1985-04-25

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 24, consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and Motions No. 1 (Mr. Axworthy) and No. 2 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4001).
Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated to the House on Tuesday last in my preliminary statement on the motions standing on the Notice Paper at the report stage of this Bill, I am now prepared to hear Hon. Members on any procedural arguments that they may wish to make with regard to those motions that I indicated gave the Chair some procedural concern.
May I ask Hon. Members when they present their arguments on any one motion or group of motions that they indicate by the motion number or numbers to which motions they are speaking. Hopefully this will make for a more orderly presentation. I recognize the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) on Motion No. 3.


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, had you intended to consider these motion by motion or for us to comment on your set of rulings as a whole?


Mr. Speaker:: I had intended to recognize all Members who wish to comment on all of the procedural issues. It is my hope that every Member who does so will indicate to which motion their comments apply. I was only beginning with the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor because his motion is first on the list of those that cause a procedural problem.


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Speaker, since it would affect the way in which we proceed, perhaps you could clarify whether you want us to proceed by the rulings that you have made on motions or whether we speak to it as a whole. If so, I suggest that if we are to speak to the entire set of rulings, as the Official Opposition we should be given the opportunity to present our case first.


Mr. Speaker:: I suspect that that is acceptable. I am in the hands of the House on this matter. I thought it might be easier
to let all those who wish to speak do so rather than go through it seriatim. However, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) on the procedural question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the beginning of debate at report stage, we appreciate very much the time that the Speaker and the Clerk's Table have taken to try to organize some of these very complex amendments that were presented. We want to express our view that in large part we agree with many of the groupings that you have presented to the House. However, we would like to state that the amendments which we presented were in no way attempting substantially to alter or redefine the Bill but were presented in a spirit of constructive assessment and interest in improving a Bill which is a very critical piece of economic legislation and perhaps the most critical that has appeared before this Chamber during this session.
While we were pleased with many of the rulings, we would like to take issue with some of the comments on admissibility because we feel that the amendments we have presented fully meet the spirit that is contained in the Bill and the spirit by which the Speaker has tried to redefine the way in which the debate during report stage would proceed.
Although Motion No. 3 is an NDP motion, in the interest of good debate perhaps I may comment that I believe there is a way in which the admissibility of that motion could be honoured. I simply mention it because I know that the critic for the NDP will be speaking to procedural matters. I would only suggest that if an amendment to their motion would read something like as follows, "To seek the most positive performance in the interest of Canadians of past investment by non-Canadians", I think it would meet the test of admissibility very clearly. Therefore we would be able to debate what I believe would be a very useful area of discussion in the House. I only offer that as a comment, perhaps more for registry by the critic for the NDP and you, Mr. Speaker.
We have some serious concerns with respect to Motion No. 26. The inclusion of this item under the exemptions is really in keeping with a number of other parts of the Bill and already accepted in principle.
O)
The purpose of the amendment is simply to add a further exemption which we would call industries of strategic importance. I would simply point out that the Bill itself, particularly if you go to Clause 48, contains references to the Bank Act which prohibits investment beyond a certain point in the banking area. Similarly, Clause 10(h) of Bill C-15 exempts from review any transaction to which Section 307 of the Bank

April 25, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Act applies. In other words, the Bill has already accepted the definition that there can be exemptions to the Bill. Similarly, the present Bill, as approved in principle on second reading, exempts from review insurance businesses already regulated under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act; that is Section 10(k).
What we would argue is that this is simply a recognition that the principle of recognizing that certain exemptions from review are acceptable is already contained in the Bill. They are already registered in the Bill. We are simply introducing a further area by which exemptions can take place.
Let me give you a practical area, Mr. Speaker. Let us say, for example, that the Cabinet decides there is an industry of strategic importance and that it wants to exempt all foreign investment from being introduced. Let us say it is in a strategic mineral area, molybdenum or uranium. If there is not a clause such as this contained in the Act, then there would be a contradiction between that Act and the Investment Canada Act. We are simply putting forward a way of dealing with what we consider perhaps to be a lack of awareness in the drafting of the Bill. In fact, the Government might want to reserve for itself the power to make that kind of exemption. It is a reserve clause or a basket clause that would allow it, which sometimes may be the case, to prohibit any form of investment. That, however, should be done under another policy or another piece of legislation and not be subject to the review matters under the legislation now before us. That is the reason for Motion No. 26. I would ask your consideration, Mr. Speaker, because it is done obviously in the spirit of trying to help the Government out of what might be a potential problem down the road.
On Motions 28 and 29 we will make no comments.
In Motion No. 33 there is this interesting wording contained in your findings, that something about it is going beyond the four corners of the Bill. We have laboured long and hard to determine the exact meaning of "the four corners of the Bill". I thought for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that you were referring to some sort of shopping centre on Merivale Road.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Similarly I would argue in terms of Motion No. 43 wherein we say that matters or investments in the area of defence production are very much part of our national identity. Mr. Speaker, you have been in the chair during numerous Question Periods in the past three or four months when there were major debates in the House about the whole question of star wars development and its economic implications relating back to Canada's sovereignty. What could be more at the heart of Canada's national identity as defined in the Bill than the question of our defence industry? Surely it is subject to the same kind of review.
Similarly we make the case for Motions Nos. 42, 45, 47 and 49. In effect, they all relate to the social impact of investment in one resource town communities, for example, in the high technology industry. All those areas were identified by witnesses who appeared before the committee as being very much a part of the way to protect our "national identity". If we lose control in those areas we would no longer have a national identity. This is why we recommend very strenuously that these articles be contained within the orbit of the Act.


Mr. Speaker:: If I could interrupt the Hon. Member for just one second. With respect, we are supposed to be listening now to arguments as to the procedural admissibility of an amendment. The Hon. Member is making a very interesting and important argument about the substance of the amendments. May I suggest to the Hon. Member that if it is possible, it would be helpful if he would stick with the procedural admissibility question. May I also say to him that by indicating as clearly as he is that they are matters that are not in the Bill and not contained in the scope of the Bill that need to be introduced in his view to the Bill, he is making the procedural argument that they are beyond the scope of the Bill as introduced and therefore out of order. I take it he is trying to make a procedural admissibility argument at the moment. I suggest that he might want to restrict himself to that, both for his own sake and for the sake of the points we are supposed to be considering.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 take note of your comments. I believe from the original submission that you brought forward to the House that you are asking for arguments as to why certain matters should be admissible. I thought I was speaking directly to the procedural point that the Minister had indicated, in this area particularly, that Parliament should help define, because as it now stands under Clause 15, the question of Canada's cultural heritage and national identity is not defined. It is left simply in those words. We are simply adding amendments which would further define the meaning of those two key phrases. That would be my basic argument for Clauses 42 to 49.
I should as well make the case of admissibility on Motion No. 48 because it is a special case. I would simply make the argument that I believe it is an oversight on the part of the Government because it will set up a conflict within the Bill. Later in the Bill, Clause 45, for example, says that any
Investment Canada Act
commitments made under the present FIRA Act would be held in force. However, there is nothing in the Bill to say that investors coming into the same area in which undertakings have already been made would also be required to make the same undertakings. Therefore, it would place them in a kind of grandfathering clause under Clause 45. A new competitor, a new foreign investor coming into the same area would be free of that kind of undertaking made under FIRA and therefore have an incredible competitive advantage.
We think that that should be a part of the reviewable area to make sure that those foreign investors who have already invested in certain areas of the economy and are held to those undertakings under FIRA are not held to disadvantage by new investors coming into the same area. Motion No. 48 is simply a way of dealing with that glitch in the Bill. I would ask you to take that into consideration.
I might now refer to Motion No. 64. The question that was offered again was whether this provided for a new definition under the Act. All we are saying in this case is that it is a way of calculating the question of additional cost. It is simply giving additional direction under this clause. To my mind, it does not constitute a new definition but is simply adding a way of calculating cost or rules for calculation. These are similar to those provisions already incorporated in Clauses 26 and 28 for calculating Canadian status and control. No new principles are introduced. Nothing new is added. These are items that incorporate in Clause 21 undertakings that are already in Clause 20. In order to develop the symmetry and the level of harmony between those two, we think that that should be considered for debate at report stage.
On Motions Nos. 70 and 72, Mr. Speaker, you argue that one vote on Motion No. 70 would be consequential on Motion No. 72. I would suggest that Motions Nos. 70 and 72 are quite different and I would ask that you separate the two for voting purposes. Motion No. 70 is designed clearly to indicate that the lack of ministerial action means the investment may proceed. Motion No. 72 is to specify that a notice rejecting an application is to contain reasons for rejection, as called for by many business groups. They have two quite different meanings and therefore I think there should be separate votes on those two motions.
On Motions Nos. 78 and 79, Mr. Speaker, you asked for a clarification of our position. Again I would simply say that our amendment in no way attempts to expand the scope of the agency. These motions simply seek to modify the rules for determining what has been acquired in Clause 28(3) of the Bill, a clause already approved in principle. These motions do not suggest new rules.
The Government has already defined Canadian control as being ownership of one-third of all shares. We are simply changing the fraction. That does not change the meaning of the Bill. There is a very old story about Mr. Churchill and Lady Marlborough which I will not repeat in this House, but I think we are simply haggling over the price. This particular

April 25, 1985
Investment Canada Act
motion tends to haggle over which fraction of share control constitutes Canadian control. We make the submission to you, Sir, that what constitutes control is a proper point of debate. We have put a number of submissions during committee that make that case. We are simply incorporating that in the amendment and not changing the principle of the Bill. We feel that the level of what constitutes control may be a debatable item.


Mr. Speaker:: Was I to understand that that comment with regard to Motion No. 78 also applies to Motion No. 79?


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, Sir. I am sorry, I should have made that clear. Those comments apply to both motions.
Again, we would provide no comment on Motions Nos. 80 to
88.
Finally, on Motions Nos. 90 and 91, Clause 44 of the Bill already provides for the Minister to make reports for operations under the Act. Motions Nos. 90 and 91 simply define more clearly what those reports should contain. Again, I would submit, Sir, that discussions during committee were very clear on this point. There were representations that there should be some ability to assess and determine the impacts of various investments.
In no way are we infringing upon the Royal Recommendation. It is already provided that the Minister must make a report. These motions simply further define what that report may contain so we may answer some of the questions raised by many of the interest and industrial groups which appeared before us.
I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for hearing my arguments. I know you will take them under your kind and wise consideration.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that we find perfectly acceptable a good many of the decisions and suggestions you have made. Let me, if I may, make comments on a few of them. I have tried to order my comments on the basis of your particular numbering system.
If we begin with your No. 4, this may confuse us because No. 4 deals with Motion No. 5, but I hope it will in fact work out for the better. You have suggested, Mr. Speaker, that Motion No. 5 restricts the Minister's assistance to Canadian-owned businesses to exploit opportunities for investments and technological advances and thereby violates the principle of the Bill as agreed to at second reading. As I understand the principle of the Bill, it does two things. First, it provides support for investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians. Second, it provides for different categories into which different businesses fall. Certain businesses have no responsibilities whatsoever with respect to this Act. Those are Canadian-controlled businesses and established foreign-con-trolled businesses. With respect to those businesses which are new businesses being established by non-Canadians, they are required by the Act to make notification of their investments. They are treated in a specific and separate way.
Third, there is a group of firms which consists of nonCanadian firms taking over Canadian firms. Again, they are treated in a separate way because they are subject to review if they are above a certain threshold. Again, that is a slightly different category. Finally, there are non-Canadian firms which are active in the area of cultural heritage or national identity, and they are also treated in a separate way.
Therefore, I think that the purpose of the Bill provides for discrimination with respect to the different categories of enterprise. It is that reflection in the purpose clause, and the subsequent reflection in the details of the Bill, which has led us, in a number of the motions which we have put forward, to suggest slightly different ways in which this discrimination could be precisely demarcated. It seems to us that the discrimination is evident in the purpose of the Bill.
With respect to Motion No. 5, we are suggesting that the discrimination which is evident in the purpose clause of the Bill could also be reflected in discussing the obligations and responsibilities of the Minister; not with respect to all of the activities of the Minister, but with respect to the seven different responsibilities which are set out in Clause 5. In this motion we are suggesting that one of the responsibilities should be aimed at Canadian-owned businesses. We are not suggesting that with respect to all the activities, because we agree that that would run counter to the purpose of the Bill. But we believe that since the Bill allows for discrimination it should be possible to reflect that discrimination to some degree in the activity of the Minister.
With respect to decision No. 9, which deals with motion No. 13, again we are talking about Clause 5 of the Bill which sets out the responsibilities of the Minister. It strikes me that that clause is a rather unusual clause to have within a Bill. It includes a great many activities of the Minister which are actually quite separate from the activities of the review agency. One of the activities which has traditionally been the responsibility of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has been to promulgate certain codes of conduct for foreign-controlled enterprises within Canada.
For example, in 1975 the then Minister tabled new principles for international business conduct. That dealt with quite a number of the points which we have included in Motion No. 13. We felt that since Clause 5 was attempting to summarize the responsibilities of the Minister with respect to the different categories of enterprise, it was, indeed, proper to include within that a recognition of the Minister's responsibility which has been traditional and which the Minister has exercised to establish and monitor such codes of conduct. In fact, if that were excluded from the points which "the Minister shall" do, it could be taken as a step backward from previous policy, which has included the establishment of the codes of conduct. Again, without entering into the substance of it, our point is that this has traditionally been an area of activity for the Minister, with respect to foreign investment, and it seems to us
April 25, 1985

that it is procedurally correct to raise the point as to whether it should be included in the Bill.
Decision No. 13 dealt with Motion No. 22. It suggested that the motion went beyond the scope of the clause and would infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown. Motion No. 22 seeks to effect the set-up, the structure and format, of the review agency, which is what Clause 7 of the Bill does. Again, it would seem that there is room for differences of opinion as to whether this particular agency should be simply headed by a president or whether it should be headed by a president and a board of directors. As to whether that has potential implications, when the question was raised in committee my answer was that the present Bill, by establishing a president, implies a certain financial commitment to the salary of that president. We are making this amendment with the suggestion that a specific allocation of money should be divided between a full-time president and a seven-person board of directors which would be part-time. Therefore, it would not lead to an extra charge on the Crown.
I would like to speak on decision No. 23 which deals with grouping. It is, perhaps, the most important decision with respect to grouping about which I would like to raise some questions. I do so because Motions Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 38 all deal with the specific threshold levels within the Bill. They are attempts to raise the question of whether we should be talking about lower or higher threshold levels. Motion No. 38(a) does not deal with that. It deals with what we see as a problem within the Bill, that the asset level, which plays a crucial part in setting the categories which are important for the purposes of the Bill, is not effectively defined. Frankly, the problem is that there are different ways to approach an understanding of assets.
Assets can be determined either on an historical basis with depreciation included, or they can be determined on the basis of current market value. With this amendment we are attempting to make it quite clear that it is the current market value of the assets which should establish those levels. It is quite a different point from the point which has been addressed by the other motions.
The next decision with which I would like to deal is decision No. 24. That decision deals with Motion No. 37. In that decision, Mr. Speaker, you suggest that the motion would cause the agency to review the assets of non-Canadians, thereby discriminating against them, which is contrary to the purpose of the Bill. Again, I would make the general point that the purpose of the Bill, in fact, is discriminatory. The nature of the discrimination varies depending on the category, but there is certainly discrimination which exists with respect to nonCanadian controlled firms. It is not a blanket discrimination but the categories differ. Moreover, this motion does not attempt to discriminate against all non-Canadian firms. It simply focuses, as does the Bill itself, on those non-Canadian firms entering the country or establishing new businesses. The new point of concern is that as well as the size of the assets to be taken over, one should be interested in the size of the company doing the taking over. This does not require a review
Investment Canada Act
of those assets abroad but it does require that those assets abroad be reported to the Canadian Government, if the company were accepted, in the process of the review procedure.
MO)
The next one of your points with which I would like to deal is No. 29, which refers not to my motions but to the motions of my colleague. Those are Motions Nos. 42 to 49. I simply want to make the point that it does seem to me that the Minister has asked for guidance with respect to what is meant by "cultural heritage" and "national identity". These motions attempt to provide that guidance. Again, without entering into the substance, I think that an attempt to do that in the Bill is consistent with the purposes of the Bill and, in fact, was foreseen when the Bill was agreed to at second reading. The Minister in his opening statement to the Standing Committee in fact asked us to be particularly concerned, to raise questions with witnesses, and to provide some advice with respect to these points. Whether these particular motions reflect the advice or not is something that we can debate if they are acceptable. However, it does seem to me that it is consistent with the Bill itself.
The next point I wanted to deal with is No. 32 with respect to Motions Nos. 55 to 61. You suggested, Mr. Speaker, that this appears to introduce new factors into Clause 20 which will affect how net benefits are determined and are, therefore, beyond the scope of the clause. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that clause sets out factors to be taken into account where relevant, and the factors which are presently identified are extremely vague, very broad and cover a wide set of the particular concerns which our proposed amendments themselves attempt to make slightly more specific and pointed.
For instance, the present factors which are to be taken into account note the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada, including the effect on employment. What we attempt to do with, for instance, Motion No. 60 is to make somewhat more specific the way in which that impact on employment is to be taken as a factor for consideration. In that particular case we suggest that we, as Hon. Members of the House, have recognized in a number of the considerations which have taken place in the last six months that one of the important factors in considering the effect of an investment on economic activity affecting employment is the employment equity aspects of that particular impact. So that particular clause is simply expanding on what is already recognized as the concern with employment effects, which is noted in sub-clause (a) of Clause 20.
I could make the same point with respect to each of Motions Nos. 55 through 61. They are attempts not to move beyond the scope of the Bill, not to introduce new factors, but to pinpoint more precisely the particulars of the factors which should be considered where they are relevant, as the opening statement within the clause makes clear. It seems to us particularly important to do this in part because we received representation in the committee from the foreign investment sub-committee of the Canadian Bar Association. It is not substance with

April 25, 1985
Investment Canada Act
which I am seeking to deal here, Mr. Speaker, but the particular factors and the nature of those factors because the Bar Association pointed out to us that there was a vagueness within those factors which seemed to it to not reflect past practice of FIRA. It therefore felt it was important to try to offer somewhat greater clarity. Whether or not our motions do offer that clarity is, of course, a matter for debate, but that is the point. There is an attempt to be more specific, for example, with respect to considering the financial condition of companies which are initiating a take-over bid as one of the factors which will help to determine the likely impact on employment and other activities within the country.
I should perhaps make the point, Mr. Speaker, that this particular ruling is for us especially sensitive because we do feel that this was a case where in committee no questions were raised about the particular motions which were presented, whereas in other cases questions were raised. So I was particularly surprised by the rulings here and have attempted, at somewhat greater length than usual, perhaps, to make quite crystal clear the point we are attempting to make with these motions.
I have just three final points, Mr. Speaker. With respect to your ruling No. 44, you suggest that Motion No. 80 attempts to provide regulatory power which is not contemplated in the Bill, is novel and new to the Bill and, therefore, should not be proposed to the House. I was interested to see you identifying such ambitious purposes behind this motion. In fact, it was quite a minor, almost housekeeping matter, and I will attempt, if I can, to make clear why that is the case.
Clause 35 at this stage includes within it a suggestion that the regulations dealing with cultural heritage and national identity be tabled in front of the House of Commons in terms of this time formula. Our purpose is simply to suggest that it should not just be the regulations which deal with the cultural heritage and national identity part of the Bill but all regulations which deal with the Bill. The point is not, therefore, to include new regulatory powers but simply to see to it that, as with the specific regulations which deal with cultural heritage or a national identity, all regulations dealing with whatever aspects of the putting into effect of this Bill should go before the House, not for approval but simply to provide notice.
The next point I would like to comment on is No. 46, in which you make certain points with respect to Motions Nos. 82 and 83. I do not wish to raise questions about your ruling with respect to those motions, but I would suggest with respect that Motions Nos. 85 to 88 are not consequential on Motions Nos. 82, 83 and 84, but are simply attempts, as with some of the other points we have presented as motions and which you have accepted, to introduce greater public accountability and greater public access to what is taking place with respect to this important subject. So I would appreciate it if you could review those particular points again and see if they are indeed consequential.
Finally, and I appreciate your patience on these matters, with respect to your decision No. 50 dealing with Motion No. 94, you have suggested that motion is inconsistent with the interpretation clause and goes against the principle of the Bill as agreed to by the House at second reading stage. 1 would simply make the point that it is quite possible to have the purposes of this Bill put into effect with the Minister having basic responsibility, or the Governor in Council having over-all responsibility, for what is taking place with respect to the purpose. The motion attempts to raise that question for debate.
In that sense I do not think it runs against the principle of the Bill, although it is certainly something which the Government has indicated its disagreement with in committee. The motion involved was accepted in committee for debate and it was felt proper at least to have the debate on whether, as some witnesses have suggested, it makes more sense to put it under the Minister or more sense to have some Cabinet responsibility with respect to this important area. We feel it is appropriate to debate this at report stage even though it is not perhaps something on which we would make quite as strong a case as we have with respect to some of the other points I have been bringing before you today.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible but I want first of all to thank you and the House officials for your excellent and very comprehensive ruling. Given the large number of motions before us, it is obvious that many hours of work went into preparing this ruling and 1, for one, found it very useful in considering what procedural arguments would be appropriate.
I want first of all to deal with those motions about which you have expressed some reservations and then deal with another motion which raised some doubts in my mind and which you may also want to consider with respect to admissibility at the conclusion. Since my colleagues in the opposition have dealt with all of the motions, I think I will just run down the motions about which you have raised some reservations in your preliminary ruling and give you my views with respect to the acceptability or otherwise of the motions.
Dealing first with Motion No. 3, the reservations you brought forward at the time were that this motion violates the principle of the Bill and is argumentative. I support you in that inasmuch as the principle of the Bill is violated because it proposes to change the purpose of the Bill in which the principle is clearly explained. I refer, of course, to Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(5), and Citation 423 which says:
A motion should be neither argumentative, nor in the style of a speech, nor contain unnecessary provisions or objectionable words. It is usually expressed in the affirmative, even where its purpose and effect are negative.
Dealing with Motion No. 5, I would remind you again that in committee all these amendments were ruled inadmissible because one of the principles of the Bill is that the Minister should encourage investment in Canada both by Canadians and non-Canadians, whereas this motion would restrict assistance to exploit opportunities for investment and technological advancement to Canadians only. This I submit, Sir, is clearly
April 25, 1985

contrary to the principle of the Bill as agreed to at second reading stage. Again I refer to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(5).
With respect to Motion No. 21, it proposes a new agency whose purpose is entirely at variance with the intent of the Bill and I suggest to you, Sir, it is clearly out of order. The authority for that is Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1).
Motion No. 22 suggests the appointment of a board of directors. Clearly no board was contemplated by the Bill. With respect to the financial implications, the directors would incur expenses which would necessitate a charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which violates the principle of the prerogative of financial initiative on the part of the Crown. The authority is Citation 514(2) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.
With respect to Motion No. 29, by virtue of this motion the agency's role and function would be greatly expanded over those contemplated in the Bill, hence it is beyond the principle contained in the Bill. I cite Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1). It is doubtful that the amendment is offered at the right place since the rest of the clause concerns itself with the kinds of investments to be subject to notification and does not concern itself with the role and function of the agency. The authority I quote is Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, 773(3). Clearly the expanded functions of the agency would impose a fresh charge on the Treasury and as such would require a Royal Recommendation.
Moving on to Motion No. 33, it is highly questionable whether Parliament has the right or indeed jurisdiction to create a Cabinet committee by Act of Parliament. Clearly I suggest this goes well beyond the scope of the Bill. I think you had indicated the consequential amendments were found irregular on the above ground, namely Motions Nos. 54, 62, 65, 66,71,92 and 93.
Motion No. 39, as on Motion No. 5, I suggest-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt? I noted particularly that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. FInatyshyn) did not mention Motion No. 73 as being consequential. Was there some reason for that? The original indication was that we had found Motion No. 73 as consequential. I take it that he is not making a case that it is not consequential?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is consequential.


Mr. Speaker:: The case is not being made that it is not consequential?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No. With respect to Motion No. 39, as with Motion No. 5, this is contrary to the purpose of the Act and out of order.
With respect to Motion No. 40, this proposal was clearly not contemplated in the Bill and would be contrary to the purpose of encouraging investment in Canada as agreed to at second reading. Again, the authority is Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(5).
Investment Canada Act
With respect to Motions No. 42 to 49, all these types of investment, notwithstanding the representations made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), are entirely new to the Bill and completely beyond its scope. Motion No. 51, being a consequential amendment to the preceding motion, is also out of order.
Dealing with Motion No. 64, the amendment would add a definition to the Act which was not contained in the Bill itself, namely a definition of "net benefit". I suggest that this is clearly beyond the scope of the Bill. The authority is Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1).
Motions Nos. 78 and 79 seek to impose a definition of "acquisition of control" which is much different from the Bill as agreed to. In the Bill, one-third of voting shares of publicly traded companies if acquired is considered "acquisition of control", whereas the amendment would reduce that level to 5 per cent, thus expanding the jurisdiction of the agency well beyond that which was agreed to at second reading.
This expansion of jurisdiction of the agency seems to be beyond the scope of the Bill. Again, the authority is Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1). Dealing with Motion No. 82 in the name of the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), the committee has not been given the power to approve regulations emanating from the Bill as agreed to at the second reading stage, whereas this amendment would grant this power which is beyond the scope of the Bill. Again, the authority is Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1).
Motion No. 83 which was put forward by the Member for Essex-Windsor would see all information gathered under the Act made public whereas the Bill as agreed to at second reading calls for the information to remain privileged. Clearly this is contrary to the principle of the Bill. I refer you to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(5). Motions Nos. 84 through 88 are all consequential to Motion No. 83 and should be ruled out of order for the same reasons.
Let us move on to Motions No. 90 and 91. These proposed motions seek to require that the agency undertake to compile and prepare many reports not foreseen when the House agreed to the Bill at second reading. As well, the preparation of such reports would require expenditures not contemplated in the Royal Recommendation. Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 540, would apply in this case. Citation 540 states:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the Royal Recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of the charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
Motion No. 94 in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor clearly is contrary to the principle of ministerial direction which is contained in the Bill as agreed to at

April 25, 1985
Investment Canada Act
second reading. Again, the authority is Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(5).
I would now like to turn to Motion No. 14 which seems to go beyond the scope of the Bill as well. The amendment, if adopted, would in my view, greatly expand the powers of the Minister well beyond those contemplated in the Bill. If accepted, this amendment would in my submission, call on the Minister to exercise powers which do not fall within his jurisdiction and may indeed infringe upon provincial labour jurisdictions. Furthermore, this motion is redundant inasmuch as it calls for the Minister to ensure that employers respect bargaining rights of workers whose rights are at present amply protected by the Charter of Rights, the Canadian Labour Code and provincial labour legislation.
I submit that Motion No. 14 is irrelevant to the Bill and beyond its scope and ought to be inadmissible if we are to continue the practice amply outlined in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1), which reads:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope or governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived.
Therein ends the lesson, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: First, may I thank Flon. Members for their enlightened arguments. May I also get myself into deep trouble by congratulating all three intervenors on the quality of their arguments and suggest that procedural arguments are perhaps the most limiting and difficult arguments to make in the House and I was very impressed.
Obviously, the Chair will take the time to examine these arguments and come back to the House at a later date with a definitive ruling. For the moment, debate will resume on Motions Nos. 1 and 2 now before the House.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I would note with some satisfaction that this Bill has received the usual attention given to a Bill at committee stage. 1 want to make it perfectly clear at the onset of my intervention that we as an opposition are not opposing this Bill for the sake of opposing. We feel very strongly that some important measures are not in this Bill. We hope that the Government will listen carefully to the debate that will take place at this stage of the Bill and will agree to the inclusion of some amendments prior to its receiving Royal Assent.
The reason for my concern is that I represent an area of this country which has been adversely affected in past years by companies that have invested in Sudbury and small one-industry towns throughout northern Ontario simply from the standpoint of making a profit and without regard to any benefits to Canadians who live in those one-industry towns.
That is why our Party is greatly concerned about the wording of this clause of the Bill with respect to the very wide and unusual definition of "benefit". It is unusual in the sense that it does not specifically include what the Government of the day means by a benefit to Canadians.
The previous Liberal Government had in place the Foreign Investment Review Act which established the Foreign Investment Review Agency. That agency, by its name, implied that there would always be a review of any application by a foreign multinational or foreign investor before buying out a Canadian enterprise. We made it very clear in that review that we wished to have a definition of what benefits that company's take-over would have on the affected companies and their employees.
I think it is important to note for Canadians, despite the rhetoric by the Conservative Party and the Government about the adverse effect of FIRA on foreign investment in this country, that from 1975 to 1984, with the exception of 1981 when the implementation of the National Energy Program dictated that many Canadian dollars would flow outside Canada for the purchase of Petrofina, there was a steady increase in the number of dollars invested in Canada. In other words, the perception that FIRA was responsible for a decline in foreign investment in Canada is simply that. It is not fact. It is a perception that was held by the Opposition at that time and I think it was used to put forward the case that FIRA was not beneficial to Canadians and had to be overhauled.
The Tories have replaced FIRA with Investment Canada. I do not want Canadians to go away once this Bill is passed through Parliament with the impression that Investment Canada is not going to have any review function. There will be a review made by the Government under Investment Canada. What is disturbing is that there is no definition of what that review should entail. There is no definition of what the Conservative Government means by a benefit to Canadians.
As I said at the outset of my remarks today, I come from an area of our country that we call a one-industry area. It is not unusual. We have outside of the major urban centres of Canada, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver and I suppose to some extent, Mr. Speaker, from that great city you represent of Edmonton and one other to the south, the very distinguished city by the name of Calgary, a large percentage of our population living in one-industry towns. That is why the previous Liberal Government placed importance on having a Department of Regional Economic Expansion so we could at least, by use of proper tax incentives and tax grants, entice certain companies to locate in those areas of the country economically deprived in relation to other urban centres of Canada. Having grown up in an area of the country so dependent on a one-industry town, I am more than aware of the requirements that a Government at least have a proper review done of any take-over by companies that operate in one-industry towns.
Under the previous Bill, the Foreign Investment Review Act, we did give a definition of what "benefit" meant. We wanted to make sure that it was quite specific that technological transfer would be prevented by a take-over of a company in Canada. By that benefit we wanted to know what it meant in terms of job opportunities for Canadians who lived in these one-industry towns of which I speak. We wanted to protect job opportunities not only for the workers who are presently
April 25, 1985

operating in those firms but for the next generation of Canadians. If we are going to have a viable economic base in these areas of Canada that depend so much on one industry, there has to be some degree of Government intervention to be sure those job opportunities will exist for the next generation.
I have a great deal of concern about the direction this Government is now taking on the disposal of Crown corporations. Concerning the idea of transfer of technology, let us contemplate the possible sale of the Crown corporations de Havilland and Canadair. There is no question in my mind that Canadians should be proud of the technology that has been developed in the aviation field. That technology has led to the production of aircraft that will be used in world-wide markets, namely, the Dash-7, Dash-8 and the Challenger jet. These products will have the majority of their sales outside the national boundaries of Canada. Once you have products that can be sold on a world market basis with a world mandate as a result of technology developed here in Canada, you have the guarantee that Canadians can benefit in terms of job security and job creation because of the technology acquired in our country.
This section of the Bill gives me a great deal of concern. It does not require the possible purchaser of one of those two Crown corporations, as an example, to guarantee that the technologies developed at Canadair and de Havilland will not simply be taken up as a sponge with water, removing the assets of those Crown corporations and transferring them to a foreign country. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. I think you would agree with me, being the impartial man that you are, Mr. Speaker, that the kind of technology developed by those particular industries that benefit in this case not particularly the hinterland region of our country but mainly Montreal and Toronto would be adversely affected if we did not define in this Bill what a benefit meant. As far as I am concerned, a Bill worth anything with respect to Investment Canada has to guarantee that in the event that we are going to have foreign companies buy out these national companies such as Canadair and de Havilland, that they guarantee there shall not be a transfer of that technology which we as Canadians have paid for in research and development grants, in dollars from this Government, over the past few years.
With respect to the definition of "benefit" in this Investment Canada Bill, there is no guarantee that the jobs presently held by people living in Toronto and Montreal will be retained. I think Canadians would expect that if we are going to have a wholesale change in our Crown corporation structure, at least the Investment Canada Bill should spell out in detail what is meant by benefits and not leave it to some commission or board of bureaucrats to define. I think the fact that we want to protect that technology should not be in the control of bureaucrats but under the control of the political masters of this country who know how so important technology is to their constituents.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, during the recently put arguments by my colleague on the admissibility of certain of our amendments we indicated
Investment Canada Act
that our intentions have been to make more clear the intent of the legislation. We would like to establish some guidelines that can be more easily understood and to set out in the Bill some reference to terms and conditions that might be deemed to be appropriate by the Government of Canada in the interests of Canada when dealing with questions of foreign investment in our country.
I think it is fair to say that we have benefited over the years from foreign investment. I do not think anyone would deny that. There have been areas where the investment itself, though beneficial in the first instance, turned out to be less than beneficial in the long run. The Government has the responsibility now, as it has had in the past, to make sure that the benefit we derive from investment is not simply immediate. The view being expressed at the moment tends to be that whatever we can get now, let us get it and hope that it works well in the future. We should be looking at assuring ourselves, when we do permit investors to enter Canada, whether to purchase an existing company or to set up a new one, that there is a clear understanding of their obligations to Canada and the benefits we will derive will be more than simply a handful of jobs that may or may not have any lasting benefit either to the employees or to the communities in which they locate.
I say that because I have had experience over the last few years in dealing with a number of companies that have come into Canada with great fanfare under the legislation still in effect, namely the Foreign Investment Review Act. At the time companies were establishing their claims before the Foreign Investment Review Act, they often promised all manner of wonderful things. It was not uncommon when reviewing the permission sheet setting out the conditions that had to be met under the various categories to draw the conclusion that this was to be a long-term investment resulting not only in jobs immediately but in development of new technology from which Canada would derive immediate and long-term benefit. We were to begin to see develop within that operation engineering and scientific developments which would cause sort of a mushrooming effect within that segment of the economy. Out of all that Canada was to have opportunities for university graduates and the universities themselves to undertake new courses. There were to be all kinds of useful and probably desirable side effects. However, the promises having been made were about as much value as the paper on which they were written.
Quite frequently, after a relatively short period of time the company failed to live up to its obligations. It failed to provide jobs. It failed to provide new technology. It failed to provide new research and development. We asked the Government at the time, as did you, Mr. Speaker, to require that the company live up to its obligations. Inevitably the answer came back that economic conditions had changed, that the company, after all, knew more about its operations than we did and that, therefore, if it chose not to abide by the terms and conditions established at the onset of its locating in Canada, it was really too bad, that was all that could be said.

April 25, 1985
Investment Canada Act
We are trying to make clear what we expect in terms of performance. For example, at one time in Canada there was an operation known as Otis Elevators. At that time it was called Otis-Fenson, but it became Otis Elevators and was in the forefront of conveying people automatically whether by escalator or by elevator. It was on the leading edge of the new technology. It employed substantially large numbers of people. It built all around the world. In fact, there was hardly a building in Canada of any size which did not have an Otis product.
Then along came United Technologies. United Technologies is a company which is well known in its home state of New Jersey for its harsh treatment of communities and for not living up to its obligations. At the time United Technologies applied for permission to take over Otis I personally objected, along with many other Members. I pointed out that its record of performance was one of which we could not be proud, that its record would not stand any kind of test with regard to good corporate behaviour. I suggested that it would be inappropriate for the review agency of the day to approve the take-over. It was approved anyway. We were to get more jobs, new technology, new engineering and all kinds of wonderful world mandates. We were to grow by leaps and bounds. The new Otis was to be in the forefront of world technology and, by God, Canada was to be a recipient of all the benefits.
Well, Otis is almost closed now. A handful of people now work there. All the viable parts of the operation have been shipped away to other parts of the world. All that is left is a very tiny operation. Where once there were hundreds of employees, there are now less than a hundred. By all statements and indications, within the next very short period of time the company will cease to exist in Canada in any meaningful or worth-while way. This angers me, but there is no point in getting angry any longer about it. It distresses me that the Government did not pursue with sufficient vigour and diligence its responsibilities to Canada when it gave permission to United Technologies to take over that vibrant and large employer.
I sense that the new Conservative Government, unless we are able to get certain kinds of amendments incorporated into this Bill, is even less willing to extract from those who would be prepared to invest the kinds of commitments which would ensure that Canada would receive lasting benefit. Also I sense that there is a feeling in the Government that any investment is good investment and that any technology is good technology, notwithstanding the fact that our experience shows that that is frequently not the case. I could refer to a whole list of them, but I chose that one because it is a larger one.
I notice Mr. Speaker indicating that I have only a minute remaining, but experience shows it is not true that just because some major corporation or some investor some place else happens to have money to invest, it will necessarily benefit Canada. Therefore, we have to be absolutely clear in the legislation that not only do we hope to see new investment- and we do-but that there will be appropriate terms and conditions established by the Government with regard to the
kind of technology and the commitment to future growth any potential investor must undertake. We have to be absolutely clear right from the outset that the United Technologies of the world-and there are many of them; I am sure the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) will remember the United Technologies take-over of Otis-no matter how much money they are prepared to put in, no matter how much they are prepared to commit themselves on paper, are of no long-term value to Canada. The only thing which can save us from the manipulation which that kind of corporation undertakes is firm guidelines established in law.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is very kind of you to recognize a Conservative. 1 notice that there are not as many of us jumping up and down as there are members of the Opposition. There is a very good reason for this. The debate so far on this Bill has flogged it to death. The same old arguments are being rehashed time and time again by members of the Opposition. It is a stated fact that we on this side of the House do not rise to engage in that type of activity. We only rise when we have something sensible to say. That is precisely what I will do right now.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Dave Nickerson: I hope that I will not be the exception to the rule. What I am about to do will utterly confound you, Mr. Speaker, because I intend to speak to Motion Nos. 1 and 2 that are before us. No other speaker has done that as yet.
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 deal with the preamble or the statement of purpose of the Bill. I do not really like the idea of writing down preambles or statements of purpose in Bills. Perhaps it would be better to have a bunch of "whereas" clauses prefacing a Bill. In my opinion one should be able to determine the intent of a Bill by reading it. One does not need to have a statement of purpose at the front of it. It serves no useful objective in statute law. That is certainly the position I take. It lends itself to all kinds of flowery language, all kinds of motherhood statements.
That is precisely what we have in the three versions of the preamble from which we have to choose today. We talk about increasing capital, increasing technology, encouraging investment and all this type of thing. I do not think that adds anything to the actual law that is contained in the Bill before us. In statute law or in legislation we should try to confine ourselves to giving directions to people to do something or to writing down prohibitions, that people are not allowed to do something else, together with the necessary definitions and a list of penalties. If we can avoid political statements and flowery language which is rather meaningless in law, we should certainly avoid that.
What we have before us is a choice of three statements of purpose. To be quite frank, I do not really like any of them. At the end of my presentation I will make a proposal, not in the form of a motion but just as a suggestion, as to what I think the statement of purpose would be which would most accurate-
April 25, 1985

ly reflect that which is contained in the Bill. Each of the choices before us is kind of coloured with the ideology of the Party that is proposing it.
The NDP proposal is the one that I would write off almost immediately. What they want to do is to impose their view of life and the way that society should be ordered by saying that terms and conditions established by the Government would govern any type of investment in Canada. In fact, they say it is the Government that can determine better than people in private industry what is good for business in Canada. I certainly would not subscribe to that point of view. I would therefore write off the NDP suggestion.
Let us look at the proposal of the Liberals. If we had to make a choice among the three proposals, I suspect that theirs might most accurately reflect what is actually in the Bill. It is not that good, but it is not that bad either. All you would have to do to make it acceptable would be to change the wording a little in the fourth line to say in the third and fourth lines, "The purpose of this Act is to provide for the notification and review of certain proposed investments in Canada". They say "all proposed investments in Canada", but that is not the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is only to bring the provisions of the Act into effect on certain investments, not all investments.
The whole idea behind the Bill is to get away from the existing law of FIRA, which has to review every application and, therefore, clogs up the whole machinery of Government. If we look at the original wording in the Bill, that proposed by the Government, we can see a few faults with it. I suspect that an expert grammarian might well find that there are some mistakes with grammar, especially in the English version. The French version does not quite say the same thing. It appears to be a little better.
In that preamble we talk about encouraging investment in Canada by Canadians. That is a good political objective. I am sure everybody in this House wants that to happen. It is a very good statement of purpose, but it ain't the purpose of this Bill. If you read this Bill, Mr. Speaker, it does not deal with that aspect of investment whatsoever. The statement of purpose of the supposed Bill is much wider than the Bill itself. It is a good political objective, a good objective for all Canadians, but it does not really refer to what is in the Bill.
In concluding my short presentation on this business, I would propose the following preamble or statement of purpose, if we need to have one at all. I would make this refer to exactly what is in the Bill. My statement, my purpose of the Act, my Clause 2 would read simply as follows: "The purpose of this Act is to provide for the review of significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians in order to ensure benefit to Canada". That, in my opinion, is a very simple statement. It is accurate. It reflects precisely what is in that Bill.
[Translation)


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, it is not our intention to oppose the views of the Government, which is responsible for introducing Bills. However, we must
Investment Canada Act
be very careful and examine Bills very thoroughly, as my colleagues did on committee, to ensure that they are in the interests of our country and in the interests of the people of that country. What worries us is the general philosophy of this Bill. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), who moved an amendment to Clause 2, was very careful to make sure this Bill would not be an open invitation to anyone outside Canada, an invitation indicating that, to quote the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney): "We are open for business". I may add that I agree it has been the custom of this country to welcome foreign investment, and that our current prosperity and standard of living are at least partly due to the fact that we have had foreign investment in this country, but we must make sure such investment is not uncontrolled.
There must be some control on foreign investment in this country. Just because someone tells us: I have a couple of million or billion to invest, does not mean we have to roll out the welcome mat right away. For instance-I see two of my colleagues from the Province of Quebec and two from the Maritime Provinces-I do not think it would promote regional development to ask investors to come and set up shop in this country, because we believe that if foreign investment in this country is not regulated, it will go where? To Southern Ontario, to add to the wealth of an area of this country that is already wealthy enough. I am not saying it should not be any wealthier than it is, but it should not get economically fatter at the expense of the Maritime Provinces or the Province of Quebec or even certain areas in the Western Provinces. I think we have a duty to act this way.
Mr. Speaker, some people say that FIRA was a disaster. However, if I remember correctly, and I hope my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry will correct me if I am wrong, that in spite of that disastrous institution called FIRA, last year we had more than $4 billion worth of investment in Canada. I want someone to correct me if I am wrong, because I would not wish to mislead the House, but I understand that these investments were approved because they were in the best interests of the Canadian people. When this Bill was introduced in the House, I said that one of my main concerns and I am reminded of this when I see the young people who work for us in the House of Commons was to ensure that Canadian jobs would be protected. What assurance do we have that the jobs of our young Canadians will be protected by this Bill? What assurance do we have that it will protect small businesses, which have far fewer resources to protect themselves against massive investment? In my view, one of the problems we should consider is the definition of cultural identity in Canada. How can we be sure, when we look at the problems throughout our cultural industries which are faced with a giant competitor, and I am not even talking about the Francophone community-

April 25, 1985
Investment Canada Act
I am not particularly worried about the cultural identity of the Francophone community at this time, but I am extremely concerned about the cultural industries of English-Canada that have much more competition from our southern neighbour which tells us there will be protection. We are not against the Government having the right to legislate. We are only calling upon government Members to reflect on the matter and see that it is essential that we protect Canadian industries.
I am not for "Canada first, Canada only". We live in a competitive world and we must accept outside investment. Outside investment has been good for Canada; there is no doubt about that. However, I challenge government Members to show me a country in this world that is not careful about outside investment. Why should Canada be different from any other country in the world?
We are not being anti-American. The United States is our best market. If my memory serves me correctly, 72.6 per cent of our trade is with the United States. Does being careful about our Canadian institutions and industries mean that we are being anti-American? Are we being anti-American when we ask questions like how much assurance we have that we will have our fair share of research and development? Research and development is very important to Canada. It is very important to the young generation that is now being educated at immense cost.
Think of the money that is being invested in the universities in Newfoundland, for instance, in order to give the best education to the young people of Newfoundland. This is being done at immense cost. Often young people graduating from this university cannot find jobs in their home province and have to go to other provinces and in particular Ontario. Think of all the young people in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island where there is no development whatsoever. These young people have to immigrate within Canada in order to find jobs because there are not enough jobs in their home provinces.
If it were the policy of my Party to be anti-American, I would denounce that policy. It is not anti-American to be careful and to protect our institutions and investments. It is not anti-American to have certain rules, rules which are not stupid but exist for the protection of our Canadian industries, our researchers and those who wish to develop and invest in Canada in the best interests of Canadians.
We are not being unfair. We are not unfairly taking up the time of the House collectively to reflect on the need for care. I listened to the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) who spoke a few moments ago. Some Members of this House listen to each other. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic himself is not totally satisfied with the actual definition of the purpose of the Bill. If I understood the Hon. Member correctly, he is not making an amendment but he would like to make a suggestion for a different definition of the purpose.
My hon. colleague who put forward this amendment has a suggestion as well. It may not be the same suggestion the Hon.
Member for Western Arctic has in mind, but even the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, a government Member-and l am not trying to divide the Government-has at heart, as do other Members, the best interests of Canada. This is not a partisan matter. The Hon. Member has told us that he would like to see a purpose for this Bill that differs from the one put forward by the Government.
I do not wish to take all of the time that is at my disposal. However, I would like to say that it is the right of all Members to reflect on this matter. We are told that under the new Government we are living in a new era. If this is so, and if some amendments put forward by the Opposition seem to improve the Bill, why would the Government not accept these amendments in good faith having in mind the interests of Canada?
I am sure the Hon. Member for Western Arctic will support me wholeheartedly in suggesting that the Government listen attentively to all the speeches that will be made and to all the amendments that will be put forward, whether they come from NDP Members with whom I disagree from time to time, from Members of the Official Opposition or from Members of the Government. If these amendments are in the best interests of Canada, I do not see why the Government should not accept them.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and to hear his very thoughtful words. As well, it is always a pleasure to hear once again from the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) and his always interesting perspective on the discussion at hand.
As we discuss this very important Bill and as we discuss at the moment the purpose of this particular Bill, I would like to recognize that what we are discussing today is the importance and extent of foreign ownership in our country. When looking at foreign investment in any western industrialized nation and the subsequent amount of foreign control, I challenge Members opposite to identify one single country which comes even near to having the same amount of foreign control as we have here in Canada.
It is important that we as parliamentarians recognize that we are discussing a matter of profound importance that reflects upon the foreign control of our economy. We must recognize that there is more foreign control over our economy than any other western industrialized nation. As a matter of fact, there is more foreign control over our economy than there is over the economies of most nations of the world, industrialized or non-industrialized. In rather simplistic terms, that means that future economic development decisions for Canada are being made not in offices in Kamloops, Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal but in offices in Houston, New York, Tokyo, Hamburg and London. I do not think anyone would suggest that a parent company located in Tokyo would make corporate decisions with their first priority being jobs and the development of technology and new markets in Canada.
April 25, 1985

At this time 1.5 million Canadians are out of work and a great many young Canadians are about to leave universities, colleges and high schools. These graduates will be seeking employment for the first time. The futures of the plants, mines and offices in which they would like to work are being determined not in Canada but in other countries. There is no other country that tolerates this kind of situation.
Let us assume that this discussion was taking place today in the American Congress. 1 think we would all agree that the manufacturing sector of an economy is the most critical sector in terms of dynamic growth and expansion. If the American economy's manufacturing sector was 48 per cent owned and controlled by outside interests, Congress would be in an absolute uproar. Congress would find it completely and utterly intolerable.
The manufacturing sector of the American economy is owned 3 per cent by outside interests. Many Congressmen are concerned about the level of foreign influence over their economy. Yet our manufacturing sector is 48 per cent foreign controlled. If we were to look at other sectors, it would be much higher. What I am saying is that no other country would tolerate this situation. But what is the new Government doing? It is saying that we should have more foreign investment in Canada. In fact, Canada has more foreign ownership than any other western industrialized nation. The Government is saying that there should be more foreign investment and control over the economy and that there should be fewer regulations and controls, and less monitoring.
Other industrialized nations, such as Norway, Austria and Japan, have their own versions of FIRA. They have their own versions of a government body which reflects the views of the people of those nations. After all, that is what a government does. We should not be hesitant about having government guidelines, directions or regulations, because the government which determines them is a reflection of the people of the country. This Government reflects the economy, corporate and labour interests of Canada. What we are talking about is simply a reflection of what the people of Canada want. When no other country in the world leaves its borders wide open to foreign investment and foreign involvement in its economy, why should we be taking steps to open our borders even wider to foreign involvement? The logic escapes me.
I come from a constituency in which single-industry towns play a very important role in the economy. Entire communities are based on a single plant or mine. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic also has a number of those settlements and communities in his constituency.


Dave Nickerson: I have no-industry towns.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He has no-industry towns. Well, I suppose that is an interesting point, although I suspect the fur trappers might disagree. But Kamloops-Shuswap, which is a one-industry town, has developed as a result of foreign investment and control over the local economy. In the case of that sawmill, the
Investment Canada Act
decisions are not made in Vavenby, Savona, or in the town in which it is located. Nor are the decisions made in Kamloops, which is the central urban centre for that region, Vancouver or Toronto. They are made in Florida because that is where the head office is located. The company wanted to expand into new areas and needed some cash to develop in those areas, so it decided that it was in the best interests of the corporation to close down a major mill and put about 600 people out of work. The mill was closed not because it was not profitable, or because of any difficulties in local affairs, but because it was part of the corporate planning to close down that operation. If the parent company had been located in Canada, I am not certain that the same decision would have been made. I use that as an example of the general assumption which has been made with this Bill, that any kind of foreign investment and foreign involvement in Canada is good.


Dave Nickerson: You have not read the Bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. colleague from Western Arctic has suggested that I have not read the Bill. I have read every clause of the Bill. I have made notes on every clause of the Bill, and I plan to speak to about 150 motions over the next two months if that is what is necessary. I will do that to try to convince Members opposite that there are better ways in which to approach this matter. The Hon. Member who suggested that I have not read the Bill will be encouraged by my remarks, stage by stage, as we go through the Investment Canada Bill.
I come from a part of Canada which has large cattle ranches. The cattle industry is a major industry. Because there are no restrictions or regulations governing investment in that industry, a number of major Europeans have invested in it. A number of Europeans have purchased large cattle ranches. They are all absentee landowners. They do not plan to use the investment as a major base of operations. In a sense, it is a way in which they can diversify their capital outside Europe. The kind of agricultural activity which results is very different. It is not in the best interests of the local economy, nor is it in the best interests of the local towns and villages which service the cattle industry. It is for this and many other reasons that I am concerned about the purpose of the Bill, as outlined in Clause
2.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-15, but considering the late hour I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to call it one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House agreeable to that?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that there is not unanimous consent for the proposal.

April 25, 1985
Investment Canada Act


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking today to the first amendment to Bill C-15 because, if the amendments now under consideration were to be rejected, I would be concerned.
Mr. Speaker, reading the amendment ought to be enough to see that it makes sense. It is only normal that we in the Official Opposition try to protect Canadian investors while at the same time extending fair welcome to foreign investors. I suggest that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary take a closer look at the Canadian situation. The United States is not the only country with which we could do business; other nations are interested as well in participating as investors to create employment in Canada, an issue which has been the subject of many debates.
Throughout the last election campaign the Conservative Party promised the moon, but you know that, as in the case of last summer's rallying of the great sailships in Quebec City, Canadian men and women do not always believe what they see or hear. We might have a repeat performance with this piece of legislation should the House fail to adopt the proposed amendments.
If we intent to promote equity in foreign investment, it stands to reason that we would seek to protect and attract investments beneficial to Canada and, consequently, to all Canadians. We want to use this measure to help Canadian investors, but it would be regrettable if they were to be discouraged and give up as a result of overly generous treatment of foreign investors by the Government.
The Government has to keep the upper hand with this Bill by leaving the door open to some form of control over investment projects of non-Canadians. It might very well welcome the participation of those investors in the creation of jobs in Canada, but under certain conditions. Proof would be required that such investments would spur Canada's economic growth. The wording of the first amendment is so clear that we simply fail to understand why Hon. Members across the aisle do not realize what it would do for investment in Canada. Our first concern is to promote job creation, fair enough. Nobody can possibly be against job creation in this country.
In one of my earlier intervention on this Bill, Mr. Speaker, I drew the attention of Hon. Members to the significant role of women in Canada's economic sector.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we marked the tragic anniversary of the atrocious massacre seventy years ago of thousands of Armenians. Armenia, land of princes and cradle of civilization, had often suffered the horrors of war and persecution, but its blackest day was on April 24, 1915, when hundreds of thousands of Armenians, men, women and children, were killed. The world was aghast. People could hardly believe what had happened.
Today, we remember, and we sympathize with the vast majority of Armanians who commemorate this day as law-abiding and peace-loving citizens. We remember their tragic history, not in order to revive feelings of hate but to instill in ourselves a horror of what hate can do. We shall never let the horror of this act be forgotten. At the same time, we admire the Armenian people who survived the terrible suffering inflicted on them.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a great number of federal pensioners with the Public Service of Canada are expressing concern over the announcement made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) last week which talks about an end to pension indexing for public service pensions.
That announcement came in the course of a generally positive agreement with the Public Service unions relating to master contract bargaining. However, there is no agreement with respect to the elimination of indexation provisions for the Public Service pension plan. That kind of an agreement has not been reached, and it is wrong for the Minister to suggest that federal superannuates may have lost their current form of indexing in favour of a vague and unspecified system of inflation protection.
What is happening is that there will be joint management of the federal Public Service plan, and that joint management will include new means by which inflation protection will be administered, but it should be made very clear, however, that indexing is not being taken away.
The President of the Treasury Board should know that his remarks have inspired fear and panic in the minds of many federal superannuates, both in my riding of Ottawa Centre and across Canada. The Federal Superannuates' National Association reports that it has been besieged by calls and
April 25, 1985

correspondence from its membership asking for clarification of the Government's announcement.
I don't think what happened was fair, and I suggest that the President of the Treasury Board should make a statement to clarify that no deal has been struck to end pension indexing and, further, to reassure these senior citizens, who have contributed so long to the Government of Canada, that the Government does not entertain any such plans in its negotiations-


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



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, on September 4 last the people of Canada in every province and territory of our country spoke loudly and clearly in giving the Progressive Conservative Party, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, a mandate to govern Canada, to cut costs, and to get full value for every dollar spent. The Progressive Conservative Government is doing this and yet, in spite of the mandate, the Liberals and New Democrats daily obstruct and oppose in order to prevent the Government from carrying out its mandate. Many instances can be quoted, but look at the last one.
The Government let a contract which will save the people of Canada at least a half a million dollars, and just because the company has a relative in the Cabinet, the Opposition cry loud and long. Had the contract been given to friends of the Liberals or the New Democratic Party at twice the price, the way the last Government worked, not a word would have been heard.
Our Government and the Ministers involved should be applauded for saving $500,000 of the people's money, but the Opposition doesn't say a word about the savings. It wallows in the garbage pit of character assassination. Go ahead, Mike and Harvie, keep saving money and getting full value for every dollar spent. Ignore the obstructionists. The Canadian people are right behind you.

[ Translation]




Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, for several weeks, in fact for over six months, the Opposition parties in this House have been attacking every single appointment made by this Government since it was elected. The Liberals are doing this quite shamelessly and take a moralizing tone that is hardly appropriate in their case. As for the New
Democratic Party, it is green with envy, since it knows perfectly well it will never have this privilege.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals who held sway over this country for 75 years were never very fussy about practising nepotism and acting as if they owned the country.
On September 4, Mr. Speaker, Canadians voted for sweeping changes, and it therefore makes perfect sense for a new Government to proceed with a large number of appointments at all levels of government administration. This Government was elected with a clear mandate to govern this country and make decisions, and it is therefore imperative that it should seek out competent and trustworthy people to carry out the policies it has formulated.
Mr. Speaker, Monday evening I was listening to an openline program on the French CBC network, and the vast majority of callers agreed with and supported without reservation the appointments made by this Government. It is important to listen to public opinion, and I am convinced that the majority of Canadians agree with the attitude taken by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in this matter and the choices he has made. What Canadians want above all, Mr. Speaker, is competence, and they trust the judgment of our Prime Minister.



PERTINENCE OF STATEMENTS MADE UNDER S.O. 21

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that Conservative Members are still under the impression that the 15-minute statement period is designed for self-congratulory messages. Mr. Speaker, it has reached the point where Progressive Conservative Members take the floor to pat themselves on the back for all those patronage appointments. Just about the only thing they can do, Mr. Speaker, is to rise to congratulate one another and rejoice about the "Smiling Brian of Baie-Comeau Fan Club" where people pay $100 for the privilege of attending benefit luncheons to fill Party coffers. And yet, Mr. Speaker, that same Party is opposed to any amendment in the interest of 80,000 elderly Canadians who feel deprived. The behaviour of Progressive Conservative Members is scandalous.



AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, Chrysler Corporation has just announced a major new joint

April 25, 1985
venture with Samsung Corporation in Korea to produce auto parts. This direction will lead over the years ahead to severe pressures on Canadian parts producers who will be placed in direct competition with a country where trade union rights are far less respected than here in Canada.
Since Chrysler clearly has many funds available for investment now-this project is suggested to cost over $350 million-I call upon Chrysler to come through on the promise it made when it received loan guarantees from the Canadian Government. Chrysler promised to reactivate its engine plant in Windsor, which would add several thousand jobs in parts production here in Canada. The previous Government did not make Chrysler keep its promise. I call upon this Government to make Chrysler do what it promised.
If Chrysler has money for Korea, it should also have money for Canada, to meet its past commitments.



NATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH WEEK


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise the House about Canada's first National Animal Health Week, starting on April 28. This is a public information program sponsored by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, whose president is in the gallery today. It was established to increase public awareness of the important role of animals in society, and to promote improvements in animal health care.
Animals play several important roles in Canada today; as a source of food, in recreation entertainment, in many scientific and medical advances, and in improving levels of mental and physical health of mankind through human-animal bonding.
Across the country veterinarians will distribute special animal health newspapers, buttons, posters, and colouring books. They will have open houses and tours of veterinary clinics, and they will give public lectures. Animal health technicians will begin a project of pet visitations in senior citizen homes.
Just as we believe people in our society are entitled to proper housing, food, sanitation, and health care, veterinarians, including myself, believe that animals are entitled to no less. Promoting public awareness of the advances of animal science, veterinary medicine, and the psychology of human-animal bonding, is a laudable goal. I ask the House to join me in supporting the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association in this fine undertaking.



CHARTER OF RIGHTS


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, a weekly "pause day" is part of the Canadian way of life. It is not so much a religious right as a social right. It is the right to be free from work for a day, free to do whatever one chooses; to go fishing, sleep in, watch the Toronto Blue Jays march to the pennant, even to go to church, but to spend a day however one likes and enjoy one's family and friends. This social right and freedom may now be threatened by the Charter which was designed to protect rights and freedoms. It behooves Parliament therefore to consider what can be done to guarantee our traditional "pause day".
Only a minority of Canadians are protected by collective bargaining agreements. For the majority, protection probably must come from Parliament. Parliament can pass laws which will not discriminate against minorities but it can give assurance to a majority. It should not threaten the right of anyone to work on Sunday if he wishes, but it should protect the right of all those who wish just the opposite, to pause from work on Sunday so that they can work better on Monday.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the development of our national parks ought to have priority because they make a significant contribution to the Canadian economy.

Ninety per cent of the millions spent by park visitors is concentrated in the transportation, retail, restaurant, and accommodation industries. Every dollar spent by a visitor generates $3.73, and every dollar spent by Parks Canada increases total domestic output of goods and services by $3.10. Parks Canada generates, directly and through visitor spending, $1.98 in labour income for every dollar it spends. For every dollar spent by Parks Canada and park visitors, 98 cents are recovered at one time or another by the various levels of government.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is about time the Minister realized that, instead of slashing national parks budgets, she should promote the development of that great natural wealth.
April 25, 1985




Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, spearheaded by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the new Progressive Conservative policy of economic revitalization is gathering strength as it rolls across the country, creating jobs and bringing prosperity in its wake. Since September 4, 112,000 new jobs have been created, and the number of unemployed has fallen by 50,000. Interest rates have fallen drastically as a result of the Conservative low interest rate policy. The bank rate has dropped 2 per cent in the last 6 weeks alone. The prime rate stands at 10.75 per cent, its lowest level since October, 1978. Mortgage rates are at a 13 month low, and construction cranes again dot the skyline.
Confidence and economic growth have returned to Canada under a PC Government. Our dollar is stabilizing, and inflation is under control. In fact, after a decade of Liberal-Socialist darkness, the light of opportunity again shines across our fair land. Sir, Canada welcomes the return of Conservative prosperity and economic well-being.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, a plot has been revealed. Americans and Canadians can now sleep safely in their beds knowing that Farley Mowat has finally been exposed.
What red-blooded Canadian did not feel there was some nefarious threat or hidden meaning behind books called The Boat Who Wouldn't Float, or The Dog Who Wouldn't Bel The man who wrote those books has been seen talking to unsuspecting school children. He has had courses named after him which is certainly reminiscent of Maoism and Marxism. He has been seen sneaking into Government House. He has been known to prowl our northern frontiers. But now, thanks to the superior work of the U.S. immigration officials, we are no longer fooled. The kilt is again recognized as a sign of subversion.
After reading Never Cry Wolf, we know that the Wolf Cub movement is certainly a subversive organization. Thousands of innocent young men are now identified as suspected terrorists. The son of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the son of Marc Garneau, are now suspicious characters in Canada. Speaking of Marc Garneau, why would anyone go to space except to talk to Russians?
This House owes a vote of thanks to the officials of the U.S. Immigration Department and the rules they enforce. Without
Oral Questions
their efforts, Farley Mowat would walk around this country pretending to be a well respected Canadian artist.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Each day we learn that more and more facts are coming to light in the Wilson affair. The brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance received a contract worth $234,000, and it was untendered. Not only that, the vice-president of the same company had been employed in the office of the Minister for some weeks just before the contract was awarded. Yesterday we learned that the Minister's brother-in-law and former assistant received a second contract without bidding.
Also, yesterday this House was advised by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, in a conflict of interest case involving Mr. Greenbaum, the chairman of the immigration review committee, that there was nothing wrong in Mr. Green-baum's action, but nevertheless:
-any suggestion or hint or impropriety would undermine the confidence of that process, it would therefore be better if he were to submit his resignation.
Is the Prime Minister in agreement with the words and action of the Minister of Employment and Immigration? If so, why is he not applying the same criteria to the Minister of Finance?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: I am in full agreement with the attitudes as expressed by the Minister of Immigration. I am not applying them to the Minister of Finance because the situation is completely inapplicable. It is entirely different. There is a completely different set of circumstances and I think my hon. friend, who has both friends and relatives here and elsewhere, and who has served as a Minister of the Crown, is aware of that. He served as the Minister of Finance, and he would be the first to acknowledge that there is no comparison whatsoever between the situation which gave rise to the action taken by the Minister of Immigration and that of the Minister of Finance.
The case of the Minister of Finance, and I think we have been through it reasonably thoroughly, was handled quite properly according to objective criteria, by the Minister of Supply and Services, who rendered an objective judgment, in which decision public servants played the major role.
It happens that the integrity of the people involved was such, and I think it is important that my hon. friend acknowledge this, that they immediately wrote thereafter to the Government saying that "this kind of business is not good for the Canadian taxpayer and we suggest that you cancel it". This is

April 25, 1985
Oral Questions
a practice which had been going on for years and years, and so we cancelled it and saved the taxpayers in excess of $500,000 each year. I think that is a tribute to them, and we should salute them for that.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. We made it quite clear yesterday that the Minister of Finance should have put an end to it the minute he heard about this contract. He did not and the contract was awarded by his Department through the Department of Supply and Services. Will the Prime Minister admit that in a similar case in this province, then Ontario Treasurer Darcy McKeough, a man of outstanding integrity, immediately handed in his resignation rather than raising doubts about a conflict of interest when, unknown to him, a family company had been given a permit? Does the Prime Minister not think that, in this case, he should ask for the resignation of his Minister of Finance so that there be no doubt left about the Minister's integrity and even his judgment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must point out that, inadvertantly I am sure, my colleague made a serious mistake when he said in his preliminary remarks that the contract has been awarded by the Minister of Finance. On the contrary, this was a Bank of Canada contract awarded by a different Minister altogether. I am being asked a hypothetical question concerning a Minister and an incident that occurred in Ontario. Well, here is a question for you: When the Minister of Finance, Mr. Lalonde, revealed a basic budgetary secret and dismissed the whole incident two minutes later by adding an extra $200 million, should he have resigned? I, for one, think he should have.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think that it is a proper example at all. The Prime Minister referred to the Bank of Canada. The Prime Minister should know that the spokesman for the Bank of Canada in the House of Commons for all of the Bank's actions is the Minister of Finance. He should know that the Minister of Finance must meet with the Governor of the Bank of Canada every week. He should know that the assistant to the Minister had access to the communications between the Bank of Canada and his
Minister. That very assistant to the Minister was at that time the vice-president of the company that got a contract without bidding. Does the Prime Minister not believe that all these facts require the resignation of the Minister of Finance so that we may have a Minister of Finance who will not be under a cloud when preparing the next Budget?


Martin Brian Mulroney: if ever there was a series of facts that called for the resignation of a Minister of Finance, it was when Mr. Lalonde got caught showing his Budget and it cost the Canadian people $200 million to falsify the facts. You defended Mr. Lalonde then, and I can tell you that you had no reason then. That is when a Minister of Finance should have resigned.
When a Minister of Finance should not resign is when he does nothing improper and nothing illegal, who in no way violates, directly or indirectly, the guidelines. That is the case of the present Minister of Finance whom I will defend in this House with pride, as will all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister mistakes the applause of his backbenchers for the approval of all Canadians. 1 can assure him that they are quite different.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, in responding to questions about the appropriateness of the resignation of his Minister of National Defence some time ago, the Prime Minister told the Ottawa Citizen:
Canadians quite properly, even though they know we are less than perfect, quite properly are entitled to ask the highest possible standards of their public servants and of their elected officials.
Is the Prime Minister telling Members of the House, and through Members, all Canadians, that he believes that Canadians believe it is appropriate for a relative of a Cabinet Minister to receive an untendered contract to do work for that Minister's Department?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member quoted the statement that I gave the Ottawa Citizen because I think it is one with which we would all agree.
When the question arose in the House-indeed before- which involved the Minister of National Defence, I can tell you with great personal sadness that I advised the Minister of National Defence that, because of those particular circumstances, indeed his resignation would be appropriate. 1 think it was an honourable day. He did nothing wrong, but it was an honourable day for Parliament. It was a rare day, given what has happened in the past here, when a man stood up and did precisely that.
April 25, 1985

We recognize our obligations and I think we followed through, I can tell you not without considerable sadness, obviously because we owed the obligation of the highest possible standards to the Canadian people.
There is no relationship between the very unfortunate personal situation which involved the Minister of National Defence at the time and the awarding of a contract by the Minister of Supply and Services. I would hope that my hon. friend would be able to see that distinction because it appears to me to be quite obvious to all Members of the House.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Prime Minister says that there is no relationship, but the striking resemblance that I cannot help but note is that the Prime Minister just said seconds ago, "He did nothing wrong", referring to his Minister of Finance, but for the first time he has told the House of Commons that he solicited the resignation of the Minister of Defence. He did nothing wrong, but the Prime Minister solicited his resignation.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is telling us now that the Minister of Finance has done nothing wrong but he would not accept his resignation if it was offered. To that I say, behold the death of a well meaning Dr. Jekyll and the birth of Mr. Hyde.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


REQUEST FOR MINISTER S RESIGNATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I have warned him that honour is like an island-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Is this Question Period or the Gong Show?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps early in the Question Period the Chair could indicate that it would be appropriate once again if questioners and those responding were listened to.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, 1 warn the Minister that honour is like an island, rugged and without a beach, and once we have left it we can never return. If he is to avoid the political perpetual purgatory that is the lot in life of the Solicitor General, will he now not do the honourable thing and resign forthwith his position as Minister of Finance?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On Monday a very distinguished Canadian scientist, Dr. Ursula Franklin, who has a reputation not only nationally but internationally for her competence, received a letter from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources confirming that she has been appointed to the Atomic Energy Control Board for two years.
She responded immediately with a letter seeking clarification of her responsibilities. I have obtained a copy of that letter. Within three hours of her conveying the contents of this letter to Ottawa, she received a phone call from the Minister's office, telling her that her appointment had been cancelled, that it did not exist, and that it was a non event. Would he explain this extraordinary sequence of events?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it was very extraordinary. The Hon. Member quite properly referred to the good reputation of the person involved. I do not think that there is any disagreement about that.
My information is that the person in question was indeed considered for appointment to the Atomic Energy Control Board. She expressed concerns about accepting this appointment because it would require her to take an oath of secrecy. In light of her concerns, the Government and the Minister were forced to reconsider the matter, and the appointment was never proceeded with.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
John Edward Broadbent: Dr. Franklin has categorically denied the reason quoted in the Press, that she said that she would not accept it if she had to take the oath of secrecy. She is publicly quoted as denying that. I spoke to Dr. Franklin on the telephone this morning in that regard, and she repeated to me in private that she at no time said that was the case.
She wrote a very serious letter to the Minister after being told that she had the appointment for two years. She simply wanted clarification of what was required as part of her responsibility. Therefore, will the Prime Minister say to the House, in light of what he has just said, and this new information that I am giving to him, that the Government will reconsider its decision in this case and fulfil its obligation to a very distinguished Canadian scientist?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will faithfully report my hon. friend's concern to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources upon her return. I do not personally know this distinguished individual. I have been informed that Section 18(1) of the Atomic Energy Control Act makes the taking of such an oath mandatory. 1 was also informed that there was some reluctance on her part

April 25, 1985
Oral Questions
to subscribe to that. If that is not the case, I will discuss it with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at the earliest possible moment, and I will be happy to report to my hon. friend.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF APPOINTMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care, as I always do, to what the Prime Minister had to say. Her letter in terms of its content is exactly what I said it was, namely, a letter of a responsible Canadian scientist who has been told she has been appointed to something, and wants clarification.
Considering what the Prime Minister has just said that he will investigate, given her eminent qualifications will the Prime Minister go further than that and tell the House that since she had already been offered the appointment, and if he checks into his own briefing notes or checks with the Minister of Energy and finds out the reason for taking back the offer that he gave to the House turned out to be false, will he assure the House that she will be offered that job once again?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to assure the House. My understanding was that Dr. Franklin's concerns related directly to the issue of those to whom she could or could not impart confidential information-


Ian Deans: That is exactly right.


John Edward Broadbent: She was seeking clarification.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -which I supposed raised concern on behalf of those who are bringing her name forward. I have heard nothing but eulogistic comments in regard to the individual. As soon as the Minister of Energy returns, I will be happy to take the matter up with her again.
It was my understanding this was Dr. Franklin's position and therefore clearly at variance with the requirements of the statutes. Should that turn out not to be the case, I will be happy to discuss it with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who, I also understand, holds her in high regard.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As of this morning the Prime Minister was listed with the Corporations Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as a director of the following five companies which do not appear on the conflict of interest disclosure declaration which he signed on January 9, 1985. The companies include: Canadian Insurance and Investment Incorporated, Common Cents Canada Incorporated, Common Cents Incorporated, Nommoc Incorporated, and Showcraft Publications Incorporated. Will the Prime Minister tell the House and the people of Canada why he failed to disclose these directorships as required by the conflict of interest guidelines?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have a response to that. I would like to read it into the record, and I must read it into the record, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Table it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, it is not a document. It is my response to the Member's question. It confirms:
-the following companies, Canadian Insurance and Investment Inc., Showcraft Publications Inc., Common Cents Inc., Common Cents Canada Inc., Nommoc Inc. These are all privately owned companies, none of which have assets of more than $2,000. Mr. Mulroney became associated with these companies more than ten years ago as a director of these companies at my request and relinquished his directorships when he became Leader of the Opposition in June 1983 and has not received any remuneration or fees since then. Mr. Mulroney has not been associated directly or indirectly with any of these companies since June 1983.
If any returns filed anywhere suggest or indicate anything different than what is stated above, they are incorrect and amended returns will be filed accordingly. Showcraft Publications Inc. and Canadian Insurance and Investment Inc. arc in the course of being wound up.
This communication is signed by Frank B. Common Jr., Q.C.
These were companies of Mr. Common and his family, who was one of my law partners, and any lawyer in the House, including my hon. friend from Saint-Henri-Westmount, knows these arrangements are made from time to time. I did it to convenience a friend and partner. I received no benefits.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FILING OF RESIGNATIONS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Prime Minister, a supplementary question. This is sloppy management of the worst kind.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Prime Minister has an obligation to the people of Canada to ensure-


Mr. Andre:: Apologize.


Mr. Stevens:: Apologize.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -that the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs does not include his name as a director.
I want to know when he filed his resignation, if he filed his resignation before he became the Prime Minister and, if he did not, why not, because he is clearly in violation of the conflict of interest guidelines-


Some Hon. Members:: Louder.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -which require him to file all of the corporate directorships which he held within the two years prior to him
April 25, 1985

becoming the Prime Minister. I think that the Prime Minister owes the people of Canada an explanation.


An Hon. Member:: Only the rat pack is applauding.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend missed a sentence that 1 read which stated that Mr. Mulroney became "a director of these companies at my request and relinquished his directorships when he became Leader of the Opposition in June 1983."
1 also had to resign from the Canadian Red Cross, la Fondation Robert Cliche, the John Diefenbaker Foundation, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the National Ballet of Canada, and the Ottawa Civil Service Recreational Association.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Go back to Ontario. Peterson needs you.


HAULAGE OF BEEF OVER TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last Tuesday the Minister received a report informing him that an Alberta truck driver had hauled a load of beef through northern Ontario over the PCB route to Asbestos, Quebec, dropping off carcasses in Sudbury and Brockville, and depositing the remainder of his load for distribution in Quebec. By now many consumers will have purchased and perhaps eaten some of this beef.
Since people in these communities will be very anxious about the potential health risks from the exposure to PCBs, will the Minister undertake a full national inquiry into this matter and report to the House so that people can be assured that every precaution is being taken to deal with this incident and to prevent similar incidents in the future?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the points which the Hon. Member makes are essentially correct. It is true that hanging meat from Brooks, Alberta, was transported to Asbestos, Quebec. We became aware of that on Tuesday night. Yesterday investigations were launched, both at the two locations in Ontario and primarily in Asbestos, Quebec, including the wholesaler who is handling the meat. As of today-and I am not trying to compromise the Hon. Member in any way, but I have given her some private information as well-we have been able to look at six samples, six sides, or six carcasses out of the 57 that were in the truck. Of those most of them-that is the outside fat content-seem to be negative on PCBs, but there are two samples that have been found to be positive. The levels are very low. Despite that, all the technological information that I have received indicates
Oral Questions
there would not be a health risk. Despite that, we have indicated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this answer is getting a little long. The Minister may have a statement on motions to make? A supplementary question for the Hon. Member for Vancouver East.


REQUEST THAT NATIONAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM BE ESTABLISHED
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I asked the Minister whether he would conduct an immediate national inquiry which should involve both his Department and the Department of the Environment. I know he is very concerned about this, but the people involved are even more concerned. We want more than just assurance that there have been six samples tested.
Is it true that in his Department at the present time there is no national surveillance program available to determine health risk factors from environmental situations such as this? If it is true, will he immediately institute such a surveillance program which will conduct long-term research and will also involve people who may not even be aware that they were subjected to exposure?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to abuse the time of the House. I was trying to give information to ensure that panic, which can so easily be raised in these kinds of questions, does not in fact happen. That was my point.
I say to the Hon. Member that the Department is capable of handling the issue. We have looked at whatever carcasses we could. We have said-and I was going to give this information to her and to the House-that anyone who is concerned because of quantities, especially those with sides of beef in their freezers, can get in touch with the Sherbrooke office of HPB. I want to say to her-and I have also spoken to the Hon. Member from Asbestos-that we are willing to give whatever service we can, but I do not intend, because of the low levels, to create any fear or panic where it does not exist.


AGRICULTURE
A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. During the last week I have spoken with many beef farmers in my area about a possible increase in the quota for Irish beef and the detrimental effect of such a decision. They fear the decimation of the beef industry, the bankruptcy of many farmers, a loss of over a hundred jobs for every million pounds of imports, and disruption of our traditional export markets. Could the Minis-

April 25, 1985
Oral Questions
ter tell the farmers of Canada and this House the status of the negotiations over Irish beef imports?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's concern about the subject, as I do that of many colleagues in all quarters of the House who, I expect, have received many representations on the subject. I must make it very clear that despite what has been said from time to time by various people, both within and outside the industry, and despite what certain people have read, the fact of the matter is that the negotiations continue. As of this date no final decision has been reached.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, like most Canadians, I am amazed, astonished, and in fact deeply offended, as I am sure is everyone in the House, by the incredible series of events which have taken place in the office of the Minister of Finance. I have reviewed the record. I would like the Minister to confirm or deny in the House the following statements, to clear the record: first, that Douglas Robson worked in the Minister's office under an oath of secrecy in September and October, 1984; that Douglas Robson had access to information in that office, classified as secret, and had private meetings with the Deputy Minister of Finance, Marshall "Mickey" Cohen; that Douglas Robson did not sign the conflict of interest guidelines required of exempt staff; that there was a verbal agreement-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order Paper!


Donald James Johnston: This is all for the record, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, the Hon. Member has asked three questions. Perhaps we could deal with the first three.


Donald James Johnston: Well, Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: This is the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fact, for the record, the Government has taken 50 per cent of the time of the questions to answer today. I have kept the clock for those who make points to me on the side. I think the Hon. Member has put his question. I invite the Hon. Minister to answer it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes, the answer to the second question is no, and the answer to the third question is no. The reason Mr. Robson did not sign the conflict of interest guidelines was that at that time he didn't have any need to; there wasn't a requirement. In 1979, he didn't. The reason he didn't was because there was a technicality in the conflict of guidelines which would have required him to resign a directorship on a charitable organization that had very close family ties to him. He was trying to negotiate with the Registrar General to
avoid signing the conflict of interest guidelines, or to take those out of the conflict of interest guidelines. The election came and that was never resolved.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, he took the oath of secrecy but apparently he was not given access to any secrets. That is curious.
My second question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Within a month after his leaving the Department of Finance, a contract for $234,000 was awarded to Lawson Murray. When was Lawson Murray first contacted with respect to that advertising contract?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it was the end of October, October 31, that the Bank of Canada-not the Minister of Finance-a separate institution, a separate board of directors, a separate administration-


Sheila Maureen Copps: But the same Minister.


Harvie Andre: -following Treasury Board guidelines, Chapter 485, approached the advertising management group for an agency to undertake the management of its marketable bonds program. We selected Lawson Murray on the basis of its expertise and experience in handling financial institutions. The wisdom of our choice in that regard is demonstrated by the fact that by letter of February 11 it was pointed out that we could save $500,000 per year by not carrying on the program which had been unnecessarily carried on by the previous administration for years and years. I repeat again, I am proud of the contract, and I am proud of the fact that we selected Lawson Murray.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is the question I asked yesterday to which I did not receive a reply. Does the Prime Minister believe that it is appropriate for a relative of a Cabinet Minister to receive benefit from an untendered contract with the Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the Member yesterday-


Ian Deans: You didn't answer me yesterday.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If not to the Hon. Member, then to one of his colleagues, surely. 1 indicated that at the earliest possible
April 25, 1985

moment-and they are in the process of being completed now-in both instances, with regard to the conduct of Cabinet Ministers as Ministers of the Crown, and with regard to tendering procedures and granting of contracts, we would bring in new guidelines with new degrees of severity. I think those guidelines will be of service to the House and will be very, very frugal in regard to taxpayers' dollars.


RECEIPT OF BENEFIT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that, but it is not the answer to my question. My question is quite simple. Does the Prime Minister believe that it is appropriate for a relative of a Cabinet Minister to receive the benefit of an untendered contract with the Government of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, you have a situation where a Canadian citizen tenders to the Government or-


Some Hon. Members:: Untendered.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -services are made available to the Government of Canada-


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is a tender situation but there was no tender.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and public servants, pursuant to objective criteria, make a determination. I suppose that you may have a question as to whether the relatives of anyone in this House at any time can have any association with the Government, and it is a question which will be considered in the guidelines. But I think my hon. friend, in asking the question, which perhaps inadvertently casts aspersions on an agency-


Ian Deans: I want an answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -should recognize that a half a million dollars a year of the taxpayers' money has been saved because of that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Fair is fair.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and 1 think Canadian taxpayers are delighted.


Ian Deans: Your baloney does not sell any more. Why don't you answer the question? Are you afraid of the answer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PR IM E MIN ISTER'S STA FF
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask him whether any relatives of his staff have been awarded any untendered government contracts.
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, some members of the Liberal Party were not here prior to September 4 and are perhaps not aware that the Department of Supply and Services does all of the purchasing of goods and services on behalf of the Government. We process some 350,000 contracts a year. The ones above $1 million come to my desk. The ones below that are handled by public servants. I will have to ask the public servants to go through that list of 350,000 to find out if any of the companies involved had any relatives associated with anybody in this House. I'm sure the Hon. Member realizes that it will take several years before we can get back to him.


BIOLINK MANAGEMENT LTD.
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can be more specific. With the greatest of respect I would appreciate an answer from the Prime Minister, because Canadians want to hear from the Prime Minister. Rather than taking several years to answer, he can answer in a few moments. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Biolink Management Ltd. was given a $220,000 untendered government contract, that the president of the company is a former aide to the Minister of Justice and married to an assistant in his office, the PMO? Does the Prime Minister consider this situation to be a conflict of interest?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have heard of guilt by association, but this gives a brand new meaning to it. What I do know is this. It is perhaps a little less nefarious than the manner just set out. Indeed, a very reputable distinguished man in Ottawa by the name of Chester Burtt, who is widely known, rendered distinguished services, for example, to the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice when he was a Liberal leadership candidate. He worked for him. That is one of the reasons we retained him, his credentials were so high. Apparently he formed an association with another very distinguished Canadian of whom everyone speaks highly, the former executive assistant to the Hon. Member for Windsor West. They formed a company and made an offer of services to the Government which involved the public service, and we took advantage of it, I think to the advantage of the taxpayers of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and concerns the dump for radioactive wastes which the American

April 25, 1985
Oral Questions
Government is thinking of locating at Holland Pond in Vermont, on the Canadian border next to the Eastern Townships.
The Americans are considering the site because there are very few people living in the area on their side of the border, but they are ignoring-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have now come to the point where I cannot hear the Hon. Member. Is it possible for the House to allow the Hon. Member to put his question?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will repeat my question for the benefit of the Minister.
My question concerns the dump for radioactive wastes which the Americans are thinking of locating at Holland Pond in Vermont, on the Canadian border next to the Eastern Townships; the Americans are considering this site because there are very few people living in the area on their side of the border. However, they are ignoring the fact that there are 200,000 Canadians living in the area on the Canadian side. In view of the potential risk to Canadians which would continue to exist for thousands of years, will the Canadian Government make it clear to the Americans that the dump is unacceptable to Canadians?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, our embassy immediately informed the Department of State of our interest in this matter. Our officials are working actively on this case and are monitoring developments very closely. For the information of Hon. Members, I would like to point out that a meeting was called yesterday, where we were represented by the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Charest)-I wonder where the Opposition was since we might have had some common interests-and we intend to pursue the matter and to take steps in order to-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Government has announced that Canadians have an interest in this matter. Could the Minister inform the House quite frankly that this plan to locate a dump site for radioactive wastes on the border is unacceptable to Canada?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I said that we were monitoring developments very closely, and we will report on assessments of the situation as they are made.


FORESTRY
Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Forestry). Since
the forestry industry is very important to Quebec, especially in my riding of Temiscamingue, could the Minister inform the House when he intends to sign the Canada-Quebec agreement on upgrading forestry resources?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the continued interest of the Hon. Member. It is not the first time he has asked a question on that. In the last two days we concluded another amendment to an agreement with the Province of Quebec. Hopefully that will be the last and we will be able to sign the agreement on Tuesday next in Quebec City. This $300 million agreement is an excellent one which will go a long way to create the kind of programs for silviculture and forest management that Quebec and Canada need.

[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON KENORA INCIDENT
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and relates to the Kenora incident, of course, but more specifically to the truck transporting many beef carcasses, most of which to be delivered in Asbestos in my riding. I appreciate that the Minister reassured the residents of the region by telling them he would take every step necessary to warn them and set them at ease, but can he tell us when and how many carcasses were recovered?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I believe the number of carcasses in the truck was 57. As I said, there were two sides that were delivered to two points in Ontario. The best information I can give on the number of carcasses that we have recovered is the number that we have recovered and on which tests were done. That in total was six, five I believe in the Asbestos area. The situation is that there are those residents who might have bought a side of freezer beef. That can be fairly easily traced. In the case where individual butcher shops received the meat and sold it, we obviously cannot trace that. That is why I offered the services of the Department at Sherbrooke. If they want to have any contact or help along those lines, we are willing to give it.
[ Translation]


DELAY IN INTERVENTIONS BY DEPARTMENT AND BY PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Considering the fact that the Kenora incident occurred on April 13 and that, as far as I know, the remaining carcasses were in fact recovered only yesterday or the day
April 25, 1985___ COMMONS DEBATES
before, I would like to know-and understand-why and how your Government and the Government of Ontario waited so long before intervening?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr, Speaker, I think that the situation in Kenora is now under full control. Yesterday I called a conference of provincial Ministers and we have decided to have an emergency meeting to see to it that in the future the provinces will accept their responsibilities in connection with PCB waste disposal.


TRUST COMPANIES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in the absence of his colleague, the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns the collapse of Pioneer Trust last February in Regina. I have in my hand a copy of an application form for an income averaging certificate, from a Saskatchewan farmer. It states on this application form that his application was insured by the CDIC. The seal is here. It says "application for a six-year annuity". I also have an application for a seven-year annuity with the same insurance stamp of approval. This man later found that he was not insured because CDIC does not insure these kinds of investments for more than five years.
Since I already gave this information to the Government over three weeks ago, can the Minister explain why the Government has not acted to reimburse the hundreds and perhaps thousands of innocent depositors like this man in Saskatchewan, who put a considerable amount of savings into these certificates, thought they were insured, but found later on that they were not? Why has the Government not reimbursed these people?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the Minister of State for Finance has been dealing with this matter and has had discussions with certain members of the Hon. Member's own Party as well as with people from the Government of Saskatchewan. When the Minister returns to the House I will bring the matter to her attention. I am sure she will be dealing with the matter forthwith.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) on Wednesday, April 24, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Privilege-Mr. Witer PRIVILEGE


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), in an answer he gave during the Question Period which just ended, said that an associate of Chester Burtt in the firm of Biolink was a former executive assistant of mine. If the Prime Minister will check, he will find that he was in serious error because the individual in question was never my executive assistant. He was a departmental assistant and served in that capacity as a public servant. Therefore, he was not an exempt staff member. That is a very different matter. In this particular matter I think the Prime Minister has made a serious error for which he should return to the House to apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has a fact he wishes to present to the House. However, it is clearly not a question of privilege, and I think he knows that.
I now recognize the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park on a question of privilege, of which he has given me notice.


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This is the first opportunity I have had to bring to your attention an advertisement which appeared in the April 6 to 13, 1985 issue of the newspaper Vilne Slovo, a paper circulated in Toronto. The advertisement was placed on behalf of the former Member of Parliament for my constituency, Parkdale-High Park. In the advertisement, Mr. Jesse Flis is identified as the Member of Parliament for Parkdale-High Park and a constituency office address and telephone number are listed. The advertisement is in Ukrainian and the English translation is as follows:
Christ has risen-With the Holy Holiday of the resurrection of Christ, sincere best wishes to all Ukrainians in Canada and specially to the readers of the "Free Word" from: Jesse P. Flis, (Member of Parliament for Parkdale-High Park).
Referring to Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, pages 21 and 22, I found the following:
A person ceases to be a Member of the House of Commons when the Speaker addresses his warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the Issue of a Writ for the Election of a new Member.
By the same token, Maingot states on page 20 and 21:
In Parliamentary Practice, the entry in the special edition of the Canada Gazette by the Chief Electoral Officer of the name of the person set out in the return commences the official existence of the member.
Under these definitions, Mr. Flis ceased to be a Member of Parliament once the Speaker had addressed his warrant for the last election and I commenced my duties as a Member of Parliament when my name was entered in the special edition of the Gazette. In fact, I think it can be argued that Mr. Flis ceased to be a Member at the dissolution of the last Parliament and since he did not succeed in being re-elected, there
4112

April 25, 1985
Privilege-Mr. Witer
can be no doubt that Mr. Flis is no longer entitled to the use of the title "Member of Parliament".
Maingot describes the subordinate nature of privilege on page 13 by stating:
In order lo perform its functions as a legislative body, a legislature requires absolutely certain privileges, rights or immunities; that is to say, it cannot carry on unless it has them.
In order to establish a definition of privilege, I looked to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 16, which defines privilege as the following:
-the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House, individually, without which they could not discharge their functions-
The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers". They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members-
I believe that usage of the title "Member of Parliament" is one of the rights required to carry out the responsibilities of such office and unless use of the title is restricted to individuals recognized as legally entitled to such a designation, a Member of Parliament cannot hope to execute his duties and responsibilities to his constituents. How can a constituent approach a Member of Parliament for the assistance to which he is entitled from his elected representative when he is being misled as to the identity of the Member? If the title of Member of Parliament is not restricted to Members of the present Parliament, then the reputation of the House is at risk and may fall into disrespect when any like-minded individual may lay claim to the title.
A similar instance arose in March of 1972 when the Hon. George Mcllraith brought to the attention of the House the plan of a local hotel to use the name "Parliament Hill" to designate its property. At that time a Private Member's Bill was introduced to prevent the commercial use of the name. In that instance the House saw fit to act to protect its prerogative use of the name, and I believe the decision a wise one.
Finally, I should like to quote from page 158 of the Twentieth Edition of Erskine May which states as follows:
Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to influence a Member in the discharge of his duties, but having a tendency to impair his independence in the future performance of his duty, will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
I wish to ensure that the privilege of use of the title of Member of Parliament is protected and so, should you find that I have presented evidence of a prima facie case of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for examination. I submit here a copy of the newspaper in question. The advertisement complained of appears on page 10.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the former Member for Parkdale-High Park was such a popular Member that the media cannot forget his great contribution to this House.


Mr. Speaker:: May I encourage the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) to stick to the question of privilege at the present time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Exactly. However, I must set the tone, as did the Hon. Member, prior to discussing the subject at hand.
The speech made today by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) was an interesting one and probably put him on the map because it is the first one he has made in the House. I would like to state that-


Mr. Thacker:: Withdraw!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Withdraw what? There is nothing to withdraw. I simply said he has put himself on the map by making the point that he indeed follows a very good and hardworking Member of Parliament, Mr. Jesse Flis.
I am sure Mr. Flis did not do this intentionally. It could be that the media has such a good memory of Mr. Flis that it forgot to put the word "former" before the name. The press forgets to print things correctly all the time. Mr. Flis will be paying the bill for this advertisement. If he was in any way trying to usurp the privileges of the Hon. Member, I am sure he will apologize to him. I know Mr. Flis to be a reasonable and very good man-


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: A gentleman.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: And a gentleman as well. I do not think he wanted to take away any of the privileges of the Hon. Member.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the Speaker is fully aware of the issue. The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) has a point to make on the question of privilege which, I think, he will make very briefly.


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, I paid close attention to the arguments of our colleague and, to my mind, there is one omission in the advertisement-the word "future' . I think that if you could-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 think the points have been made with regard to the question of privilege.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: would like to make a brief intervention, Mr. Speaker. 1 think it is a serious question which the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) has raised, and I do not think it is incumbent upon Liberal Members to trivialize a paid advertisement which was placed in the Ukrainian-Canadian newspaper.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Is he Ukrainian?
April 25, 1985


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Flis is Canadian. 1 am a Canadian and I am very proud to be a Canadian of Ukrainian descent.
This is not a case of editorializing by the newspaper; it is the case of a paid advertisement on the part of an individual who is not now a Member of Parliament. The Member of Parliament, who has served with such distinction, is now in the House and has raised the question of privilege. It is a question which affects the rights and abilities of Members in carrying out their responsibilities in the House. We must have a set of rules which, in fact, protect Members of Parliament from not being able to carry out their responsibilities. Indeed, in this particular instance there is a prima facie case, as Mr. Flis has held himself out as a Member of Parliament.


Ian Deans: We don't know that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am saying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the point has been made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) that there is not a prima facie case. However, the Hon. Member who made the case presented the paper with the authority of Jesse Flis holding himself out as a Member of Parliament for Parkdale-High Park and as having a constituency office.
I think a legitimate matter of concern has been raised by the Member of Parliament. I would ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain: If one, two or more people were holding themselves out as the Member of Parliament for his riding, would he not be the first to rise in the House and say that his abilities to carry out his responsibilities as a Member of Parliament were being impeded? It is not a laughing matter, as the Liberals seem to think it is. It is an attempt by the Hon. Member to bring forward a prima facie case with respect to this issue. It is legitimate. People cannot go out and call themselves Mr. Speaker, or the Member of Parliament for Hamilton Mountain. I support the Hon. Member and I think he has done the right thing. If someone else has done this on Mr. Flis' behalf, then Mr. Flis can, in fact, come forward.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: 


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The "if' part is that we know there is an advertisement. It is under the authority of Mr. Flis and there is no question that there is a prima facie case.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Shoot first and ask questions after.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will hear the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and then the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I will restrict the argument to that.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Not me?


Mr. Speaker:: No, that will be it. I have heard two Members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Clearly, this is now
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
becoming something other than a question of privilege in terms of the reasons for which Members are rising.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have no axe to grind here. I think, perhaps, that we are losing our perspective in this matter. Surely, a former Member of Parliament, in his normal actions, would not advertise himself as being a Member of Parliament. It does not sound reasonable. The ad may have been placed without his knowledge. I believe we should postpone the matter for a couple of weeks, and that the Member or the Speaker should write to Mr. Flis and await his response.
I was once called a nobody by the previous Government and I have been called "an insignificant" by this Government, so I am not worried about what Members of Parliament are called or how they advertise. But I think we should keep the matter in perspective.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have heard all that I need to hear on the question of privilege. I fully intend to reserve on the question. However, I would like to say that the Hon. Member's point is a very important one. It is important to me and to all Members; it has to be. So I am proposing to reserve a final judgment on this matter, do a little thinking and, perhaps, a little investigation. That is my intention. I also intend to allow some time for any additional appropriate information to come to my attention. Then I will return to the House with a final ruling on the matter.



POINT OF ORDER


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order to seek your assistance in resolving what I believe to be a developing situation.
Over the course of the last few weeks we have seen, on a number of occasions, government Members rising during Question Period with loud and lengthy applause. I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you would be kind enough at some point to draw to the attention of all Members, Opposition and Government, that it is inappropriate to take the time to rise and disrupt Question Period with lengthy applause and demonstrations of solidarity. It is not necessary. There are times when it is appropriate, but it cannot be appropriate on a daily basis.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think that you as Speaker conduct yourself with distinction. You have a sensitivity toward the House and, in fact, you have intervened from time to time-very often on our side, but that is your function. I appreciate and respect the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), but 1 believe he is suggesting that somehow you might not have been intervening at the appropriate times.


Ian Deans: Not at all.

April 25, 1985
Business of the House


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I believe you have been an excellent Speaker, Mr. Speaker, and that you bring the House to order at the appropriate times. I believe the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain should apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to make a point to all Members of the House, in all Parties. Effectively during each Question Period we are now losing between three and five minutes a day out of a 45-minute period to what can only be described as manifestations. Sometimes it is in the form of applause by one side or the other. Sometimes it is in the form of comments or commentaries that go beyond what would traditionally be understood as heckling. Sometimes Members keep on speaking when the Speaker is trying to say something.
1 believe that the point which was made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is important, but it is not simply an issue of applause. If we observe what is happening to Question Period, we will notice that there are fewer and fewer questions and answers. I made the point when 1 took the chair that I do not think that is what the House wants. Therefore, I would encourage all Members, all Ministers, all questioners and all responders to please do what they can to bring the House back to what we all want-shorter questions, shorter answers and respect by everybody for everybody else.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is
Thursday, Mr. Speaker, and the Hon. Member who usually asks me the question is here now. I thought it would be appropriate to announce the business of the House for the next week, Mr. Speaker.
As I announced yesterday, tomorrow will be the fourth allotted day in the current period of Supply and there will be a vote at the end of the day. We will be considering a motion by the New Democratic Party so that there will be a vote tomorrow at 4.45 p.m.
We will resume consideration of the report stage of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada on Monday. Following Bill C-15, the House will begin consideration of the report stage of Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Act. In the event that Bill C-24 is passed, the next Bill we will deal with will be Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act which is also at report stage.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, should the House complete its consideration of Bill C-30, we will move on to Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, Monday's order of business will also apply to Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
As always, Mr. Speaker, the order of business for the House remains subject to change. The Government will continue to monitor the progress made with respect to these Bills and may announce such changes to business as may be required.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if he intends to have the House stay on Bill C-15, the Investment Canada Bill, until its study is concluded by the House, if that does not happen on Monday?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my hope is that we will make progress. As the Hon. Member knows, this Bill received very extensive consideration in the House of Commons before the Christmas break and very extensive consideration in committee. I know the Hon. Member will want to sit down with me at an early date, with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), to talk about the disposition of this Bill. I would be interested in hearing helpful suggestions about how soon we can get this Bill through. I think the people of Canada have spoken. They want this Bill to proceed and I know the Hon. Member and his Party will want to co-operate in the spirit of getting important legislation through the House. I assure the Hon. Member that he will be consulted and I hope we can work out a specific time frame so we can get this Bill through.
I am interested in getting this Bill through. Canadians are interested in action. They don't want to have us talk on this matter indefinitely. There has been too much talk now. We should get on with it and get Canada moving again.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the members and friends of the Canadian Greyhound Association. It is a petition signed by in excess of 1,000 people and concerns the legalization of pari mutuel betting on greyhound races in Canada.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from 32 constituents in my riding calling upon Parliament to act as quickly as possible to establish clear obscenity legislation and to enforce stricter control of pornography.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition from the seasonal fruit indus-
April 25, 1985

try employees in the Okanagan Valley who rely on unemployment insurance, as do their employers, to keep a trained work force available to process the product which is so vital to the economy of the valley. The seasonal fruit industry employees wish to register their opposition to any changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which will affect their livelihood and the economy of the Okanagan Valley.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Ian Gardiner Waddell: for leave to introduce Bill C-236, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (non-listed electors).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill to amend the Canada Elections Act which would do three things. First, it would allow urban voters to swear in on election day. At present only rural voters can do this and so some urban voters are disenfranchised. This is similar to a provision in the British Columbia Elections Act.
Second, the Bill would permit individuals travelling abroad to vote overseas in a manner similar to Canadian Forces and Public Service electors who are posted outside of Canada. Some people were disenfranchised last summer from voting in the election. That is the reason for this provision.
Third, the Bill would give canvassers the right to enter hotels to canvass in an election campaign. There are no provincial laws on the books at present which give canvassers the right to enter hotels in order to canvass, nor has there been anything in the federal Act which gives them this right. This was a big problem-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Those are all important points but the Hon. Member knows that there is a very short time limit.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I just want to conclude by saying that the third part of the Bill was simply to give canvassers access to hotels, which they were unable to do during the last election campaign.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Introduction of Bills
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 291 will be answered today.


Mr. Parry: In 1984-85, did the Department of the Secretary of State grant funds for (a) shelters (b) homes (c) transition houses for abused women?


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: (a), (b) and (c)
The Women's Program of the Department of the Secretary of State provided grant funds in the amount of $257,797 in support of the work of transition houses for women, during the period April, 1984 to February, 1985. These funds were distributed over a total of 19 projects across the country and covered the following categories of activity:
1.	Conferences, workshops, seminars-$65,534 (7 projects).
2.	Publications, newsletters, information material-$71,121 (6 projects).
3.	Public education/group development and co-ordination- $121,142 (6 projects).

[ Translation]


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 227 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 227 be made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howie: Did the Department of National Health and Welfare fund recreation programs in 1984 for (a) physically handicapped persons (b) mentally handicapped persons (c) senior citizens and, if so (i) what amount was allotted to programs in New Brunswick (ii) what are the names of the programs which received funding, and what amount was given to each program?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 25, 1985
Investment Canada Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and Motions Nos. 1 (Mr. Axworthy) and 2 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4001).
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned earlier today, I was saying that in a previous speech on this Bill, I drew the attention of the House to the importance of the role of women in Canada's economy. I repeat today that it is vital to protect the rights of women, especially in the small- and medium-sized business sector.
In recent years, more and more women have realized the importance of investment in Canada. They are getting involved in business and increasingly, we are finding women at the decision-making level in Canadian business. Their presence can no longer go unnoticed, and in the first amendment moved by my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) 1 see a desire to protect all Canadian investors, both men and women. By stressing our intention to maintain investment quality and to introduce Canadian controls, we are telling investors: Do not worry, we will continue to appreciate your participation in Canada's economy. I think that should not be too difficult to understand. And that is why I want to ask the following question: Why do our colleagues opposite not support this amendment? Why are the Progressive Conservatives placing such a blind trust in non-Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you must have asked yourself the same questions. However, this amendment does not oppose the concept of investment in Canada. It is merely an attempt to provide for a better relationship with our businessmen and women and our potential non-Canadian investors. It is especially seeking to safeguard our jobs not only for the present generation, but more significantly for future generations of Canadian workers.
We must look closely into the consequences of this amendment. A few months ago, one could read almost everywhere that "Canada is open again to investments". Well, Mr. Speaker, Canada may well be open for business and investments, but it is certainly not for sale. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was the first to say so: Canada is not for sale.
We are all in favour of job creation. Nobody in the House could deny that. Bill C-15 has a number of very definite and praiseworthy objectives. There is not a single member of the House who would dare question the merits of Bill C-15. I
merely wish to emphasize that the proposed amendment would strengthen the general purpose of this bill.
Hon. Members will certainly agree with me when I say that Canadian businessmen and businesswomen have every right to expect their government to protect them and guarantee them a privileged position within the Canadian economy. For the past several years, these Canadian men and women who operate small and medium size businesses have been trying to put back the Canadian economy on the right track. They have realized the need to get involved and many of them have done so by investing very courageously their own savings in Canadian businesses. It would be unfortunate if, failing to take into account the quality and value of investment proposals made by non-Canadians, we broke their momentum. We must put into this act some ways and means to protect our own Canadian ventures. That is exactly the purpose of our amendment.
We welcome the capital of foreign investors. We have as much to learn from them as they from us. The purpose of the amendment is to give Canada better control over foreign investments and create a better economic climate for all Canadians. It is a well known fact that new technologies are progressing by leaps and bounds. Canada has always been proud to participate in research and development in several areas. Over the past few years, we have taken part in a number of major research projects and our reputation in this regard is second to none. That is why the first amendment moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is so significant.
One of the aims of his amendment is to protect our knowhow in the area of high technology, and if the House should fail to adopt this amendment, we would run the risk of seeing our technological heritage leave the country and be lost forever.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that we should not try to stop foreign investments for the sake of doing so, but simply determine that they are consistent with the over-all objectives of our country and that they will benefit all Canadians. I repeat that we are seeking first of all to protect Canadian jobs, secondly to protect Canadian investors, and finally to ensure the quality of foreign investments. Therefore, I support the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some comments to the debate this afternoon with respect to the amendments to Bill C-15. The amendments, as proposed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) would change the explanatory section of the Bill and quite distinctly redefine its thrust. The purpose of this Bill at present reads as follows:
April 25, 1985

Recognizing that increased capital and technology would benefit Canada, the purpose of this Act is to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians that contributes to economic growth and employment opportunities and to provide for the review of significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians in order to ensure such benefit to Canada.
That contains the distinction that we as a Government acknowledge that investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians will be one of the vital engines of economic growth. It also acknowledges that there is a significant review process in place for certain investments by Canadians and non-Canadians. Both motions try to alter fundamentally the nature of this Bill. They make the review function the most important feature, relegating to second place the function of encouragement. Also, the first motion confines the very small positive role solely to investment by Canadians, a position which is not very deserving. Under the present regulations of FIR A we saw what happens when a Government tries to over-regulate investment; it simply goes elsewhere and fosters a very unhealthy climate in Canada.
These motions are entirely opposed to the spirit and philosophy of the Bill. All they do is simply to bring FIRA back, and that is not something we want. The aim of this Bill is to signal that the Government welcomes foreign investment because it recognizes that it is generally to the benefit of Canada and all Canadians. For that reason, the Bill would encourage investment by non-Canadians as well as Canadians. It also provides for a review of significant investment, and I point out to those who would like to amend this Bill that in Clause 14 there are very reasonable limits spelled out. Concern is sometimes generated by those who would fearmonger, if I can use such a strong term, that by simply encouraging investment we are somehow selling off our sovereignty. Some people would say that, but Clause 14 of this Bill contains very reasonable limitations.
I often think of the very important philosophical and psychological tendencies which investment brings to a country. When a Government has in place an agency like FIRA, which is more prohibitive than encouraging, that is a psychological thing which tells people inside and outside the country that perhaps they should be wary, perhaps they should avoid Canada as a place to spend their money, take their risk, make their investment and create so many thousands of jobs.
That very vital psychological sign has been seen in this country many times before. I think of my native Province of Saskatchewan where an NDP Government nationalized the potash industry. Literally overnight there were many calls from investors inside and Outside of Canada who were concerned that the Government was simply going to start regulating to a great extent the lives and livelihood of the people of my province. One also looks at developments in your Province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, in recent years, where the investment climate was threatened and often challenged, and many investors began to approach investing in Quebec with considerable concern. We saw this as well with FIRA.
All that the provision stating the purpose of this Bill does is to put the positive emphasis first. It is for that reason that these amendments, while trying to recreate FIRA, would be
Investment Canada Act
highly unacceptable. These amendments, beyond this very important area of investment psychology, I think give a message as to how the Government approaches people who want to come and invest. It is a view of trust versus distrust. It is a view of a Government that believes in growth versus the view of those who would amend this Bill so as to somehow have the Government managing the economy. Many of us have seen for far too long the negative effects of a Government that simply tries to regulate the economy.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: When have they ever done that since the Second World War?


John Kenneth Gormley: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) asks when they have ever done that since the Second World War. FIRA drove billions of dollars of investment capital away from this country, and it was supported by the NDP. The New Democratic Party is always all too willing to put its finger wherever it can in controlling the lives of people. FIRA is an example of the investment control we have experienced.
The NDP amendment states, "-under the appropriate terms and conditions established by the government. .." At least the amendment by the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry spoke of notification. However, only the NDP would say that the Government knows what is "appropriate" and what terms are best for the good of people's lives.
As one who has lived for a long time in the Province of Saskatchewan where a New Democratic provincial Government has caused those difficulties, I believe, as I think most Members do, that people know what is best for their families. They know how they want to express themselves as Canadians in our society.
We acknowledge that the Government must play a significant role in major cases, as provided for by Clause 14 of our Bill. However, in the NDP amendment can be seen the almost laughable disregard that that Party has for the fundamental rights and freedoms of human beings. I believe that most Members of the House will deal with the NDP amendment as it should appropriately be dealt with, that is, of course, with the understanding that the Government should not establish or deem what is appropriate.
I believe that Canada wants to progress and if Canadians and the others who want to invest in that spirit of investment and growth are given the ability to do so within the regulatory aspect that must be present in a Bill such as this, we will see the positive economic growth for which Canada has been waiting for so long.
Our Government has adopted a positive role and we will naturally put a lot of effort into encouraging investment by Canadians. However, to derive the technological benefits, the research and development and other benefits we will be seeking, will require joint ventures between Canadians and foreigners particularly with investments that increase world product mandates.

April 25, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Our mandate is to integrate Canadians and non-Canadians in developing an economy that looks forward rather than back to the 1950s or 1960s when the reaction was toward excessive government regulations.
I believe Bill C-15 is a fair and equitable proposal. Therefore, the two amendments that would result in Investment Canada being very much regulated by Government are amendments that I as a Member of Parliament cannot accept.
I would ask that other Members do likewise.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). It would have the effect of requiring that proposed investments in Canada be reviewed to ensure that they contribute to economic growth and employment opportunities. Without that amendment, this Bill will allow, without review, takeovers and very extensive involvement in the Canadian economy.
The Government seems to be proceeding on the assumption that all investments by foreigners will be good for Canada. While we are prepared to agree that most foreign investment can be expected to be beneficial, it simply does not seem prudent to throw the doors open as wide as the Government is proposing.
There is no question that the foreign Investment Review Act, which was in place since 1970, was due for updating. The Canadian economy and the world economy had changed since 1974. However, the Government has gone much further than is sensible or prudent with the introduction of this Bill.
Every industrial country in the world has some limits and controls on foreign investment. I have before me a list of 21 laws in the United States, which I do not claim to be exhaustive, which have the effect of either prohibiting or limiting non-American investment in the United States.
If one looks at the areas involved in the United States, there are limits on foreign investment in coastal and freshwater fishing, aviation, nuclear and hydro generating, communications, financial industries, real estate, fishing, some mineral leases, dredging and salvaging operations and defence industries. We are all aware of the width of the umbrella of defence industries. Those involve 21 pieces of legislation that either limit or prohibit investment in all those areas of the U.S. economy.
One can add to that the use of securities and anti-trust laws and the operations of congressional committees and monitoring by Government to see that it is a rather tightly controlled situation. Moreover, while this is taking place in what is basically a very open economy, it is an economy where the legislators have deemed it prudent to protect their own national interests.
Let us consider Australia, which is a Commonwealth country like Canada. It states officially that it welcomes foreign investment. That country also has a foreign investment review board. It sets limits on the acquisition of an Australian business by the purchase of assets. It specifies particular areas of the economy where all new business must be reviewed if it is
financed from outside the country. Those areas include finance, insurance, media, civil aviation, uranium, direct investment by foreign Governments or their agencies, real estate valued at $350,000 or more, and so on.
Mexico is a country which has great need for capital investment but which also has very considerable restrictions. Therefore, one must ask why the federal Government is prepared to throw out review or examination to the extent that it has. The assumption seems to be that all investment will be beneficial. This has been the tone of the speeches by government Members who have taken part in this debate.
Is it correct to make that assumption? When I spoke on this Bill earlier, I mentioned a situation that I encountered in my home riding. A man had worked for 30 years with a firm that was established in Canada by an American parent company. It was established before the Foreign Investment Review Agency. That firm did some very simple assembly work and when it decided that its interests would be better served by moving to one of the states which had non-unionized labour and below minimum wages, it simply moved out lock, stock and barrel, on the weekend. This man and several other employees found that everything was gone on Monday morning. They received no severance pay and they had no particular skills that were marketable. A similar situation arose in Ontario, and that was one reason why the Foreign Investment Review Agency was established. I do not see anything in the new Bill that would prevent that kind of situation from arising again.
Let us look at some possibilities of what might happen when you have no review. In the case of takeovers, for example, does a takeover usually create new jobs? Not necessarily. What if following a takeover the new facility employs fewer Canadians because it is no longer manufacturing in Canada but merely assembling or warehousing in Canada? To take perhaps a more extreme example, what if a takeover occurs by a foreign company of a Canadian company which has had some innovative technology, a Canadian company that has been marketing overseas? What if the reason for the takeover is that a foreign investor simply wanted to suppress the Canadian technology so as to reduce competition in overseas markets?
I see nothing in the Bill to protect against this kind of situation. Granted, most investment can be accepted as being productive and useful, but surely it is not prudent to have a Bill as totally open as this one, a Bill that is without the basic safeguards that exist in countries such as the United States and Australia, not to mention the European countries that have many more safeguards.
I really hope the Government will take another look instead of telling us, as the previous speaker did, that we are fear-mongers because we raise these situations that we have seen. If the Government is not prepared to accept the amendments put forward by opposition Members, then I hope the Government will bring in some of its own that would give the Minister, or preferably Cabinet-because I am not sure that this kind of
April 25, 1985

decision should be made only by one Minister-the power to require a review in certain cases where there appears to be a risk of harm being done to the Canadian economy.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this amendment for the New Democratic Party. I listened with some interest to the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) and also to the speaker before her, the Conservative Member from Saskatchewan. I am not sure of his riding but he is one of the new Conservatives from Saskatchewan.


Mr. McKnight:: One of the many.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It seems to me that the Member was speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He was talking about the Government not controlling our lives, having no control, and then said there has to be some control. Which is it, Mr. Speaker? Are you going to have no control, or are you going to have some control? It seems to me that there is always going to be some control. We are governed in Canada, whether it is by our federal Government, our provincial Government, a municipality, or by large corporate interests. In the oil industry, some of the large American oil companies "govern" us because they control so much of the market. In business, Mr. Conrad Black of Argus and Mr. Paul Desmarais of Power Corporation "govern" us because they make decisions that affect the lives of Canadians.
It is naive to say we are not governed. We are always governed by someone. The trick is to be governed by people who know what they are doing and listen to you and are plugged into the Government. That is what we in the NDP are seeking to do.
The Hon. Member talked about Saskatchewan. He badmouthed the NDP Government in Saskatchewan. I found that absolutely incredible. This pertains to this particular Bill because in Saskatchewan after the depression, the people literally picked themselves up and said, "Never again". After the war, the NDP, or the CCF Government as it was then called, headed by T. C. Douglas, was prepared to get control of Saskatchewan's destiny, not relying on foreign farm interest, foreign grain interests, or speculators and so on. The people were prepared to seize control of their own lives through the co-operative movement and through the Government. They turned that province into a prosperous, dynamic place. That Government in Saskatchewan brought in medicare and got some control of its own resources, namely, potash. Would the Hon. Member from Saskatchewan throw those out? He speaks in myths like most of the Conservatives have done in this debate.
We are talking about the Foreign Investment Review Agency, Mr. Speaker, this myth which the Conservatives created, the agency that scared away foreign investment and brought recession to Canada. If the Conservatives look into that they will find it is really a myth. Ninety per cent of the applications for foreign investment were passed. There was not really a lot of restriction of foreign investment. The reason
Investment Canada Act
investment did not come to Canada and went down somewhat is that there was a recession in parts of the world. We also had high interest rates. Money flowed into the United States where people could get high interest rates. That was an instrument of government policy. If the Member wants to get Government out of our lives, I wish he would get government interest rates out of our lives because the Government kept interest rates high in order to fight inflation. It was a matter of government policy. Government squeezed that high inflation by way of high interest rates and squeezed the economy to a stop. That is why we had a recession. In economics that is called a monetarist theory. People were out of work. That is why money did not come into Canada. I was not because of FIRA. All FIRA sought to do was to try to get some control over our destiny as a country so we would not be completely controlled by forces outside.
The Hon. Member for Trinity put it well when she said that all industrial countries have some way of controlling foreign investment. The United States has FIRA. It is called the United States Congress. The U.S. Congress puts some controls on foreign investment when it wants to do so and when it finds it is not in the interest of the United States.
Clause 2 states:
(2) Recognizing that increased capital investment and innovative technology would benefit Canada, the purpose of this Act is to provide for the notification and review of proposed investments in Canada by non-Canadians in order to ensure that they contribute to economic growth and employment opportunities, and to encourage beneficial investment in Canada by Canadians."
We in the NDP are not against foreign investment. We are for foreign investment. We want to make sure that investment is put into creating jobs in Canada and that the jobs do not go south of the border. We want to make sure that companies that come here purchase in Canada, use Canadian companies to buy goods and put Canadians to work. We want to make sure they do not go to their head offices in the United States to purchase goods and put Americans to work. We think the money should stay in Canada and we should not let interests and investments repatriate south of the border. That contributes to our dollar dropping to the low level at which it is now. We want to make sure the technology that comes in is for the benefit of Canada. We want to make sure that Canadians know and can use the technology that is learned in Canada. That is why we proposed this particular amendment, especially as it concerns technology.
The New Democratic Party amendment reads:
-substituting the following therefor: "technology under the appropriate terms and conditions established by the government, would benefit Canada-
It cannot be assumed that all capital and technology automatically benefit Canada. There has to be a role of the Government to try to establish terms and conditions under which that capital and technology can enter the country.
Tommy Douglas used to say: "We have an equal relationship with the United States. As the elephant said when he danced among the chickens, everyone for himself'. We are next to a huge elephant, and we are the smaller chickens. We have to ensure that we protect ourselves. That is the purpose of

April 25, 1985
Adjournment Motion
this particular amendment. If this is not acknowledged, then why would we have a review process at all? The Government is not completely getting rid of FIRA. It has included a review process in the Bill. We are saying that the process is too limited, and we are trying to amend it by making the review process a little more worth-while and effective.
In conclusion I want to say that Sir John A. Macdonald, the First Conservative Prime Minister, would roll over in his grave if he saw what the Government was doing. We moved from colony to nation as a result of Sir John A. Macdonald's great vision of the national dream and the railway. Now we are moving back to colony. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is Ronald Reagan's poodle. When Mr. Reagan wants to take the Prime Minister out for a walk, he just puts the dog on a leash and takes it out. We have literally opened ourselves up completely in defence, in culture, in foreign affairs and now in economics. If we were to benefit from this, we would say, Fine, but I think history will show that we have been open for foreign investment and will continue to play second fiddle. We have consistent high unemployment and it will not go away, particularly by doing this to FIRA. It is a hope and a prayer. As a matter of fact, I am not sure we will receive all that much foreign investment. We have to offer foreign investors something. We have to have something on the shelves for them to come in to deal with. I do not think it is in Canada.
I think there is an alternative economic policy. We in the NDP set it out in our task force on jobs. It is the old Quebecois expression, if I can simplify it, maitres chez nous,he to be masters in our own house and to use our own Canadian investment. We do not have to use the technology or the money of others. We have them here. It means upgrading our educational system, protecting our own technology and encouraging the industries which we are very good at.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The 10-minute period for the Hon. Member's speech is over.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: May I conclude, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: No. May I respectfully suggest to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) that I previously signalled to him that the 10-minute period allotted to him was terminating.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions
to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Mines and Mining-(a) Expansion of Falconbridge Refinery in Norway, (b) Granting of export licences; the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)-Railways-(a) CN lay-offs. (b)Transfer of responsibility for CN employees transferable to VIA Rail.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and Motions Nos. 1 (Mr. Axworthy) and 2 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4001).
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, in moving Motion No. 1, I think we should go back to what has been a continual demand for clarity by all those who appeared before the committee. Even in the statements by the Minister himself there was the admission that in dealing with an investment community it was particularly important for the Parliament of Canada to make its intentions clearly known and not confused with any form of ambiguity.
The reason we moved Motion No. 1 is to attain that objective. First is to demonstrate clearly that the major focus of this legislation is a review procedure for foreign investment. It is a weak review procedure, it is an ineffective review procedure, it is a review procedure that will have limited impact but nevertheless it is a review procedure. To try to camouflage that somehow in the Bill runs against the signalling that is required for us to show the investment community, Canadian and otherwise, what the purpose of this legislation is.
What we are trying to point out is that the investment should be clearly targeted at having a beneFit for Canada. One of the over-riding concerns that we have raised during the course of the second reading debate and during the committee hearings, which was underlined time and time again by witnesses who appeared before us, is that foreign investment by itself is not an untrammelled virtue. It must be measured and judged by the impact it has on jobs, new technology and direct economic beneFits. A number of cases were brought forward to cite how in fact foreign investment could be used to reduce employment, to reduce technological development and to reduce economic performance in Canada and, that foreign investment itself could be used to strip down emerging indus-
April 25, 1985

tries in the high-tech field. It could put newer Canadian businesses out of business.
It could be used to crowd out the market-place by the superior market power of the large foreign-owned corporations. The reason for having a review is at least to try to ensure that the ability of this country to protect its own investment community is one that is a clear purpose of this legislation.
It is important to set forward that purpose in a very obvious and unmistakable fashion so that we know there is a purpose here now. Our Party intends to introduce a number of amendments that we hope will be incorporated in the Bill to ensure that that review procedure is improved and we are able more effectively to judge investment applications that will have an impact on Canada in a beneficial way and not in a negative way.
We recognize that there is a different philosophy at work, which is simply to say on the part of the Minister and his Government that all foreign investment regardless is good. But the Minister does not follow the logic of his and his own Government's rhetoric because if that was the point they would have no review procedure whatever. As it is, they maintain a review procedure but the review procedure itself if not a particularly effective, worthwhile or important one because it does not deal with the kind of problems clearly identified during the course of our committee hearings. There can be serious damage or negative results affecting resource communities, smaller businesses in Canada and the investment community dealing in high technology.
Those are the areas where we have a high level of vulnerability in our business community. Most other countries do provide some protection. You have only to look at the Japanese market as an example of that. We have a review procedure without teeth. We have a review procedure that only because of the thresholds established and the vagueness of its terms will simply allow most of the investment that has a potential for some problems in our economy to be unreviewed and not judged as to whether it will protect Canadian workers, communities and Canadian jobs.
We have no quarrel with the other purpose of the Bill which is to promote Canadian investment. It has long been a major responsibility of the federal Government that the powers incorporated in this Act are powers which the Minister now virtually has as the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion. If it is there to be included in the Bill, there is no argument with that. We will be presenting amendments that will be used to identify clearly how the Minister might go about promoting Canadian investment in a more active, aggressive way. However, I do not think it would be proper for us to be presenting to the Canadian community on behalf of the Parliament of Canada a statement of purpose which tries to indicate that the primary rationale for this legislation is the promotion of Canadian investment.
Investment Canada Act
When we actually look at the substance of the Bill, parts of it deal mainly with setting out who is Canadian, who is non-Canadian, what the review procedures will be, and what the exemptions are to that area.
We think it is important. The Minister should agree with the logic of our position because he has been a proponent of the view that clarity is important and that we must eliminate uncertainty in the investment community. In the administration of an Act, as he well knows from his own experience, public servants, the legal community and others who must deal with the Bill-all those players who are involved with the administration of this Act-start out by reading its objectives as set out in Clause 2. The present Clause 2 is so vague, general and ambiguous that it is difficult to determine what in fact the Government is trying to achieve other than the general global interest of better investment. Legislation of that kind should not be passed; in itself it should relate to what are the prescriptions within the Bill. Therefore, we believe the amendments we have brought forward in no way deny the purpose of the Bill, in no way contradict the objectives set forward by the Government, but clarify, make more cohesive and more coherent and therefore make for a better piece of legislation. They wold also establish more clearly what would be the operating principles by which the Bill would be administered and by which the applications would be made.
That is the purpose of the motion we are presenting today. We hope the Government will give it due consideration. We feel that we are presenting, as will always be the case at report stage of a Bill, amendments with the most constructive and positive point of view; that is, to have legislation which in fact will be more effective and more workable and for the general well-being of the Canadian economy.


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


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment to Bill C-15 moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). The objectives of the Foreign Investment Review Act deserve much attention and support. The purpose is not to block foreign investments in Canada, but to make sure that they benefit Canada. Canada remains one of the developed countries which tolerates the highest rate of foreign presence in its economy. That is the reason why FIRA was created and why its effectiveness must be maintained. It is a fine instrument which seeks to ensure that all foreign investments significantly benefit Canada.
No matter what this government may claim, FIRA has never discouraged foreign investments. Businesspeople are looking for profits, and they will go where they are likely to make profits. Far from discouraging foreign investments, FIRA encouraged those which would benefit Canada and

April 25, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Canadians. Members from the Progressive Conservative Party have always tried to blame all economic ills from which Canada has been suffering on this review mechanism of foreign investments. As a matter of fact, an American banker stated recently, and I quote:

FIR A itself was not the bogeyman that kept away foreign investment. You woundn't want to make too much of it because there were real effects at play.

The truth is that there has been a drastic change in investment patterns throughout the world. We have witnessed a global reorganization of both capital and labour. For instance, the production of steel, automobiles, ships, electronics, textiles and ores is increasingly shifting to recently industrialized countries such as South Korea, Brazil and the Philippines where labour costs and tax rates are lower than here, and where the protection of the environment is not the major concern it is here, thus requiring less initial investments. The Southern United States is also a major area of attraction, because its labour force is for the most part non unionized. This, in addition to the 1982 recession and the technological revolution we are still going through are some of the reasons for our economic distress. That is the truth, as emphasized by a number of American bankers who stated, and I quote: [English]
The problem is simple: foreign capitalists can make more money elsewhere, no matter what action Mr. Mulroney's Government takes.

Under these circumstances, why is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) going to the United States to sell out to the Americans what we still own? That is what he is doing.
I should like to emphasize some of the possible consequences of Investment Canada on the Atlantic provinces where 1 hail from. In this area, the major sources of income are the fisheries, forestries, as well as the development of natural resources and the operation of small- and medium-sized businesses.
This new federal legislation could have a devastating impact on the regional economy. For instance, take the fishing industry in New Brunswick where nearly all processing plants belong to Canadians who face unrelenting competition from New England plants. If this Bill is adopted, our fishing industry would become vulnerable overnight. Foreign interests would have a free hand to buy those plants, particularly independent processors, so as to eliminate competitors for the primary products of fishermen. The only Government control left will be fishing licences, and there would be none whatsoever on the plants. How much will our fishing licences be worth if we no longer have plants to buy our fish, or if they are owned by foreigners whose commanding interest will be to keep the price of our fish as low as possible? All communities along the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in the Atlantic region which do not depend on major fishing companies and where
there are no longer any of those small independent businesses would be facing a slump practically never experienced before. That could happen because foreigners have been trying to set up shop on the east coast since the 200-mile zone was established. Until today, we had the mechanism and the political will to thwart their projects if they did not serve our interests. It is quite clear that the Government opposite does not have the political will to protect our regions against free capital markets and it wants to take apart the mechanism that protects us.
Regions where unemployment is highest would lose even more jobs. The irony of it is that the same Government is about to undertake an across-the-board review of unemployment insurance eligibility standards-to tighten them up, undoubtedly. I will not go into that debate now, this is not the appropriate time, but I am sure I will have opportunities to do so later.
If we are justified to claim that Investment Canada can be the death warrant of Canada's fishing industry, the same thing probably goes for the very competitive forest industry whose main markets are foreign; foreign multinationals could easily afford to buy our smaller plants and close them with a view to grabbing our raw primary products and gaining control over our traditional markets. One can imagine the disastrous social consequences of a loss of thousands of jobs in the Atlantic Provinces.
Another industry which might stand to be harmed by Investment Canada is undoubtedly the peat industry, again because it has to rely on international markets. Peat companies in New Brunswick's Kent, Northumberland and Gloucester Townships could easily be bought by foreigners-no questions asked-who would control the whole operation and fill peat orders through companies others than ours.
Practically all the fishing, forest and peat plants as well as the small and medium-size businesses I mentioned are worth less than the $5 million limit set by the Government, which means that they will not be subject to review when prospective foreign buyers come knocking at the door.
I am definitely against this new $5 million limit set by the Government, for I think it is too high. I am also against the idea of amending the existing Act to exempt indirect purchases under $50 million. Nor can I agree at all with the suggestion that only one Minister will have the authority to approve or reject investments. Such decisions must be made by the Cabinet where Ministers from different regions can have their say and make sure that the interests of the various provinces are protected.
I am very ill at ease, as a New Brunswicker, to have to rely on the goodwill of a Minister such as the one we now have to protect our interests in New Brunswick. 1 do not see how we could have so much confidence in a Minister as to let him alone decide on foreign investment all across Canada, when it is already difficult to trust this Progressive Conservative Gov-
April 25, 1985

ernment that slashes everywhere and has very little concern about regional development.
Listen, fellows! Listen closely!
Instead of having positive effects, which I feel is at least the Government's intention, I am afraid that Investment Canada will rather have a negative impact on this country's economy. I for one am more concerned about the disastrous effects this Bill could have on the Atlantic Provinces.


An Hon. Member:: Why all the hurry?


Fernand Robichaud: I am in no hurry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please!


Fernand Robichaud: To go on, Mr. Speaker-
The Government says it is leaving it to the private sector to develop the economy and create jobs. Where this is possible, that is fine, but we as elected representatives have a duty and an obligation to ensure that there are mechanisms in place whereby we can observe, regulate and at times control certain investments so as to ensure that they are in the best interests of the people of the country. This is precisely the purpose of this proposed amendment. Therefore I support it, Mr. Speaker.
This Conservative Government is very much like all Conservative Governments. It is afraid to lead; it is afraid to protect the public interest. The Liberal Party is not and has never been afraid to do so. Once again, we want to do what is best for Canada and Canadians.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on Bill C-15, the Investment Canada Bill. As my colleagues have said repeatedly, we are concerned that this Bill changes so drastically the whole direction of the review of foreign investment in Canada. I think all of us would acknowledge that FIRA had weaknesses and that it could have been improved upon, but generally speaking it was going in the right direction. Its purpose was to protect the interests of Canadian industries, investments and jobs.
We believe very strongly that Canadians want control over their own destinies and their own economic development. They want government supervision that will assist and facilitate Canadian development, will promote Canadian enterprises and will encourage Canadian investment as much as possible. This is not to say that we do not need and welcome foreign investment as well, but it certainly should not be with a complete open door policy, which in effect would make us even more of a branch plant economy than we are already.
Bill C-15 would remove new businesses from the requirement of any review and it would provide only for the review of takeovers of very large businesses worth $5 million or more. This means that small Canadian businesses such as a small
Investment Canada Act
Canadian innovative high-tech industry could very easily be taken over by a foreign multi-national, integrated into that multi-national and eventually disappear within the large monster. The Canadian company would be removed from Canada altogether, and of course this would remove Canadian jobs as well.
I was very interested in the action group for jobs which crossed Canada. I participated in one of its hearing in British Columbia. One of the things I can recall is that a consultant from the mining industry said: "We have learned in our industry that Canada needs to build on what we do best, that we should be developing our own technology". Other briefs were presented on the question of technological change and people were saying that they do not want a complete open door policy so that highly sophisticated new technologies from the United States, Japan or other parts of the world can automatically establish themselves in Canada.
People feel that we should be developing our own brain power because we have lots of it here. They feel that we should have more R and D and that we should be developing our own technologies related to the resource and communication industries and the kinds of economic projects that Canadians need, do best, and in which we have long experience. The purpose of Bill C-15 is to undermine that kind of development and not to help Canadians develop their own resources, enterprises and investments in a creative way.
At the moment, we are debating the purpose of the Bill, which reads as follows:
Recognizing that increased capital and technology would benefit Canada, the purpose of this Act is to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians that contributes to economic growth and employment opportunities and to provide for the review of significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians in order to ensure such benefit to Canada.
Those are nice words, but how will we be sure that this will happen with no regulations whatsoever? Our amendment proposes the following:
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 7 at page I and substituting the following therefore:
"technology under the appropriate terms and conditions established by the
government, would benefit Canada . .
In other words, we feel that there are times when we need the help of foreign technologies, but this help should be appropriate and there must be some kind of government review to establish what is in the best interests of our country, our workers and our businesses. We hope that we will have support for that amendment.
In the time allotted to me, I would like to mention that I have a very particular concern about the invasion of foreign companies and investors in the field of health and social services. There is an insidious movement that is beginning in Canada and has already begun in the Province of Ontario. I fear for my own Province of British Columbia and for other provinces if this precedent is established. There is a trend toward big private commercial companies entering the field of personal care homes, health care for the aged and the entire field of health care. These companies are entering Canada

April 25, 1985
Investment Canada Act
almost as multinational corporations and are taking over and establishing private institutions which are "care for profit" institutions. This is one thing in particular into which I would want the Government to look and over which I would like it to have some control. We are very proud of our health care and social services programs in Canada because they care for all the people. 1 do not think many of us see the American system as being a model for Canada.
1 have a reference here to an example of this which has taken place in Ontario. Beverly Enterprises of Pasadena, California, was attempting to take over some 1,000 publicly subsidized nursing homes beds in Ontario. The Ontario Minister was apparently condoning and encouraging this action and was not looking at the whole question of quality of care or even at the financial issues. How can there be adequate care if the main motive is profit? Certainly we want well run institutions that are responsive to human needs, provide good care and are financially efficient. I do not really think competitive private enterprise in the field of health care institutions will be appropriate for Canada.
In the case to which I have just referred, apparently no representations were made by Ontario to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, the agency which approved the sale on November 30, 1984. We feel that there must be effective control by Governments over institutions in the nursing home industry which cares for people who are no longer self-sufficient and independent because of their age or infirmity. It is very easy for private companies to take over the care which is really the responsibility of the communities and families.
I mentioned the concern with respect to daycare. I hope that when the report from the daycare study group, which was established by the Liberal Government, and the report of the parliamentary task force on child care are completed we will look seriously at the question of the invasion of child care by profit-making companies, in particular those which are established in the United States.
I see that the Minister is in the House and I hope he will agree that it is very important for us to have adequate standards and staffing facilities, particularly for young children and older people. The first priority must be good care. Those institutions must be responsive to the community. The community should be involved in the planning of daycare centre services. As well, parents should be involved, hopefully, in a co-operative manner. The institutions should be accountable to the communities. I hope that this will be given special consideration. I do not believe that the proposals which are made in this legislation will be good in the health care field or in other fields of endeavour for Canada.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate this afternoon with respect to an amendment that was proposed by the Liberal Party.
As the official critic pointed out, we have serious concerns with respect to Bill C-15. In a previous debate I indicated that Bill C-15 was a sell-out and that the effect of the provisions of the Bill would be the sell-out of Canadian industries. It would be the sell-out of what FIRA has been able to do over the last number of years.
When the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) announced Bill C-15, he stated that the legislation would herald a new day for Canada. I beg to differ with the Minister. In my view, Bill C-15 marks a very sad day for Canadians. Bill C-15 dashes any hope of Canadians getting control over the economy. It dashes any hope of Canadians becoming masters in their own home. In effect, Bill C-15 is a betrayal of Canada's hope for economic independence and cultural identity.
The Minister stated, and his comments were echoed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), that Canada was open for business. As my leader said, he never thought Canada was closed for business. Canada has always been open for business and, as my leader has pointed out, Canada is certainly not for sale. But Bill C-15 will sell out Canada.
Indeed, it is regressive legislation. It is a tremendous step backward. But it is no surprise to us on this side of the House that the Conservative Government has introduced this Bill. It is sad, because after years of slowly and methodically gaining control over the economy, the Conservative Government is prepared to sell Canada to foreign interests. I am advised that under this legislation 90 per cent of foreign takeovers will go ahead without review. That is the subject matter of this particular amendment.
With FIRA we had some control over the type of investment which would be allowed. There had to be a significant benefit to Canadians. All foreign investment is not good investment. As the official critic for the Liberal Party said in the House on April 23:
-foreign investment by itself is not an untrammelled virtue. It must be measured and judged by the impact it has on jobs, new technology and direct economic benefits.
He went on to say that a number of cases were brought forward to cite how in fact foreign investment could be used to reduce employment, to reduce technological development and to reduce economic performance in Canada.
The purpose of the Bill is outlined in Clause 2, which reads as follows:
Recognizing that increased capital and technology would benefit Canada, the purpose of this Act is to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians that contributes to economic growth and employment opportunities-
What does that mean? What is the benefit to Canada? It is not defined. The Government is dreaming. How can we ensure that with this legislation there will indeed be a benefit to Canada?
An editorial appeared in The Toronto Star on December 9, 1984, which was entitled: "Steven's Short-Sighted Gamble". In a nutshell, that expresses my very serious concerns with
April 25, 1985

respect to Bill C-15. It is a gamble. We have everything to lose but very little to gain by this legislation.
The Foreign Investment Review Agency had some control over the type of investment which was coming into Canada. We could say no to investment which did not bring a significant benefit to Canadians. We could say no to investment which, for example, would result in foreign multi-nationals coming into Canada, taking over a competitor and then closing down the industry and returning to the United States. That would be a conceivable situation under Bill C-15. With FIRA, in order to obtain approval, the investor had to satisfy the Government that the investment would be of significant benefit to Canada. That significant benefit was determined on the basis of five factors which were specified in the legislation. However, Bill C-15 does not specify, articulate, undertake or give us any sense of direction with respect to what benefit means. FIRA provided an explanation for significant benefit. It outlined five factors. Foreign corporations which wished to come into Canada, to take over Canadians businesses or to establish new businesses, had to adhere to the five factors which would ensure that there would be significant benefit to Canada. Those factors ensured that there would be jobs and that the investment would be good for Canada.
I would like to outline the five factors. They are as follows:
(1)	the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada, including employment, resource processing and exports;
FIRA had here the requirement for a significant benefit in that area. The second criterion was:
(2)	the degree and significance of Canadian participation in the business enterprise and in the industry sector to which the enterprise belongs;
(3)	the effect on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, innovation and product variety in Canada;
(4)	the effect on competition in Canada; and
(5)	the compatibility of the investment with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration the industrial and economic policy objectives of the province(s) likely to be significantly affected by the investment.
FIRA articulated what was meant by significant investment. And who would argue, except perhaps Hon. Members opposite, that there should be significant benefit to Canadians and Canada as a result of that foreign investment?
It seems that the Conservative Party is simply bent on selling out our industries to other countries. FIRA was good legislation precisely because there was that review mechanism in the legislation so that we could ensure that any foreign investment was of significant benefit to Canadians. My hon. friends opposite would argue that it was bad legislation because it was an impediment to foreign investment. That argument is intellectually dishonest, Mr. Speaker, because, if Hon. Members opposite will check the record, they will find that the record clearly indicates that FIRA indeed was not an impediment to foreign investment. In fact, as Hon. Members opposite will know, the approval rate with respect to applications was fairly high. Since the inception of FIRA in 1974, there were approximately 6,000 applications, and 92.2 per cent of the applications received were approved. Between 1977 and
Investment Canada Act
1982-and if you recall, Mr. Speaker, in 1982 there were changes to the FIRA legislation to streamline the review procedures-there was a greater percentage of applications. In fact, from 1982 to the present, 97 per cent of all applications were approved by the Foreign Investment Review Agency. That is a pretty damn good track record.
In closing, I would ask Hon. Members opposite to give this legislation second thought; at the very least, give some very serious consideration to the very good amendments which have been proposed by the Liberal Party. I was advised, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding that the Liberal Opposition-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest);: Order. 1 am sorry but the 10-minute period is over. We will resume debate.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, one of the observations which I believe should be made about this Investment Canada Bill, which should really be named "sell out Canada" or "give away Canada", is that this Government muzzled this Bill at second reading. When the Bill went into committee, it did exactly the same thing. This Government was not prepared to entertain any amendments-and there were over 50 amendments presented in the committee-to try to improve and tighten up this Bill because it is extremely "loosey-goosey". But in fact, Mr. Speaker, the Government is dedicated to not allowing any amendment whatsoever to this particular Bill. This Government, when it was in opposition and the Liberals pulled that sort of stunt, shouted and screamed. Those Hon. Members used all sorts of tactics, ringing bells, walking out, calling for votes, and so on. All sorts of games were played when the Conservatives felt very strongly about a particular piece of legislation. Of course, when the guillotine was imposed by the then Liberal Government, they all screamed blue murder.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Tory murder.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, blue murder, Tory murder. Now that we have a Conservative Government-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Baloney!


John R. Rodriguez: I would like to point out that the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is dressed in a red jacket.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It hasn't got a hammer and sickle on it.


John R. Rodriguez: I don't know what the lapel pins on his jacket are for, Mr. Speaker. I don't know what they are saying, but at least one looks to me like a sickle.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I don't mind being called anything but a communist or a socialist. The buttons I wear represent the Canadian Legion. If the Hon. Member doesn't know what that is, it is for those who offered their lives for our country. The other is for the Triple E Senate. That means we want an elected Senate with equal representation. The other is a pin for the 4-H Club, which is an excellent farm organization. So the Hon. Member shouldn't make fun of some of the groups of this country.

April 25, 1985
Investment Canada Act


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: It has to be the tie clip, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) on a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the House that the Hon. Member opposite is using points of order wasting the precious time allowed to the Hon. Member who has the floor. I therefore suggest this should not be taken out of his time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. Speaking of precious time, I recognize the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: I hope that this time has not come off my ten minutes, Mr. Speaker. I wish the Hon. Member would get up and make his own speech instead of taking time out of my speech.
Now that the Conservatives are the Government, they are doing exactly the same thing for which they criticized the previous Government.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Baloney!


John R. Rodriguez: If the Hon. Member wants to make a speech, I don't mind. I will sit down if he wants to make a speech.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Go ahead.


John R. Rodriguez: I see that we have the Gong Show going on over there today.
What the Conservatives have done, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the same thing that they criticized the former Government for doing. They have suffocated debate. They have refused to accept even one reasoned amendment in committee. I think that is totally shameless. And those Hon. Members are barefaced enough to come and sit in this House of Commons and say, "Yes, that's what we intend to do". Might is right. That is the attitude they have taken, Mr. Speaker. What have those Hon. Members talked about in this House? They say they want to encourage Canadian investment. I want to cite one example of our not even being able to make those companies which operate in this country invest the money they earn from the resources of this country right here in Canada. I give the example of Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd.


John V. Nunziata: Where is it?


John R. Rodriguez: It is in Nickel Belt. Falconbridge Nickel Mines in the last few years has laid off 800 workers because Falconbridge claimed it was poor, that it was not doing very well and it had to lay off workers. Ever since that company
came into the Sudbury basin, it has always sent its nickel matte to Norway to be refined. Indeed, I was talking to the former Member of Parliament, the Hon. Stanley Knowles, and he told me that the very first question he asked in this House of Commons in 1939 was put to Mackenzie King-


Marcel Prud'homme: It was 1940. He didn't come in in 1939.


John R. Rodriguez: In 1940 the Hon. Stanley Knowles asked Mackenzie King about Falconbridge selling its nickel plate from its Norway plant to Nazi Germany at a time when we Canadians were at war with Nazi Germany. Here was a company who was mining its ore in Canada, refining it in Norway and selling the plate nickel to the Nazi navy. In fact, many Canadians lost their lives on the oceans of the world possibly because of ships armed with Canadian nickel plate.
I am happy to see the Hon. Member wearing a Legion pin in his lapel. But here is a company which strikes its breast and says, "We are good Canadians", yet it never established a refinery in the Sudbury basin. Now lo and behold it has an opportunity to go to Botswana to buy nickel, and it is going to ship that nickel matte to Norway to be refined. To do that it has to expand the capacity of the Norwegian plant and it wants to spend $41.5 million to do so. In the mining Act of Ontario there is a law that says Ontario resources must be refined in Canada. Section 104 of that Act says "except Falconbridge". That corporation was exempted because all the time Falconbridge had good friends in the Tory Party. It had some sort of leverage with the Conservative regime in Ontario and, lo and behold, Falconbridge got its way. It has found $41.5 million to expand a refinery in Norway to refine Canadian nickel, but is that in the best interests of Canada? Is that creating jobs for Canadians? I suggest to you that it had better learn how to invest in this country, and you do not need an Investment Canada Bill to get the corporation to do it. Not at all. What you need is simply to set out the goals and ground rules and the fact that since it has earned that $41.5 million on the backs of Canadian workers and from Canadian resources, therefore it should put that $41.5 million as a down-payment on building a refinery in the Sudbury basin. It is estimated that a new refinery for the Falconbridge operation in the Sudbury basin would cost around $125 million and the $41.5 million is a good down-payment.
We Canadians have an investment in Falconbridge. We allowed it to defer over the last two years some $150 million in taxes. That means it will never pay those taxes. It paid not a penny of corporate income tax last year and it will pay not a penny of corporate income tax this year, yet it has this $41.5 million.
I am glad to see Members opposite agree with what I am pointing out, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to see they have finally come to their senses, and if I am allowed an extension of time we can perhaps persuade all of them to come on board.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.
April 25, 1985


John R. Rodriguez: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: No, no. With my deepest regrets, the 10-minute period is now over.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure indeed to address the proposed amendments to Bill C-15. Hon. Members from the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party did realize as soon as the Minister introduced the Bill in this House and especially during consideration in committee, that the Minister had given little consideration to the representations made by the Official Opposition concerning the Bill now before us.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment brought forth by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), would introduce control provisions, with the very important purpose in my view of protecting the jobs of all Canadians.


An Hon. Member:: Have you read it?


Carlo Rossi: I would like-Why don't you first shup up, you smart guy over there! That's enough! See that you defend Quebec when the time comes!
Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest-if the fellow opposite will stop vomiting over there-that I find quite ridiculous the Minister bragging about job creation, when his Department accepted $200 million cuts, on orders from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), the Member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere.
Mr. Speaker, the only programs he did cut in his Department were those which had an actual impact in areas of high unemployment, even though this same Minister keeps repeating in this House that his Government will create jobs, jobs, more jobs.


Mrs. Mailly:: Jobs!


Carlo Rossi: Jobs, jobs!


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I think the first one who should set an example in this House by listening now is the Government Assistant Whip (Mrs. Mailly) whether she agrees or not with the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi). I agree his comments are debatable, but I would hope that she herself might see to it that the troops she is leading this afternoon have the courtesy of listening to the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), as we did some moments ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Assistant Whip (Mrs. Mailly).
Investment Canada Act


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, firstly, I think it is out of order to refer to the fact that any particular Member is present or absent from the House. Secondly, I would like to point out that I am not the Assistant Whip but the Government Deputy Whip.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: No, no.


Marcel Prud'homme: I apologize to the Assistant Whip. 1 did not refer to her absence. 1 only expressed the wish she would ask her troops to shut up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please, the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) has the floor.


Carlo Rossi: She is easy to spot, Mr. Speaker, because she does not behave like a deputy whip but rather like a whip.


An Hon. Member:: Right on!


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, nonetheless, this same Minister should understand that jobs are actually created in Canada by those businesses that have survived numerous difficulties through the years, and he should also realize they are family businesses operating in the resource sector.

I think the Minister should reconsider proposals made by the Official Opposition in committee which were rejected by the Chairman of said committee. The Liberal proposals rejected by the Minister were to develop comprehensive information based on all sources of investment in Canada and on the differing factors which affect investment; work with the relevant federal and provincial Departments and agencies to develop a favourable climate for private investment; seek to co-ordinate public sector and private sector investment planning through consultation. Members opposite are always talking about consultation in this House. Another proposal was to act as a clearing house for information on investment incentives offered by all jurisdictions in Canada; promote by all manner of means the expansion of equity investment by individual Canadians.
[ Translation]
Proposal (f), Mr. Speaker... I am sorry, I had so much more to say.


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

April 25, 1985
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order! Private Member's Hour has now expired.\nAdjournment Debate"]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to item No. 30?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Lorne Edmund Nystrom: that Bill C-215, an Act respecting parity prices for farm products be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-215 would establish a parity price for five different farm products that humans consume domestically in this country: wheat, oats and barley, pork and beef.
Parity price is defined in this Bill as a price based on the cost of production and a decent profit for the work that a farmer puts into producing his or her product. In the case of wheat, this would cover 8 per cent to 10 per cent of our production of wheat since that is what we consume domestically. A parity price might be $10 or $11 a bushel because that is what many farm economists estimate it would cost to produce a bushel of wheat for a decent return to the farmers of Canada.
This Bill would not impose anything on anyone. It indicates that before there is a parity price, there must be a democratic vote by the producers, whether hog producers or beef producers. If it is decided they do not want to follow this direction, there would not be a parity price, an agency or commission established in that particular field. The Bill is democratic and would give a guarantee to the farmers of this land for at least some of the products that they are producing.
Many groups in our society have guarantees. Trade unions are organized and often have cost of living allowances each year. Members of Parliament have a clause which provides an adjustment every year according to the cost of living. Many other people often have increases due to the cost of living increases. Doctors' fees, lawyers' fees and architects' fees are based on what it costs to run their offices, pay their staff and provide a good standard of living for themselves and their families in accordance with the work they do to provide their particular service.
My argument for this Bill is that farmers are no different. They need those guarantees for the products they produce, and if the farmers get that kind of guarantee it will not only be useful to farmers but indeed to all Canadians. The fact that a farmer will be able to spend more means that there will be jobs
for young people in our towns and cities. The fact that he has more money to spend will stimulate the economy in places like Brantford where White Farm equipment is in trouble and Massey Ferguson produces their combines and other implements for use by all Canadian farmers.
My argument today is that this Bill is not only an agricultural Bill but is an economic Bill that will create jobs for many Canadians. It will also give farmers greater control over their destiny by providing a means of intervening in the marketplace and having some direction over the price they will get for a particular commodity.
I want particularly to thank farmers for their support of this concept of parity pricing. I want to thank members of the Conservative and the Liberal Parties for the support they have given to the idea of parity pricing. Perhaps there can be an understanding later this afternoon to refer the subject matter of this Bill to the Agriculture Committee for study and public hearings so that the farmers of this country may give their input.
I am not wedded to all the details of this Bill. It is important to refer this Bill to the Agriculture Committee so that we may go through it clause by clause and consult the farmers of this country in order to have their opinion of parity pricing. What better way is there to consult the farmers of Canada than to have public hearings? The farm union, the Wheat Pool, the Canadian agricultural movement and all the other farm organizations and commodity groups, including UPA and others, can have some input into how they want to develop.
I say to Hon. Members who are not in favour of subsidies that the farmers who support this Bill have adopted a slogan which states "parity, not charity". They are not asking for charity or hand-outs.
This Bill does not provide for Government subsidies or spending. It merely stipulates that farmers should be getting a fair price from the market-place for the wheat, the oats, the barley, the hog or whatever commodity is involved. It is the market-place that will pay the farmer for that commodity.
Let me give some examples of parity pricing. Let us consider wheat that goes to the millers to make Canadian bread. If the price of wheat were increased by $5 a bushel, there would be a corresponding increase of only eight cents a loaf in the price of bread. I suggest that the extra eight cents a loaf for bread is a small price to pay to give farmers an extra $5 a bushel for the grain they are producing that goes into making that bread.
Another example concerns beer. There might be one or two Members in the House who drink beer once in a while. If the price of beer increased by 40 cents a dozen bottles, and that increase were passed on directly to the farmers, the price of malting barley would rise by $10 a bushel. Therefore, the farmer would get an extra $10 a bushel for malting barley as a result of a 40-cent increase per dozen bottles of beer. 1 could cite many other examples. The cost of processing and advertising the coupons that appear on cornflakes boxes is more than the farmer receives for the corn that goes into those cornflakes
April 25, 1985

boxes. This indicates that the farmer receives a very small part of the food dollar in this country.
I suggest that these examples show that a decent return and profit on the farmers' labour can be obtained without a great impact on food prices at the other end of the scale.
I urge the House to send this Bill to committee so that we may have a chance to consider this concept that is supported by an increasing number of farmers from all over Canada. According to the press, approximately three weeks ago over 500 farmers met in Essex County in Windsor in a meeting to support the idea of parity pricing. Last Monday, 1 was invited by a farm group to a meeting of over 200 farmers. At least 150 farmers showed up in the City of London in support of the idea of parity pricing.
This concept is gaining support because Canadian farmers need these guarantees in order to stay in business. Since so many others in our society have guarantees, farmers are asking why they as well should not get their fair share from the market-place. They are saying that if they get their fair share, therefore more money and a guaranteed product, they will be able to keep more young people on the farm, thereby expanding our rural communities and creating jobs in the cities for the people of Canada as well.
[ Translation]
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, 1 only hope that all Hon. Members in this House will support this Bill this afternoon. It is a legislation that is very important for Canadian farmers and for the Canadian people as a whole. It is about parity prices based on production costs plus a return for the work put in by Canadian farmers. This Bill deals with five farm products, that is: wheat, barley, oats, pork and beef.
Mr. Speaker, let us keep in mind that as the situation of Canadian farmers improves, things get better for everyone of us across the country, because the basis of our economy, the backbone of our economy is the agricultural sector which provides food for the Canadian people and peoples all over the world.

I urge the House not talk out this Bill. I understand that we can probably come to an agreement, and for that I sincerely thank my colleagues.
I thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Member from Alberta who is about to rise and I thank my colleagues from the Liberal Party. I look forward to having public hearings on this so the farmers of Canada-and it is a farm Bill-can be consulted and can have their say over the direction in which they want this economy to go for themselves and for their children.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by con-
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act gratulating my hon. friend from Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) on raising the issue of price increases for farm producers in the House. I particularly appreciate what he said at the end of his speech, namely that if our farmers are in good shape, the rest of the economy is in pretty good shape too. It was refreshing to hear these words, especially from a Member of the Opposition. Before, we used to say: As long as housing starts are up, the economy is O.K. Now we can say the same about agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, this is a concern that I share with many Members of this House, and having a forward-looking agricultural industry and providing a decent return on the work and skills invested by farmers is essential to the vigour of our Canadian economy. 1 think all Members concerned about agriculture are aware of this.
However, although I agree with my hon. friend that his objective is a good one, the Bill he introduced today may not be the right answer at this time. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I hope that all Members of this House will realize the serious impact this Bill could have on the agricultural sector and the possibly unfortunate consequences it might have for our farmers and our external trade.
However, I think that the concept of guaranteeing farmers a decent return on their investment is certainly deserving of closer scrutiny. My friend the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) will move later on to have the subject matter of this Bill referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. In fact, I think when my hon. friend spoke earlier he seemed to be agreeable to having the subject discussed in the agriculture committee.
The parity pricing concept seems an excellent idea. Its purpose is altogether admirable, namely to enable farmers to cover their production costs and make a decent profit. It is the very essence of our economic system. Would it not be marvelous if by adopting a Bill, we could make this dream come true? However, in the present context, things may not be as straightforward as all that.

I might add here that it was at the time when the European Economic Community moved to a system with very high domestic prices for its farmers similar to what is proposed in this Bill that its headaches with surpluses and subsidies began.
The United States has had a variety of experiences with parity pricing, some of it bad, some of it good. Yet even there, Mr. Speaker, the system is very different from the idea suggested in this legislation. The U.S. system attempts to affect farm prices so as to give producers the same purchasing power as against a certain historical period rather than relating them to costs of production.
I am particularly concerned, Mr. Speaker, about trying to make a cost-of-production pricing system work in Canada where we are so heavily dependent upon export markets. Exports account for nearly half of the Canadian net farm

April 25, 1985
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
income. It would be disastrous to try to isolate ourselves from world market conditions.
Only a very small percentage of our grain production is used domestically. The large bulk of it goes into world markets. We can all take off our hats to the success of the Canadian Wheat Board in penetrating those markets.
Export markets are also a significant factor in the red meat industry, although a more important factor in setting policies for beef and pork is the continental nature of those industries. Cattle particularly move back and forth across the border with the United States in response to market conditions, and any cattleman will tell you that it would be foolish to try to price cattle artificially without reference to the total North American market.

Mr. Speaker, the pork industry is a particularly good example of the potential impact of world markets. I am referring to a recent decision by the U.S. Government to levy temporary countervailing duties on our exports of live hogs and carcasses, because our American colleagues judge that the meager support enjoyed by Canadians under the Agricultural Stabilization Act gives them an undue advantage. We are all aware of this problem, which has been a serious concern for some weeks.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House today concerns parity pricing for both cereal grains and livestock. One of my colleagues will elaborate further on the potential impact of parity pricing on the cereal grains sector, and meanwhile I intend to concentrate on the potential repercussions of this Bill on the red meat sector.
I think everyone will agree that marketing practices in the red meat sector could be improved. However, we must not forget that the majority of beef and pork producers have rejected outright any mechanisms for marketing stabilization. It is a very sensitive sector and we are all concerned about it, but the Government cannot afford to intervene in this sector every other day.
I am afraid the wording of the Bill might lead to some confusion. For instance, Clause 10(a) gives the impression that participation by producers in a parity pricing system like the one being proposed would be optional. Mr. Speaker, how can anyone seriously consider introducing a central beef or pork marketing system if producers can opt out or refuse to accept the provisions of this Bill? I do not see how that would work.
There is also a passage describing how the future beef marketing commission and pork marketing commission are supposed to operate. I think the powers and terms of reference of the members are too vague. I also fail to understand why farmers should have to wait five years before they are given the opportunity to express their views on the system through a vote. There should be a more flexible procedure and a more flexible system.
The basic principle of our agricultural policy in Canada has always been supply and demand. That principle, Mr. Speaker, is the keystone of our economy. You cannot ignore it without endangering and disrupting every sector of our economy. Even the national supply management bodies that were set up with respect to dairy products and farm products among others, at the urgent request of producers themselves and taking into account the unique conditions prevailing in those areas, are aware of the fluctuating nature of the food products markets and have therefore been provided with enough flexibility to protect the interests of the producers as well as the consumers. A recent example was the dairy sector where producers voluntarily agreed to reduce quotas. We must have a certain amount of flexibility every year, we cannot have everything planned several years ahead as it might have been possible in the past; that is no longer possible.
The idea of parity pricing, Mr. Speaker, seems to ignore market conditions and productivity variations. It assumes that identical conditions from one product to another, from one region to another, from one country to another, and between the agricultural and other economic sectors. We know, Mr. Speaker, that there is no such immutability. The tremendous development of the pork industry in Quebec and the increase in dairy production in spite of a reduction in the national dairy livestock are two examples showing how buoyant as well as unpredictable the agricultural sector has become.
Such unpredictability and instability are serious problems for the producers. But it would be most unfair for farmers to expect problems of that kind to be eliminated by implementing a rigid bureaucratic mechanism to bring prices in line with production costs. As a matter of fact, which production costs would serve as reference in such cases? Would it be those of the average producer, of the efficient producer? One could agree with production cost adjustment, but determination of such costs is by no means an easy endeavour. I suggest that all hon. members are aware of it.
The best government approach to any sector is to allow it to operate efficiently and productively within a sound policy. That is the kind of context this government is offering Canadian farmers.
The best guarantee that farmers will recover their production costs is to provide them with a dynamic economy that will instill in businessmen the confidence needed for them to achieve what they can do best. Since September 4th, we have been inspiring that kind of dynamism in our farming industry as well as in every other sector of the Canadian economy.
Bill C-215 could easily become a bureaucratic nightmare, limiting the freedom of action the agricultural community needs to develop, creating eventual headaches, and even disrupting our external trade.
April 25, 1985


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Bill C-215 and to join with the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) who will also comment upon it. At the outset I should like to say that we agree with the intention of the proposer of this Bill that it should go forward to committee for study. It is a novel idea, one which certainly deserves examination by a parliamentary committee.
1 remind the House that last June a similar Bill with many of the same ingredients was, by accord, sent to committee. For reasons and events upon which we no longer have to dwell, namely a federal election, it was not given proper examination.
I regret that more time was not allowed for this Bill to be examined, in that the previous Government might have had time to present its case. In any event, that is history. The position we took when in government is the same one we adopt as the Official Opposition. It is an idea which is worth examining. We welcome the recommendations and representations of a number of agricultural groups in the country. They have presented this idea and have helped the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) to put the concept together.
I think this is a fine time for Parliament to have this opportunity.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is exactly the same Bill.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, I think it is the same Bill. However, I want to emphasize that no one should begin to believe that it is a panacea. Probably the mover of the Bill would be the first to agree that it is only a part of trying to deal with the real sense of panic which is developing in farm communities. It is reaching a point where it is no longer a matter of interest group politics or of people trying to gain some advantage for themselves. There is a deep fear in many farm communities that unless something is done to deal with the income problems they face, agriculture will be undermined. In part, that is what this Bill is designed to address.
What really is needed-and perhaps the initiative in this regard is more on the government side-is a companion piece of legislation to deal with what is happening in the international arena. There is no question in our mind that the breakdown of the international wheat agreement and the very strong threat posed by the United States and its new marketing practices will create even further developments that will force prices down. If that is the case, the cost price squeeze we have seen over the last decade will become even more extreme and the opportunity for farmers dealing in these basic commodities to find some way out of the morass will be absolutely damaged beyond repair.
I urge Hon. Members opposite to talk to their Ministers. Hopefully they will read the comments on this Bill and will see that it is a number one priority. Frankly, I was dismayed when I read the trade paper presented by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) and found virtually no reference to commodities. They are not part of the "trade consultations"
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act which seem to be going on in Canada. It did not make reference to the fundamental issue of commodities, nor were they the subject of any debate or dialogue at the Quebec City Summit between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan. In fact, agricultural problems were not on the agenda. However, we know about the major change which is going on in the United States Department of Agriculture. It seems to me that if we are trying to establish a special relationship, certainly coming to some kind of meeting of minds with the U.S. administration on this issue is of prime importance. Without its support obviously no form of parity pricing or guaranteed pricing in the international arena will be possible.
We know the limitations of a Bill like this. It really only applies to domestic consumption, which represents a very small part of the actual production of farmers. 1 am not downgrading the importance of the Bill because of that, but when we consider how much of our commodities is in the export market, it is obviously time for a companion initiative to deal with the international agreement. I do not in any way deny the difficulty in that regard. We all know how difficult it would be. Agriculture being one of our primary exporting sector, we have to recognize that the pricing mechanism across the world, the so-called market system, is faltering. With new-found competition from many countries in Latin America, Southeast Asia and the European Common Market, it will be even more difficult for us to compete and sell. This matter really requires the attention of all Hon. Members of the House.
Obviously many other things could be said on this subject, but I wanted to leave some time so that my colleague could address the issue. He has a particular interest in that there are many pork and beef farmers in his area. On behalf of that vast array of Liberals in western Canada, we would certainly support the initiative of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville. We are quite prepared to second any motion to refer the subject matter to committee.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, 1 am quite pleased to take part in this debate and like my colleague, I support Bill C-215 aimed at providing and seeking justice which is so much needed in the agricultural industry.
Let me point out by the way that agriculture is quite important in my constituency. There are 2,000 farms, 51 per cent of which are dairy farms. They have gross revenues of some $100 million and their average size is 225 acres.
One cannot help but notice a number of vague points in Bill C-215. The drafting of the Bill should be improved and adjusted, but the proposal in itself seems quite good to me because it seeks to provide justice and a fair distribution in what 1 think is probably the most important industry, agriculture.

April 25, 1985
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
We must understand that agriculture is a very important industry, but it is basically entirely different from small businesses. We are often inclined, as the Hon. Members opposite are, to compare agriculture to a small business where productivity and competition are very important concepts.
I have to admit that as far as agriculture is concerned, both concepts are a basic aspect, except that we should never forget that our farmers are faced with entirely unpredictable restraints, the vagaries of nature being the first example that comes to mind. A farmer could very well be productive and adequately equipped, but if nature is not kind to him, his production will be seriously affected. Now if his production is reduced, a scarcity is created and the market reacts according to the law of supply and demand and this remains completely beyond the control of the farmer. That example shows that agriculture as such is quite different from small businesses.
Agriculture is also an industry where the rules of the game are not the same for everyone. Let me refer, for example, to the production of pork in Quebec. We produce an impressive volume of pork in Quebec according to a process probably unparalleled in other provinces. In fact, there is what is called an integrated system. Of course, integrators are usually large corporations which achieve their production through small businesses. It seems to me that something is rather unfair in that process, because integrators very often also sell grain or other products which the producer needs. Therefore, the hog producer and who pays his primary products at specified prices is treated unfairly compared to his neighbour who is free to buy his own products at a substantially lower price. This is another example of obvious unfairness.
There is as well the matter of international markets. How can our small farmers gain access to the world markets? We have had a good example recently when the American Government unilaterally decided to overtax or to tax in a totally unacceptable way the whole Quebec hog production. There again, all these factors contribute to the unfair treatment of farmers compared with almost all the other industries.
In addition, the agricultural producer is at the mercy of consumers and of markets, which are very uncertain. When a food product is too expensive to buy, there is an immediate shift to another product, with the resulting decline in the market and all the effects you can think of.
In the dairy sector, producers need to know in what direction they are going, they need to know the long term policy which the Department has developed and that the Minister has promised for August 1st next. All in all, agriculture is an industry of vital and crucial importance. Let me just illustrate that fact by saying that in a small riding like mine, more than 3,500 people are directly dependent on agriculture.
Agriculture is also important because all Canadians need a lively, dynamic and future-oriented agricultural sector. It is important for our foreign markets and, considering these elements, I think we all agree on the strategic importance of
that industry. I believe that as a Parliament and as a Government, we must allow our farmers to operate under laws and regulations which give them an equal opportunity to gain access to those markets they need so much. Leaving the farmer to fight for himself seems dangerous to me because of all the obstacles he has to overcome.
I could go on like this for quite a while, but let me just ask you to consider the fact that it is impossible to compare a farm operation to a small business operation. The rules of the game are entirely different, farmers need rules they understand and which allow them to plan their crops in the best interest of the industry which, I repeat, is of strategic importance for the economy of my riding and the whole of Canada.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I join this debate for two reasons. The first is a strong sense of concern which has come to me this past winter. Farmer after farmer in my constituency has come to speak about the extreme pressures, the crisis of credit, and the difficulty of making ends meet in one of the most productive agricultural constituencies in Canada. I speak too because I think, certainly in my constituency and in other parts of Canada as well, there is a sense of grass roots excitement and grass roots commitment to change, an approach to try to somehow give farming back the fair share which it deserves in our economy. It is a dynamism which has taken dramatic form in my constituency with the formation of a powerful and exciting group called Concerned Farmers of Essex County. It has brought hundreds of people together for a series of meetings to explore this concept of parity and to draw into a commitment to that concept not just those who are part of the organization itself, but those who are part of the broader Essex County Federation of Agriculture.
There is a sense that farmers in my constituency feel that we are finally asking the right questions when we ask how we can put a system of parity into place. They do not believe there is a simple answer to that question. They know that before succeeding in getting a price that covers their cost of production with a fair rate of return they will face serious problems because of the nature of the international economy and the difficulties of backlogs of credit with which many farmers now live. However, they have a sense that with this kind of concept and a commitment to the concept, it is possible that farmers may finally begin to get some optimism about the future. It is possible that the sons and daughters of our present farm families will finally have a sense of optimism with which they can look forward to the future.
There is a sense that in focusing on price, we are finally getting to the heart of the matter. In talking about the prices that commodities can earn, we are finally getting to the key side of the equation that affects farm households. It is important to deal with credit and the cost of credit. It is important to look at agri-bonds and tax issues, as has been done recently by the Committee on Finance, but it is even more crucial to focus on price.
April 25, 1985

The farmers in my constituency do not want something for nothing. They want the chance to earn a fair return for their work. That is why the system of parity pricing is something that they find exciting. It gives them a sense of optimism about the future.
The Bill in front of us introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), sets forth the concept. It does it in the context of western Canadian agriculture, quite frankly. People in my constituency have said that there are commodities which need to be dealt with, such as soybeans and corn which are covered by this Bill. That is a case for getting this Bill to committee and getting the committee to travel across the country to hear representations from farmers in eastern Canada as well as in western Canada. We can give those farmers a chance to grapple with this question themselves, the question of how to get the fair pricing or parity pricing that will give those farmers a future.
I support the concerned farmers of Essex County as strongly as I possibly can and I will continue to do so. I stress the point I made to them in a speech I gave a few weeks ago, and that is that this is not a partisan issue, it is an issue of justice for our farming community. This Bill will take us one step further in the right direction and I hope we can take that step here today.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to intercede in a debate on agriculture. I do not believe there is anyone in the House who does not recognize the importance to a country of a strong basis in agriculture. I do not believe there is anyone in the House who does not recognize that in many areas of our agricultural industries today there are serious problems. That is why when Members put their minds to looking for ways to assist agriculture, no one should rise in the House and say that those ideas should not be explored.
On that basis, I commend the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) for bringing forward a Bill that gives us an idea as to how we can address the difficulties that face farmers in our country today. I do not happen to agree with everything that is in the piece of legislation brought forward by the Hon. Member, but I am sure Hon. Members of the House will not happen to agree with all of the ideas I may put forward as to how we ought to progress in order to assist agriculture.
The point that ought to be made is that we as private Members-and we are dealing with Private Members' Hour- have the right and the duty to put ideas forward to Parliament for consideration. If those ideas are right and we can convince the Cabinet that they are right, then the Cabinet ought to put them into law so they can assist the farmers. But how can we do that?
The best method that is available to us as private Members is the committee system. Committees have the ability to seek the best advice in the country on a subject matter and committees are not limited to getting ideas from within 10 miles of
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
Ottawa. All too often we forget that all the ideas for solving a problem are not to be found within this institution and its hallowed halls or glass towers. We must seek the advice of the people who elect us. In this case, we must seek the advice of the farmers of the nation and of those who work with the farmers' produce. We must work with them to see whether or not the ideas put forward in this legislation are the right ones. If they are not the right ideas, we must have compromises and other ideas put forward for the committee to review and put before the House.
In my opinion, the Government has been helpful to the agricultural industry from the time of its election to this point. Agriculture has been given a great deal of attention by this House. When the cost of production is higher than the price received for that produce, cutting the cost of production is a simple idea and one the Government can move quickly to address. We have seen such things as the fuel price subsidy and the quick movement on the Western Grain Stabilization Act which gave farmers an interim payment. I phoned my brother today to see whether or not we got our interim payment. We did, and it is a welcome surprise. Those kinds of things will assist farmers and will assist them quickly.
As mentioned by my colleagues in the House, there are other problems to be faced. There are international problems of tariffs and duties that are put on products when we get involved in internal subsidies in an attempt to solve problems. There is also a difficulty in accessing markets for our produce.
Something that has always concerned me is that there are so many people in this world who need the food we produce in this country but do not have the money to buy it. As a result, we are in competition with two or three other nations which have the same capacity to produce food but have access to the same few countries in the world that can afford to buy our products. Therefore we find such things as those in which the European Community is now involved, such as high subsidies for exports for products and production, or those in which the Americans are involved, such as extensive credit to gain access to markets for their products. They are all in competition with us and we here in Canada with our small Treasury must use our goodwill or the tremendous capacity of our farmers to become more and more efficient and to be price competitive in order to gain access to world markets.
I would now like to deal with the Bill that is before us. As was mentioned by a number of Members, parity is not a new idea. I can remember when the price of oil started to rise. A suggestion was made to me that it had always seemed to be that the price of a bushel of wheat was equal to the price of a barrel of oil. There was a feeling that we should raise the price of a bushel of wheat to the same price that was being paid for a barrel of oil. Of course, that got to be ridiculous as oil prices rose to $36 a barrel. However, the feeling existed that the two commodities should be worth the same.
We are trying to determine in our own mind what a bushel of wheat, a steer or a hog should be worth. When a commission is put in place to make that determination, problems arise immediately. There are difficulties with those farmers who are

April 25, 1985
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
more efficient than others or who just happen to get up earlier in the morning and work harder. That is the case in a number of industries and not just in agriculture. There is the difficulty of how to reward those who take advantage of everything that is available to them and those who work hard.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Just like politics, too.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Exactly. Second, how do we put into this formula the use or development of new technology? Third, how do we set this price when we are attempting to gain access to international markets in the area of red meats and grain, something which must be done?
The Bill suggests that we set up commissions in two or three areas in order to do these things. Basically, the only way to do that is to control production. We have done that in a number of industries and it has worked. The dairy industry and the various feather industries have been able to control production and keep their prices at such a level that they receive adequate return for their work. By creating those boards, we are giving other people in the country who wish to farm fewer options regarding what they can produce. If we now begin to control production of hogs and cattle without getting into subsidies, then we offer the rest of the farmers fewer options. They are then locked into the production of horticultural products or grain. That is one difficulty we must recognize.
Instead of having the consumer pay the difference, we can have the Government pay the difference through the concept of subsidies. We all know the difficulties and what can happen in that case.
For a bushel of barley, a farmer in the European community now receives more from the Government than I receive from the Canadian Wheat Board when I deliver a bushel of barley. The European farmer receives more at the beginning from the Government. Canadian farmers must compete with that farmer to access international markets. The same is true in the production of other grain commodities. If we look at the European community and the commodities, by subsidization, which they are compelled to store because they have no market for them, we find warehouse after warehouse of butter and skim milk powder. We now have 850,000 metric tons of surplus beef in storage in the European community. That is a whole year's production in Canada, and it is growing. Is it any wonder that this community, with export subsidies, has attempted to access more and more markets in the world to get rid of the problem? There is a problem, no one can argue that. In 1980 and in previous years, they had no access to our market. In 1981, we bought 2.7 million pounds, in 1982 we bought 7.7 million pounds, in 1983 we bought 14.8 million pounds, and last year we bought 50 million pounds.
The European community is moving into the market through price. That has dropped the price which our farmers receive for their animals in Canada. Obviously, if a restaurant owner can buy cheaper meat, he will do that because it will
mean more profit to him. He is not necessarily concerned about where he gets that meat.
Canada has been lax in past years in dealing with the problem of access to our market. Other countries would never have accepted what we have accepted. Other countries utilized GATT arrangements, tariffs and non-tariff barriers to protect their producers. But Canada as a trading nation tries to be as fair as possible so that other countries can take advantage of the products which we push into their market. The European community is now saying that if we do not give access to their beef they will put tariffs on our blueberries, honey, rye whiskey and other commodities. It is almost blackmail that we are experiencing.
Members of the House have ideas. Those ideas must fit into Canada's need to produce sufficient food for our own needs and those of the markets which we supply around the world. No one can argue that there is a need in Canada for the large amount of foreign capital which is gained because of the sale of our agricultural commodities. It is in the billions of dollars. In the grain industry alone it is $6 billion. Then there is the access to all the other commodities which we have in the world.
I have put forward the suggestion that we might reach out to the consumers of Canada to assist them in our domestic consumption. It is not a new idea. We could have a two-price wheat program in which we would ask the people who purchase flour products-breads, muffins, cakes and cookies-to pay more for the price of wheat which goes into the domestic production. That money could go to the wheat farmers. The difficulty with that is the bread which comes across the border. But I think we could deal with that, and I do not think our competitors in the United States would argue if such a program were brought in. Instead of putting a tariff on flour or wheat, we would put the tariff on breads, muffins and cakes. Instead of placing the tariff at the beginning, it would be placed at the end. It would be a retail tariff which would go directly to the farmers. A tariff of two cents on a loaf of bread would mean 40 cents a bushel to farmers on the Prairies. With the amount which we in Canada consume, 40 cents a bushel could mean the difference between bankruptcy and continuing production for a lot of farmers in western Canada.
If that concept could work for bread, why could we not implement it for beef, pork, soya beans, vegetables and fruits which are consumed domestically? I do not think it is beyond our imagination for such a program to be implemented. I have expressed that thought, and I assume that there are problems with it, as there are problems with Bill C-215, but when the subject of how we can get more money into the hands of farmers is put before the Standing Committee on Agriculture for study, then we might also put forward ideas such as these. Perhaps we would not accept everything which is put forward in this Bill, but there are some good ideas in it. I would like the committee to pursue my idea about a retail tariff which would go directly to the farmer. We might deal also with better stabilization programs for farmers, or bilateral arrangements with competitors. We know that approximately five countries
April 25, 1985

in the world have 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the world's suprlus in food, particularly grains. Why do those countries compete so well with the countries which must buy the grains-such as the communist countries and certain others- when we are selling our grains below the Canadian farmers' cost of production? It is no different in the United States, Argentina or Australia than it is in Canada. As well, I believe that the old international wheat agreements should not be discounted. Perhaps we as Members should pursue that with Members of Parliament from other countries or with U.S. Congressmen to find out if there are answers.
Various provinces are attempting to assist through subsidies, which has created some difficulty with pork in the U.S. market. Perhaps we might attempt to deal with better stabilization on a national basis which would not interfere with export markets.
It is very easy to get wound up when talking about agriculture. I come from a rural riding and my family has farmed for over 100 years. I know the difficulties, but it is not my intention to talk out this motion. It is my intention to move the following motion:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-215, an Act respecting parity prices for farm products, be not now
read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and
the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on
Agriculture."
I believe that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Ax worthy) indicated that he was prepared to second the motion.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Accordingly, the Order is discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order! Private Member's Hour has now expired.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, on April 3. I raised a question with the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton) having to do with Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. building a refinery in the Sudbury Basin. I asked the Minister if he was aware that Falconbridge had announced that it was going to spend $41.5 million to expand its refinery in Norway because it was buying Botswana nickel matte and it had to expand the refinery to process this new nickel matte from Botswana.
Since Falconbridge began operations in the Sudbury Basin in the early 1940s, it has always refined its nickel matte in Norway. We in the Sudbury Basin have always demanded that Falconbridge should build a refinery to refine Canadian ore where it is mined. We felt that was a good principle. If one mines ore in Canada then it should be refined in Canada.
Eventually, Mr. Speaker, in 1975, after we started to experience all sorts of downturns in the mining industry in the Sudbury Basin, the Ontario Conservative Government belatedly attempted to save face in the matter and amended its mining act. That mining act said that Ontario resources should be refined in Canada. We would have liked it to specify Ontario but we agreed that the ore should at least be refined in Canada.
Section 104 of the mining act was then passed which exempted Falconbridge from that rule. Falconbridge in Ontario, therefore, is the only mining company which is allowed to ship its resources in a semi-processed state offshore to have it refined.
In the last two years Falconbridge has reduced its work force from 2700 workers to 1900 workers. We have lost 800 jobs in that company alone. The company itself has not been doing any development of new mines in the Sudbury Basin. In fact, it has been importing from abroad a lot of scrap metal and has been smelting out the nickel from that scrap metal. This does not create any employment for our people.
Falconbridge has now announced that because Amex has pulled out of its consortium in Botswana, it is moving in to buy the nickel matte from Botswana and is going to ship that nickel matte to Norway for refining. To do that it has to spend $41.5 million to expand the refinery in Norway. It seems to me the logical and the kind of patriotic thing Falconbridge would want to do, if they have $41.5 million, is use that money as a down payment in order to finally build a refinery in the

April 25, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Sudbury Basin to refine Canadian ore. Let the Norwegian plant refine the Botswana ore.
To me, Mr. Speaker, this decision flies in the face of what we have been discussing in committee and in this House with respect to Bill C-15. Surely the surplus earned through the labour of Canadian workers and Canadian resources should be plowed back into Canada. Falconbridge should build a refinery and at least hire back the employees who lost their jobs. Not only do we Canadians have a vested interest in that we lose employment opportunities when we ship out the semi-processed ore, but we have allowed Falconbridge to defer $150 million of federal corporate tax in the last two years. Last year it paid no corporate income tax at all and it paid none the year before. I have nothing against that, but at some point in time we have to receive a benefit from that company. Where is that benefit?
We have said that Falconbridge should build a refinery in the Sudbury Basin. Falconbridge made the decision to expand the refinery in Norway. They have been saying they are going to spend $70 million in the Sudbury Basin next year. Well, that includes the payroll. They have not spent any money on development of new mines in the last two years and here is an opportunity for the Government. 1 asked the Minister to do that. I asked him to contact the leadership of Falconbridge to impress upon them that now is the time to put the $41.5 million toward the building of a new refinery. We understand it will cost in the vicinity of $125 million to $147 million, and $41.5 million as a good down payment to make. We could look at participation by the federal and provincial Governments in building that refinery in the Sudbury Basin. I asked the Minister to do that and he said he would look into the matter and report later.


Mr. F. Oberle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). He raises a very interesting matter, one which is of concern to all Canadians, that we are from time to time shipping semi-processed raw materials to other parts of the world for further refinement. That is not something engaged in solely by Falconbridge or the mineral industry. Our forest industry and many other parts of the primary resource sector are often accused of the same sin.
One should ask immediately why a company like Falconbridge, which has such an exemplary record, would build a refinery in Norway in the first place. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt may not know it, but the reason was that Inco had developed a refining process that was then state of the art, still is for that matter, and had the North American patents. In order for Falconbridge to get its ore refined, they would either have to make a deal with Inco or go somewhere else to build a refinery. That is why the refinery was built in Norway in 1928 to 1930, and they have been refining ore there ever since.
It is quite true that this patent protection just recently expired and it would now be possible for Falconbridge to build
a refinery in Canada. However, the Hon. Member is from the Socialist Party and I want to just put to him this proposition. It is one thing to impose on or intrude in corporate decisionmaking in the manner which the NDP would prescribe. To impose export limits on natural resources would be one way of doing that. Indeed, we are doing it where the Canadian interest is involved, for reasons of security of supply. In the oil sector there are very strict Government rules concerning exports. But surely the Hon. Member knows that there is no shortage of nickel in Canada; nor are there any security reasons for which the Government would in any way feel justified in imposing such restrictions. It is, as I said, one thing to do that, but it is quite another thing when you have to sell these materials.
Let me just tell the Hon. Member that Canada purchases only 5.1 per cent of the total production of Falconbridge, including some product from the Dominican Republic. The rest is sold all over the world. Only 7.1 per cent of the Norway refined product finds its way back to Canada. As well, there are some very significant trade advantages to Falconbridge because the Norway refinery's product goes into the markets of the European Economic Community without trade restrictions. That is a very distinct advantage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.
[ Translation]


RAILWAYS (A) CN LAYOFFS. (B) TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR CN EMPLOYEES TRANSFERABLE TO VIA RAIL
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, on February 26 last, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to pay particular attention to the fact that CN workers would be transferred to VIA Rail, and that the decision which had just been announced by the Progressive Conservative Government to allow VIA Rail to do its own car repair and maintai-nance was likely to be a source of great concern for some 3,000 rail workers in Canada. I asked the Minister to assure the House that no Canadian National worker who had been working for several years, seven, eight years, for VIA Rail, would be affected by this new decision of the Government. The Minister of Transport told me at that time that a deal between the parties would be made about those CN workers who would be transferred to VIA Rail, and that negotiations were under way, and I quote:
-I understand they are proceeding very smoothly and satisfactorily.
However, reminding him of the responsibility of the Government in this decision, I asked the Minister, to take a closer look to ensure that the whole thing would be done without any layoffs. I quote him again as he told me:
-as I previously indicated, the negotiations are taking place very smoothly between VIA Rail and the respective unions. I can assure the Hon. Member that a deal will be resolved which will be satisfactory to both parlies concerned.
April 25, 1985

On March 21,1 had to repeat my question to the Minister of Transport reminding him of what he had said on February 26 and to tell him that unfortunately some 474 CN workers had just been laid off in spite of the assurances the Minister of Transport had tried to give us previously. However, the answer of the Minister of Transport was completely unsatisfactory. He said this, and I quote:
-I remind him that it is not the Government which has laid off 474 workers; it is the management of CN-
As if those layoffs were not the responsibility of the Minister of Transport who decided to allow VIA Rail to do its own rolling stock maintenance whereas it had been done since 1977 either by Canadian National workers, or in some cases by Canadian Pacific workers, which ensured stable employment.
The Minister goes even a little further in his answer; he said the following, taking into consideration however the representations I was making, and I quote:
I have asked the President of CN to ensure that all matters relating to labour adjustment, early retirement, and all such things will be taken into consideration so that the impact is not severe.
Now, Mr. Speaker, 1 must say that today, in April, not only do the layoffs still stand but there are threats of more layoffs and no hope of job creation at either the CN or VIA Rail to hire back laid-off employees.
In other words, the decision by the Progressive Conservative Government had planned the construction of four maintenance has destabilized employment which had become permanent and an important source of income for many years for hundreds of rail workers.
I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister is the one who will answer me in a few moments. He comes from Halifax himself. He will know that in order to create jobs in every part of this country and in order to help CN or CP employees to get another job with VIA Rail, the previous Government had planned the construction of four maitenance centres: one in Halifax, home of the parliamentary secretary, one in Montreal, one in Toronto and one in Winnipeg. Yet the Government went ahead with the Toronto project only, and the Progressive Conservatives have told us that the three other maintenance centres that would create employment and allow those laid-off employees to get a job either in Halifax, Montreal or Winnipeg have not been accepted by their Government. I hope that in his answer the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give good news to at least those laid-off workers in Montreal and maybe to some others in his riding of Halifax.
Adjournment Debate
SIS)

Mir. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, the distinguished former Minister employs a touch of sophistry in his argument, and I will forgive him for that. The former Minister's own Party was part and parcel of ready acceptance of an amendment moved by the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) with respect to Crown corporations acting in contemplation of good business practices.
Canadian National has been experiencing a decline in freight since last November. Let me advise the Hon. Member, because I am sure he is concerned and I know he is very serious in his comments, that Canadian National, which last year posted a record $51 million profit in the first quarter, has now posted a net loss of $23.6 million for the same period in 1985. The rate of decline has reached 5 per cent and is worsening. That is not good news. Coal traffic has fallen 12 per cent. Grain traffic which, as the Hon. Member knows, represents more than 20 per cent of Canadian National's workload is down 18 per cent from the volume moved in the same period last year. The company is now forecasting that grain traffic will decline as much as 30 per cent.
It should come, therefore, as no surprise that the company responding to directives of this Parliament and to a measure that was part of the policy and programs of the previous Government is making adjustments to offset the decline in revenues and to prevent the outlook for net income from deteriorating still further during the coming year. That is a direct result of our direction to them, to act in contemplation of profit, to act in a sense of good business practices. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, these cutbacks in manpower are a result of not simply layoffs following the declining traffic but the result of productivity gains obtained through technological change and rearrangement or deferment of some planned programs, all of which was done in consultation with the unions and management involved.
The layoffs announced by CN in its Atlantic, St. Lawrence, Prairie and Great Lakes regions which total 474 persons were made in specific accordance with agreements between the company and the unions affected. These agreements allow full advantage to be taken of transfers, complete with relocation assistance and the exercise of seniority. Job security provisions when combined with unemployment insurance benefits enable employees affected to retain up to 80 per cent of their salary.

April 25, 1985
Adjournment Debate
The number of weeks during which an employee might enjoy these benefits is affected by the number of years of employment with the railway, but it does ease the adverse affects of this very very serious decline in railway traffic, a decline that we hope the economy will be able to adjust to and reverse in the months ahead under the leadership that we now have.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 26, 1985