the activities of that corporation would in no way interfere with the prospectus, thereby giving right to individuals to activate the provisions of the Ontario Securities Act. A legal opinion was written by that very distinguished Canadian firm involved in the securities business. I quote from page 6 of this opinion which was filed for all committee members to read:
The proposed change in the definition of "associate" in the Bill to trigger associate status at 20 per cent rather than 50 per cent ownership of a corporation would not, in our opinion, give rise to contractual rescission rights.
That is very clear. Not only do the Chief Executive Officer and the Vice President and General Counsel of the corporation say that, but a prestigious and distinguished law firm says that those amendments will in no way destroy, defeat, impair or inhibit the objectives of the Government. It is merely a provision designed to improve upon the legislation.
It surely was the intent of the McGrath committee when it established the new rules for legislative committees that individuals would come before Parliament in a non-partisan manner to make suggestions to improve upon legislation. In this case, we have three clear and unequivocal examples of support for a particular amendment designed to improve upon the legislation.
What happened in committee? I do not want to rehash for all Members what happened in committee. However, the
Canada Development Corporation amendment was defeated. We are now trying to bring it to the attention of Hon. Members that surely there must be a time for Parliament to put aside partisan politics and accept the recommendations and legal opinions of the experts who are trying to achieve something that will be for the betterment and not for the detriment of the Government.
I do not want to jump to the conclusion that some backroom discussions have taken place with certain individuals. However, there is evidence to allow one to conclude that perhaps something of that nature has taken place over a period of time. The amendment sought by the President and Chief Executive Officer of the CDC is clear. He has a legal opinion to back up his submissions. I think in the interest of Parliament and in the interest of improving legislation, which 1 believe all of us wish to do, we should accept this amendment which has been offered by members of the Canada Development Corporation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will keep my remarks regarding this particular motion very brief in order to allow us to deal with them all today. I will confine my remarks, by and large, to Motion No. 2(b). This motion contains quite an extraordinary suggestion, one made by senior representatives of the CDC in order to guard against a very peculiar takeover potential.
I appeal to my colleagues opposite, many of whom understand and are active participants in the business world and know full well that in business as it is practised in Canada today, the 20 per cent ownership rule is considered quite usual and acceptable. Based on that assumption, I have a question to ask. I have to ask what on earth would motivate government Members to introduce the 50 per cent rule unless they plan to open up a loophole that would allow for back-door takeovers or the concentration of power.
I see that my friend, the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer), is laughing at my concern over increased financial and corporate power in Canada and the falling of more and more power into the hands of restricted numbers of individuals. The Hon. Member might think that that is funny. With all due respect, he might find that humorous. However, when businesses like Cadillac-Fairview start warning us that a number of these practices will result in increased corporate financial and political concentration of power in Canada, I do not find it to be a laughing matter. I do not find that humorous. I do not find it at all encouraging in terms of the direction in which the country appears to be moving.


Mr. Graham:: Not like Russia at all.


Nelson Andrew Riis: No. I guess my friend across the way is a supporter of the Soviet Union's system of economics. I will allow him to take his turn and explain. In a sense, I suppose we are moving toward more and more control being placed into the hands of a single individual, whether it be an individual entrepreneur, an individual business or perhaps even the state. The Conservatives are taking us into an interesting development these days. I do not know what they are using for their

November 22, 1985
Canada Development Corporation
models, perhaps the Bronfman group, the Laurentian group or maybe the role of Conrad Black. Perhaps they are using as their model some of the state governments in Eastern Europe, or perhaps even the Soviet Union. I do not know but 1 find the development ironic.
I would like to explain step by step what is really going on here.


An Hon. Member:: This is incredible!


Nelson Andrew Riis: My friend across the way says that this is incredible. I agree that it is unbelievable in terms of what the Government is attempting to do. At the present time we have a situation in which firms and associate firms together can own more than 25 per cent. In other words, there is a 25 per cent rule in place. The associated firm is usually limited to a 20 per cent participation. The Government now wants to increase the 20 per cent participation level to a 50 per cent participation level. The point I am trying to make is that Brascan, which now owns 26 per cent of Noranda, could purchase 25 per cent of the CDC and Noranda could purchase 25 per cent of the CDC. Brascan literally controls Noranda with a 36 per cent ownership. The point is that right now Brascan and Noranda together could control 50 per cent of the CDC. Brascan already controls Noranda. We are saying that, in a sense, with the present proposal before the House, Brascan could control 50 per cent of the CDC. It could own 50 per cent of the CDC.
1 see my hon. friend shaking her head across the way. Perhaps she can explain where my logic is incorrect. If I am not incorrect and if the Government is saying it accepts the notion that Brascan can, should and may control 50 per cent of the CDC, then this is a dangerous signal to be sending out across the country. It concerns me very much.
Again, in its wisdom, management has suggested that we use the 20 per cent rule. I appeal to my business colleagues across the way to use the 20 per cent rule which is found in all aspects of prudent business practices in our country. Why is it that the 20 per cent rule is not being followed today? In a sense, a step is being taken which could quite easily and quite likely result in Brascan controlling 50 per cent and owning 50 per cent of the CDC. I have posed two or three questions to my hon. friend and I will sit down now and listen to her response.
[ Translation]


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to answer my hon. friend's question about concentration of power.
In speaking to the first amending motion, I referred to Clause 5(2) which gives to the Corporation, and protects certain powers that an ordinary corporation would not have. I think that what is already in the Bill provides that the Corporation will be able to protect itself against this kind of activity.
Mr. Speaker, the motion now under consideration is divided into two parts, and I would like to say a few words about each one.
First of all, in the motion numbered 2(a), we see that if the clause were amended, this would enable the Board of the CDC to sell all shares held by shareholders who failed to comply with the ownership provisions and to strike these shareholders from the Corporation's records.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to make the CDC a corporation under the Canada Business Corporations Act. 1 think that if we consider the amendments being requested, few businesses of this kind dispose of such powers of confiscation.
With this amendment, the CDC would be drawn even further away from the Canada Business Corporations Act.
As for the second half of the motion, its effect would be to create a partnership between two corporations if one of them, or the enterprises with which it is associated within the meaning of the definition provided in the same clause, own more than 20 per cent of the other corporation's voting shares. At the present time, the clause provides a ceiling of 50 per cent on ownership of shares of an associate corporation.
This proposal also has the same effect as the first part of the motion, namely that it goes against the purpose of the Bill which is to make the CDC as much as possible a corporation that would normally come under the provisions of the CBCA. Under this legislation, to control means to own more than 50 per cent of securities to which are attached votes that may ordinarily be cast to elect directors of the Corporation. This definition corresponds to what is provided in provincial legislation on corporations and securities and in the Bank Act.
Mr. Speaker, considering the fact that members of the Legislative Committee have had ample time to discuss this motion in committee and did not decide to adopt it, 1 cannot concur with this motion.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, again, I wish to urge Members opposite to look closely at the amendments put forward by my colleague and to consider the process in which we are involved. I ask them to consider whether or not we are really concerned about seeing wider ownership of the corporation or if we want to see much more concentration in the Canada Development Corporation.
It is interesting to note that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), pointed out in committee that four out of the seven members of the divestiture committee which was set up to look into the reorganization of the CDC were associated with Brascan. This gives weight to the questions which have been raised about the possibility of the Brascan group gaining control of the CDC.
It is important to remember that these amendments were first suggested by the board of directors of the CDC as an attempt to close a loophole which would permit one corporation, for example Brascan, to gain complete control of the CDC. This is quite apart from the present restrictions and what they are supposed to do. Under the loophole, one corporation can purchase more than 25 per cent of the shares even
November 22, 1985

though it would not be able to vote those shares. The amendment provides that the company would have the right to insist upon the sale of those shares held outside the restrictions which this Bill purports to impose.
The second part of the amendment would change the definition of an associate from one holding more than 50 per cent of the voting shares of the corporation to one holding more than 20 per cent of the voting shares of the other corporation. What we all recognize is that 50 per cent ownership is not needed for effective control of most corporations. Even 20 per cent gives control in many cases, particularly if other shares are widely held.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) asked the Minister a question in committee with respect to the situation regarding Brascan, Noranda and MacMillan Bloedel.
I would like to quote from the proceedings of that committee where the Hon. Member said:
Perhaps I could ask the Minister this question, to take a specific question. Forty-nine per cent of MacMillan Bloedel is held by Noranda Mines. It therefore does not come under paragraph (/) as an associated company. In your opinion, would MacMillan Bloedel be deemed to be associated under paragraph (jh) and therefore prohibited from buying a big chunk of CDC in addition to the 15 per cent or 25 per cent that Noranda may have?
The Minister responded:
Mr. Chairman, that is the type of thing I think if those circumstances arose ... Clearly, if the company were concerned, they would have to go to their counsel and ask for an opinion. Now, you asked me in the situation you have outlined to give an opinion. I do not intend to give that type of opinion. You have the clause here. There are paragraphs (a) to (h) dealing with the interpretation of what associate is with respect to the whole associated status in the clause itself.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), very properly pointed out that the Minister was in effect abdicating in saying they would have to go before the courts to determine what Parliament intended with this clause.
What we are trying to do with this amendment is to make it very clear that we do not want to see that kind of corporate concentration. We do not want to see CDC fall into the hands, or effective control, of only one corporation or one group of corporations. Hon. Members opposite are very concerned about what they would consider excess Government control of the CDC. 1 think they should be equally concerned about excessive corporate control by one corporation or one group of corporations. On that basis I urge those Hon. Members to look very seriously at these amendments and to support them.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Langdon) negatived.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary, on a point of order.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation among the three parties, and 1 think that if you ask the House,
Canada Development Corporation you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Orders of this House, when the House has completed its consideration at the report stage of Bill C-66, an Act respecting the reorganization of the Canada Development Corporation, provided that no divisions have been deferred pursuant to Standing Order 13(3), it shall proceed immediately to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now debate Motion No. 3 and Motion No. 4 together. They will be voted on separately.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-66, be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 9 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"by-laws inconsistent with any such provision or continue the Corporation under the laws of any other jurisdiction."
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-66, be amended by adding immediately after line 9 at page 8 the following:
"9. The Corporation shall not sell, assign, transfer or deliver control of all or a substantial portion of its property other than
(a)	in the ordinary course of business or as security for a bona fide loan or other financial assistance; or
(b)	to an affiliate as defined in the Canada Business Corporations Act, of the Corporation and, if a sale, assignment, transfer or delivery of such control to an affiliate occurs, then such affiliate shall be bound by the provisions hereof."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the curious situation which leaves a New Democratic Member of Parliament acting as spokesperson for the Canada Development Corporation before the House is something which leaves me mildly embarrassed although, frankly, only mildly embarrassed because I think the CDC has, on balance, an excellent record in the contribution it has made to our development and to our independence. It has the capacity as well to withstand political pressure which was demonstrated so bravely during the past Government when the attempt was made to put Mr. Maurice Strong in as chairman of CDC and the present president of the CDC, Tony Hamp-son, fought that political incursion as energetically and as effectively as one could possibly hope to see from any private sector company worth its salt.
Therefore, 1 am actually one Canadian who is proud of the contribution which CDC has made to our country and 1 am one who looks forward to tremendous contributions from it in the future if it is safeguarded, its independence is protected and its management capacity to take risks, the long-term view and to look at our country as a place to grow in, is protected by us, the Parliamentarians of Canada.
With that in mind, 1 come to these last two amendments. So far we have been speaking about differences of opinion. We could have a 25 per cent limit or we could have a 10 per cent

November 22, 1985
Canada Development Corporation
limit. We have been speaking about the differences which might exist in defining an associate company and about the question of whether there is a loophole which exists in some of the existing wording, with some of us saying, yes, and some of us saying, no. Now we come to something which is far more crucial. It is a set of loopholes in the existing legislation which one could drive a rather large World War II blimp through. These are not loopholes you drive trucks through. These are massive loopholes. They are loopholes which open up the possibility that this whole Bill which we have painstakingly worked on could simply come to mean nothing to CDC because it is left open within the legislation that all of the CDCs assets could be transferred to another jurisdiction. At that point all of the safeguards which we have put into the Bill throughout our work in committee will simply disappear.
The Canada Development Corporation, perhaps, will be sold to South Carolina and the Carolina Development Corporation will from now on run Kidd Creek Mines, various chemical plants in Sarnia and the labs in Toronto which discovered insulin. It is possible that the assets could be sold into a different jurisdiction over which this whole Bill which faces us would no longer be applicable. Therefore we must have a clause inserted into the Bill to prevent that before it becomes law. The president of the Canada Development Corporation, speaking on behalf of the entire Board of Directors of the Canada Development Corporation, said that under the present wording of Bill C-66, the Council-that is the Council of Directors of CDC,-believes that there is nothing to prevent a future board of CDC, whether or not acting on behalf of a dominant domestic or foreign shareholder, from subsequently obtaining continuance in another jurisdiction but without the share constraints of Bill C-66, and that an amendment should thus be made to Subclause 8-2 to prevent CDC from being continued away from foreign jurisdiction.
I am not a lawyer, Mr. Speaker. I am not a businessman. I am not someone who regulates stock exchanges, thank God. However, I am someone who takes seriously the measured words of one of the most respected businessmen in this country when he says this Bill is not going to be worth a hill of beans if we do not close some of these loopholes. He even comes forward and says here is precisely how we can do it. He is giving us precise wording which will not benefit CDC itself, but will benefit us as parliamentarians in putting forward legislation which we would not want to see become the laughing-stock of this country. Therefore I plead with Members opposite, as part of a new approach to the analysis of legislation, to look very, very seriously at and accept this small amendment from the CDC board. Accept it not because it comes from us but because it comes from the CDC.
Further, I would argue that Motion No. 3 is complemented by Motion No. 4 which says that:
The corporation shall not sell, assign, transfer or deliver control of all or a substantial portion of its property-
Again, outside the country. This is very straightforward and I wish the committee had accepted it. I trust it would have accepted it had it not been for the unfair pressure by the Government saying that it had already put out a share issue and if we make changes in this Bill it will damage that share issue. It would make it possible, the Government said, for people to sue the Government because the details of the share issue are different from those of the legislation when it is passed. Therefore, I urge Conservative back-bench Members particularly to take seriously this message from one of the most prominent, indeed one of the best of the private corporations we will have in the future. I ask them to resist this blackmail message from the Government that we cannot change this legislation in even a tiny respect simply because the Government inappropriately, improperly and immorally placed a share issue on the market this summer before any of this had come before this House for discussion. I hope that those deeply persuasive arguments, based as they are in the tenets of firm Ontario Conservatism, will somehow have an effect on my fellow Members today.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, again I rise to speak to these two motions which, although not consequential, are in many ways interrelated. The arguments we received in committee for rejection of the amendments put forward by the CDC were much in line with what I said regarding Motion No. 2: Somehow the amendments being put forward would interfere and give rise to civil actions under the Ontario Securities Act because a prospectus had already been issued and any changes or amendments to the Bill would be a material change and therefore the provisions of the OS A would be applicable. Unfortunately for the Government, a legal opinion obtained by senior members of the CDC disputed that statement regarding this particular measure. This amendment, if approved by the Government, would not, as the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) said in giving evidence before the committee, be a material modification to the Bill.
It seems to be quite logical that this amendment falls in with the objectives the Government initially announced regarding this legislation. The Government is restricting ownership of the shares in that only 25 per cent can be held by foreign interests. There is a certain make-up or splitting of the shares. However, the Act is silent on the continuance of the corporation in another jurisdiction. It was interesting to read the testimony of the senior legal counsel for the CDC who said very clearly that in his view he was not seeking a major amendment. 1 think 1 am quoting him correctly and if I am not, I am sure Government Members will jump to his defence. This amendment just seems so logical given the objectives and thrust of the Bill. 1 assumed from our deliberations, when he made his comments and saw the amendment, that he thought it would follow and follow very quickly. Unfortunately, once again, we saw in the legislative committee a stonewalling by Government Members notwithstanding the judgment of outside legal counsel, the chief executive officer of the corporation, Opposition MPs and
November 22, 1985

researchers that we understood very clearly the logic of this amendment.
It does not make sense that under the Canada Business Corporation Act you have certain restrictions but when you give the corporation the opportunity to continue that legislation under another jurisdiction the provisions we have all talked about, the restrictions on the shares, no longer are applicable. It seems to me to be a fairly substantial loophole. I cannot understand it, particularly when we heard the Minister himself say what he hoped to achieve by way of the CDC. What he has argued for in this Bill goes out the window because the Government refuses to put in a clause regarding continuance under another jurisdiction.
My colleagues to the left who have mentioned various corporations could, perhaps, argue that a deal may be coming down of which we are not aware. However, Mr. Speaker, that is only speculation or, as your predecessor would say, obiter dicta. When you lack logic or reason, when you lack legal, expert, or business opinion which says that what the Government is doing is correct, it leads one to conclude that perhaps there is some justification for being really concerned as to where the Government is going with this particular piece of legislation. I think the Parliamentary Secretary has handled this particular piece of legislation fairly well. Surely she and her colleagues can see the merit of the amendment unless, of course, what we saw displayed at committee is, in fact, what is taking place within the boardroom and the administration of the CDC; that the left foot does not know what the right foot is doing and the Minister does not know what either foot is doing.
I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment but it surprises me greatly that the Government has chosen to act with some degree of irresponsibility with regard to the provisions for the continuance of this corporation in another jurisdiction.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this is a particularly important amendment. I am sure that Government Members will support it once they have had a chance to clearly evaluate the motivation behind it. It was recommended by a number of witnesses who suggested that this was in fact the appropriate step to take. If we fail to accept this amendment, there is more possibility that the CDC could be transferred into a totally new and different jurisdiction. To put it bluntly, Mr. Speaker, with the present legislation the possibility does exist for CDC to find itself under the jurisdiction of a province or perhaps even a foreign government.
I remember my hon. friend, the Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) speaking out for many, many years on the concern that is being raised by Hon. Members that we might lose the ability to benefit, through our own regulatory system, from these kinds of economic endeavours. I would expect him to have some words to say on this motion for sure.
Canada Development Corporation
One wonders what hesitation the Government has in accepting an amendment which keeps the CDC within the Canadian federal jurisdiction. As I understand the motion, it does nothing more than that. It is not that we assume that there are all sorts of bogeymen out there prepared to take immediate advantage of what may be a loophole, but, nevertheless, that possibility exists. People who understand the role that the CDC plays in the country and ought to be playing in the future are concerned that we close off the possibility of transferring the jurisdiction of a corporation so important to the development of Canada, even with its restricted powers. We must ensure that it remains within the federal jurisdiction, closing off the possibility for the control of power to be transferred to a provincial or even foreign jurisdiction. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my Conservative colleagues to endorse this motion put forward by my friend, the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to speak to the Motion No. 3, whose purpose is to prevent the federal Government from losing jurisdiction over the CDC.
Mr. Speaker, if we take a closer look at Bill C-66, we see that clause 5.1(d) already provides that the articles of continuance shall contain: "provisions respecting the enforcement of the constraints imposed pursuant to paragraphs (a) to (c); According to sub-clause 8(2), the Corporation "shall not amend any provision included in the articles of continuance in compliance with any of paragraphs 5(1 )(o) to (c) or make any articles or by-laws inconsistent with any such provision."
Therefore, if the Corporation came under a provincial jurisdiction for instance, it would nevertheless have to meet the requirements concerning ownership already provided for under this Bill.
Motion No. 4 deals with the sale of assets under extraordinary circumstances as defined in the Canada Business Corporations Act which states that any sale that does not occur in the normal course of business must be authorized by a special resolution calling for at least a two-third majority vote.
The CDC is a holding corporation and its assets are made up of shares from other corporations. The normal activity of such a holding is to dispose of these shares from time to time.
The constraint as proposed could create a certain ambiguity concerning the powers of the CDC to administer assets and make it impossible for the Corporation to act in the best interests of its shareholders. Strictly applied, it could freeze the CDC in its present structure. This would go directly against the interest of the shareholders who are now interested in the CDC because it is involved in share investments and will improve and rationalize its portfolio to maximize its profitability.

November 22, 1985
Canada Development Corporation
In view of what is already provided for under the Act, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose the proposed amendment.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this amendment to the legislation before the House. It seems as though you were ready to ask the House to vote on this measure. Due to the importance of this measure, it is important that we give it more consideration and not sweep it through the House quickly.
My colleague proposed this amendment to the legislation in order to remove some of the glaring weaknesses in it. It is foolhardy and even tragic that the Government should seek to weaken and destroy the Canada Development Corporation which was originally founded in order to increase the control of the Canadian economy by Canadians. Since the major manufacturing industries of the country are owned by foreign investors it is important to have as many public policy tools as possible which enable us to strengthen Canadian control of the Canadian economy. Without Canadian control of the economy, Mr. Speaker, our political sovereignty is a hollow shell.
Canadians call upon Members of Parliament day after day to provide for their basic human needs, to remove the indignity of unemployment from the community. There is no way in which we can effectively respond to those appeals from Canadians for action without having control of our own economy. As long as the Canadian economy is controlled in New York in the headquarters of multinational corporations rather than on Canadian soil, there is no way in which we can effectively meet the needs of Canadians and respond to their cries for help. It is shameful that the Government is moving to weaken Canadian control of our economy at a time when we need to have control over it in order to provide for the needs of our people. The Conservative Government seems to have sold out the notion of Canadian control in the interest of worshipping the free market idol. It believes that if everything is left at the hands of the market-place and every decision is made by the private sector, the needs of Canadians will somehow be served.
Our Party recognizes that competition, in its proper place, can play a useful role and that the private sector has an important task to perform in the Canadian economy. However, the private sector with its private firms cannot serve its purpose in the Canadian community without being given direction by the Canadian people through the instrument of representative Government. Therefore, we hope that the Conservatives will abandon their ideological blinders and realize that if we are to have a genuine Canadian economy we must have control of Canadian industry.
It is important for us to have effective public policy instruments that will allow us to increase Canadian ownership of Canadian industry. Instead, the Government is weakening those instruments that will achieve Canadian control and is giving control of our economy to the private sector. It is
handing the future of the Canadian economy to individual firms and multinationals and abandoning its responsibility for steering the Canadian economy in a direction that will provide employment and serve the interest of Canadians.
Large multinational firms have their own interests. They seek to make a profit and expand. While those interests sometimes serve our national interests, it is not always the case. Unfortunately, there is an assumption with the free market ideology that the interests of private firms will always be the interests of the community. That is simply not the case. It has been proven by the Canadian experience. We know that in an economy such as ours, with a large percentage of manufacturing owned by foreign investors, employment in Canada is exported to the parent firms in the United States when there is a downturn in the economy. It is no longer acceptable to Canadians to suffer the vagaries of economic downturns and to have a lack of control of the Canadian economy. That is why we support the Canada Development Corporation and have suggested amendments that would strengthen the legislation before us in order to allow ownership of the CDC to stay in Canadian hands and continue to be an instrument of public policy.
Why would the Government want to weaken the CDC? Why would it want to weaken an instrument it has to ensure Canadian control of the economy? I can only assume that the Government is blinded by its own ideology and belief that prosperity can only be achieved through the free market system. The free market system is important as long as it serves the community interests. However, in order to achieve this, we must have public policy instruments that will ensure that the private sector serves the public interest. That is why we have moved these amendments to strengthen this legislation. That is why it is important to increase Canadian control of the economy rather than abandon that objective.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Langdon) negatived.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-66, an Act respecting the reorganization of the Canada Development Corporation, be amended by adding immediately after line 9 at page 8 the following:
"9. The corporation shall not sell, assign, transfer or deliver control of all or
a substantial portion of its property other than
(c)	in the ordinary course of business or as security for a bona fide loan or other financial assistance; or
(b) to an affiliate as defined in the Canada Business Corporations Act, of the corporation and, if a sale, assignment, transfer or delivery of such control to an affiliate occurs, then such affiliate shall be bound by the provisions hereof'.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Langdon) negatived.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a third time? Now, by order passed earlier this day?
November 22, 1985


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. While the Speaker was reading the motion, the Member of the NDP stood to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my understanding that the Member of the NDP wishes to speak on third reading. We have moved concurrence.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That Bill C-66, an Act respecting the reorganization of the Canada Development Corporation, be read the third time and passed.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged today to take part in the closing debate on Bill C-66 which will pave the way for the sale of the Government's Canada Development Corporation shares and the continuation of this privatization process.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) would have liked to have been here to express his own views on this Bill. Unfortunately, that was impossible.
Bill C-66 went through all stages quickly, but with proper consideration. This turn of events attests to the over-all support of the House as well as the efficient and stimulating manner in which it was dealt with. Most Hon. Members endorse the CDC privatization in principle, which happens to be a major element of the policy we announced in the May Budget.
Briefly I should like to go over the main provisions of the Bill. As I said, the first consideration is the transfer of federally-owned CDC shares to private interests. First and foremost the Canada Development Corporation is one of the major companies on our national market and it will now be able to operate on the same footing as other similar conglomerates. Under the existing CDC statute only Canadians may be shareholders, and no individual or group is allowed to own more than 3 per cent of the shares. Once the Bill becomes law, these restrictions will be more flexible and any Canadian citizen will be able to buy up to 25 per cent of the shares.
In the case of non-residents, 10 per cent will be the individual limit but such shareholders as a whole will not be permitted to own more than 25 per cent of CDC shares.
It has been suggested that a 25 per cent limit for Canadians is too high and would allow a single person to gain control of the CDC.
It has also been pointed out that there should not be a limit on the number of shares and that people should be able to buy and sell them like those of any other company. A ceiling of 25 per cent was chosen by the Government to reflect the balance needed to prevent a concentration of shares and to give certain
Canada Development Corporation shareholders the opportunity to play a more active role in the corporation. The conscientious debate we had on this issue in Committee confirmed the acceptability of the proposed limit.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it was also important to allow the CDC access to foreign capital while preserving its Canadian nature. On this point also, opinions were sharply divided. The Government set this ceiling based on similar provisions in the Bank Act. The limits provided in this Bill as concerns the ratio of shares held by non-residents alone or as a group will enable us to limit at three to one the proportion of Canadian and foreign shareholders.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing today is a very important part of the mandate of our Government since we are providing for the eventual privatization of a public corporation. I believe that Bill C-66 has now received the consideration it deserves, for which 1 am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the House.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, first I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary who has shepherded this Bill carefully forward in the period since the Minister's illness. Today is her accomplishment in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: None of the criticisms which I will now go on to make are directed at her personally.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Perhaps you should look at me when you are speaking.


Steven W. Langdon: That is true. Let me start with the basic point at issue here. There are many ancillary points and side-issues, such as the procedures which the Government has followed, the question of Brascan and so on. I will talk about them, but they are side-issues.
At the heart of our concern about the piece of legislation has been a Canada Development Corporation which will be able to play a creative role in the future, similar to the creative role which it played in the past.
Many Hon. Members of the House were not Members when the Bill was first introduced. At that point, 1 had the privilege of being a member of the press gallery. I recall the sense Of delight at seeing an initiative taken that would try to create something which, at that stage back in 1970, was absent in Canada-the creation of a highly entrepreneurial business-oriented corporation in an attempt to fill the gap that is so apparent to us.
Canadian capitalism has had its weaknesses historically. That is why 55 per cent of our manufacturing industry is foreign owned. It is not because foreigners have come here and preyed on us like some kind of creature from the deep. They have come here because we invited them, and we invited them

November 22, 1985
Canada Development Corporation
because we did not have powerful, risk-taking private companies which were able to push forward various developmental ideas across the country. It is partly because of that gap and partly because of that absence that I am a social democrat rather than a Conservative. In other countries and in other places I could as easily, with the kind of respect I have for the contribution wheih private sector enterprise can make, have been a Conservative. However, in Canada, with the weakness of our capitalist sector, we have required Government leadership and support to build strong agencies of development. Historically we have needed them, whether we are talking about our history of railway building, our history of building the broadcasting system or our history in the 1970s of building an entity in the private industrial sector like CDC which would become a dynamic, effective, independent private firm.
That independence is important because it is an independence which permits the company-and Tony Hampson has talked about this, and I give him respect for it-to take a longer view. It can take a view which says that we do not have to get back our profitable returns within five years, that we do not have to look at each project which comes before us as a possibility as something that will be a money spinner in five years or six years, and that we do not need high discount rates on projects which will permit us to launch investments. It can take a view which says that we are prepared to look at the long shot, that we are prepared to take some chances, that we are prepared to take some risk, and that we are prepared to believe in our country and in the capacity of our country.
That is something which Hon. members on all sides of the House have learned to respect about the CDC over the years. There was a time when the CDC might have looked like another Liberal creation to pension off some political hacks who could not make it elsewhere. However, Tony Hampson prevented that from happening. He said: "No matter how good Maurice Strong is, he is a political appointment; he is not a businessman, so I won't have him".
The consequence has been a business which has proved itself. It has not proved itself as a great money-maker. CDC will never be a high-flyer in the business world, because it believes in looking at the long run and at taking some risks. It believes in the future of the country and in building that future step by step.
We have to recognize that there are concerns now as a result of the piece of legislation that that contribution to the future of the country, that commitment to the long-term view and that willingness to take risks, will be threatened, reduced and perhaps ultimately eliminated.
The workers in the industry are concerned. I have a letter before me from the Energy and Chemical Workers Union which was written to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) in which the union says:
The Energy and Chemical Workers Union is concerned about the possibility of the so called "privatization" of the Canadian Development Corporation and in particular its holdings in the Polysar Petrosar Development in Sarnia.
We believe that Polysar has developed a viable, sensible and uniquely Canadian multinational Corporation which is of value to all of Canada and all Canadians.
We believe that part of the reason for its development in the manner that has been achieved has been because of the support and approach taken by the Canadian Development Corporation. Polysar has developed into the world's largest synthetic rubber manufacturer and has a marketing network throughout the world that is second to none.
We believe that you should not disturb the type of relationship that our country has with any artificial change such as the so-called "privatization" of the Canadian Development Corporation. We believe that Canadians have been well served by the Organization as it stands and we think it should be encouraged and fostered in its present structure and not permitted to be moved into a new and artificial relationship within the Canadian corporate structure.
Yet that is what is taking place, Mr. Speaker.
This past summer, the Canada Development Investment Corporation, CDIC, recommended specific ways in which CDC should be opened up more to the influence and control of other private sector companies, other corporate empires in Canada.
When a share issue was put before the market in conditional terms this past summer, almost 15 per cent of the shares of CDC ended up falling under the control of the Brascan group, a group which itself had before that approached CDC and asked CDC whether it would be willing to join into a partnership between the Kidd Creek Mine in northern Ontario and Brascan's Noranda mining interests. This would have resulted in a significant reduction in competition in Canada. That is all on record in the committee hearings.
CDC said: "No, we want to keep our independence and our operation, providing as many jobs and as much competition as possible in northern Ontario". Brascan Noranda as a group holds almost 15 per cent of the shares and there is the possibility by this Bill that the percentage of shares could be increased to 50 per cent, because Noranda is not considered an associate of Brascan by the definition in the Bill, despite the clear, clear evidence in the corporate world that Brascan does control Noranda. We could find CDC controlled very much by Brascan because it has been established under terms set down by the CDIC divestiture committee which itself is dominated by four of its seven members from the Brascan group.
It is a rather sad, tawdry example of conflict of interest, unfortunate to see staining this Bill before us here in the House of Commons but it is the reality.
Let us take a look at that CDIC divestiture committee. One member of that committee is Trevor Eaton, President and Chief Executive Officer of Brascan. He is also a member of the board of Noranda. I remind Members that the divestiture committee not just only sets the regulations for privatization but came to us and testified in contradiction to the CDC itself, putting its weight as a divestiture committee directly and powerfuly into the legislative process, despite the fact that it is dominated by the very enterprise that would benefit by these takeover provisions.
Our records indicate that Mr. Marshall, a second member of that CDIC divestiture committee is the President of Bras-cade, another subsidiary of Brascan, another member of the board of directors of Brascan and a member of the board of
November 22, 1985

Noranda. A third member of that CDIC divestiture is Pat Keenan who is also a director of Brascan. A fourth member, A. Turmel is a director of Noranda. We have four out of the seven people on this committee dominating that committee who come from the very set of companies which will benefit from the rules set up with respect to the privatization provisions of CDC. This is a stained and tawdry side to what could have been a straightford privatization that many of us would have supported.
What is worse is the process by which this Bill has been brought before the House of Commons, as I indicated to the speaker this morning, has been at best something that can be called improper by the people to whom we referred the Bill at the Library of the House of Commons. The process has been described as having followed improper procedure.
We have a Bill in which the Government, before the Bill had even been considered at all by the House of Commons, issued a prospectus which had the details not of the present law governing CDC but of this new law. The Government then used the fact, blackmail, that share instalments had been sold to tell us in committee that we could not fully and freely consider amendments that were brought forward, because any amendment which had any substance to it at all would have the effect of giving to those shareholders, who had bought in instalments, the right to sue the Government of Canada for misleading them during that summer period when the share instalments were originally issued. As a new Member of Parliament, to consider that I am creating legislation with that kind of axe hanging over my head, with that kind of unfair, undue and unjustified pressure facing the committee and with that kind of explicit point brought before us by Government lawyers and the Minister, I for one do not find this to be the way parliamentary consideration of legislation should take place. I for one was not elected by the voters of Essex-Windsor to simply rubber stamp legislation which the Government tells us we cannot change because it has already taken steps based on the proposals that are before the House. Governments should not act in that unfair manner.
To sum up my argument, there are serious threats to the independence of this company, an important company for the future of Canada. There are clear threats coming from Brascan and Noranda. There are threats coming from the companies that themselves dominated four out of seven positions on the CDIC divestiture committee which shaped the details of this Bill.
We in the House have not had a chance to consider these various detailed points without pressure and without being pushed by the Government because of its past improper action leading unfortunately to what I have to consider to be a shameful piece of legislation over which we in the House of Commons will hang our heads in the future. We could have done it better. We should have done it better. Canada and the CDC would have been far better off if we had done it properly rather than under the pressure of a Government that is acting
Canada Development Corporation
in a far too high-handed manner for a Government yet so young.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of words to say concerning this particular piece of legislation. I think everyone will agree that the Government of Canada is bringing in this legislation in this fashion because it has a philosophy which was proclaimed during the election campaign and re-established by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and that philosophy revolves around getting rid of Crown corporations and having Crown corporations play a lesser role in the economy than they did previously. Of course, there have been contradictions to that philosophy.
The people of eastern Canada were somewhat surprised to see the Government announce recently that it would create a Crown corporation to run CN Marine. People wondered where the Government's philosophy went. They wondered why the Government was creating a Crown corporation when its policy was against the creation or existence of Crown corporations. The reason the Government created that Crown corporation was to save some $20 million through layoffs.
It is not so much the actual policy of the Government about which we are concerned but it is the way in which it carries out its policy. When doing away with the CDC, the way in which the Government does this has a lot to do with whether or not it accepts the doing away with that Crown corporation. For example, does the Government allow foreign investors to have shares valued at 25 per cent? That is one good question. Why would the Government sell the shares at a time when those shares would be valued at less than their proper value?
We are removing an instrument that existed within the system to assist Canadian industries that were in trouble at times. The Canada Development Corporation has stepped in many times over the years to be of assistance to certain sectors of our economy. Coming from eastern Canada, I think particularly of the fishing industry. As all Hon. Members know, the CDC played a very important role at various times in that particular industry. We have seen that situation change. The CBC was involved in financial problems of the fishing industry and then another Crown corporation called Fishery Products International, partially owned by both Governments and by the private sector, was created.
The Government's philosophy of carrying out its mandate by getting rid of Crown corporations just does not make sense in some cases. No matter which way we look at Crown corporations and the measures brought in by the Government, we are looking at layoffs. We are looking at layoffs at a time when layoffs should not be taking place.
We can take a look at the involvement of the CDC and the Government in the fishing industry. A recent announcement was made that the Government would put $100 million into Fishery Products International which operates on the East Coast of Canada. At the same time, the Government announced that it would close down 15 communities in which

November 22, 1985
Canada Development Corporation
there were fish plants. Why did the Government announce that?
This particular branch of the fishing industry had been invested in by the CDC. Then another Crown corporation was created in order to try to keep the fish plants open. The Government Crown corporation had a social responsibility to the people who lived in those communities, to the workers there and to the very existence of those communities. The Government came through with money, yes, $101 million, but then it agreed that 15 communities should lose their fish plants. In other words, the Government indicated in its press releases that it would get rid of the unprofitable fish plants and sell those to private enterprise. The Government said publicly that it would sell unprofitable operations to the private sector. Someone in the private sector would have to think twice before investing in something that is not profitable. The entire procedure that was used was absolutely ludicrous. Then the Government set a time limit of two or three years on some of the sales. Then the Minister rose in the House to say that we did not know if these fish plants would close because if they did it would be perhaps two or three years down the road.
I would like to congratulate a certain Member of the House who just happens to be a Progressive Conservative Member. I think that he deserves some credit in that he was able to salvage a fish plant that was due to be closed in his riding. I am speaking of an Hon. Member who sits opposite and represents the South Coast of Newfoundland. The philosophy of the Government of Canada is wrong. In saying that you will create a Crown corporation or allow it to continue as long as it saves money and as long as there are lay-offs, you can then turn around with the same philosophy and same standard and say: "All right. If you have a Crown corporation which is in trouble because of tariffs from another country we do not really want to get involved in that. That Crown corporation still has to break even".
I am thinking about the Canadian Saltfish Corporation having tariffs imposed against it. The Government could simply wipe its hands clean and say that that is the policy of the United States Government and the Canadian Saltfish Corporation will have to sink or swim. It must be realized that the Saltfish Corporation covers only a certain section of the coastline in the country, namely, the north shore of Quebec, all of Newfoundland and Labrador. In this case tariffs are imposed against a Crown corporation which competes against a private enterprise which does not have the same tariffs imposed against it. It is quite logical for one to see the inequity in that particular system. It surprises me that the Government would take that attitude since it is not only my riding affected but the riding of the Prime Minister.
The list goes on. We can consider the case of the CBC in this regard. The budget of that corporation was just cut. It was told that it would have to live within certain confines. It was told to make decisions now with respect to what it would close
down and cut off in terms of its programming but it must live within certain guidelines.
I do not disagree with the philosophy of this piece of legislation. I do not disagree with it at all. However, I do disagree, as do members of my Party, with the way in which it was undertaken and the timing with which it was presented. I disagree with certain provisions of the Bill. We have all heard of the suggestions made by experts in the field who have suggested amendments. The Government has turned around and has said that it will ignore those amendments. Whereas I agree with the general principle of the Bill 1 will have to vote against it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and say a few final words with respect to this Bill. To make it perfectly clear to Hon. Members, I do not want to talk out the Bill. I believe there is an understanding that we will wrap up the proceedings this afternoon with respect to the Bill.
However, I do wish to put on the record a few final comments. We are dealing with Bill C-66, an Act respecting the reorganization of the Canada Development Corporation. We have heard a considerable amount of debate which was intended to point out why this particular move of the Government is an inappropriate one. I wish to back up for a few moments because people often ask: "What problems are we facing today?" They ask why it is that Canada seems to have such a difficult time not so much getting back on the track but simply on to a track. I do not think we want to go back on to the old track because that did not seem to be taking us any particular place. We want to get on to something new, a new track, a new development. We want to see the development of some new vision and the unfolding of new programs in order to get us there.
People often ask me what the problem is. They ask me: "Why is it that other countries seem to be able to do so much better? Why is it that other countries seem to be able to have an economy which thrives and develops as opposed to what has recently taken place with respect to the shoe industry in Canada?" The Government is cutting off the quotas with respect to shoes which means a few thousands workers will be put out on the street. What I am concerned about is that while we are simply cutting off workers in the shoe industry we have nothing to offer them in lieu of this abandonment. It seems to me that if the Government is phasing out quotas over a period of time that it would be more appropriate for it to phase in another program so those workers would have something to look forward to. They could be retrained in other areas. However, the Government is simply hacking off the quota system and saying: "That is the way it is. That is the invisible hand of the market-place about to play its role." That is really problematic.
Obviously, one has much to say about Bill C-66. 1 believe it would be appropriate to allow the Bill to continue on to its eventful demise, in terms of the progressive motions and amendments we have put forward. I will sit down and save my comments until another time.
November 22, 1985


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is the following one. Mr. Hnatyshyn (for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion), seconded by Mr. Layton, moves that Bill C-66, an Act respecting the reorganization of the Canada Development Corporation, be now read a third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said 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 yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(3) the recorded division stands deferred until 6.00 p.m. on Monday, November 25, 1985.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DEPOSITORS COMPENSATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-79, an Act respecting the provision of compensation to depositors of Canadian Commercial Bank, CCB Mortgage Investment Corporation and Northland Bank in respect of uninsured deposits, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As Hon. Members are aware, on this day's Order Paper there are three motions in amendment at the report stage of Bill C-79.
Motion No. 1 seeks to impel the Government through the CDIC to make cash advances to the uninsured depositors of the financial institutions in a different manner than that which is envisaged by the Royal Recommendation attached to the Bill. It appears to the Chair that this is an imposition on the financial initiative of the Crown. In this regard, I would refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation No. 540.
Also, the Hon. Member's motion seeks to offer an alternative scheme to that contained in the clause, which cannot be done. I would refer Hon. Members once again to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation No. 773(9).
Depositors Compensation
Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will be debated together and a vote on Motion No. 2 will dispose of Motion No. 3.
1 see that the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) is not in the House. Is there unanimous consent to have the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) move the motion on her behalf?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Baker: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-79, be amended in Clause 12 by adding immediately after line 35 at page 6 the following:
"(3) Notwithstanding the Bank Act, the Minister shall cause to be published in this year's Public Accounts a list of all depositors to which a payment
was made under this Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the reason for the introduction of this motion is pretty clear. It is that we do not know who will receive the funding which the Government proposes. In other words, we all know of the system which is in place in the country which will pay depositors when we have a situation such as that of a bank failure. People may be reimbursed for their deposits up to the sum of $60,000. Those people are insured under the provisions of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. We know that system and that it is in place in this country. It is a safety mechanism so that Canadians can feel assured that when they do put their money into a financial institution they will be reimbursed if there should be financial problems with that particular institution. However, the Government of Canada is not only going to pay the amount of money which legally has to be paid under the Deposit Insurance Program, but those depositors who have money in the bank far above the limit will now also be reimbursed by the Government. We have to realize the difference between the first insurance program announced by the Government and the other insurance program which has always been in place. The difference is quite simple. In the first instance of the Deposit Insurance Corporation, a fee is paid by the bank on the amount of deposits which are held in that particular bank to the tune of a percentage of 1 per cent. That is how that fund is maintained. If the Deposit Insurance Corporation happens to get into financial difficulties and has to overdraw that account-in other words, if it is costing more than is being sustained by the payments through the banks-then, of course, there would be a deficit in the account. We all know there is a deficit there now, perhaps to the tune of just over $1 billion give or take $200 million or $300 million. Then, of course, the Government supplies the funds directly to the Deposit Insurance Corporation to make those payments. We have, therefore, a self-sustaining fund. The Minister will have to bring in a Bill increasing the percentage of pay-in by the banks because of the deficit position of the Deposit Insurance Program.
However, what we are talking about in the second insurance program is a decision by the Government of Canada to make enormous payments. In some cases these payments will be made to organizations which represent a lot of people and

November 22, 1985
Depositors Compensation
everyone can see that that certainly is warranted. Also included in that list are individuals, foreign interests and people who perhaps put enormous amounts of money into the bank for a particular financial reason at a particular moment in time. Why, then, is the Government strapped into this? It is because the Government, through the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), made a clear statement to the people of this country that there was no problem at all with the Canadian Commercial Bank. This Bill is before us because there was established a moral obligation on the part of the Government to bring in this particular Bill to pay off those depositors who had enormous amounts of money in that Bank. In other words, the Government brought in a Bill to bail out a bank saying that the Bill will do the job. Thereby, in its statement and its actions it morally committed itself to do what it is doing now.
Most people would agree with the pay-out which would go to certain organizations who represent a lot of people. However, who disagrees with releasing the names of those people who will receive the millions and millions of dollars? Surely, there is a principle involved here. This is the taxpayers' money. How can the Government hand out money in the form of a cheque without saying who it is giving the money to? What organization, credit union or group of people would say that they did not want their names released to the public?
The Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance said that the reason they could not give us the names of those large depositors is because it violates the secrecy provision of the Bank Act. But where is the bank? Does the Bank Act cover the Canadian Commercial Bank right now? Will it cover the Canadian Commercial Bank in six months' time, in one year's time or in two years' time? When we have no bank in existence, how is the secrecy provision of the Bank Act an excuse for not releasing the names of those people, some of them multimillionaires, who will receive taxpayers' money from the Government? The Government turns around and says: "Oh, no. We are not going to let you know who these people are". However with the Freedom of Information Act, one can get the name of a fisherman who has been paid off for his salmon licence by this Government for $500. According to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance, however, we cannot get the names of the people who will receive these large amounts of money.
That is basically the reason for the amendment which has been proposed by the Official Opposition critic on this particular matter. It is a simple matter of saying that if we are going to do an extraordinary act, we must justify it to the taxpayers of this country. It matters not why we had to do that act. We all know why the Government had to do it. It was because the Government made an error. It made a political judgment which was a tremendous error. I am not going to stand in this House and say that the error was the responsibility of the Minister of State for Finance. She was not present when the decision was made for the bail-out and therefore, she personally is not morally responsible to pay off all of the rich people, the foreign investors and all of the organizations which had
money in that bank. Neither is the Minister of Finance morally responsible. He was not at any of the meetings when the decision was taken to bail out the banks thus committing the Government to that moral obligation. In fact, we do not know who was responsible for that decision. All we can do is guess. The person responsible for committing this Government to a moral obligation to pay off people who had more than $60,000 in this bank, we suspect, is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
We suspect there was a phone call which went from someone in the Alberta Government to the Prime Minister and the decision was made against everyone's recommendation. It was made against the recommendation of the banks which participated because the bank representatives have said so. Everyone washed their hands of the decision. The decision was made, we suspect, by the Prime Minister, who made himself a moral obligation on behalf of the Government to pay off foreign investors, and multimillionnaires, using the taxpayers' money, without releasing those names to the taxpayers. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. My time has expired but perhaps I can continue this interesting discussion at the next sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 2 and 3 should be debated together and, as I did not read Motion No. 3 before the debate, I will do it now.


Nelson Andrew Riis: moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-79, be amended in Clause 12 by adding immediately after line 35 at page 6 the following:
"(3) Notwithstanding the Bank Act, the Minister shall cause to be published in this year's Public Accounts a list of all depositors to which a payment
was made under this Act."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 4.29 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   NATIONAL HERITAGE NAMING OF BUILDINGS AND COMMITTEE ROOMS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the historical significance of former political leaders by adopting a policy of naming buildings and significant chambers or committee rooms after them, thereby recognizing their contribution to Canada.
November 22, 1985

He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Members of the House for the interest they have shown in this motion. The idea for this actually began several months ago when 1 was taking part in Canada Day celebrations in White Rock when all of us at that meeting were expressing our appreciation for our heritage and the opportunity to foster an appreciation for that heritage.
Communities across Canada are light-years ahead of our national institutions in giving recognition to leaders in their communities who have contributed to the cultural and historical wealth of that community. I had to point out during those ceremonies the irregular way in which Parliament has handled the recognition of political leaders here in Ottawa with respect to the naming of buildings or erecting of monuments to their honour. 1 pointed out that we on Parliament Hill have used all of our imagination to name some of our buildings. There is one building we call the East Block. Isn't that great? Isn't that imagination? Then we went even further, and on the opposite side of Parliament Hill we named the building the West Block. There is imagination. Does that not tug at your heart-strings? When we bought the Wellington Building we reached deep into the soul of our nation and called it the South Block. All the while the tourists and school children come to Ottawa to visit Parliament Hill to see these institutions and what do they hear? East Block. West Block. South Block.
We tend to wonder why Canadians do not have an appreciation for their history. Our neighbours to the south are at times jingoistic or chauvinistic about their history but we are just the opposite. We tend to depersonalize our history at every turn. In our Charter of Rights and in much of our legislation we want to present ourselves as being interested in the individual, the human being. However, when we come to our history, we try to depersonalize it as much as possible. Therefore, I want to emphasize the fact that here on Parliament Hill we ought to be laying the cornerstone of appreciation for our heritage, our history and our traditions.
That is the background to the motion I have presented, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that our people have a textbook understanding and appreciation of our history. It is not a human understanding. What would it be like if school children visiting these buildings, instead of hearing East Block, West Block, Room 209, Room 269 or Room 371, they were to hear the names of historical leaders of our country who have contributed so much to our welfare and well-being today? I am not for the present trying to assign names to buildings or committee rooms, but I am asking the Government to take the initiative and assign the responsibility to a relevant group to make sure that we recognize those people in our history who ought to be remembered for their contribution and assign their names to the relevant buildings and committee rooms.
For example, on Parliament Hill we give no recognition, beyond perhaps a monument, to our first Prime Minister. Would it not be appropriate, for example-and I say only for example-that the East Block, which houses the original Cabinet Room and offices of the first Prime Minister, as well as the offices of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to name that building the
Naming of Committee Rooms
Sir John A. Macdonald building? Would it not be appropriate to name the West Block after Sir Wilfrid Laurier, our great Prime Minister from the turn of the century who really guided our country through 12 or 15 very important years for our nation? Would it not be appropriate that what we now call the South Block or the Wellington Building be called the Sir Leonard Tilley Building? He was one of the Fathers of Confederation who, incidentally, gave us our national motto. As a reward for that gift he has practically been forgotten.
An Hon. Member points out that off the Hill there are buildings named after historical figures. Is that not ironic? There are buildings named after key historical figures across Canada but on Parliament Hill we forget them. We have the Sir Guy Carleton Building downtown, as well as the C.D. Howe Building. But on Parliament Hill we ignore them. Why not name the room where the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration meets, after Mr. Sifton who really changed the course of history by introducing imaginative immigration policies which opened up western Canada? Why not name the room where the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs meets after Sister Marguerite Bourgeoys, that great pioneer of health care in the City of Montreal in the 1700s? She was a trail-blazer and the only place you can find Sister Bourgeoys is in the history books or if you go to the east end of Montreal. Would it not add something to the history of Canada if, as school students come up on the Hill, they hear that a committee room has been named after Sister Bourgeoys? They would ask why the room was so named and the guide would have an ample opportunity to go into the historical significance of and contribution by this great person. Why not name the room where the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture meets after George Brown who founded one of our great newspapers and added to the communications system of our country?
I do not want to take up much of the time of the House but 1 wanted to leave with the House an understanding of what we could do to personalize history by naming our buildings and many of our committee rooms after those historical figures who have contributed so much to our country. I believe that there is general agreement among the Parties to accept this motion as a direction for the Government. There may be other speakers who want to contribute to the debate but, if there are not, I would ask for the relevant motion to be put.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). I certainly agree in principle with his motion. I do not think there is anyone in the House who could disagree with it in principle. In his speech he pointed out that the Americans have a much better sense of history than we have in Canada in that they have named their buildings after distinguished Americans. 1 would like to ask who the White House is named after. Maybe the Member can think about that.

November 22, 1985
Naming of Committee Rooms
Certainly we recognize that there are distinguished Members from all political Parties who could very properly receive recognition, either by having a building named after them or a room in one of the buildings. Perhaps some of the more difficult rooms to find in the West Block could be named after some of the Members who are seldom found in their seats in the House. Maybe they have been lost there all these years. It is hard to say.
I can think of a number of people whom I would like to see so honoured. I think of Agnes Macphail, J. S. Woodsworth, Tommy Douglas, David Lewis, Stanley Knowles and M. J. Coldwell as well as people from other Parties.


Cyril Keeper: How about Louis Riel?


James Douglas Manly: Well, Louis Riel was a distinguished Member of this House. He did not distinguish himself in the House as much as he did outside, but he was certainly a distinguished Member of the House and I think he is generally recognized now as being a great Canadian. 1 would, however, like to ask the Hon. Member who would make the decision as to what building is going to be named after whom.


An Hon. Member:: The Government in power.


James Douglas Manly: Someone over there said "the Government in power", and that is the very concern that we have. There must be some kind of an arm's length procedure developed in order that this would not simply become the equivalent of a Senate appointment or another form of patronage. I think all Members would agree that the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson was a great Canadian and a worthy Canadian after which to name either a building or an airport. However, those of us who sat in the last Parliament remember the bad taste that was left in our mouths when the Toronto International Airport was named after Lester B. Pearson because it was done in such a way that its prime function seemed to be to enhance the fortunes of the Liberal Party in Toronto. Being a good Liberal, Mr. Pearson, perhaps looking down from Grit heaven, may not want to have it any other way. I do not know.


Cyril Keeper: You mean looking up.


James Douglas Manly: I do not wish to get involved in a discussion of our three-story universe as our terminology obviously betrays us. I think it is very important, if we are going to name buildings after people, that we do not descend to the type of procedure which leaves people feeling other than good about the name that is used. We want the name to honour the building as well as the building to honour the name. We also want to have a sense of appropriateness. The Hon. Member
who spoke before suggested some possible names. The John A. Macdonald Building for the East Block seems reasonable. Due to the number of Private Members' Bills presented by people who want to bring back the noose, 1 was wondering which of the present Tory Members might want to have a future gallows named after them.
On a more serious level, Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize what the Hon. Member said about Canadians having a sense of history and wanting to have some public recognition of that. On that basis, I am very happy to support the motion and would urge that any provisions made to implement it would be at arm's length from the Government to avoid any hint of patronage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) on a point of order.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I think the Member for Cowi-chan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) has brought up a very relevant point. The intent of the motion is certainly to enhance the appreciation of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this on a point of order? Is there unanimous consent for the Member to speak?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well.


Benno Friesen: I just wanted to answer the question that the Member put to me. I think he has raised a very relevant point. The naming should be done in a similar manner to that in which major residences in the Ottawa region are cared for. There is a group of eminent citizens whose job it is to look after the cultural heritage without considering political inferences. After all, that would have the result of destroying our appreciation of our heritage rather than enhancing it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired.
It being 4.45 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 25, 1985