1985-04-30

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 29, 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. 4, 6, 7 and 9 (Mr. Axworthy), No. 10 (Mr. Langdon), No. 11 (Mr. Axworthy), Nos. 14 and 15 (Mr. Langdon), No. 16 (Mr. Axworthy) and Nos. 17 and 18 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4183).
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding, I have some comments to make with regard to the Bill. I am waiting for distribution to the House Leaders and those involved. I am ready to rule on the amendments, but as Hon. Members can imagine, the ruling is almost as long as the original document. If it is all right with the House, I think it would be courteous if I waited two seconds while the pages distributed copies to the House officers.
Before proceeding, I am now in a position to rule on those motions about which the Chair expressed reservations on Tuesday, April 23.
The procedural contributions made by Hon. Members on Thursday last were of great assistance to the Chair in preparing this ruling.
1.	The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) did not argue the admissibility of Motion No. 3 but offered new wording in an attempt to make it procedurally acceptable. On the surface, the suggested amendment by the Hon. Member appears to render the motion less argumentative. However, the Chair is still faced with the fact that the motion seeks to alter the purpose of the Bill by focusing the thrust of attention on past foreign investment. This was never contemplated in the Bill. I must agree with the remarks of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and rule that the motion goes beyond the principle of the Bill as agreed to at second reading. In this regard, I refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(5).
2.	On Motion No. 5, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) went to great lengths in analyzing the principle of the Bill and focused his remarks on what he considers to be
the discriminatory aspects reflected in the purpose clause and in subsequent details of the Bill. I thank the Hon. Member for his valuable contribution in this respect as it has facilitated the Chair's understanding of this piece of complex legislation.
In that the purpose clause differentiates between Canadian and non-Canadian investors and insofar as significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians are reviewable in order to ensure such benefit to Canada, then the Hon. Member is correct, that there is "discrimination". However, that discrimination is limited in its scope. These limitations are defined in subsequent clauses of the Bill.
The House is still faced with the fact that Motion No. 5 would bring in a discriminatory element by limiting the Minister's assistance to Canadian investors only. Such a restriction towards non-Canadians goes beyond the limited form of discrimination specified in the Bill. Thus the Chair has no alternative but to rule Motion No. 5 out of order.
3.	In Motion No. 13, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor seeks to introduce new conditions of conduct for Canadian businesses owned and controlled by non-Canadians. This is clearly discriminatory towards non-Canadians and again contradicts the purpose of the Bill as agreed to at second reading. It further proposes new provisions to be included in the Bill and thus goes beyond its scope. I must therefore rule that this motion cannot be proposed to the House.
4.	The Chair had not seen any problem with Motion No. 14 and had grouped it for debate with other motions. The Hon. the President of the Privy Council argued, however, on Thursday last, that the motion was out of order on the grounds that it went beyond the scope of the Bill, and was irrelevant and redundant, in that it gave to the Minister the exercise of powers which would infringe upon provincial labour jurisdiction. Upon reflection, after listening to the arguments of the Minister, I will in no way rule as to whether or not the motion would infringe upon provincial jurisdiction, as that is a legal question and not one of procedure. However, the motion is irrelevant to the clause it attempts to amend. As stated in Citation 773(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the Bill-
For this reason, I have no alternative but to rule that Motion No. 14 is out of order.
5.	As the Chair indicated in its preliminary statement on Tuesday last, Motion No. 21 goes against the principle of the Bill and is therefore out of order.
MO)
6.	With reference to Motion No. 22, I indicated this motion infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown. The Hon.

April 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Member for Essex-Windsor proposes in his motion that a board of directors be established, including a full-time president, and that the specific allocation of money for the president would be divided among the part-time directors and the president, thus leading to no extra charge on the Treasury. I must congratulate the Hon. Member on such an original approach. That a president would be willing to share his salary with his board of directors, thereby leading to no charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, is quite novel. However, the Bill does not provide for the establishment of any board of directors. The Chair must rule that Motion No. 22 infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown. In this connection, I refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 540.
7.	Motion No. 26, as I have already indicated, adds a new exemption to the particular clause it seeks to amend. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry argued that the principle of recognizing certain exemptions has already been accepted in the Bill and this motion merely offers a further exemption. That may well be so; however, I cannot ignore the fact that the motion, while adding this exemption, discriminates against non-Canadians. As I indicated earlier in this ruling, such discrimination was not envisaged in the Bill when it was given second reading. Consequently, I must rule that this motion goes beyond the principle of the Bill and is therefore out of order.
8.	Motions Nos. 28 and 29 clearly go beyond the principle of the Bill and, in one case, infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown. They are out of order.
9.	The Chair had indicated that Motion No. 33 sought to establish a committee not contemplated in the Bill, was a new proposition and went beyond the four corners of the Bill. As well, Motions Nos. 54, 62, 65, 66, 71, 73, 92 and 93 were consequential on this motion. The Hon. President of the Privy Council, in his remarks, thought it highly questionable that a Cabinet committee could be created by an Act of Parliament, a doubt which also exists in my mind. However, I will not comment further on this. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry pointed out that the Minister in committee had indicated that he intended to consult with colleagues in Cabinet on matters pertaining to this legislation. While the Hon. Member's proposal to formalize such consultation may be laudable, the creation of such a committee was not contemplated in the Bill. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that Motion No. 33 goes beyond the principle of the Bill as agreed to at second reading. The motion also offers a new proposition and should not be put to the House. Similarly, Motions Nos. 54, 62, 65, 66, 71, 73, 92 and 93 also will not be proposed.
10.	With respect to Motion No. 38A, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor stated that this motion should not have been grouped with Motions Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 38. After taking a closer look, the Chair agrees with the Hon. Member and Motion No. 38A will be proposed to the House separately and, if necessary, voted on separately.
11.	Motion No. 37 raises once again the matter of discrimination against non-Canadians and goes against the purpose of the Bill. Based on my earlier remarks when dealing with
Motion No. 3, concerning the nature of discrimination, I must disagree with the arguments put forward by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. I therefore rule Motion No. 37 out of order. These remarks apply to Motion No. 39, which is also out of order.
12.	As I indicated in my preliminary statement on Tuesday of last week, Motion No. 40 contains a new proposal not contemplated in the Bill and is therefore out of order.
13.	With regard to Motions Nos. 42 to 49 inclusive, I must, respectfully and with regret, inform the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor that they were not successful in persuading the Chair that these motions are procedurally acceptable. These motions are all similar efforts to introduce into the Bill types of investments that would require review which were not foreseen in the Bill as adopted by the House at second reading. Therefore, these motions will not be proposed to the House. As Motion No. 51 is consequential on these motions, it falls into the same category.
14.	The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor argued that Motions Nos. 55 to 61 attempt to clarify and make more specific the factors set out in Clause 20 of the Bill. The Chair agrees with the arguments put forward by the Hon. Member. In attempting to do so, however, the Chair must point out to the Hon. Member that the motions introduce new proposals into the Bill, proposals which are outside the scope of the Clause. While I fully understand the Hon. Member's intention, the Chair is bound by the procedural rules and precedents, as stated in May's Twentieth Edition at page 555:
An amendment is out of order if it is .. . beyond the scope of the clause under consideration-
Therefore, I have no alternative but to rule Motions No. 55 to 61 out of order.
15.	In relation to Motion No. 64, 1 must disagree with the remarks of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. This motion seeks to introduce into the Bill indirectly what cannot be done directly, namely, a definition of the term "net benefit". Further, it goes beyond the purpose and scope of the Bill. With regret, this motion cannot be proposed to the House.
16.	The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry indicated that Motions Nos. 70 and 72 have different objectives and should be voted on separately. I agree with the Hon. Member, therefore, Motions Nos. 70 and 72 will be voted on separately, but shall remain grouped with Motion No. 68 for the purposes of debate.
17.	In my statement to the House on Tuesday last, I had indicated some doubt in the mind of the Chair in relation to Motions Nos. 78 and 79 and had asked the Hon. Member to explain their purpose. After taking his remarks into consideration, the Chair is of the opinion that these motions, which seek to reduce the necessary minimum of one-third voting shares to 5 per cent or less in order to obtain control of a corporation, are simply modifying the conditions of acquisition of control.
April 30, 1985

The Hon. President of the Privy Council argued that to reduce the level to 5 per cent expanded the jurisdiction of the Agency. In the opinion of the Chair the Agency, as defined in the Bill, already has the authority to review acquisition of control. Therefore, these motions are in order and will be proposed to the House together for debate and vote on Motion No. 78 will dispose of Motion No. 79.
18.	The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor argued quite eloquently in favour of Motion No. 80 and has convinced the Chair to allow this motion to be proposed to the House. Motion No. 80 will be debated and voted on separately.
19.	Motion No. 82 gives to a committee of the House the power to approve regulations. This clearly was not contemplated in the Bill which gives such power to the Governor-in-Council. Therefore, this motion is out of order.
20.	Motion No. 83, as indicated by the Chair on Tuesday last, goes beyond the scope of the clause it is attempting to amend and is therefore out of order. As Motion No. 84 is consequential on this motion, it also is out of order.
21.	The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor asked the Chair to consider further whether Motions Nos. 85 to 88 were consequential to Motions Nos. 83 to 84. Upon reflection, Motions Nos. 86, 87 and 88 are consequential on Motion No. 83 and cannot be put to the House. As Motion No. 85 deals with the disclosure of information in connection with legal proceedings, its subject matter allows the motion to stand by itself. It is my intention to put the motion to the House separately and have it voted on separately.
22.	In relation to Motions Nos. 90 and 91, I regret that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry has not convinced the Chair to change its first impression of these two motions. As I previously stated, Motion No. 91 infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown and is therefore out of order. As Motion No. 90 is consequential on this motion, it is also out of order.
23.	Finally, for the reasons given by the Chair in its preliminary statement, Motion No. 94 is out of order and will not be proposed to the House.
This concludes the remarks I have to make in relation to the procedural acceptability of certain motions. For the benefit of Hon. Members, I will enumerate those motions ruled out of order. They are Motions Nos. 3, 5, 13, 14, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 33, 37, 39, 40, 42 to 49 inclusive, 51, 54 to 62 inclusive, 64 to 66 inclusive, 71, 73, 82 to 84 inclusive, 86 to 88 inclusive and 90 to 94 inclusive.
I must apologize to the House for the length of this ruling, but I am sure Hon. Members will understand that, with the number of motions proposed, the complexity of the legislation and the high calibre of the procedural arguments made, the Chair was obligated to weigh carefully and to answer fully the procedural concerns of Hon. Members.
Debate will now continue on the group of motions now before the House, with the exception of Motion No. 14 as ruled on previously by the Chair.
Investment Canada Act


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed at your capacity to make these magnificent rulings. It is the capacity to read them, I suppose, which amazes me more than the making of them. Maybe some day we will be in the position in which we will not have to do this.
First, on behalf of my colleague, I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the kind words which you expressed during your ruling. I am not really talking about that, however, but with regard to the presentations of the arguments which I think everyone in the House felt were extremely well done by all Hon. Members who made representations during the submissions which were made to your preliminary ruling.
Let me talk for two or three moments about the reasons we are attempting to make these subsequent changes to the legislation. The experience we have had over the years with respect to the degree of power which the Minister has is an experience which has led most of us to come to the conclusion that many of the areas we would define on an ongoing basis as "problem areas" seem to be outside the scope of the Minister to resolve. I have on numerous occasions, as have other Hon. Members of the House, come across situations where companies operating in Canada, or seeking to operate in Canada, were prepared to make substantial commitment on paper guaranteeing such things as long-term employment, investment in areas of research and development, and assuring the Government through FIRA-and I now imagine through this legislation-that their intentions were of the highest order and that they were committed to Canada, as we would expect them to be.
Unfortunately-and I want to stress that word-the experience in many instances has not been in keeping with the commitment. All too frequently we have found that after permission was given to either purchase an existing operation or to establish a new operation in Canada, the performance level, when measured against the commitment made, fell substantially short of realizing the goals. So what we are asking is that the powers of the Minister be more clearly defined and that the Minister in fact have the necessary power to deal with some of the problems which, quite frankly, not only did exist in the last few years but continue to exist. We are dealing with basically the same people and with the same corporate entities, in most instances, and if they were not prepared to live up to their commitments voluntarily in the past, then one would have reason to doubt that their attitudes would have now changed significantly. And it would not be unreasonable to think that they would not be prepared to live up to their commitments in the future.
We would very much like to have the powers of the Minister more clearly understood when these circumstances arise. One example which I raised yesterday in Question Period is the take-over of Canadian Porcelain Limited by, I believe, Lapp Industries from New York State. That is an example of a situation which cries out for investigation. It is not unique. It is not the first time it has happened. But the fact that it has

April 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
happened again demands that we make some provision in the law to permit the Minister to step in and terminate, if need be, a proposal such as the one we now see before the receiver on behalf of the Royal Bank which is handling the problems of Canadian Porcelain.
Just so Hon. Members understand the dilemma which confronts me and the workers at Canadian Porcelain, Canadian Porcelain is in receivership not totally but primarily because of the actions of a number of foreign-based companies, including Lapp Industries which dumped its product into the Canadian market and, therefore, undermined the viability of this Canadian company which had been in existence for 80 years or more. Canadian Porcelain had been producing insulators for electrical use of a quality which had met the demands of the market-place throughout that entire period, but Lapp Industries, together with others, sold into the Canadian market at below their own cost price. It was found by a tribunal to have dumped. The effect of that action by that company and others was to undermine the viability of Canadian Porcelain and therefore make it impossible for Canadian Porcelain to maintain its position in the market-place. The ultimate result was that the company went into receivership.
Subsequently the employees, 85 of them or thereabouts, decided that this was a good plant with a future potential and they got together with a number of community and church groups in Hamilton. They had the support of the Labour Council, City Council and I think of every Member of Parliament from the area in seeking out another way to continue to operate the plant located in the west end of Hamilton. After undertaking a viability study, they were able to convince the credit union and CUNA that this would be a useful thing for them to become involved in.
They began a process of providing the basic funding for the purchase of the assets which would have permitted the plant to continue to operate. About a week or 10 days ago they made an offer of $1.1 million to the receiver, Peat Marwick. What they were not told when their offer was refused was that there was another offer to be considered. They asked Peat Marwick to give them an idea of what they needed in the way of financing in order to get acceptance of their proposal. They were led to believe that an offer in the neighbourhood of $1.3 million would be satisfactory. They went back to their financial principals and renegotiated and got agreement for $1.3 million. They took that to their co-operative board made up of employees and some others, and got approval for an offer of $1.3 million on Friday last. They then instructed the offer to be drawn up for presentation on Monday last to the receiver in Toronto. But in the meantime the receiver sold the company. Although I am not absolutely clear on how much, we are told that the receiver sold it for an amount in the neighbourhood of $1.25 million, and they sold it to LAPP Industries. Without having the decency to discuss the potential sale with those who were working in the plant, those who would put together the co-operative, without even giving them a chance to enter another offer, the receiver sold the plant to the very company
which had been a part of the group which had undermined the operation in the first place.
It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, that there is something dreadfully wrong with that. There is something dreadfully wrong with a situation which will permit a foreign company to undermine its Canadian competitor, force it into receivership and then purchase it from the receiver to the detriment of the workers and in spite of the fact that there was an offer of something close to equal value already on the table from a group of Canadians. I think that is why we have to extend the powers of the Minister.
As you know, I have asked the Minister to step in now and stop it but I know he is going to tell me that he does not have the power. Well, I am going to tell him that we will give him the power. Bring in an amendment to any piece of legislation and we will give him the power to stop what is going on in this case. But more importantly, we will give him the power to deal with these kinds of situations as and when they arise in the future. That is what we are talking about. That is protecting Canada. That is giving Canadians a chance. That is ensuring that they are not undermined by the might and financial strength of their competitors elsewhere. That ensures that we do not see a further deterioration of Canada's position with regard to domestic involvement in our economy as opposed to foreign investment and involvement in our economy. I think it is absolutely and vitally important that amendments such as those which are before us now become part of this particular piece of legislation.
[DOT] (M30)


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a certain apprehension, having to follow the eloquent words of my colleague. I would like to speak in support of the group of amendments that have been moved on this particular aspect of the Bill. I will focus my comments on the impact which the main Bill will have if the amendments are not accepted. Before I do that, I would like to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), for giving up his position on the schedule to allow me to speak so that I can return to committee.
In the last six months since I became a member of the House I have heard members of the Government talk about investment and about how they perceive the world. The Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) is here today. I urge him to consider these words. I am getting the impression that the Government feels that the only way to create jobs and improve our economy is to throw money at it. In the past we in the New Democratic Party have been accused of wanting to throw taxpayers' money at things to make them go away. That label was also applied to the Liberal Government in years past. Through this Bill all the Government wants to do is bring money in from outside our boundaries to solve everything. They believe that will end all of our economic woes.
In committee as well I am hearing that there is a need to bring in entrepreneurs. However, the definition of entre-
April 30, 1985

preneurs is those with bucks, not necessarily those with ideas. In committee we have heard about the reality of Canada. I would like to quote from a presentation of an old seatmate of mine. Dr. Stuart Smith, the head of the Science Council of Canada. He stated:
The missing link is that as individual Canadians and as Canadian institutions we have developed habits of investment which are not appropriate to the rapidly changing international picture. We have developed, over the years, a reliance upon our resource sector to carry us through and a feeling that we could basically ignore the export markets for knowledge-intensive goods, high value-added goods. We have left those either to foreign companies who have not entered the export market because they basically did that from their home enterprise, or we have just ignored them completely and continued to produce very standard products in textiles, furniture and gloves. Generally speaking, we have not been in precision machinery or advanced robotics or any of these things. Now if you say, does that mean we have enough Canadian capital? Well, yes and no; yes, we have enough Canadian savings, but it is not being turned into capital in the sense that it is capital in a given industry.
Investment Canada is a fine name for this Bill. We should be using this Bill as a tool to convince Canadians to invest their savings in new growth industries such as software, electronics and robotics. We should not be spending our time trying to drag in money from outside our borders. Investment Canada should be required to study all proposals to sell existing Canadian companies to foreigners and then to go on a search for capital.
When a company wants to hire someone from outside our borders, they are first required to do a job search. They must go through Canada Employment and Immigration and search from sea to sea to discover if there is a Canadian who is qualified to do that job. In the majority of cases they find a Canadian who is qualified and prepared to relocate for the purpose of achieving gainful employment.
I suggest that Investment Canada should do the same thing. Canadian companies which wish to obtain foreign capital should be required to do a capital search from sea to sea to discover if there is money which is currently sitting in a bank account that could be better used in the production of new wealth and new jobs. That is the approach which the Government should be taking.
There will be times when it will be necessary to bring money in from beyond our borders. We must do that in a very controlled way. We must ensure that that capital is used for the benefit of Canadians. It does not do our society any good when someone buys a plant, perhaps using our money to finance it, and does not create any new wealth or new jobs. Rather, they set the plant up for the day when the parent company, in the time of recession, pulls back its horns and circles the wagons, so to speak. The plant in Canada is the first victim. We saw very clear examples of that in the mid to late 1970s throughout this land, particularly in Ontario. This Bill is trying to turn the clock back instead of trying to develop a mechanism that will allow Canadians to invest in Canada to bring about growth and development of new jobs and new wealth.
Another concern which is addressed by one of the amendments is that all Canadian businesses which are owned and controlled by non-Canadians must respect the rights of the
Investment Canada Act
workers for collective bargaining. In the pulp and paper industry in Canada we are now facing very harsh competition from the southern United States. In those southern United States they have so-called "right to work" laws which basically means the right to have an unorganized, non-union facility which pays bottom of the barrel dollars. We have such companies investing in the pulp and paper industry in northwestern Ontario and their record is very dismal. If these companies are going to invest in Canada they must work by our rules. They must follow the accepted approach to worker-owner operations that we have built up over the years in Canada. Unless we put those rules in place, not only will we allow non-Canadians to buy us out, but they will severely lower our standards of living and the rights of workers on the job.
1 believe the amendments before us are extremely important because they attempt to make a bad Bill slightly better. Although we would like to see this Bill withdrawn completely, we urge the Government to consider these motions seriously and incorporate them into the Bill.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, we are now in the last stages of the debate on Bill C-15, the legislation being proposed to replace the former Foreign Investment Review Act. Throughout the debate on this Bill, at the second reading stage and in committee, we have been urging the Government to reconsider its approach to establishing a form of control over foreign investment in Canada.
Despite their efforts both at the second reading stage and in committee, up to now the Official Opposition and the opposition represented by the New Democratic Party have been unable to persuade the Government to modify its general approach.
Now, at the report stage, we have a chance to modify the content of certain clauses of the Bill. Among the proposals that were made, Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, consider three of the motions, namely, Motions Nos. 4, 6 and 16. I intend to deal simultaneously with Motions 4 and 16 which concern the powers granted the Minister under the proposed legislation.
The attitude taken by the Government, and especially by the Minister responsible for Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) is, I think, an extremely arrogant one. The Minister is empire building. He wants to keep the decision-making power to himself. However, we believe, and that is the objective of Motion No. 4, that a distinction must be made between setting policy and policy implementation.
If Bill C-15 . . . Government Members will realize later on, when they are facing specific problems related to take-overs in their own ridings, they will see how what I am going to say will affect them and maybe, in a couple of years, they will say: Maybe we should have listened a bit more: it might have been a good idea.

April 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act


Mr. Boudria:: Yes, when Sinclair Stevens says no!


Raymond Garneau: In fact, there is more to it than that, because in the Bill, in Part VI, the Government decided to create an agency. Why create an agency? They could have simply-and actually that would have made perfect sense, considering the content of Clause 4-they could have simply entrusted the administration of this legislation, as is customary in other cases, to regular public servants, to an assistant deputy minister or the department's administrative services. However, they decided to establish an agency. The only reason I can see is in order to impose a certain degree of objectivity on the administration of this Act, and to maintain a certain distance between political decisions and administrative decisions. Otherwise, they would not have bothered establishing the agency. I do not see why the present agency is being set up under the conditions set forth in the proposed legislation. If we look at the CRTC, for instance, which operates more or less like other government agencies, the Government, having received a mandate from the general public, sets policy but entrusts policy administration to a group of professionals who implement the policy.
If the Government is establishing this agency, I wonder why, in Clause 4, the minister is not only responsible for setting policy but also for managing and administering the Act. I think this is an abuse of power which is going to create problems, not just for the businessmen who want to buy or sell companies, but for the Minister and the Government, and there will probably be situations that are far more serious than the Government has foreseen, and the result will also be that most decisions on foreign take-overs will become political decisions.
We all know it is not particularly pleasant to have to consider the political side of a case that should be analyzed only on the basis of content and merit. That is why we suggested that Clauses 4 be amended to separate the functions that are really the Government's, that are really the Minister's, functions whose purpose is to establish the policy for the agency created under Clause 6, I believe, of the Bill before the House, from the policies that form the framework for the agency's decision-making role. We therefore propose, in Motion No. 4, that these two be separated.
Mr. Speaker, I must stress that unless the administrative function is kept separate from the political function, there will be abuse of power, and this will put the Minister and the Government in some very difficult situations. I maintain that the agency, by its very existence, becomes a kind of administrative tribunal. Has there ever been an administrative tribunal that had to examine a case, render a decision and subsequently, submit a decision, that could be quasi-judicial, to a minister for approval? This is tantamount to putting political, administrative and quasi-judicial functions all in the same bag, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, with due respect, that this amendment should be given serious consideration.
If the Government is not prepared to separate setting policy from administering such policy, if it refuses to realize the risks it is taking in so doing, at least it should accept our motion concerning the setting up of a departmental committee so that one minister will not have sole responsibility for making such an important decision, otherwise we will get situations-


Don Boudria: Like Domtar.


Raymond Garneau: Like Domtar, for instance, where we were told by the Minister's colleagues-that is what the papers told us, and the Minister of Public Works said so publicly-that it was a departmental decision, that he knew nothing about it, and we all know the uproar that caused. They finally found a solution to the problem: Quebec money is going to pay for the Domtar project, since the funds for Domtar were funds already allocated under the regional development agreement and would normally have been used for other purposes. Here they tried to get around the problem and they more or less wanted to reverse a decision made by the Minister. However, the proposed legislation will make it possible for one person, and today that is the Minister we know, tomorrow it may be somebody else, but the fact remains that that person will have the power to make decisions involving thousands and millions of dollars and affecting hundreds of employees. One single person will, as it were, have the right to decide in matters of life or death. That is why I submit that if the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment proposed in Motion No. 4, it should at least consider the proposal contained in Motion No. 16, which is aimed at setting up a departmental committee to review departmental decisions and consider certain regional aspects. I could take Domtar as an example or the Pecheries Cartier, for instance, and there are many other examples and other industries that have a considerable impact on employment and on the lives of hundreds of Canadian workers. By including the possibility of appealing either to the entire Cabinet or at least to a Cabinet committee, I think this would have a balancing effect on these important decisions. I would like to get back to the point I stressed previously: I think the Progressive Conservative Members, the backbenchers, may be very pleased to find-


Don Boudria: Even some Ministers may be.


Raymond Garneau: Perhaps some Ministers as well, who are not aware of decisions when they are made at the departmental level only, and it would give them a chance to ask questions and respond to requests from their ridings or regions.
Mr. Speaker, my time is about to expire. How much time do I have left?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Less than a minute.


Some Hon. Members:: Proceed!
April 30, 1985


Raymond Garneau: Less than a minute! The last amendment 1 wanted to discuss concerns the possibility of giving the agency the authority to seek out actively Canadian buyers across the country. 1 think this is a suggestion that could appropriately be included in the legislation, because if an offer is made for a company . . . We know that often, businessmen whose children are not interested in taking over the business and who want to dispose of their investment when they reach retirement age, often have to and would like to sell, and if the agency were empowered to help the owner of a company to sell to Canadians rather than to non-Canadians, I think it would be an important adjunct to the legislation. 1 hope that this House and especially Members on the Government side will at least want to consider these very serious proposals.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on the Investment Canada Bill. It is a very fundamental piece of legislation. It really separates the Government's view as to how we should proceed in terms of investment from the United States and from other countries from the view of the Official Opposition.
Motion No. 4 proposes that the Minister be responsible for the administration of the Act and the management and direction of the agency established by Section 6. Our position is that the public servants who will be working in Investment Canada should receive their policy direction from the Minister and from Cabinet. Of course, under this Bill the Minister will have the power to approve applications which exceed the limit of $5 million. Fundamentally we disagree with that, in that there will be hundreds of applications under that limit. This could have an adverse effect upon small companies. A foreign investor could come into the country, buy out a small compan-ny and shut down the manufacturing part of the plant. Hopefully the company would at least retain the Canadian sales force, but in some cases such companies may lay off the sales force and run the entire operation from the United States. We think that Canadians will lose control if the limit is raised to $5 million.
At one time the City of Sault Ste. Marie had three independent dairies. Now it is controlled by Beatrice Foods, a large multinational company. That is happening all over the country. It is not that all foreign investment is bad. It certainly is not, and we want to encourage it. Large companies from the United States could come in here, not necessarily with adverse or negative thoughts about Canadian employment. In many cases that does not even occur to them. Companies are in business to make a profit. No one would deny them that. To some extent FIRA was a bargaining tool; so long as a company did not indicate that it would shut down its manufacturing operations in Canada, move all its research and development to the United States and not give Canada a portion of international markets, its application would probably be approved. Sometimes, if the companies were dishonest enough, these things occurred.
Investment Canada Act
When responsible companies appear before a government agency for approval or review, it should be pointed out to them that we are a country with 1.5 million unemployed, that we would like to see their manufacturing plants here, that we would like to see them try to shoot for a share of the international market, that we would like to see them committed to the long-term expansion and development of manufacturing facilities and plants, and that we would like to see a good portion of the research and development being carried out in Canada. In that event most companies would say that it is not unreasonable for Canadians to make those requests, in that we have higher unemployment than has the United States and we have smaller markets and want to see a portion of them retained.
The Minister has shown that his concern is just how many bucks are involved, regardless of from where they come or what the long-term future will be. I do not think we could give all that power to a worse Minister. He will sit in his ivory tower on the thirty-third floor of Place de Ville and make unilateral decisions. Cabinet Ministers from P.E.I., British Columbia and Quebec, just to name a few, will not have a say because the Minister will unilaterally make decisions.
Last week I heard an interview on the CBC concerning large companies and reverse take-overs which will take place when there is no FIRA to review them. The Minister being able to make unilateral decisions-and if an application is below the $5 million limit, there will be no review at all-is not good for the country.
The Tories are rather embarrassed about the tremendous increase in Canadian ownership of the petroleum industry during the first three or four years of the National Energy Program. Canadian ownership has increased dramatically, from some 28 per cent to around 40 per cent. If this Bill ultimately passes, everything is abandoned and the percentage of Canadian ownership starts to slide, it will be interesting to see just how proud the Tories will be of that loss of Canadian ownership for which we fought very hard during the 1970s. Instead of dividends being distributed to Canadian owners, they will be sent across the border to the United States. The ultimate disadvantage will be to Canadians generally.
It is rather interesting that in the whole scenario of Canadian ownership the Tories said that if we tried to have more Canadian ownership, oil and gas exploration would be drastically reduced.


Mrs. Mailly:: That's false.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The Tories spend hours opposing that. If we look at our energy-petroleum situation in this country today, we see that we have about a 33 year horizon of reserves and shut-in natural gas. So much natural gas has been discovered that it is not profitable at this stage to explore for more. If we look at oil reserves, we can see that the projections of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources show energy self-sufficiency on a net basis for oil through to the end of the

April 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
century. This shows that Canadian ownership is not adverse either in the petroleum industry or in other industries of this country. I hope that these amendments by our Party will be accepted by the House.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to rise to take part in this debate which is about the fundamental direction that this country will be taking with respect to basic decisions on our economic future. This is an historic debate, a debate which profoundly affects the lives of not just our own constituents, particularly in areas in which there is a significant amount of foreign-owned industry, but the lives of all Canadians, their children and their children's children. Ultimately we are talking about the future direction of this country and whether that direction and our objective as a nation is going to be shaped here in Canada by Canadians, subject to the priority of Canadians, or whether instead, as has been advocated in this Bill by the Government, those fundamental priorities will be decided outside Canada in foreign corporate boardrooms, based not on Canadian priorities but on the global international priorities of multinational corporations, whose only concern is for the global bottom line. That is the essence of what this debate is all about.
Many witnesses appeared before the committee which gave this Bill careful study until the Government cut off debate in that committee. What we deeply regret in the context of these amendments and of our proposals generally on this Bill is that it would appear that the Government has fundamentally ignored the thrust of the representations that were made by the witnesses who appeared before that committee on this important Bill.
The amendments of my colleague from Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), who has been doing such an outstanding job in leading the debate on behalf of the New Democratic Party on this vital legislation, fall into several broad categories. All of them deal with the underlying thrust of the Bill and the duties and powers of the Minister who has the obligation to implement this Bill on behalf of the Government. Perhaps nowhere else than in this grouping of amendments is the distinction more clear between the approach of the Government, which effectively is to throw the door wide open to foreign capital without any restrictions whatsoever, and the approach of the New Democratic Party, which is to say that we are prepared to accept that foreign investment can be beneficial to the people of Canada, but that investment must be made on terms and conditions which are ultimately decided by the people of Canada.
Let us look at the amendment set out in Motion No. 10. The Government's recommendation with respect to the duties and powers of the Minister states that the Minister shall assist in the development of industrial and economic policies that affect investment in Canada. The amendment of my colleague from Essex-Windsor goes far beyond that in its scope. It does not just call upon the Minister to assist in the development of these policies which will ultimately result in the demise of Canadian economic sovereignty, but to, and I quote:
-develop medium term and long term public and private industrial sector investment guidelines consistent with an industrial strategy that emphasizes full employment, growth, diversification, autonomy and export competitiveness of the Canadian economy;
What a profound contrast between the Government's approach, which basically says that the Minister may assist in the development of certain policies, and that of the New Democratic Party, which states that there is an obligation on the Minister to develop policies, not just short-term, fly by the seat of your pants policies, which has been the response of this Government to date, but to look at medium and long-term policies. Those policies should involve priorities both for the public sector and the private sector. We in this Party, unlike those on the government benches and in many ways unlike those in the Official Opposition, believe that there is an important role to be played by the public sector in this country.
The jobs task force, which was chaired so ably by my colleagues from Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and Essex-Windsor, held hearings across this country. That task force was told in no uncertain terms that the people of Canada accept an important role for the public sector, not some monolithic, bureaucratic, centralized public sector, but a public sector which is responsive to local community needs, responsive to the concerns and priorities of people who live in communities across this land.
There is a role for both the public and the private sector. There is an emphasis on an industrial strategy which has as its heart the promotion of full employment. Nowhere in this Bill is there a commitment by the Government of Canada to the most fundamental and basic priority that must affect all Canadians, and that is the commitment to full employment.
Each of us has seen daily in our constituency offices the effects of the personal and economic devastation that is caused by unemployment in this country, whether it be young people finishing university or high school, out in the job market and desperately trying to find any job, short term, long term, part-time, full-time, or whether it be the insecurity, even of those people who have jobs now, afraid that they may lose their employment. This Bill turns over those basic decisions about the direction of the Canadian economy to faceless men in foreign boardrooms. It is that which we are fundamentally opposed to and that which we will fight right down the line in this Bill until the Government comes to its senses and recognizes that it must change its direction. Full employment, therefore, is a fundamental priority.
Our amendment also suggests diversification in the economy. Autonomy, as I have indicated, lies at the heart of our recommendations so that it is Canadians who are making the decisions about our economy. With regard to export competitiveness, the situation is going to increasingly become the case in Canada of foreign companies deciding that because they do not want to compete with their American head offices, they are not going to be aggressive in the export market. We say that many new jobs lie in the export area. If foreign companies are not prepared aggressively to promote those opportunities,
April 30, 1985

then they indeed are not welcome because ultimately their strategy will result in the loss of Canadian jobs.
There are many other important amendments in this grouping, including the motion which would encourage and facilitate the acquisition and control of Canadian businesses by Canadians in areas pertaining to our cultural heritage and national identity. In this motion we speak of a variety of very sensible techniques to promote that important objective. We proposed a motion which would ensure that Canadian business enterprises owned and controlled by non-Canadians respect the rights of workers including the right to collective bargaining.
I will pursue these and other important questions in the course of ongoing debate on this fundamental motion and on this Bill. I hope that the Government will come to its senses and withdraw this odious and regressive piece of legislation.
[ Translation]


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker I rise to take part in today's debate on these amendments with the same conviction I had when Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, first came up for debate on second reading.
This Bill is the first measure introduced by the Conservative Government to convince its friends south of the border that not only is Canada open for business as before, but that now, under a Conservative administration, it is up for sale!
Mr. Speaker, we must create hundreds and thousands of jobs right now to avoid wasting a whole generation. The Conservatives promised that tens of thousands of jobs would materialize the minute they were sworn into office. And now, eight months later, they want to do away with a piece of legislation designed to protect Canadian investors, and throw the doors wide open to just about anybody-no questions asked-thus leaving Canada's small businesses and high technology industries to fall prey to foreign competitors.
Mr. Speaker, most jobs in this country are created by small businesses. As if this Bill in itself was not enough to destroy so many years of efforts by Canadians to control their own economy, it even provides that one person alone, a Minister, can decide what our economic future will be. This will not be a Cabinet decision, and the agency created under this measure will not be given political guidelines. Indeed, the agency will be given its marching orders.
Mr. Speaker, we are not questioning the integrity of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). On the contrary, the amendment we are advocating will enable him to answer to the people of Canada for his decisions, thus preventing the Minister from leaving himself open to charges of partisanship.
We all know that the Minister comes from Bay Street and so, without judging him, we simply have to see where he stands
Investment Canada Act
concerning such issues as Melcher's, Wabasso, Sherbrooke's cartography institute, Domtar and what have you.
You would think that the Minister is not attuned to the needs of Quebec, yet the facts are there, I am not making this up. The Conservative Government has been in office for eight months, but people still have to demonstrate, and the Pecheries Cartier people even have to stage a hunger strike, Mr. Speaker.
Our amendment is constructive. The Investment Canada Agency must not be part of the Minister's staff. The Government and the Minister must give general guidelines to the Agency and let management apply the Act and the regulations.
Ours is a democratic society, Mr. Speaker, and our institutions have to be beyond reproach. We cannot leave Canadian taxpayers with the impression that outright patronage is the hallmark of this Government, that it can hardly wait for the end of the board of directors' mandate to find cushy jobs for its friends.
They are being asked to hand in their resignation to make room for the Government's friends, Mr. Speaker. They even went as far as awarding untendered contracts to the relatives of a Minister. That is the kind of example we get from the Government. With this legislation, Mr. Speaker, who will make the decisions? One man, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). And where will decisions originate from? From Bay Street, Mr. Speaker. How can the Government establish credibility with Canadians if it fails to follow its own guidelines and puts itself in a conflict of interests situation every day?
Mr. Speaker, the promises made in the fall of 1984 were just that, worthless election promises, and the Progressive Conservatives had no intention of living up to them after taking over. The only way Canadians will regain confidence in parliamentarians and our institutions is to dissociate political power and administrative structures from Government institutions, as an example to the private sector.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by urging my colleagues on Government benches to support our amendment so that democracy will prevail in our institutions.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
4240

Investment Canada Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 6, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
[ Translation]
The question is on Motion No. 7 in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.
April 30, 1985


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 10 in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division stands deferred.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 10 in the name of Mr. Langdon, which you have just read, was not included to my knowledge in the group which has just been debated, namely Motion Nos. 4, 6, 7, and so on. I do not have it on my list, but perhaps it has not been corrected.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I think that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has realized that-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Very well, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Let us therefore come back to Motion No. 9.

The next question is on Motion No. 9, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
April 30, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motion No. 10 has already been dealt with and deferred. We will now deal with Motion No. 11.

The question is now on Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 15 in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Investment Canada Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The question is now on Motion No. 16 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 17 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.

April 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The question is now on Motion No. 18 standing in the name of Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next grouping for debate will be on Motions Nos. 8, 12, 32, 63,69, 74 and 75.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) rises on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You have just indicated that the next grouping for debate was No. 8, but I suppose you meant Motions Nos. 8, 12,32, 63, 69, 74 and 75.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: You are right.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) moved:: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 25 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"ment and make public, where not expressly prohibited by federal legislation, the results of this research and analysis;".


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 12
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 34 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"ance with this Act;
(g) regularly compile and make public information, where not expressly prohibited by federal legislation, pertaining to the performance of Canadian businesses owned and controlled by non-Canadians;"


Steven W. Langdon: ;
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 13 by adding immediately after line 33 at page 9 the following:
"(4) the Agency will:
(a)	make public within a reasonable time period all new businesses and acquisitions under this part; and
(b)	make public within a period not exceeding 14 days after notification is given all proposed investments subject to review under Part IV.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 63
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 25 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada, and shall make public his ruling including all undertakings made in connection with the investment."


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 69
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 22 by striking out line 4 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"notice to that effect to the applicant and shall make public its decision including all undertakings made by the applicant."


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 74
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 23 by adding immediately after line 47 at page 15 the following:
"(c) the Governor-in-Council shall make public decisions described in subsection (a) or (b), including in respect to (a) all undertakings made by the applicant and in respect to (b) the reasons for its disallowal."


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 75
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 25 by striking out lines 9 to 11 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"relating to the investment annually for a period not less than five years in order to permit the Agency to determine, and where lawful, make public, whether the".

April 30, 1985


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important principles which has been respected over the years by Canadian Governments of whatever political stripe has been that the people who are affected by decisions which are absolutely crucial to their lives should have the chance to have input into those decisions and should have a clear communication when decisions have taken place as to what the outcome of those decisions will be. This whole package of amendments which we moved before you this morning attempts to respect that tradition of Canadian history and Canadian law.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns we have had with the existing approach within this country to the review of foreign investment is that it is far too secretive and closed a process. We have seen cases in which very important decisions were being contemplated by FIRA, and in those cases, often on an informal basis, FIRA has turned to the interested parties, to communities, trade unions and potential competitors, and asked those people what they thought about a particular take-over being proposed. They were asked how they felt about this new business which was coming into the country. It has been possible on an informal basis for people to make representations. It was, however, Mr. Speaker, not possible for those same people to have communicated to them the outcome of the decision which was subsequently recommended by FIRA and taken by the Cabinet. For instance, in the case of the Black & Decker workers in Barrie, about whom the House has heard a good deal during these debates, it was not thought somehow fitting that the community of Barrie itself, and the workers who worked in that factory, should have public knowledge of the undertakings which had been accepted by the Black & Decker Manufacturing Co. Limited when it took over the Canadian General Electric subsidiary in Barrie. The result of that was to leave that community in a situation where, when the possibility arose of Black & Decker shutting that subsidiary down, the community itself, the workers themselves, did not know what the undertakings were by Black & Decker despite the fact that those undertakings were going to critically and crucially shape the lives of that community and those workers.
We see at this stage in fact, as the month of April draws to a close, that the 600 workers in that plant in Barrie have lost their jobs. They have lost their jobs in part because they simply did not know what the undertakings were that had been accepted by Black & Decker in taking over that plant. They thought that the undertakings were that the plant would continue to be open so long as the plant was profitable. So they made a commitment to try to keep the plant as profitable as possible. Productivity increased significantly as a result of that commitment. The community felt that that plant had made a long-term commitment to the community of Barrie, but they had no way of knowing specifically and exactly the basis on which that plant would stay in that community. So when it came down to the crunch and the plant announced its closure, the workers who were faced with that decision turned to the Government and said: "Our understanding of the undertaking
Investment Canada Act
established by the company was that so long as the firm remains viable, the plant would remain open. What's going on?" The Government had to communicate back to those workers, and we have quotations from the Minister to this effect: "As we look into it, we have found that the undertakings in fact were different from what you thought. The undertakings were not as clear cut as you had been led to believe". As a consequence, the Member of Parliament who happens to be a Conservative from Barrie was not able to stand up and fight with sufficient force to save those jobs despite the fact that he recognized, and the Minister recognized, that this case showed up gaps and problems in the procedure of FIRA.
What we say, Mr. Speaker, is that now is the time to see to it that these gaps and problems do not emerge in the case of the new Bill. It is very simple to make sure of that. It does not require a commitment to social democratic ideology. We don't even have to endorse liberalism. All the Hon. Members of this House have to do is endorse a commitment to openness in the decision-making process. 1 think it is a principle we have accepted as a House of Commons. It is a principle which makes perfect common sense, it is a principle which has associated with it absolutely no problems for the Government with respect to this Bill.
I will be frank with you, Mr. Speaker, and say that some of the amendments we move, I quite concede, are attempts to frustrate what the Government would like to do with Investment Canada as a Bill, because we find that there are parts of the Bill with which we disagree very strongly. However, this set of amendments is not designed to offer frustration. It is not designed to be provocative. Instead, Mr. Speaker, it is an attempt to fill a gap which Hon. Members of the Government themselves will come to recognize if the gap is not corrected now.
I can see what will happen in the years ahead, Mr. Speaker, if these amendments are not accepted. Hon. Members from different constituencies will stand in this House of Commons and say to their own Minister: "A decision has been taken to permit the take-over of this particular factory in my constituency. What undertakings have been established to protect my community?" The Minister will get up, as he has in recent weeks, and say: "We regret that the Act does not permit us to communicate to you as Members of Parliament, to your communities or the workers in those plants, what this company has committed itself to in this take-over". So it is absolutely crucial-not for us because, frankly, our Party will continue to fight on these issues and make political gains based on these issues-for Government members to see the logic of what is a non-provocative argument, a reasonable, rational and constructive suggestion that we open up the decision-making process and make it possible for all those small communities and workers who face problems with the future to have some sense of reassurance because they have some sense of what is actually being done on their behalf by the Government of this country.

April 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, first of all 1 want to congratulate the Hon. Member who just spoke for having put to the House Motions Nos. 8, 12, 32, 63, 69, 74 and 75. We support these amendments; indeed, we agree with the common thread that can be seen in this grouping. The fact that the Bill as proposed by the Government does absolutely nothing to open up foreign investment review decision processes bothers us, and I think in the interests of greater parliamentary and, possibly more importantly, public scrutiny, that these amendments should receive some attention and support by the Government.
They should especially interest Government members because they are the ones who are going to go to the Minister when they are affected by decisions taken by that Minister and ask him what happened to the jobs, the research and development and the investment. He will say he does not have to tell them because the Act gives him total discretion. He does not have to tell them anything. That is what the back-benches of the Tories will be facing because what I just said is what is in this Bill; secrecy, power, and one person controlling what? Controlling information, which is as vital to me and this House as it is to all Canadians.
The argument that is put to us by this Government that they must remain secret holds no more water than StatsCan when it asks the people in my riding their name, address, income and their general state of affairs. We are not interested in the balance sheet of the company or in knowing from the Minister whether we have a paying proposition or not; what we are asking the Minister by these amendments is to come clean with the Canadian public and tell us if there is in the take-over some significant advantage to Canadians. If so, make it public. Tell us. Tell us openly what they see in this thing. Tell the Members, tell the back-benchers, tell the book-ends, tell all those nice seals with their flippers going yes, yes, yes. Tell them the truth once in a while what is happening in their ridings. Tell them what is going on.


Maurice Brydon Foster: He never does.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He never does. Why should he? The law says he does not have to. What we are trying to do is open up this legislation. As 1 said, the common thread is information. Information for whom? For back-benchers and the public of Canada. I hear the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) say this is acceptable. I invite her to get up and say so.


Claudy Mailly: Accessible.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If you believe that is acceptable, for God's sake get up and say it.


Claudy Mailly: Accessible!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How can it be accessible to the Hon. Member for Gatineau unless she has a particular way into the Government, which I doubt very much. How can she access that information if the Minister is given the right to say no? What
is going to happen to that pulp and paper mill of hers? What is going to happen to all those industrial commitments she made in the last election? What is going to happen to those jobs she said she would create? She will never know what happened to them because the Minister will say he does not have to tell her. That is what is going to happen.


Claudy Mailly: Nonsense and you know it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is not nonsense. I wager that within the next few years that Member will be up saying the Minister has been unfair to the riding of Gatineau because he did not tell us what he was doing regarding investment, job creation and good, sound research and development which creates jobs.


Claudy Mailly: You do not know what goes on in my riding but I do.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I invite the Hon. Member to get up and make public her views on this most important subject. We want to know from the Minister how the Government performs. We do not want to know what the profits are, we do not want to know what the situation of a specific company is. We are not interested in that. We want to know about the undertakings. What undertakings did the Minister give to a foreign company wanting to come into Canada, and what significant benefits were in that deal for Canadians? The concentration of effort on much larger investments means that more attention should be devoted to each one. But information can be presented and I said before and I repeat that information can be packaged in such a way that it would be informative to us, yet still preserve and protect those interests which have nothing to do with my interests in terms of profits. I do not want to know whether the company is making profits, I want to know if it is operating as a benefit to Canadians.


Claudy Mailly: Well then, you are interested in profits.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The thread through this whole series of amendments, and unfortunately I cannot speak to all of them, is that of information, openness with Members of Parliament and the public, and I commend to Government Members the motions presented and hope they support or at least speak to them today.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, just a few words on the amendments before us. I would like to appeal specifically to my new friends, all these new Conservative back-benchers from Ontario, Quebec and the rest of the country, on the issue and principle behind these amendments; that is, the question of secrecy. Some of them perhaps used to be Liberals in the olden days, Mr. Speaker.


Don Boudria: Be nice.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: But if they followed this Parliament a number of years ago they would know that one of the things the Conservative Party crusaded on for years and years was that of openness in Government. There was too much secrecy in government. Why was the Trudeau Government so secretive?
April 30, 1985

Why was so much confidential? Why do we not have more openness in the way we administer our affairs? That was always the common theme of the Conservative Party. I am sure you remember many years ago a very distinguished Conservative House Leader named Ged Baldwin from Peace River. He had a Private Member's Bill before this House for many years concerning opening up the affairs of government. He made this a pretty big issue and carried on a one-man crusade, and he was very good on that issue.
1 remember also when the former Prime Minster, Mr. Joe Clark, took office, that one thing he made important during his short administration was greater openness in government, accessibility to information, less secrecy. He appointed a special Government task force and Mr. Baldwin was-


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: And he was defeated.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Joe Clark was defeated? He was defeated by the guy who is now Prime Minister of this country. I suppose the majority of you people across the way voted for the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) over our good friend from Alberta. That is not my fault; you people made that decision, not me. The Conservative Party has historically had that kind of thrust. Mr. Walter Baker, who was the House Leader of the Conservative Party for a number of years, made this a very important issue. When the Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) was Prime Minister, Mr. Baker was the Government House Leader. He made openness and less secrecy in government a very important issue for his Party. He had a lot of support for that from back-benchers on all sides of the House. When there is a large majority Government there is less access to information. The Cabinet has too much power. There is too much power in the PMO, the PCO, and the offices of the various Cabinet Ministers. One thing I like in politics is consistency. We have not had that from the present Prime Minister and his Government. We had a lot of talk about a large deficit-
[ Translation]


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: 1 am wondering about the relevance of the speech, Mr. Speaker. I thought the subject being discussed was the kind of information which should be accessible to the public. The Hon. Member in my view is indulging in a political discourse, rather than dealing with information.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I think that if they were to look at the amendments, the Hon. Member and all other Members in this House would see that they have one thing in common. The reason why they are grouped together is because they deal with making information more accessible to the public. In that light, the remarks made by the Hon. Member
Investment Canada Act
for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) are quite relevant to the amendments.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) was first elected on September 4, but the principle I just referred to is very important in her party's history. Under the leadership of Mr. Diefenbaker, Mr. Stanfield, and Mr. Clark, it was very important, and there were many Conservative Members who spoke strongly on the matter for quite some time in this House. We also introduced numerous motions along the lines held by this party, and so did the Liberal Party.

Maybe 1 am sounding a little too Conservative. Maybe that is what upsets her. I will refrain from wearing blue from now on.
The Government is moving in the opposite direction. We have concern about the large deficit. We cannot do a lot of things for ordinary Canadians. Yet the Minister's staffs have expanded and the chiefs of staff receive high salaries. That will only result in more and more secrecy and more and more power being concentrated in the hands of the Ministers. I predict that in a couple of years the Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) will become a very frustrated Member of the House.


Steven W. Langdon: She is already frustrated.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Member for Essex-Windsor says she is already frustrated. I would not be that nasty. 1 think she will become very frustrated because she will not have access to information and to the tools she needs to fight for her constituents. All you need do is ask people who have been in the House for a long time, particularly when there was a large Liberal majority, or people on the back-benches of provincial legislatures which do not have freedom of information legislation which they should have. Ask how frustrating it is for those back-benchers to get information to fight for their constituents.
I just cannot figure out what is happening, Mr. Speaker. For so many years this issue was so important to the Conservative Party and its leadership. A year ago when the Conservatives chose their present leader they chose someone who was a fairly radical departure from the Diefenbaker-Stanfield-Clark line. He shared a lot of the ideas of the previous Trudeau Government. In fact there is an old expression in French:

The more it changes, the more it remains the same.

I think that is exactly what is happening. 1 see a Member from Quebec who is agreeing with me. Many of the things we are seeing today in terms of secrecy-


Claudy Mailly: From you.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Member for Gatineau is interjecting once again. 1 would like to see her get up and defend this lack

April 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
of availability of information and this curtain of secrecy which the Government is trying to throw around the legislation in the House. It is certainly not the tradition of her Party. 1 wonder where she has been during the last number of years.
This is an important issue. I think there should be a back-bench revolt on this principle. When the Conservatives were in Opposition we heard in speech after speech that there should be a back-bench revolt. Members are elected here to represent their constituents. We are elected to do what we can for our constituents. We are not elected to be dictated to by the executive, the PMO, or the PCO. We are elected to hold them accountable. We are elected to represent our constituents. We need the tools to do that job. We are not going to get those tools if we have a cloak of secrecy around all the legislation which comes before the House. I am very disappointed. After September 4 we have many new Members, including the Member for Gatineau.

There are many others in Quebec.

There are lots of Members from Ontario and other provinces as well. I thought we would see a new chapter in Canadian political life. I thought we would have more openness in Government, less secrecy, and serious reform of this institution to enable us to become legislators in the real sense as Members of Parliament. I am not seeing that. We have a Government with a large majority and a Prime Minister who is extremely concerned about his image and who governs by polls. We have back-benchers who are nothing but trained seals. I think they should rebel. They should have the courage of their convictions. They should stand up for what their Party represents in the House and the country with regard to issues such as secrecy which are so important.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, how is that relevant to the Bill being considered? The Hon. Member is discussing structure, administration, policy, back-benchers in a non-complimentary fashion, but this has no relevance to the issue at hand.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) has a chance to speak if she wants to attack what the Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is saying. She should not raise spurious points of order which suggest that he is not dealing with the Bill, when in fact he is dealing with secrecy which is what this whole set of amendments focuses on. That is simply not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: As a general principle, may I remind all Members of Parliament that they must speak to the motions themselves rather than generally to the Bill. The Chair groups these motions according to a certain number
of common denominators. In the very specific case which is before us the common denominator is the fact of public accounting as far as the Bill is concerned. In that respect may I remind the Hon. Member for Gatineau that the speech of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville is in order because of that common denominator.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I wish I had more time, Mr. Speaker. I would read all of the motions to the Member for Gatineau. They all deal with secrecy, openness, availability and accessibility. That is a very important principle which, obviously, a lot of the Conservative back-benchers have thrown out.
In conclusion I would like to quote a former commissioner of FIRA, Mr. Howarth. He said: "Certainly the most telling criticism as far as I was concerned was that the whole process was conducted in secrecy". In other words, the big problem that he had as commissioner of FIRA was that it was conducted in secrecy. "People use words like 'Star Chamber' and this, that and the other. And, of course, it was imputed that the Government wanted to do it in that way and the agency wanted to do it in that way to cover up their own misdeeds and so on. The whole truth of the matter is that Parliament wrote the law and that Government and the agency had no choice but to keep everything concealed and hidden."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The 10 minute period is over. Shall we call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair till two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, following the results of the polls which show their popularity decreasing on a daily basis, the Ontario Progressive Conservatives were able to count on the assistance of "Mr.	B
Personality" himself, who flew to the rescue.	B
They had television shows, pictures, and all kinds of other B photo opportunities with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney),	fl
the Premier, and the ambassador of acid rain himself, with his	B
dollar a year salary. I wonder if the Prime Minister suggested	B

April 30, 1985

to the Ontario Premier that the same theme as was used in last summer's election campaign, "It's time for a change, too long in power corrupts", would be appropriate.
Did the Prime Minister show Mr. Miller how to make promises by the hundreds and not keep them, or how to tell people all about ending patronage appointments, or how to award advertising contracts, in other words, how to use "Bul-roney" on the people of Ontario.
He may want to advise Frank Miller that it may not be a good idea to hide from the people during an election campaign and that he should go out there all day long, and watch himself on TV all night long, as the Prime Minister does. Brian loves Frank, Frank loves Brian but, most important, Brian loves Brian.
This mutual admiration will not win an election in Ontario, and the Prime Minister's performance so far has certainly not been too impressive to the voters of Ontario. Neither has Mr. Miller's performance been too impressive in this campaign. We will see a Liberal Government come Thursday.


BROADCASTING
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) announced the establishment of a task force on broadcasting policy, appointments to which he will be announcing shortly. The terms of reference of the review are themselves seriously deficient. They violate the spirit and the letter of earlier Conservative promises of consultation with the arts and culture community.
First, public broadcasting will be severely limited. There will not be public hearings, and groups and concerned individuals who are not invited to private hearings will have to wait until next year for public discussion, after the publication of a white paper and its reference to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. For a Government that promised consultation with the arts community, this is shoddy treatment indeed.
Second, the terms of reference themselves prejudge the conclusions. Despite the expressed concerns of Canadians and the arts community for a strong role for public broadcasting, the task force is geared right from the beginning to a further weakening of the CBC in favour of the private networks. Yet it is well known that significant Canadian content has never been achieved by the private networks and stations, so that a stronger role for the CBC is essential to any increase in Canadian television broadcasting.
The Minister has shown a marked proclivity for putting Conservative connections above professional standing in the field and support from the arts community in his arts appointments to date. Thus we have reason to be apprehensive about
these next appointments. Was the arts and culture community consulted-


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in recognizing the coming into effect of the equality Section of the Charter of Rights, it is important to remember those who laid the groundwork for this historic event. I am speaking of the members of various organizations who fought for decades for greater recognition of women's rights.
One such organization is the Women's Institute which has a network of branches across Canada, and about 2,000 members in my home Province of Manitoba. In recent years the Women's Institute has worked to promote homemakers' pensions and better programs for the victims of wife abuse and family violence. It has made valuable contributions to the Family Law Reform Commission and the Fraser Committee on Pornography and Prostitution. This organization also works with affiliated international groups to promote nutrition education, and to provide clean water.
Farm women have always identified with the Women's Institute; indeed, it is an organization strongly rooted in rural Canada. The theme of the Manitoba Women's Institute this year is "Horizons Unlimited", and I am pleased that the Manitoba branch has chosen to celebrate its 75th anniversary by having its conference at Brandon.
Parliament can take some credit for the equality section and for other steps which promote equality, but it was organizations such as the Women's Institute which continued to deliver their message year after year until we were ready to listen.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, April 29, an independent adjudicator appointed by the Immigration Department ordered that Ernst Zundel be stripped of his landed immigrant status and be deported. 1 applaud this decision which follows his conviction on February 28 of wilfully spreading hate propaganda which declared that the Nazi murder of six million Jews was a Jewish hoax. He was sentenced to 15 months in jail on March 25, making his deportation under current law almost mandatory.
It is interesting to note that the West German Parliament recently passed a law making it a crime to deny that the Nazis murdered millions of innocent people in the Second World War.

April 30, 1985
Canada has a generous open door policy for many people from all parts of the world who choose to live here. However, we must slam the door shut on the Ernst Zundels of this world. We cannot become a haven for heretics who knowingly spew forth lies meant to inflict pain and anguish on a certain community. This man is not even welcome in his own native Germany. He is clearly not welcome here in Canada.


RAILWAYS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Western Grain transportation act tabled on Friday show just how naive the Government seems to think the people of western Canada are. The Government has placed a ceiling on freight rates for two years. It did this one week before the CTC is to report on the new rates scheduled for the 1985-86 crop year.
It is well known in the West that the new rates will be significantly lower due to a decrease in volume shipped. It is highly unlikely that the 1986-87 rates will rise to this year's level. The freeze is smoke and mirrors. It will not save producers one cent.
During the election the Tories promised to freeze the rates at last year's lower levels. That would have helped farmers. Clearly, this freeze is meaningless.
The Western Grain transportation act was a very complex piece of legislation. However, the Government has chosen to make very minimal amendments to it. Clearly it now realizes that this was a well thought out Bill. It is also interesting to note that the Minister has chosen to bring in these amendments prior to tabling the Hall Report. He has chosen not to deal with the difficult method of payment issue. It will be interesting to hear how the Minister feels about the method of payment now that he will finally have to take a stand.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE PROPOSAL
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) continue to press for a position in support of tariff free trade with the United States. 1 suggest the consequence of this could and would be disastrous for our farmers in every area of Canada.
Price support measures to aid both farmers and consumers would almost certainly be placed in jeopardy. Marketing boards would be questionable under such free trade arrangements.
The United States has historically been the one to have placed obstacles in the way of a relatively free trade position
between Canada and the United States. What the United States wants is for Canada to operate by U.S. law. To the benefit of whom? Not Canada, I suggest.


PRICE OF GASOLINE IN QUEBEC
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that, after a few months of work and efforts, the gas price situation has considerably improved in Quebec. Motorists in the Portneuf and Montreal areas including Laval, can now fill up their tanks at a discount. The price of regular gas, which was previously 59.9 cents a litre, now varies between 49 and 51 cents a litre in constituencies such as Portneuf and Champlain, and between 51 and 56 cents a litre in the Montreal area.
Mr. Speaker, I have always believed this to be realistic. 1 had promised to keep on fighting against any abusive increase, and the present situation is proving me right. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have worked to improve the situation for Quebec and Canadian consumers, namely the media, consumer associations and the consumers themselves.
I urge my colleagues of the three Parties represented in this House to join their efforts in support of the new policy of our Government. All the efforts made until now are bearing fruit because we are letting market forces interact as they should, as 1 have personally been advocating for the last 20 years.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, today is April 30 and, as midnight looms, countless Canadians toil to complete and mail their tax returns in an annual ritual which tells us something both about the value of deadlines and about the complexity of our tax laws.
A basic principle in a democratic country is that citizens understand a law which takes their property from them. Yet our income Tax Act, as enacted and re-enacted, amended and re-amended here in Parliament for over 60 years, has become incomprehensible legislation. People really do not understand our tax laws. What people understand, however, are the results of this cumbersome, wonder-wielding tax calliope. When small- and medium-sized businesses pay tax and many large corporations pay none, and when the man pumping gas pays
April 30, 1985

tax but the fellow in the Cadillac he is filling pays none, people [English]
understand that reform is needed.	REVENUE CANADA
I applaud our new Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) for humanizing tax collection and proclaiming a taxpayer's bill of rights. 1 recognize, too, that our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) wants no major changes ,in tax structures so that tax predictability will help investment planning and aid economic recovery. Yet, ultimately, taming and civilizing the present tax system will not be enough.
The time is coming when an enlightened form of the flat rate tax will be the order of the day. With a well designed flat rate tax, Canadian taxpayers will understand the system, and Canada will be closer to the democratic ideal of a country with-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, Monday, April 29 will remain forever a memorable date for the people and especially the government of New Brunswick. Indeed, the people in Riverview elected yesterday with a crushing majority the Liberal candidate, Hubert Seamans-


DEPARTMENT'S IMPROVED APPROACH TO TAXPAYERS
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, today, April 30, is the deadline for the filing of personal income tax returns.
Canadians note with satisfaction a number of significant improvements to the taxation system initiated by a Minister of National Revenue who is genuinely concerned. These include an elimination of the old reverse onus which presumed taxpayers guilty until they proved their innocence; an assurance that taxpayers are not required to pay disputed taxes until they have had a fair hearing; an extension of hours for telephone inquiry service; a directive that departmental officials contact taxpayers who are in arrears before legal action is taken; the rewording of collection letters and assessment notices to provide clear, courteous, and complete information; and an elimination of oppressive quotas.
Gone are the old days of contempt, scorn, arrogance, quotas, and high-handed collection procedures. The new approach has been embodied in the declaration of taxpayers' rights, which affirms basic rights taxpayers can count on as a matter of government policy-the right to privacy and confidentiality, the right to independent review, and the right to an impartial review before payment.
Under the new system, which presumes their honesty and entitles them to courteous treatment and timely information, Canadians for the first time can rest assured that they will receive fair treatment in all dealings with Revenue Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fernand Robichaud: -who won the riding which had up to now been considered a Conservative stronghold with over twice the number of votes of his opponent. It should be emphasized that this constituency had been a Conservative riding for 33 years.
Mr. Speaker, this is the beginning of the end for the Hatfield administration. The people of New Brunswick have sent a very clear and unequivocal message by rejecting the attitude and conduct of its provincial government. They have also sent a very clear message of dissatisfaction to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. MacKay) for the way they mishandled the recent case involving the Premier of New Brunswick.
In view of the increasing dissatisfaction expressed by the people of New Brunswick, does the Prime Minister not feel it is imperative and necessary to order a public inquiry-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that the time allotted to him has now expired.


IMMIGRATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, for the last two days some 3,000 victims of the Nazi holocaust and their families have been meeting here in Ottawa. This morning it was with a sense of shock and outrage that these victims and their families read the story from Washington which indicated that the Office of Special Investigations in the United States, established in 1978 to track alleged Nazis hiding in that country, had found that an individual in the United States was guilty of war crimes and that that individual in question had chosen to come to Canada.
A Mr. Juozas Kisielaitis of Massachusetts came to Canada to escape his day of reckoning in the United States, following the investigation by the Office of Special Investigations. Government evidence showed clearly that this individual assisted the Nazis in persecuting Jews while he served in the Schutz-mannschaft, a military battalion in his native Lithuania. Apparently this individual concealed his service in the Schutz-mannschaft when he entered the United States and when he entered Canada.

April 30, 1985
Oral Questions
I would hope that our Government would recognize that Canada should not be a haven or a refuge for Nazi war criminals from other parts of the world, and I would hope that our Government and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) would take the necessary steps to bring-


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I recall when he once said in the House that he planned the Budget for the month of April. Then a man called Frank Miller was elected Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, and he called an election. What is it in the forthcoming Budget of the Minister of Finance which he feels will so disturb the voters of Ontario that he has postponed it until the week of May 20?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is really going fishing today. The reason the Budget will be brought down in the third week of May is quite clear. Some excellent ideas came out of the National Economic Conference which we wanted reflected in the Budget. As I am sure all Hon. Members are aware, we also had a very extensive consultation process involving people right across the country, in all walks of life and all areas of the economy. These views must be taken into account for the Budget. That is the reason for the delay.


PRICE OF GASOLINE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if 1 am on a Fishing expedition, that answer was a throw-back.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Careful, John.


John Napier Turner: Well, the Deputy Prime Minister will understand what 1 mean. In his part of the country the ice has not left the lakes at the moment.
The Premier of Ontario came to Ottawa, in deep concern, to talk with the Prime Minister about the continuation of Japanese import quotas on automobiles and about a potential tax at the pumps on gasoline to compensate for the energy deal, and he came away with nothing.
How much more would the Minister of Finance estimate that Canadian consumers will have to pay at the gas pump as a result of his forthcoming Budget? How many jobs does his Department estimate in its calculations will be lost by such a gas tax increase? To be more specific, would he be able to confirm that a 22-cent per gallon increase at the pumps would mean the loss of 55,000 jobs in Ontario alone?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition must be drawing from the past some of the statistics which are representative of the era from 1980 to 1983 when the price of gasoline in Ontario went up by about $1 per gallon. Many thousands of jobs were lost because of the National Energy Program which he himself criticized. We have indicated that the result of the Western Accord, which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced about a month ago, will be very positive for the economy in creating jobs from coast to coast, not the least of which will be in the Province of Ontario.


AUTOMOBILE IMPORT QUOTAS-IMPACT OF POSSIBLE REMOVAL
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister was really confident about that statement, he would not have delayed his Budget. Yesterday I asked, without success, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion what would happen to negotiations with Japan on the extension of the automobile quotas on Japanese imports. We got a convoluted answer. I was not surprised. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether his Department has estimated how many jobs would be lost if the auto quotas on Japanese imports were not extended. Would the figure be in the range of
20.000	to 25,000 jobs?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition must be aware that
122.000	jobs have been created since the first part of September.


John Napier Turner: How many were lost?


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Since those statistics were put out, there have been further indications of progress on the part of the Canadian economy. I draw his attention today to the Conference Board's new figures on the level of business confidence in Canada. It is up to a new level over the past three or four years. It is an indication of the confidence that Canadians have in the direction that the country is going under the new Government. I am sure that the decisions that we will be taking on the import arrangements for Japanese automobiles will be further supportive of that direction.
April 30, 1985


EXTERNAL AID
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the light of the statement made by the Prime Minister last night in London, when he said that he intended to speak on behalf of the Third World in Bonn this week, could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether the Government intends to revise the drastic cutbacks it made in Cl DA programs last fall, so that international observers will realize that the Prime Minister of Canada practises what he preaches, and could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether the Prime Minister of Canada intends to ask President Reagan to change his monetary policy and let interest rates drop, so that Third World countries can meet financial obligations which are putting very severe pressures on their economies?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge, and I expect the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice is also aware, that the really serious cutbacks in CIDA's budget were imposed by the Liberal Government last summer.
As far as Canada's obligation as stated by the Prime Minister is concerned, it is an obligation our Government has accepted. The Prime Minister intends to continue to play an important role in ensuring that Third World interests are represented at the Bonn Summit.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised at the answer of the Right Hon. Minister. He himself admitted that the goal we have to attain, .7 per cent of GNP, will never be met as it was predicted to be met by us.
1 wish to direct a supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. In light of what is going on in London at this time, where again style is more important than substance, and where every election promise is quietly forgotten by the Government, will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the Prime Minister that Canadians do not like him to play games with institutions, such as he did in Quebec City when he snubbed the Governor General in order to look like a president, and what he is now doing in England where he is trying to use the monarchy in order to get some publicity? Is it not time that the Prime Minister of Canada stopped his show business and started to do real business rather than show business?


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


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member has been with respect to watching the coverage that the visit of the Canadian Prime Minister is receiving in England, but it all sounds pretty positive to me and to most reasonable Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: To hear the business comment coming out of London from business leaders, as encouraging as it is, seems to indicate an entirely different change of direction in the thinking of business people in Great Britain, and that is a positive change. At least we can all be thankful that the Prime Minister of Canada did not slide down the banisters of Buckingham Palace and do pirouettes while he was over there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the news that his Department has signed two contracts for satellite-based radar systems and the related fact that an official from his Department has indicated that these contracts have no relationship whatsoever to the modernization of the DEW Line. If they are not related to the modernization of the DEW Line, what are they all about?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we just had a meeting of the standing committee in which the defence critic entirely divorced himself from legitimate questions along the lines of the one that the Leader of the New Democratic Party has just asked. I reaffirm to him that the two contracts of which we are speaking, which were not signed by the Department of National Defence but by the Department of Supply and Services, have nothing whatsoever to do with NWS. They are within the jurisdiction of the chief of research and development within the Department, and are really asking the two contractors involved, Spar Aerospace, and I believe the other is Canadian Astronautics Limited, to think through the whole concept of what might be involved by a space-based surveillance system. That's all they are, contracts in the way of exploration of what is involved with respect to space-based surveillance.


REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON SPACE CONTRACTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister telling us that the Government has hired someone to do its policy thinking? Before any more contracts are let for space related radar systems or any further militarization of space, will the Minister give the following undertaking to the House: that there will be no more contracts let until we get a

April 30, 1985
Oral Questions
policy decision made by the Government, and we have said that should be a negative decision, concerning the star wars project, or until we get the green paper on foreign policy from the Secretary of State for External Affairs which has been promised for months? In short, will the Government stop taking us step-by-step into an involvement in outer space, especially the militarization of space, to which Canadians in particular, and many other nations of the world, are opposed?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the militarization of space. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever the hon. gentleman means by star wars. This has nothing whatsoever to do with NWS. To follow his suggestions and not let out any other contract involving research and development would be bringing to a shuddering halt any initiative that this Government may wish to take in the research area.
1 can assure him once again, despite the repeated attempts to enter into this area of fear tactics, scare tactics, and linking, as did the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry in an article I read today, that the objective of these research projects is to develop the architecture of a space-based radar system, and that does not mean any structures in space, capable of providing surveillance of Canada's air space and Canada's coastal waters. We are doing that now through other means. Another objective is to identify the technologies critical to the development of such a system needing immediate research funding. That is what these inquiries of an exploratory nature are all about.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to what the Minister had to say. Considering that at least through these contracts we are involved in spending considerable sums of money for research in space, research that is connected in some way with our radar system and which has potential connections with the modernization of our DEW line, and perhaps with the star wars system, will the Minister produce to the House of Commons, very soon a policy statement concerning the Government of Canada's attitude toward space development in the military field? Second, as Deputy Prime Minister, will he undertake, after consultation with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to produce the foreign policy review paper that was promised, and in the meantime not have any contracts that could have any future connection to the United States or any other power, involving the militarization of space?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is quite long.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Hon. Member to try to find a question in the question he just asked that is any different from his previous two attempts, for his own political purposes, to link these two research oriented contracts to star wars and to the militarization of outer space. That is totally
untrue and totally false. The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is deliberately distorting the issue.
With respect to holding up any other contracts of this nature which have no linkage at all with that to which he is trying to link it, the answer is a simple no.
With respect to the green paper on foreign policy, 1 will leave the answer to that question to the Minister of State for External Affairs as it is properly within his jurisdiction.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. During the last election the Minister of Finance spoke of an aerospace strategy which would amalgamate Canadair and de Havilland in order to produce a healthy company which would be sold and privatized at some future date. After the election, it seems that that Minister has been overruled and, with no strategy for the future, both these companies have been put on the block either for sale or as bait for a possible government contractor. Sales by these companies have slumped because of this tactic, as possible aeroplane purchasers are afraid of being stuck with orphans, as I think the Hon. Minister knows.
In connection with de Havilland, what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that the company will have a future? What has he done to authorize continued research and development? What proportion, if any, of the $150 million allocated to de Havilland in the current Estimates will in fact be used for research and development?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to assure the Hon. Member that if he takes the time later today to read the annual reports of both of those companies, he will be very pleased to see that they are in fact doing better than they did in previous years, and that there is no suggestion of any withdrawal of assistance such as that at which he is hinting. In short, we are maintaining the companies and are at the same time talking to interested possible purchasers, with a view to having them privatized and continued within Canada.


GOVERNMENT STRATEGY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister gives us these vague assurances that talks are under way about possible sales, and bearing in mind that thousands of jobs at de Havilland and its sub-trades are at stake, does he not think that the Canadian people are entitled to have more details about the aerospace strategy of the Government and about what assurances there are that jobs will be continued and that the company will have a future?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Again 1 think the spokesperson for the Official
April 30, 1985

Opposition should bear in mind that it was members of his Party who spent 10 years getting Canada into the trouble in which it is now with respect to these two Crown corporations. Surely we can take a few months to try to reinstate them to a viable and profitable condition and hopefully find suitable buyers to take them back into the private sector.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
IMr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. He has been talking about patience in regard to White Farm Equipment in Brantford. In fact Borg-Warner has now announced that it will auction off some of the U.S. assets of White Farm Equipment on May 29, thus putting the final nail in the coffin for the 370 Canadian workers. Will the Minister finally intervene urgently, telling Borg-Warner he opposes a sale like that, and publicly committing himself to loan guarantees that will permit the survival of this company in Canada, controlled by Canadians?
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, we have here an example of a socialist getting into an extra-territorial, long-arm grab. The assets to which he has referred are all assets which are within the United States of America. The debt that will hopefully be liquidated by Borg-Warner as a result of those asset sales is an entirely American debt and there is no direct connection whatsoever with the Canadian company.


REQUEST FOR LOAN GUARANTEES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact the Minister had previously indicated his intention of getting in touch with Borg-Warner. Borg-Warner is proceeding, and that is why this report is so important. It sees a very urgent need to realize its assets. Will the Minister now join his Ontario colleagues who have said that they will put up $10 million as loan guarantees for this plant, by similarly making a commitment on the part of this Government, so that the workers in Brantford may have a sense of security for the future?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, at least the Hon. Member has gone back into Canada for his supplementary question. The answer is that discussions are continuing. Hopefully we will be able to facilitate the working out of a private sector arrangement with respect to the continuance of this company, but there is nothing to announce at this point.
Oral Questions


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and concerns the proposed takeover of the Canadian Porcelain Company in Hamilton by the Lapp Company of New York. This proposed takeover has a great many of the workers in Hamilton worried about their job security. Will the Minister exercise the power he has under the Foreign Investment Review Act to prevent that takeover which will be of no benefit to Hamilton or its workers?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, that question is very similar to the one that was put to me yesterday. Since that time we have gotten in touch with the Peat Marwick people who are the main receivers. We have told them of our concern and asked for a full explanation of their exact position with respect to the trusteeship. That information should be available to us later today, or certainly tomorrow.


REQUEST THAT INVESTMENT LEGISLATION BE AMENDED
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister not now agree with members of the opposition Party who have been saying in committee for days that the Investment Canada Bill, Bill C-15, does not have in its proposed legislation the kind of teeth necessary to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future? Will he bring forward amendments to that legislation so that Canadian workers can be protected?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as so often happens with members of this Official Opposition, they are jumping to conclusions in a too hasty manner.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. The Minister will know that by this time many farmers have received an initial payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act, but he will also be aware of the fact that only about one-quarter of western farmers were eligible to receive those payments, leaving one-quarter of the farmers with no other source of loan guarantees to allow them to put in their crops. Four weeks ago the Minister advised the House that it was the intention of the Government to examine the possibility of getting a spring cash advance into the hands of farmers for seeding purposes based upon this year's seeded acreage. Would he tell us what are the results of those decisions? Will he, in fact, offer such an advance for

April 30, 1985
Oral Questions
those farmers who did not get anything under the Western Grain Stabilization Act?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the Hon. Member's preamble he should have said that three-quarters of the producers were eligible, instead of one quarter. In fact about 77 per cent or 78 per cent of western farmers are eligible for their share of the $450 million which we got out prior to spring seeding.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: When I replied to the same question from his colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, 1 said that 1 did not want to raise hopes because there were some administrative problems. In consultation with the Canadian Wheat Board, which presently administers the Prairie Grain Advanced Payments Act, and several other officials, we have decided that that is something in which we will not be participating this spring.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that it is quite clear there will not be any form of cash advance to spring-seeded crops and that these farmers can now find someone else to take over their farms?
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat
Board)): Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is correct.


FINANCE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, and concerns Bill C-17, and the procedure for the reimbursement of sales tax to bulk fuel dealers.
The cost of financing the time period between the date of payment of that tax by the dealer and the date of reimbursement of that tax by the Government is placing a burden on many dealers. Will the Minister examine the possibility of providing a cash advance or a cash float to these dealers?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the Hon. Member's concerns on this particular issue. While I will take his suggestion into consideration, my initial reaction is that the proposal which he has made is one that would be somewhat difficult to control and one which could become quite complex in the arrangements which would have to be made between the Government and the people involved. But we will have a good hard look at it.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Now that the federal mediator in the dispute involving Air Canada and its ticket agents has failed in his attempts to bring the parties together, will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House what the Government intends to do next?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 answered that question yesterday, it having been raised by a member of the New Democratic Party. The sessions between labour and management have been adjourned to give the parties an opportunity to step back and reassess their positions. It is normal for that to occur with these kinds of negotiations. Hopefully, they will get back together soon with positive results.


AIR CANADA
André Ouellet: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, the Government does not know what to do. Does the Deputy Prime Minister realize how lengthy and costly such a strike could be for Air Canada and how it could affect the holiday plans of thousands of Canadian travellers? I should like to ask the minister whose government has been quick to appoint its supporters to the board of Air Canada why it takes so long to settle that strike?


Erik Nielsen: Again, Mr. Speaker, the question was raised yesterday-and I imagine that the Hon. Member is not unaware of that-in almost precisely the same terms, by a member of the New Democratic Party. We are fully aware of the seriousness of the situation, as is he. No one has a corner on that. I would point out to him, as I did yesterday, that we are dealing with a Crown corporation which is negotiating with labour within that corporation. I am sure he would be the last to suggest that we should be debating the elements of those negotiations on the floor of the House of Commons. It would do nothing to help and everything to hurt the bargaining process by doing that.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Employment and Immigration confirm that she has approved $4.84 million under MILAP for the B.C.
April 30, 1985

coast? Would she confirm that the $4.84 million program has been placed in the hands of three prominent Conservative organizers, Mr. Thor Petersen of Campbell River, Mr. Jim Lornie of Campbell River, and Mr. Stan Hagen of Courtenay? Would she further confirm that these individuals could pocket up to one-third of MILAP moneys as administrative costs?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP always like to be able to downplay any help which is being given to people who are unemployed and who very much need the work which is being sponsored through MILAP. I would hope the Hon. Member would welcome any assistance which is being given through MILAP. I can tell him that the expenditures through MILAP primarily go to people who are unemployed.


USE OF FUNDS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister further confirm that these individuals are paying themselves between $150 and $250 per day on this two-year program, and that they are continuing to pay themselves per diem expenses? Would she also confirm that Mr. Thor Petersen is using MILAP dollars to pay rent for program operations to be carried out in an office building which he owns in Campbell River? Would she not agree that this is probably the grossest government pork-barrelling that this House has seen to date, the pinnacle of patronage which even the Liberals did not have the guts to try?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is taking it one step too far. There is nothing that can beat what happened during the time of the Liberal regime.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I want to assure the Hon. Member that I will look into the details which he has raised to determine how the contract was awarded.


PARLIAMENT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, an article on page 2 of the Ottawa newspaper The Citizen, indicates that today the President of the Privy Council will be introducing a Bill respecting the collective bargaining rights of parliamentary employees. As usual The Citizen has the details wrong, but some of us have been working on this Bill for two or three years and I would like some answers. When will the Bill be introduced? Will it differ significantly from that which was prepared by myself and my colleagues two or three years ago? Will it be treated as a priority item? Finally, to what committee will it be referred?
Oral Questions


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest which the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings has with respect to this important legislation which affects employees on the Hill. He has had a long and distinguished service on the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services. I can confirm that later today I will be introducing this legislation, which deals with the matter of parliament staff relations. Also, I will be tabling a document which will outline the salient features for Members and employees of the House.
It is an important, new and, I believe, progressive measure with respect to labour relations on the Hill. I have discussed the matter with the opposition House Leaders and I know that I can count on the support of the opposition Parties to have this matter dealt with in an expeditious manner.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. When Mr. Thornton Savage, the vice-president of Chevron Corporation, announced that the corporation would be extending the deadline to May 31 for a Canadian offer on its shares in Gulf Canada, Mr. Savage said: "I cannot put any odds" on Chevron actually selling its interest in Gulf Canada. Yet one Canadian company has already put in a bid, and a second is about to do so. Will the Minister guarantee that Gulf Canada will be sold to Canadian interests?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member 1 cannot guarantee that Gulf Canada will be sold, but I can indicate to him that the bid which is in hand and the bid which is likely to be tendered are both from Canadian concerns. I am very, very pleased that there is such interest on the part of Canadians to acquire 60 per cent of the working control of Gulf Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PUBLIC BE INFORMED OF DETAILS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the sale of Gulf Canada to Canadian interests is very important in order to maintain the principle of Canadianiza-tion in the energy sector. Chevron Corporation has already increased the asking price of Gulf Canada by $500 million since last February, courtesy of the gift from the federal Government increasing the price of old oil in its agreement with the western producing provinces. Are the Canadian people going to be informed about the facts of this sale?

April 30, 1985
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member again, let me say that when the deal is consummated, if there is a firm transaction between the two parties, I can only assume that they will want to give the relevant details to the public. But I would want to reassure the Hon. Member that his suggestion that the price has gone up $500 million as a result of some action on the part of this Government is absolutely untrue. When Chevron embarked, at our request, on offering its 60 per cent block to Canadians, it told us of a price that it would accept. It has not changed that price one nickel, and I hope the Hon. Member understands that.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications who, no doubt, will be aware that the National Film Board has applied for $5 million of start up funding to develop plans for a national youth channel on television, in both official languages. The Minister, I hope, is aware that so far this is the only possibility which has come forward for a genuinely Canadian channel. The other alternatives have been for massive American importation, as opposed to the quality of the NFB, and its work which is well known throughout the world. Would the Minister, with that in mind, undertake to provide the funding so that we can have the development of a genuinely Canadian youth channel on television?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the applications will be filed with the CRTC in a few days, and the Hon. Member who is so concerned with that aspect, will then be in a position to assess this Government's actions.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, that was not really an answer to the question. I understand-and if I am wrong 1 would be interested to hear it- that an application was made to the Minister for funding to develop these plans, not to the CRTC. It is up to him to reply to it. He has a responsibility for the development of Canadian culture in Canadian broadcasting. From the hearings which have gone on, of which I am sure he is aware, and from submissions which have been made across the country, it is clear there is a need for a genuinely Canadian channel. This would seem to be the only chance we are going to get. Some action or intervention is needed now, and it is needed from the Minister's Department.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer the same way, I would suggest to the Hon. Member that within a few days a number of applications, including probably that from the National Film Board, will be filed with the CRTC, and she will then be in a position to assess this Government's actions in regard to that matter.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister appeared before the Committee on Communications and Culture and attempted to justify an unacceptable appointment, that of Mr. Bud Sherman who is well-known among Quebecers as a francophobe, with the CRTC. The Minister told us, and I am quoting him to be fair: "This Government's approach, would be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that any reference to the proceedings of committees is out of order. He is perfectly welcome to ask a question but I cannot accept quotations from committee meetings in the Chamber.


Marcel Prud'homme: So the Minister tells us the Government has developed a national reconciliation approach. Could former Mayor Jones expect to be appointed on the task force that will soon undertake an in depth review of the Broadcasting Act? Would the Minister tell this House whether former Mayor Jones can expect to be called upon to play an important role with respect to official language matters?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the suggestions made by the Hon. Member are his own, the Government will assess their merit in due course.


APPOINTMENT OF CRTC COM MISSIONER -REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Marcel Prud'homme: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
What French-speaking Canadians and well meaning English-speaking Canadians would like to know following that appointment is this: Who has become reconciled with whom?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is a good question!


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the CRTC Commissioner referred to by the Hon. Member has had a long experience in broadcasting. The Government was satisfied that his experience made him valu-
April 30, 1985

able, capable of making judgments, and we are sure that, within the CRTC's mandate as set out in the Act, this commissioner like the others will meet the requirements of the Act.


IMMIGRATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday in Washington the United States Justice Department announced that Mr. Juozas Kisielaitis, who was a member of a Nazi battalion, the Schutzmannschaft, which murdered and persecuted Jews in Lithuania, has sought refuge in Canada and, indeed, has returned to Canada. Will the Minister confirm that Juozas Kisielaitis originally entered Canada in 1948 after World War II without disclosing his involvement in the Schutzmannschaft? And what action will the Minister take to ensure that this war criminal is not allowed to use Canada as a haven from prosecution for his crimes against humanity?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a search of the records has determined that Mr. Kisielaitis and his family arrived in Canada in November of 1948 and subsequently were granted Canadian citizenship. Since that time he has been living in the United States but as a Canadian citizen. Under the terms of the Immigration Act, 1978, he is permitted to come back into Canada.
As the Hon. Member will know, this Government has established the Deschenes Royal Commission to look into the activities of alleged Nazi war ciminals. I am very pleased that at this particular time this commission is in place to investigate such cases.


GOVERNMENT ACTION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Deschenes Commission must not be used as an excuse for inaction with respect to these individuals. In view of Canada's shameful record of denying Jews entry to Canada, and in fact acting as a haven for alleged Nazi war criminals, will the Minister assure the House that if Kisielaitis cannot in fact be stripped of his citizenship for not telling the truth in 1948, and deported, she will speedily take the necessary steps to ensure that he will be brought to justice here in Canada?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be responsible for the activities of a Government back in 1948 or in the years following. What we have done as a Government is to move for the first time on this very critical issue. Since the whole issue was brought into public play after the end of the Second World War, this is the first Government which has taken steps
Oral Questions
to do something about it. We will see that cases such as this are indeed brought to justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday this House and the country were delighted to hear the Minister respond to the representations from the Hon. Member for Mount Royal with reference to the injustices to the Jews living in the Soviet Union who want to leave that country. Will the Minister also take up the case before the upcoming human rights experts meeting of those Palestinian Arabs living in the illegally occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? They are victims of human rights violations of the worst kind, including murder, kidnapping, torture, bulldozing of homes, denial of water, and denial of health care and education, to name just a few.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the conference which is opening formally in Ottawa later in May is under the general aegis of the CSCE process. Question of human rights violations which fall within the concerns of countries represented at that conference will be pursued by Canada, as 1 said yesterday, either in a general nature in the plenary sessions or specifically in private corridor representations.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. The Minister said yesterday that he had recommended to Cabinet that Mr. Bud Sherman be appointed CRTC commissioner. Does that mean that the Minister endorses remarks made by Mr. Sherman to the effect that bilingualism has been harmful to the economy and to national harmony, that it has jeopardized careers in the Armed Forces? Can the Minister tell us today whether he agrees with Mr. Sherman's views and how he can possibly explain such an appointment to Canadians?


Marcel Masse: Unlike the previous Government, Mr. Speaker, we do not exact confessions before making public appointments.

April 30, 1985
Oral Questions
Secondly, what I know happens to be public knowledge. During the last election campaign, Mr. Sherman committed himself to support strongly in his riding the program of the Progressive Conservative Party, which was the same I supported in my riding of Frontenac. I would suggest that the Liberal Party would be well advised to draw inspiration from that program.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Earlier today, in answer to a question from the Lion. Member for Saint-Denis, the Minister said that Mr. Sherman had a lengthy experience in bilingualism. I would say that he also has a lengthy experience in issues which frighten many Canadians and make them deeply concerned about the appointment. Why is he so adamant in his refusal to let Mr. Sherman speak for himself before the committee?


An Hon. Member:: What has he got to hide?


Marcel Masse: When it comes to frightening people, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Liberal Party is second to none.
*


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order which arises out of Question Period. I understand that at the very end of the question from the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) he made a statement that I did not hear. Had 1 heard it, I would have responded differently.


John Edward Broadbent: I'll bet.


Charles James Mayer: There you have the proof, Mr. Speaker. He asked if cash advances would be available and then very quietly, at least I did not hear him, said that the producers who did not get them would very quietly have to go out of business. Had I heard that I certainly would have responded differently. The policy of this Government is not to let the farmers go out of business, and 1 think our record to date speaks to that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if we can have some guidance from you. I thought I had made the intervention as loudly as I usually speak in this House. However, if we can have follow-up answers in the House, then can we have follow-up questions?


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not what happened; another NDP abuse.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The initial answer is still correct; there will be no action taken for these farmers and they will be forced out of business.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose I do not really need to remind anyone that we have not yet had a point of order raised. Perhaps that would encourage everyone to remember that during Question Period it is helpful if everyone can hear everyone when they are asking and answering. That might be helpful.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) I have the honour to table in both official languages, as required under Section 62 of the Western Grain Transportation Act, the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Crow Benefit Payment, for referral to the Standing Committee on Transport.


PARLIAMENTARY EMPLOYMENT AND STAFF RELATIONS ACT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to provisions of Standing Order 46(2), I have the honour to table in both official languages copies of a document relating to the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.


PETITIONS
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition on behalf of more than 550 residents of the subdivision of Lakeview in my constituency. They express their belief that they need a better postal service and make representation to Canada Post Corporation for establishment of a much needed sub-post office.
April 30, 1985



PARLIAMENTARY EMPLOYMENT AND STAFF RELATIONS ACT


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate and House of Commons.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Questions Nos. 276 and 286 will be answered today.


Mr. Kaplan: Is the Government negotiating an extradition treaty with the Netherlands and, if so, is it prepared to include in the catagorics of extraditable offences, that of collaborating with the enemy?


Charles Joseph Clark: Canada is in the process of negotiating a new extradition treaty with the Netherlands. We are not prepared to include "collaborating with the enemy" as an extraditable offence in the treaty as it is an offence of a political nature and historically excluded under international law.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	During the period February 18 to February 24, 1985, was the Prime Minister, while in Florida, provided with videotape and other transcripts of news items on a daily basis and, if so, at what cost to the taxpayer?
2.	What was the cost of (a) preparation (b) air shipping (c) production (d) taxis (e) other auxiliary fees for such items?


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1 and 2. Yes. The only additional costs incurred were those for taxis and long distance charges for the use of facsimile transmissions. The respective costs are $270 and $600.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Investment Canada Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and Motions Nos. 8, 12, 32, 63, 69, 74 and 75 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4242).
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to participate in this debate concerning Motion No. 32 and the others we are discussing this afternoon in the House of Commons in relation to Bill C-15. The motion proposed this morning by the Hon. Member from the NDP is quite similar to our Motion No. 7 in its effect. We support the motion because it would lead to greater openness in government. We all know how the Conservatives spent a considerable amount of time during the last election campaign telling us how they wanted to be a more open government. As a matter of fact, they even made a campaign promise to that effect, as unbelievable as that may seem. The Conservative Party said they would ensure that access to information would be implemented in spirit and in fact. They wanted a more open government.
1 see my colleague across the way from Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) and I am sure he wants a more open government in Canada.


Paul Wyatt Dick: We are doing it.


Don Boudria: If this motion is not adopted there could very well be a back-bench revolt among Conservatives in this House. We could perhaps even see the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton walk across the floor and join us if he does not get his way in this motion.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Never!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You can have him.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I have been there.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Liberal?


Paul Wyatt Dick: On that side.


Don Boudria: We know how committed he is towards this principle. Surely, if he is sincere, and 1 believe he is-

April 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I rise on a point of order. Just to clarify the record, the Member from the Liberal Party was inviting the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton to cross the floor and join the Liberal Party. My understanding is that the Hon. Member said "1 have already been there". I did not know he was a member of the Liberal Party and I just want to make sure that was clear on the record.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is irrelevant.


Don Boudria: 1 am sure you recognize that is not a point of order but it is an interesting point nevertheless. The Hon. Member admitted to being a member of a party on this side but I thought he had been a member of the NDP, not the Liberals. Be that as it may, I was discussing the fact that this motion talks about having a more open government. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), 1 know, wants a more open government. She has often spoken about various issues in the past which made me believe that she wants a more open government. It seems that perhaps she traded her opinion on this issue for a bridge or something to be constructed in her riding. Perhaps we will find out later when the Member returns.
I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that in the past the Conservative Party has spoken on the Foreign Investment Review Agency in conflicting ways. That is not to say, of course, that they have been two-faced on the issue. As an example, on the issue of the take-over of Black & Decker it was interesting to see that the Conservative Member for that area was, on one hand, telling the people of his riding that he was helpless in the issue of the take-over of Black & Decker by GE and in protecting the jobs because, in his view, the FIRA legislation was not strong enough. Hearing a Conservative advocating stronger foreign investment legislation is enough to make the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) want to stand in his place and immediately withdraw the Bill. Perhaps the Hon. Member for that riding, who raised that issue, should demand the Minister's resignation on this issue. However, we do not see that happening.
Conservative Members are not even permitted to speak. Their Party Whip, House Leader, and others, have seemingly tied them to their seats and rendered them unable to speak. The Hon. Member from Simcoe has said in the past that we need stronger foreign investment legislation. We can only assume that that was a Conservative view stated by a Conservative Member of Parliament. I am sure that when the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion reads Hansard to find out what was said in the House of Commons today, he will suddenly discover what a great mistake he has made in introducing this legislation. Hopefully he will withdraw the Bill. Failing that, perhaps he could approve the amendment that was presented just now by our colleague.
We know, of course, Mr. Speaker, where the Government stands on foreign investment. In the past they have said in the House that they want Canada to be open for business. Everyone wants Canada to be open for business, mainly because it was never closed. We all know that. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, being the non-partisan person that you are, will recall that Canada has always been open for business. Somehow the Conservatives have been dreaming in technicolour that Canada was closed for business, even though FIRA approved 97 per cent of the applications it received, and even though some Conservative Members, especially from the Simcoe area, said that FIRA had to be strengthened in order to protect jobs at Black & Decker.
Notwithstanding those very strong views and those important issues, the Government is going right ahead with this regressive legislation. Hopefully there will be some salvation in that they will now at least approve of the amendments which we are discussing at the present time.
Foreign investment must be done in such a way as to ensure protection for jobs in the country. It is not that foreign investment is not wanted by all of us.
I would like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that we do not seem to have a quorum at the present time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 1 will ask the Deputy Clerk to count the Members present.
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: There is no quorum so I ask that the bells be rung.
And the bells having been rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: There is now a quorum so we will proceed with the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 am glad to see the Conservative Members back in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Where are the Liberals?


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Member has been in the House long enough to know that he is not supposed to refer to the presence or absence of Members, or to the fact that all the Liberals walked out of the house to create the quorum call in the first place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I think that perhaps several points were made, including the one by the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). If everyone agrees, we can hear the conclusion of the speech by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1, of course, never referred to any individual Member being absent from the House. 1 am just glad to see that collectively there is more participation in this Chamber this afternoon.
For the benefit of those who have not heard, we were discussing the issue of the amendments proposed in group No. 8 in relation to Bill C-15. The issue is openness in government. You really cannot discuss openness in government without
April 30, 1985

referring to the appointments made in secret by the Government. An example of that is the appointment of Mr. Bud Sherman, apparently made by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse). One can sense the secretive attitude and offensive procedures that are being used by some members of Cabinet to intimidate the rest of the Conservative Members, not to mention Opposition Members as well.
We in the Liberal Party are in favour of the motion that we are discussing this afternoon. We want the Government to be more responsive. I am sure the Conservative back-benchers agree with that. We want the Government to live up to its campaign commitment of open government.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that 1 rise to speak against the amendment. The amendment deals with public disclosure of foreign companies. Under the amendment all undertakings would be made public. Earlier we heard from the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). He said that he was not interested in the financial statements of foreign companies or the profits. He only wanted to be in on the decision-making process of the foreign companies. How can you be part of decision making without knowing the financial status of a company? Perhaps that is why the Government is in the disastrous state it is in today. Perhaps the previous Government made decisions but never took a look at the dollars and cents. They were great at spending money but simply did not budget.
I must oppose this amendment. My Government does not discriminate. We do not set up two sets of rules. We welcome foreign investment and Canadian investment.
This country has changed for the better. We will provide fair and equal treatment for all. Canada now has a stable, secure Government that will welcome all foreign investment. We will increase productivity and we will create more jobs. We will get the people back to work and off U1C. We will get people off welfare. Canadians are proud and honest and they want to work. We will attract foreign investment and get them back to work.
Let me talk a bit about the Foreign Investment Review Act and what has happened since its inception. Since 1981 over $17 billion has left this country because we had two sets of rules. We discriminated against foreign investors. Not even Canadians wanted to invest in a country which they could not trust.
1 come from a region of Canada that not only lost companies, but our unemployment rate absolutely tripled, if not quadrupled.


Mr. Lapierre:: We will see what you do.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: We will welcome foreign investment because it is a benefit to Canada. We will get technology and encourage joint ventures so that Canadians will be working for and
Investment Canada Act
with foreigners. We want to increase the supply of world products. Therefore we will oppose the amendments.
Our Government believes in fair play, democracy, free enterprise, the market system, supply and demand. All investment will be welcomed here in Canada. All companies, be they Canadian or foreign, will comply with the regulations.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think one is required to address the motions on the floor and not the Bill as a whole, which means that one should be debating the principle of openness, not the points with which the Member is trying to deal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow).


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe that my remarks are directed specifically at openness. All investment will be welcomed here. All companies, Canadian or foreign, will comply with the regulations that guide operations here in Canada.
Last September the people of Canada spoke out. They said they wanted the Government to get out of the boardrooms. Government has left the boardrooms. We are a Government of the people which will work for and with the people. We have communicated with the people and we support Bill C-15. 1 must oppose these amendments.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to debate the specifics of these amendments. Unfortunately, I believe the Hon. Member who just spoke believed everything she said. She sounds like a charter member of the junior achievers of Canada.
The purpose of the amendments before us are to give Canadians in those communities where foreign interests either take over or create new facilities some input into their development. These amendments would permit those communities to understand what is happening and at least be given information with respect to the rules and conditions that are placed upon companies.
The Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) suggested that our Party wants one rule for foreign investors and another rule for Canadian investors. I can assure the House that our Party, and I believe the Official Opposition, believes that information should be freely available to the community which has an investment of its labour, utilities and infrastructure in a particular company that is foreign or Canadian owned. Any decision that is made by a major corporation in such a community can have a major impact on that community.
1 recently visited a community which was prosperous. The company in that community was predicting a great future, saying that it would be there until the year 2000. However, a board decision was made which pulled the rug from underneath the people of Ear Falls in northwestern Ontario. Although there was enough ore in the mine that the company could extract for a reasonable profit, it was not in its corporate

April 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
interest to do so. It will close the mine and therefore close the town.
If the people of that town, whether it is the business people, the Chamber of Commerce, the union or its citizens, had been privy to the information about the status of the mine throughout that decision-making process, and if they could have participated and influenced the corporate decisions, they would not be experiencing the frustration and anguish they suffer now and will suffer for much longer.
Another Member of this House said it much better than I. Let me quote from Hansard, June 22, 1978, page 6686, in a debate about freedom of information. Freedom of information is really what we are talking about here. The Hon. Member was the late Hon. Walter Baker. He said:
We need freedom of information legislation for more than the reason commonly given, namely, that people are entitled to information gathered by public servants at public expense. That in itself is not sufficient reason, in my mind, to justify the complications which we may create as a result of such a bill. The real reason lies behind the basic theory and purpose of democratic government. Democracy thrives on the competition of ideas, argument, criticism and visions of the future. It depends not only on the electoral and parliamentary competition of political parties, but on the contribution of other voices in society acting from altruistic or selfish motives. As a parliamentary democracy we encourage organized probing of government actions through the formal structures of the House of Commons. As a pluralistic society we believe in the value of those organizations referred to as pressure groups.
This not only applies to government, it applies to companies which, by their very nature, can positively or negatively develop a community, can give life to a community or destroy it. People who live in communities in which there is foreign investment have a right to know what is going on. They have a right to know if certain rules have been established in terms of job creation or environmental controls. Perhaps there was an agreement to allow for a decline in permanent job positions in those communities over a certain number of years.
Individuals in those communities have a right to know what is happening. This may mean the disclosure of financial statements and minutes of the board of directors. It may mean that the community should have one of its citizens sitting on the board to help participate in those decisions. I am amazed that the Government does not want to accept the philosophy of access to information. Clearly it is desperately needed and should be supported. 1 urge Hon. Members to change their minds and support it.
In my final moment I should like to offer a personal comment to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). I see that he is in the House, and I want to assure him that we are coming back, even though the Thunder Bay Twins are down three to one.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to let the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) know-and following the rule of relevancy-that one thing about the people of Newfoundland is that we believe in being very impressive in making a point. Of course the Corner Brook Royals are being impressive in
making a point. We do not believe in slaughtering the opposition; we let them have a game, at least. The people of Thunder Bay and the people of Corner Brook are hanging on to every word which my colleague and I utter. The hockey teams in his riding and mine are having it out over the Allen Cup right now.
I rise in support of Motion No. 8 because it goes to the heart of Bill C-15. This Bill takes the Foreign Investment Review Agency and turns it into something called, for propaganda purposes, Investment Canada. Hon. Members opposite stand in the House and say that they believe in free enterprise, the free market, supply and demand, and capitalism, but no one has asked them whether they believe in the people of Canada, the communities in which they live or the way in which they live. With a bill which allows foreign capital to come into the country and any investment under $5 million to be made without any scrutiny, without any assessment or without any thought as to whether or not the investment is good or bad, we open up a very dangerous can of worms.
There are three fishermen sitting in the visitors' gallery today from the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland. They are here trying to get the Government of Canada to assist them in maximizing the potential of the fishery on the great northern peninsula. Right now there is a shotgun, splinter approach to the development of that fishery. They come from an area where unemployment in the best of times is 35 per cent to 40 per cent and where during the off-season it is 60 per cent to 70 per cent. They have a rich resource-cod, scallops, shrimp, herring and all kinds of roe. They want a development plan to make that region the prosperous area it can be. Why isn't it, Mr. Speaker?


Geoff Wilson: Because you guys were in power for the last 20 years, that is why.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is not for that reason. It is because in the northern region unbridled free enterprise does not deal with the reality of northern conditions. That is why. It is not prosperous because companies have come to the North with its rich resource to cherry pick. They have taken the very best resources or the very best stocks for themselves and shipped them off the north coast for processing in Boston or somewhere and have left the rest for the Government to run. That is unbridled free enterprise in that kind of environment.


Mrs. Tardif (Charlesbourg):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order please. The Hon. Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. B. Tardif), on a point of order.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Chair to examine the relevance of what the Hon. Member is saying.

April 30, 1985


Brian Vincent Tobin: I do not know what she said, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: For the information of the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional industrial Expansion (Mrs. Tardif) said that the Hon. Member's speech was not relevant to the subject matter of the amendments brought forward on Bill C-15. The common denominator with which we are confronted here is public accountabilities on the amendments.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I assure the Hon. Member that the people of the northern peninsula are relevant. When we talk about the possibility of foreign investors coming in and picking up piecemeal the fish plants and the operations on that northern peninsula, and consigning them forever to the life of a serf to a foreign master in a foreign boardroom, they are relevant. That is the bloody problem with those people across the way; they see everything in the urban context of the boardrooms and the free enterprise speech that they are born and bred with. They forget about the people of Canada who live in resource sensitive areas. They are relevant. I reject any notion that the people of the northern peninsula are not as relevant to this speech as the people of Toronto, Calgary or Vancouver. You are damn right they are relevant, and that is the bloody problem, Mr. Speaker.
There are a number of resource industries in the country, whether it is the fishery, the forestry or primary production, that we do not see in the cities. They are out there doing a day's work. They are very susceptible to a Bill which will allow foreign investment to come in and cherry pick, to take the very best fish plants and forestry operations, and to leave the rest for the Government of Canada to subsidize.
We want a consolidated resource development policy which recognizes the long-term best interests of the people in the communities where they live. If we have a Bill which allows foreign investment to come in for under $5 million and make a purchase with no scrutiny, of course these people are relevant. Not only that, when there is an assessment, it is kept secret so that no one knows whether it is good or bad. Of course they are relevant. That is why they came to Ottawa. They had to come all the way here to be heard because the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) would not go to the great northern peninsula. That is the problem, that kind of narrowminded attitude or that kind of boardroom mentality which says that profits at any cost are more important than people. I reject that philosophy.
I support the NDP motion. We are not so partisan that we do not support a good motion when we see one. This motion simply asks that when an assessment is made, the people affected have the right to see that assessment and have a chance to determine for themselves whether a particular foreign investment is good or bad.
In the case of communities as great, as wonderful and as historic as New Ferolle, Green Island Brook and St. Anthony on the great northern peninsula. Bill C-15, which gives unbrilnvestment Canada Act
died authority to foreign investment to come in and take the best of what is offered and leave the people with the rest, is unacceptable.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, again I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-15. The present Government when in opposition made unending pleas for openness in Government and for the opportunity for Members of the House to criticize what the Government was putting before the people. Therefore, it is surprising that the Government now in power is not willing to support the openness or freedom of information which is involved in the series of motions presently before the House.
While in opposition the late Hon. Walter Baker, whom my colleague quoted a few minutes ago, made probably one of the strongest pleas in the House for openness in government. 1 should like to quote a paragraph from that speech. He stated:
-if the people of the country are to be able to judge in a knowledgeable way, then some of the tools of power must be shared. One of the great tools of power is not only the ability to probe all the structures within this place, but also to have the knowledge by which that probing, that investigation, that calling to account of a government, can be done effectively based on information and knowledge rather than instinct.
The late Hon. Walter Baker hit the nail on the head. The people of Canada need information to be available. The economy of the country is dependent upon that information, and a judgment can be made with the tools available to the people.
During the committee hearings, a number of witnesses made reference to the need for openness in this Bill. The one who made the most telling plea for openness was a former commissioner of FIRA, Mr. Gorse Howarth. He had a great deal of experience working with the need to control investment in Canada. When he appeared before the committee he criticized the past FIRA Bill, which I also want to put before this House. He said, and I quote:
The most telling criticism, certainly the most telling criticism as far as I was concerned, was that the whole process was conducted in secrecy.-The truth of the matter is that the way Parliament wrote that law, the Government and the agency had no choice but to keep virtually everything concealed and hidden.
As far as I can see, that is going to happen under the proposed new law, as it is now written. The requirements for confidentiality are no less stringent. Virtually all the information which was classified by Parliament under the Foreign Investment Review Act as privileged is classified as privileged under the proposed new Act. And if that is indeed to be the pattern, then Parliament and the Government and the agency and everyone can expect, sooner or later, after the first blush of happiness and so on has gone, that there will be the same kind of criticism that this whole process is being conducted in a secretive manner. There will be more criticism, perhaps, because this Government, as I understand it, is committed to making things more open to the public.
The previous Minister, the Hon. Walter Baker, would have appreciated that statement. He probably would have said that that is exactly what his Government intends to do, but he would have been wrong. The Government has put into this Bill the same kind of secrecy as was in the former Bill, not giving the people of Canada an opportunity to look at the factors which go into the making of a decision.

April 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
This series of amendments is aimed at the increase in the amount of openness in Government. Motion No. 8 asks to be made available to the people of Canada any studies that are made regarding decisions to allow investments in Canada. In the past the Minister and this Government have suggested that we take on faith that every bit of investment in Canada will be good for Canada. These amendments suggest that that is not necessarily so and that what should be available is a process by which decisions which are made and which go into the making up of an investment are available to the Parliament of Canada and the people of Canada so that they can decide whether that kind of investment is good for Canada. They should do that rather than foreign investors being told to buy what they have to, take the profits and run. This would require that their decisions be open for criticism. If that kind of information were available on investments made in Canada, Canadians would quickly join us in saying that unlimited and uncontrolled investment in Canada is not necessarily good for Canada.
Motion No. 12, the second of the motions before us, attempts to strengthen the information base available to policy makers and Canadians generally. It is an attempt to put before the people of Canada information which will allow them to better understand the behaviour of foreign businesses on the whole and their specific behaviour, particularly if this kind of analysis has been done.
If we had before the Government and the people of Canada the reasons for acquisitions before those acquisitions were allowed, we could make some kind of judgment. We would not have the kind of situation which came before this House previously where Black & Decker in Barrie was taken over and almost immediately closed, resulting in the loss of several hundred jobs. Those kinds of decisions would be open to scrutiny. They likely would not be allowed to go ahead. If they were, there would be rebellion among the people in communities such as Barrie when such suggestions are made.
Motion No. 32 deals with making public information relating to the investment which the companies must file under the notification section. That would allow the people of Canada to make judgments, which would suggest that the amount of investment by foreign corporations would be limited only to those areas where we could be sure it would go to the creation of jobs and that the investment would be for the benefit of Canada rather than, as the previous speaker said, just a method of picking cherries and getting out.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity to speak to one of the amendments, and I think most Canadians will not understand why Progressive Conservative Members are opposed to this information being released. How are Members of this House to know that a company in their riding has been taken over by foreign investors, if no information with respect to safeguards for employees are to be communicated officially, if there is to be no information regarding the cost of investment, research or
manpower training, if none of the obligations of a new foreign company that buys a local company in one of our ridings . .. why are Progressive Conservative Members opposed to all this information being made public? And why are Opposition Members demanding that the Minister be obliged to release such information? First of all, to ensure that jobs are protected; second, to ensure that in the region where the company is established, that particular industry will continue to operate and contribute to the development of the region in question; and third, to ensure that the new company will be able to continue investing as much money in research.
If the Progressive Conservatives are opposed to this amendment and maintain their ridiculous decision to adopt this Bill, two years from now, they will wake up to reality and say: In my riding, such and such a company was operating quite satisfactorily. There were 200 employees. A foreign investor took over the company and shut it down. Members will wonder: How can that happen? Mr. Speaker, the answer will be: It is too late now. You should have been wide awake two years ago.
Mr. Speaker, that is the threat that awaits us. We have already had a sample of secret decision-making by the Minister of Regional Industrial Development. Remember the Domtar case. The Minister said no. Progressive Conservative Members were not even informed. Not even the Minister of Public Works, the Minister responsible for Quebec affairs in Cabinet, was informed, Mr. Speaker.
Had it not been for the role played by the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) and the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) in this matter, nothing would have come out of it, Mr. Speaker. I must commend the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who had the courage to take up the cudgels for Quebec in that case. But I keep thinking about all the others who are asleep today and feel that everything will be fine, never mind the unilateral decisions concerning equalization payments to Quebec, another unilateral decision without consultation irrespective of what the province was asking for. The same thing goes for housing programs such as RRAP, Mr. Speaker-cutbacks, unilateral decisions, nary a word from the Government. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, and more particularly the Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote), should stop fooling around and sleeping in the House and make sure that the Government is forced to deal openly and see to it that any foreign interests taking over a Canadian business are required to guarantee jobs, develop the region involved, and promote research. That is easy enough to understand and I am sure that some Conservative Members agree with me on that score, Mr. Speaker. It is an important consideration before we proceed to the final stage of this Bill. I would ask the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that workers are protected. This is not a question of selling out to the Americans, to foreign investors,
April 30, 1985

or to anyone else. What matters is guaranteed employment protection in every region of the country and in every municipality. There are 1.5 million unemployed, Mr. Speaker, and without even trying to do anything else, the Government is throwing our doors open and saying: Come and invest in Canada, buy anything you want, do whatever you want, we do not really care. It is unthinkable that Members of Parliament should think like this and allow such a thing to happen, Mr. Speaker. I believe that it is very important for people to require the Minister and the Government to disclose the commitments made by investors about job security, research activities and regional development.
Another major point that this Bill should deal with is the possibility that in a given area, for instance Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean or Rimouski, which have terrible unemployment rates, or elsewhere in Quebec or Canada, a new company will be set up and then compete with a local business which is already struggling, and no one will do anything to prevent it. What will happen is that a multinational will set up a plant in that region and destroy a local or family business, and then that multinational will close down its plan and use it strictly as a warehouse to sell and export its own product.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and my other colleague who speaks on these matters are to be commended as well as the Members of the NDP for prodding the Government relentlessly. It was quite understandable that our "Camera Kid", our Prime Minister, went kowtowing to the President of the United States. However, Mr. Speaker, we have been elected by Canadian men and women and we are here to protect their interests. We, from Quebec, have been elected to protect the interests of Quebec men and women in each of our constituencies. We have not been elected to defend the multinationals, because if only multinationals could vote, there would not be many Members of Parliament. There are many more workers than business leaders in Canada, Mr. Speaker. In all your constituencies, there are many more workers than business leaders. Who elected you? They voted for you to protect their interests. We have 1.5 million unemployed in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and if the Government leaves Bill C-15 as is, there will be more arbitrary and stupid decisions like those this Government has been making since September 4, such as cut-backs in the RRAP program for residential rehabilitation without consulting mayors and municipalities. The Hon. Members are not even aware of it. In Rimouski, the mayors of the regional municipality of Rimouski are complaining about the 60 per cent cut-backs in the RRAP program, Mr. Speaker, and the local Member of Parliament is not even aware of it. The Minister did not even inform his colleague about the decisions he will be making on these matters, Mr. Speaker. The Domtar case is the best example; the map-making institute is another example of this government's unilateral decisions. Ironically, they used to claim: "We are going to do things differently! We are going to consult the people." But when the time comes to
Investment Canada Act
legislate and to enlighten the public, the Minister says that he prefers to keep everything to himself. The Parliamentary Secretary has every reason to hide behind the curtains. If I were she, I should be ashamed and would refuse to take my seat. Here she comes, Mr. Speaker. I feel it is important ... and I rely on the Parliamentary Secretary whom 1 have successfully provoked and awakened.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please! The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary (Mrs. Tardif) rises on a point of order.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like the Chair to consider the relevance of these remarks. So far, whenever opposition members from the NDP have risen, they have dealt at least with the amendments under consideration. On the other hand, when members of the Official Opposition have risen, only a few of them have dealt with these amendments. I should like, therefore, the Chair to look into the relevance of their remarks. Also, I should like the Chair to remind hon. members that they should not mention whether their colleagues are present in or absent from the House, something they have done on several occasions today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member should realize that there are rules of relevancy. 1 am sure he is coming to the relevant point right at this time. He only has about a minute or so left.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not wish to argue with the Parliamentary Secretary, but I was referring to the amendment and the fact that the necessary information should be disclosed to the members of each area ... I think that the Hon. Member was absentminded and did not quite grasp my comments, but I was sticking closely to the issue under consideration. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who should play her role, to try and influence the minister in order to protect jobs in Canada. If she does not want to do so, she will pay the political price later. If the Tory members do not want to do their job and merely go on travelling, they will pay the political price later. The Opposition maintains that it is essential for the government to make amendments and accept the amendment suggested by the NDP to make public the information on the following three critical points: guaranteed jobs, regional development and research.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: I was
just sitting here in the House reading a speech made by the Hon. Walter Baker on freedom of information. I am sure the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has read some of his many speeches on that subject. I was reading a speech from June 22, 1978, on freedom of information, and I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. That is the subject of these amendments. I

April 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
hope I will not be called to task if I stray even slightly from the subject matter of the amendments.
The Hon. Walter Baker and another very prominent Conservative whom many of us remember with great pleasure, Mr. Ged Baldwin, made probably the most powerful arguments in this Chamber outside of those made by members of the New Democratic Party for the need to be fully informed and to have full information flow to the Canadian public on a very great variety of matters.
I can remember their making an argument we have often made, which is that everything should be made public unless there is an absolute specification that it should not be made public. That follows the Swedish rule which provides that information, and indeed information of the kind that is available to the new board that will be created under the Investment Canada Act, should be made public unless there is a specific order that a particular piece of information should not be made public. As I have said, even Conservative Members have made very eloquent speeches on that subject. At that time, the Liberal Government was closing the door to freedom of information.
Indeed, a few years ago, I remember sitting in on the hearings of the decennial review of the Bank Act. One of the things for which we were pushing very strongly was a public disclosure section in that Act which would provide that Canadians would have some idea in larger terms about the actual amount of capital that was flowing in and out of this country.
Almost every country has public disclosure legislation of that kind, except Canada. I believe when the Conservatives were in opposition they supported us on our public disclosure amendment, but we were not able to get it through the Liberal Government. Now, of course, when the Liberals are in opposition, they are like Ged Baldwin and the Hon. Walter Baker when they were in opposition, and are calling for public disclosure. The Liberals are supporting our amendments, which basically ask for the information which is gathered and analysed by Investment Canada to be made public.
As other speakers have pointed out, a substantial amount of the information has been kept secret. I do not know why it is that when a Party ceases to be in opposition and becomes the Government it changes its mind completely about the importance of public knowledge, public awareness and public information. I do not know why, when that Party is in government, it becomes extremely secretive in areas where there seems to be very little ground for such secretiveness. Indeed, the whole state of society can be jeopardized by that secretiveness.
Again, the amendments only ask for certain information to be made public, for example, the studies of foreign investment patterns and behaviour. They ask for information to be made public which relates to the performance of foreign business in Canada. As well, they also ask that undertakings which are made to the agency by a foreign business in exchange for approval be made public. Requests for systematic and public
monitoring of approved takeovers to ensure compliance with undertakings should also be made public. Those kinds of proposals are absolutely fundamental for a public understanding and discussion, and indeed a parliamentary understanding and discussion, of the consequences, both good and bad, of the legislation.
I cannot help but wonder if the reason that the Government is being so recalcitrant in accepting these amendments is that it has very serious doubts about whether there will be any new investment of a major proportion under this Bill. Indeed, the Government may have been listening to Wall Street and know that major, fresh foreign investment which would create jobs is simply not in the cards.
Undoubtedly, there will be some new investment, particularly in the under $5 million range in direct acquisitions, which will gobble up much of Canada's small operations, particularly in the high-tech area. The Government is afraid that that will be attractive either to the foreign-owned companies which are already operating in Canada, or to new companies. They will be straight takeovers. New investment and new jobs will not be involved. In fact, there may even be fewer jobs. The Government must be afraid that the "new" investment which we may see will not be "new" money coming into Canada, but that it will be-as has so often been the case in the past-money which is being borrowed from Canadian banks. The Government may know that that will be the consequence and, therefore, does not want to have any information disclosed on investment patterns, foreign investment behaviour and on the performance of foreign business in Canada. It wants to continue with that secretiveness because there will not be new money, jobs and opportunities. There will only be takeovers, probably of smaller Canadian entrepreneurial-type firms, or, if they are larger companies, they will likely be taken over and funded almost entirely by Canadian banks.
I remember a gentleman who owned a small manufacturing business which produced electrical components in Vancouver. The business was doing very well. He went to the bank for a loan to increase the operation, but the bank thought it too risky. Shortly thereafter, he sold the business to an American. The American took over the business and within days received a loan from the same bank which had turned him down. The American was part of a large conglomerate, so he received the loan. In Canada we learn that sort of thing by experience There is no public disclosure anywhere. People simply have to hear about it from persons who have been involved. In my riding, a firm was bought by a foreign company which began to lay off people. It did not fulfil its obligations with respect to creating new jobs. We hear about them, but there is no public information available to us. Even Mrs. Thatcher allowed a public disclosure Act to be passed in the United Kingdom.
If the Government is saying that it knows we will not get genuine foreign investment which will create real new jobs and that we will get only takeovers, in particular in small high-tech operations, then I suppose I have to say that I understand why the Government will not provide public information and public disclosure.
April 30, 1985



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)- Human Rights-U.S.S.R. Representations on behalf of Jewish population; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)- Health-Testing of toxic hormone to control cockroaches; and the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)-Transport- Construction of VIA Rail maintenance plant. Government position, (b) Transport industry's fragility in Montreal-Government position.



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. 8, 12, 32, 63, 69, 74 and 75 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4242).
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, before speaking to Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a problem arising from the translation of Motion No. 12 from English into French. I would invite my Francophone colleagues on the other side of the House to try and understand what I am going to read to them. The text reads as follows, and 1 quote:
g) de recueillir pcriodiquement des renseigncments sur le rendement des cnlrcpriscs canadiennes lorsque cc n'est pas controle par des non-Canadicns el dc les rendrc publics appartenant a des non-Canadiens et expressemcnt interdil par la legislation federate;*.
And this is what it is supposed to say, in English:

(g) regularly compile and make public information, where not expressly prohibited by federal legislation, pertaining to the performance of Canadian businesses owned and controlled by non-Canadians;".
Investment Canada Act

I wanted to bring this error to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, because it is unacceptable, and I hope it will not happen too often.
To go back to the matter at issue, in proposing Motions Nos. 8, 12, 32, 63, 69, 74 and 75, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) is asking, first of all, that the Government make public the results of research and analysis with respect to investment applications. Second, in Motion No. 63, the Hon. Member is asking that the Government also make public its ruling, including all undertakings made in connection with the investment. Third, in Motion No. 74, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor asks that the Governor-in-Council make public all reasons for disallowing applications. That, Mr. Speaker, is the essence of the amendments we are now considering.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mrs. Tardif) has taken note that I am indeed speaking to the amendments.
Members on the other side of the House seem to think that we in the Opposition take a special delight in nit-picking. That is certainly not the case. However, we do want to defend the interests of our fellow citizens, and it is the Opposition's role to ensure that the Government does not cause grave injustice to be done.
In my riding, Mr. Speaker, a young man under 30 is trying to succeed with his company which makes tofu, a protein-substitute cheese for meat widely used in hospitals and prisons. So one day he came to my riding office to tell me about the difficulty he was having to find out from the federal Government whether a competitor plant in another city in Canada had received a federal Government grant, which he thought was unfair. I had a hard time myself and it was weeks before I finally got the information. Information is the current buzz word. This is legislation on information. We are trying to make it easier for our fellow citizens and Canadian entrepreneurs to invest their savings wisely.
The administrative machinery is complicated enough as it is. I had hopes, but now I am rather doubtful because nobody on the other side of the House appears anxious to rise and debate our proposals. The logic of those motions is crystal clear, we want to make sure that there is no possibility of conflict of interest. Canadian and foreign investors must be able to rely on the vigilance of this Government. This series of motions introduced by our New Democratic Party colleagues touch upon a rather delicate aspect of the federal administration- openness and ready access to information. No Government can operate properly unless it is quite prepared to report to the public and its representatives on the situation of the federal administration.

April 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
How unfortunate that the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) does not seem to grasp the significance of the proposed amendments. As the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor suggested this morning, she ought to take part in the debate. Indeed, we are wondering why Hon. Members opposite are so quiet in this debate. I am on duty today, Mr. Speaker, I have been here since this morning and I have heard only one speaker from the Government side.
This morning the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) made an important point in his remarks. We are not interested in knowing how much money such or such company is making or losing. We want to know how the Government is doing. It is a matter of information and sound operation.
The Progressive Conservative Party has always been a staunch advocate of more open administration, more readily accessible Government, as the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) pointed out this morning. I fail to understand why Members opposite cannot manage to agree on their political principles of yesteryear.
It is unacceptable that the Progressive Conservative Members be forced to remain silent. After all, there are enough of them and I know that a good many are dying to tell us what they think, not least of whom the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).

My colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), tells me that Erik gave an order.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would say that it seems Members opposite have been instructed to keep quiet. So, we are led to believe that Conservative backbenchers are prevented from playing their role as Members of Parliament. After all, if the Government does not want to hear the views of its own Members, it is high time the Canadian people learned about it. To report on information gathered by the agency would not break any Government secret. On the contrary, it would make for openness and acquaint Members of Parliament and potential investors with investment trends, especially at the planning level, and future prospects. It would avoid a duplication of efforts both for Canadian and foreign investors and for the officers of the agency. For instance, let us imagine that a Canadian investor decides to set up a new business. By consulting the list of existing or future investment projects, he would know readily whether he can go ahead with his plan. By following the investment situation, he would be in a position to save his capital if he finds that a similar operation already exists.
I shall conclude in a minute, Mr. Speaker.
The same applies to non-Canadian future investors. The reputation of Canada is at stake. I believe that by providing wide-ranging and sound information, we would help both Canadians and non-Canadians to serve Canada better. If the
Government will not accept these amendments, it will miss a great opportunity to show the Canadian people that it believes in open government, because, until now, Canadians have been disappointed in this respect.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to take part in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-15 and, in particular, on a number of amendments brought forward by the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party in this area. All of these amendments are designed to make the process of review a more open one. The amendments are all very clear. We have a situation where it is still the case that Canadians often have to go to the United States to get information on American corporations acting in Canada. Canada seems to be a place where secrecy reigns, a practice permitted to go on far too long by the previous Government, and I am afraid that the legislation before us now repeats all of the mistakes in the approach of past Governments. It is time that we saw some opportunity for Canadians to get the information they need in order to make representations and for the public to know what is going on. If takeovers are not in the Canadian interest, this should be made very clear.
Of course, our whole thrust with respect to this legislation is that it is going in the wrong direction. We would like to see FIR A strengthened and we would like to have better assurances that foreign investment in Canada will suit Canadian needs and generally create jobs. Because we have this objective, we are disturbed by the whole tenor of this legislation and, certainly, its secrecy provisions are such as to cause a great deal of concern. It is even harder to fight bad legislation and bad takeovers when you do not have the information you need.
Let me speak about the specific amendments at this point. There are five amendments we are considering this afternoon. Motion No. 8 is an amendment to Clause 5 in the Bill. Our amendment would add to that clause the words:
-and make public, where not expressly prohibited by federal legislation, the results of this research and analysis.
This is an eminently reasonable and sensible motion. When the Canadian public pay a government Department to make investigations as to the wisdom of certain investments, this information should be available to the Canadian public which has an interest in seeing that the right economic decisions are made.
The second motion is Motion No. 12, and this is again to amend Clause 5 and would add to the part dealing with performance of corporations the following:
(g) regularly compile and make public information, where not expressly
prohibited by federal legislation, pertaining to the performance of Canadian
businesses owned and controlled by non-Canadians.
This is absolutely crucial to having any sensible economic policies whatsoever. We need to have information as to performance in order to make judgments and if we do not have
April 30, 1985

the information, then bad decisions can be made and not found out about or objected to.
The third motion before us is Motion No. 32 and it deals with Clause 13. The intent of this motion is that the agency will make public within a reasonable time period all new businesses and acquisitions dealt with in this part of the legislation, and make public within a period not exceeding 14 days after notification is given all proposed investments subject to review. This is an obvious and constructive resolution to a long-standing problem.
The fourth motion we have before us is Motion No. 63 in amendment to Clause 21. It deals with net benefits, an absolutely crucial question as well. The Minister shall, within 45 days after the certified date, et cetera, send a notice having taken into account any information, undertakings and representations referred to the Minister by the agency pursuant to the section and be satisfied that the investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada. This is absolutely the key question in the decision about whether the investment should be allowed at all; is there going to be a net benefit to Canadians? Our proposal here is to add the words:
-and shall make public his ruling including all undertakings made in connection with the investment.
A most reasonable expectation.
The fifth motion is Motion No. 69 in amendment to Clause
22. It says:
"notice to that effect to the applicant and shall make public its decision
including all undertakings made by the applicant."
Again, that is absolutely essential. It is obviously beyond dispute that any undertaking should be made public and the public, who are the people most concerned because they are going to lose jobs when unwise decisions are made, should have this pertinent information.
Well, why is this not happening? The Conservative Party certainly had people who have spoken in the past in favour of openness in government. We have had references made to the late Walter Baker and he certainly was a leader in this respect. He made very strong speeches in this House in his last years of service about the requirements for full disclosure, requirements for a working democratic system, requirements that there not be cover-ups, that the public get the information it needs. These were all very sensible recommendations and we wonder why the Government is not listening to its leaders and respecting those kinds of proposals which have been made in the past.
At the time this Bill was in committee there was testimony from a number of people pleading the cause of openness in deliberations. I would like to quote in particular Gorse Howarth, a former FIRA commissioner who appeared before the committee. He said:
The most telling criticism, certainly the most telling criticism as far as I was concerned, was that the whole process was conducted in secrecy. People used words like "Star Chamber" and this, that, and the other.
Why did they use these words? Because in the consideration of this commissioner, the agency, FIRA, had to operate secret-
Investment Canada Act
ly. It was not that it is necessarily covering up any particular point, but to quote him again, he said:
The truth of the matter is that the way Parliament wrote that law, the government and the agency had no choice but to keep virtually everything concealed and hidden.
What he was concerned about was the current wording of the legislation. He said:
As far as I can see, that is going to happen under the proposed new law, as it is now written. The requirements for confidentiality are no less stringent. Virtually all the information which was classified by Parliament under the Foreign Investment Review Act as priviliged is classified as privileged under the proposed new act. And if that is indeed to be the pattern, then Parliament and the government and the agency and everyone can expect, sooner or later, after the first blush of happiness and so on has gone, that there will be the same kind of criticism that this whole process is being conducted in a secretive manner. There will be more criticism, perhaps, because this government, as I understand it, is committed to making things more open to the public.
Here is someone who listens to election talk and listens to Conservatives in opposition. Indeed, we were treated to many a lecture about openness and civility and other high-minded principles while these people were in opposition, and one wishes they would read their own speeches and put them in action when they are drawing up their legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) should know better than to walk between the speaker and the Chair. He has done that twice and 1 would just like to bring it to his attention.


Mr. Axworthy:: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, previous speakers for the Conservatives, one just a very short time ago, opened up the debate on some of the wider issues, and I feel compelled to make a few closing remarks at least about some of these issues. We heard a spirited Conservative plea for more foreign investment. We heard statements that foreign investment and Canadian investment were equal. Certainly as a New Democrat how can I be against equality? Well, I would like to remind the House that there is no such equality. Foreign investment and Canadian investment have played very different roles in Canada. It would be very nice if foreign investment had the same effect that Canadian investment had. If foreign investment really had the job potential being claimed for it by the Conservatives right now, we would probably have the lowest unemployment rate in the world. We have had growing foreign investment over the past few decades in Canada and we have had extremely high unemployment. We have more unemployment than many, many other countries which are much more careful about permitting foreign investment. If job creation were the rich reward of foreign investment, we would have more job creation than we can stand.
I do want to point to the great sense of frustration that people across Canada have experienced. The jobs action group which the NDP caucus consulted recently was very worried about foreign investment. They felt decisions were being made behind closed doors, that companies would come into their communities, make their profits and leave, that they would

April 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
leave them with nothing. In short, these were investments which were not to the benefit of the community and they felt powerless.
It is important that communities not be powerless, and in order for that to happen they have to have the information, the public has to have it, we in Parliament have to have it so we can fight unwise takeovers and see that economic decisions are made for the benefit of Canadians.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, this morning we considered a series of amendments relating to Bill C-15, and we tried to persuade the Government, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, to consider accepting certain amendments to the Bill which were aimed at removing what we see as the inordinate discretion allowed the Minister, powers that we find excessive, but it is obvious, although no vote will be taken on these motions since there will be a recorded vote, that the Government has been unwilling to accept any amendments whatsoever.
Despite our warnings and the proposals that were made, the Government says no, and will use its vast majority, although that majority is not apparent at this moment in the House, to set aside any constructive proposals by Hon. Members, and especially from the Opposition.
We are now considering another set of amendments we are proposing to Bill C-15, to make the legislation more acceptable and to make it and those who will have administrative and political responsibility more responsible to public opinion.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why Government Members are not willing to consider Motion No. 8 to amend Clause 5 of the Bill. Clause 5(c) says, and I quote:
5.( 1) The Minister shall-
(c) carry out research and analysis relating to domestic and international
investment;
The amendment being proposed in Motion No. 8 is as follows: to add, following the word "investment", and I quote:
-and make public, where not expressly prohibited by federal legislation, the results of this research and analysis;".
Mr. Speaker, can anyone tell me why a perfectly normal suggestion, a suggestion that is entirely in line with open government, with the kind of government that wants to give the general public the information that in many cases is required by businessmen, why this amendment which would, in fact, oblige the Minister to make public the results of this research cannot be accepted? We all know this research is carried with taxpayers' money. The public is paying. Why not accept this simple amendment that is merely aimed at releasing information compiled as a result of research paid for with public funds?
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition, whether it is the New Democratic Party or the Liberals, can certainly not be accused of wanting to introduce sweeping changes in this legislation. It seems to me the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) could not do otherwise but rise in the House and say that it makes very good sense to have research carried out by public servants or by the agency, at the request of the Minister, studies on external trade, the situation of foreign or Canadian investments, paid for with public funds. We are just asking for the right to know, when there is nothing in the Act that prohibits the release of information, because of course such studies might contain confidential data. The amendment even includes the reservation that an exception would be made if publication were expressly prohibited by federal legislation, in cases where special considerations might-


Mr.   La Salle@: If necessary, certainly, that is in the legislation.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister has read the Bill. I do not think he has read Clause 5(c). We just want the Minister, provided there is no conflict in the case of confidential matters relating to a specific company, to release the results of such research for the benefit of Hon. Members and also for the benefit of business people who may need the information to make decisions. If the studies were not paid for with public funds, I would not mind, but this comes out of the public purse, and the Government is refusing to accept an amendment of this nature. At least, we have yet to hear any Government Members or the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary tell us why they are opposed to research that is carried out by the Government, at the expense of the taxpayer, being made available on a mandatory basis, provided there are no data in the study that should remain confidential pursuant to existing legislation.
Mr. Speaker, that was Motion No. 8. I am going to skip motion No. 12 and proceed with Motion No. 63. Motion No. 63 has the same objective, which is to make decisions public. The purpose of Motion No. 69 is to amend Clause 22 of Bill C-15.
There again, when we consider the text of the Bill and we analyze Clause 22, we see that the Minister is supposed to examine certain applications for foreign investment.
What we suggest should be done is simply adding the requirement to make public the decision by specifying among other things all the investor's undertakings. We are simply asking that this be made public. Why? Let us take for instance the constituency of Joliette. Let us assume the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Stevens)-and perhaps this could also occur in your constituency, Mr. Speaker-has agreed to an investment, and the company that has just taken over a Canadian business in the constituency of Joliette has decided, shall we say, to increase turnover and research investment, to maintain jobs at the existing level over a period of say
April 30, 1985

five years, and has undertaken to buy 25, 30, 40 or 50 per cent of its raw materials in Quebec or in Canada, depending on the area where it is located, and if it was on the basis of such commitments that the Minister has agreed to the foreign investment, why not accept that such undertakings be made public so that the Hon. Member for Joliette-he is now in Government and may have special connections with the Minister, but even then the Minister is under no obligation to tell him about it or even to discuss it in Cabinet or in Cabinet committee, more or less like in the Domtar case-does not learn about it from the newspaper reports. All we are asking is: Why not make that public? Failing that, how can we, Members of Parliament, even Progressive Conservative Members, how can we all at some point answer questions from the public? How are we to know whether the undertakings are honored?
But that Government is so sure it is in possession of the one and only truth that it cannot or will not accept any amendment. We will find out later on, with other series of amendments, to what extent we are going to be prevented from monitoring foreign investment, to what extent we are going to be prevented from knowing whether the goals have been reached, whether the terms and conditions have been met because, as we are going to find out, and I will probably speak on that, when the Minister sets terms and conditions and foreign investment is agreed upon on that basis in Canada, reports will be submitted only after the Minister has asked for them.
We feel that those reports by the investor who made the commitments should be submitted automatically, and made public. Therefore, to monitor, to be sure, to be in a position to discharge our responsibility in this House, we have to determine whether there was an administrative decision that was perhaps-without ever suggesting for a moment that the Minister who took the decision was ill-intentioned, since at times he makes dozens and dozens of such decisions and if he does not make them public, he alone later on will be in a position to know whether or not he has forgotten to ask the company to produce reports, because they will only be provided upon request. If that were made public, there would be something like 280 people in this House, and especially Members from the areas concerned who are interested in the economic development of their communities, their constituencies, who could see whether the company after two years, assuming there were originally 200 employees, after having undertaken to increase the number of employees to 250 over the next five years, whether two years later, one finds out there are only 175 employees left and is in a position to sound the alarm, and the Minister will then say: We must ask for a report because otherwise, that company is not complying with the terms and conditions that I myself have set for accepting the sale of that Canadian firm to foreign interests.
The whole issue, the whole approach revolve around those amendments. I have addressed Motions No. 8 and No. 63. The
Investment Canada Act
others have more or less the same thrust. I would like to hear, if the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has had to leave the House-this is possible for he may have commitments elsewhere-I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary why, on which basis, and what the Government has to hide. Why not accept amendments that to me look quite natural and in line with the wishes expressed most of the time by all Members of this House, to be informed and to be in a position to clearly answer before their constituents for the Government?
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I would have other comments but my time is up.
[DOT] <(1640)


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: April 30, 1985
Investment Canada Act
allows, in some cases, some slight discretion to the Minister, but on the basis of the Minister's performance in the last six months when we have asked him repeatedly to explain the undertakings of a company such as Black & Decker, he totally refused. There is no indication that he would change that policy under the new legislation. Therefore, there is need for a requirement that that information be published and also that information about the conditions upon which approval was given or the grounds upon which approval was refused be published.
1 am particularly concerned about the effect of this clause on Canada's garment manufacturing industry. There are 150,000 jobs at stake, approximately 30,000 of which are in Metropolitan Toronto. Many of those are in Spadina. This is an industry which is presently more than 80 per cent owned and controlled by Canadians. Many small business people and many individuals who are not small business people have pioneered for generations the businesses that have been an important part of Spadina and many other areas of Canada such as Montreal and Guelph. We cannot take for granted that this industry will continue to be four-fifths Canadian owned.
The industry is becoming concentrated. It is bringing in more expensive electronically-controlled equipment, and foreign investors are indeed beginning to buy holdings in the Spadina garment industry, whether taking over existing industries or establishing new ones with extremely predatory competitive rates.
In particular, there is now a rush of capital from Hong Kong into the Spadina garment industry. That is why this kind of review is needed urgently and should be incorporated into this legislation, as we have asked in our amendment.
Included in the information we want is to know a great deal about the operation of the company and its habits; its employment practices, and the research and development that it conducts either in the home country or in Canada, if already operating here. The information should include what it proposes to do in research and development.
We want to know about its export policy and between factory pricing policies-whether it will try to evade Canadian taxes by rigging its prices between factories. We would like to know its policies for remittances of fees and services or for dividends and interest.
We would like to know what it does with its undistributed profits. Is it investing profits from Canadian operations into Canada or is it milking Canada of these profits?
Many of these investors may well be multi-nationals. We would like to know the details of their world product mandate system. We have heard of this in the automobile industry but we also know that new technological development in the garment industry make this a very real possibility in the not too distant future. Those industries in Canada could be shut down, if not totally then to a large extent, for the sake of industries in countries that pay perhaps 10 per cent of Canadian wage rates.
We would also like to know how parent companies operate at home with respect to such matters as financial contributions to the cultural and educational life of the subsidiary's country. For example, do they intend to give equal treatment to Canada in that respect?
We also would like to know the functions of Canadian banks in takeovers. We have heard of many cases of Canadian companies being bought out with Canadian money from Canadian banks in the hands of a foreign investor. In that case, no new money is brought into Canada. Contrary to the belief of the Government, Canadian takeovers have taken place with very little new money but simply with Canadian money being used to buy out a Canadian industry in the interest of a foreign company which can then shut it down.
Statistics Canada could also provide relevant information with respect to undistributed profits of the Canadian businesses that are already owned and controlled by non-Canadian owners, and indicate whether those profits are reinvested in Canada.
Before a major assault begins on Canada's garment industry, this legislation should be in place so that we can monitor it closely and provide the Government with the power to take what action is necessary. The owners, workers and neighbours of our garment industry will be able to monitor what the Government does by having access to the information which the Government has gathered. The public-particularly the 150,000 Canadians whose livelihood is concerned here- should have access to the vital information that the Government can require by regulation.
All that vital information should be required by government regulations and should be made public in the interests of the people whose jobs, business holdings and shares are being put in jeopardy by foreign takeovers in many cases. In the interests of those Canadian citizens or Canadian residents, that information should be obtained by the Government and made public. If it is a new business, under this legislation it would not be reviewable for conditions under Investment Canada. 1 am not satisfied with that, but other Hon. Members will be speaking to that matter.
At least notification is required. We should know whether 5, 50 or 100 garment factories in Spadina have been taken over. We should know who has taken them over. We should have a good deal of information along the lines I have just described, even though there are no conditions. We should know what sort of operation is moving into the country, perhaps setting up a parallel operation which is perhaps funded so as to destroy the Canadian operation. If it is a takeover, the law requires that minimum conditions be determined by the Minister, and those conditions should be published. I ask that Motion No. 74 be given serious consideration by the House.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should follow the suggestion made by my colleague
April 30, 1985

on my right and speak about the by-election held in New Brunswick. 1 must say it was a heartening outcome. It was a resounding success.
Mr. Speaker, to come back to Bill C-15 and especially the amendments which I want to support, that is Motions Nos. 8, 12, 32, 63, 69, 74, I would like to point out that this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this legislation and I am still wondering why this government is giving up a policy which is undoubtedly important and vital for the interests of Canada. Now, as I said, FIRA did not prevent foreign investors from doing business in Canada. Its role was rather to ensure that foreign investments were made in the best interests of Canadians and created jobs for Canadians while not being harmful to Canadian businesses. That review process which was a safeguard should have been maintained. Canada is obviously one of the industrialized countries which allows the most substantial foreign investments in its economy. This is one of the reasons why we should not remove that safeguard provided by FIRA.
If Bill C-15 were passed without the proposed amendments, anyone could come and set up a business and take out of this country without any kind of accountability. That is the problem. It is useless to say that if the bill is passed in its present form, all kinds of foreign interests will want to do business in this country. And if those foreign interests take over some industries or some concerns, as far as the Atlantic area is concerned, Mr. Speaker, such control on our businesses could have serious consequences on our resources.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall deal solely with our resource, that is to say our fish. This resource is currently protected by the 200-mile limit, and we know that some people have worked very hard to establish this 200-mile zone to protect our resources. If the Bill were to be adopted in its presents form, there would be nothing to prevent foreign interests from setting up shop along our shores. While they could not use ships to lay their hands on our off-shore resources, they could seize these resources by taking over businesses on the coast. Under these circumstances, what sort of control would we have over these resources which are of paramount importance to the Atlantic provinces? None whatsoever, for these foreign interests would not be answerable either to the people or the communities along the Atlantic shores, not even to the federal or provincial governments. How would we go about protecting our jobs, if these foreign interests decided to have the fish processed elsewhere? How could we protect these jobs? Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that, perhaps in New Brunswick more than anywhere else, jobs are extremely important. Today, the overall unemployment rate in New Brunswick is 17 per cent, and it reaches 21 per cent in my own region, which is unacceptably high. How could we protect these jobs? And how important do the Atlantic people feel these jobs are?
Mr. Speaker, you have certainly read in the papers recently that there were riots which caused considerable damage. They
Railway Act
occurred in the Acadian peninsula in Northeastern New Brunswick. Some trucks and pieces of machinery were destroyed, and a plant was damaged to such an extent that it will not be able to operate this summer. Some people have lost their jobs. What is the reason behind these riots? Because workers suddenly realized that a firm intended to install machines to replace manual labour. Should 1 go on, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, but


Before calling it five o'clock and proceeding to Private Members' Business, I call to the attention of the House Standing Orders 15(2), 15(3) and 15(4), since I have had to reprimand a couple of Hon. Members today. Standing Order 15(2) reads:
When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.
Standing Order 15(3) reads:
When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between that Member and the Chair, nor interrupt him or her, except to raise a point of order.
I would hope that we can have a little decorum. At the same time, while 1 am reading this Standing Order, and I know Hon. Members have read it, it states also:
No Member may pass between the Chair and the Table, nor between the Chair and the Mace when the Mace has been taken off the Table by the Sergeant-at-Arms.
When the House adjourns. Members shall keep their seats until the Speaker has left the Chair.
Thank you.

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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 138?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands) moved: that Bill C-229, an Act to amend the Railway Act, be read the

April 30, 1985
Railway Act
second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on my Bill C-229 which reflects the concern of a number of my constituents. I am sure it will find echoes in the concerns of constituents of all Hon. Members. I hope the House will see fit to refer the subject matter of this Bill to the appropriate committee.
The purpose of the Bill is to require all railways, particularly Canadian National, to comply with provincial legislation regarding health and environment. I just want to sketch a little of the background that led me to introduce this Bill. Last August, Canadian National Railways was involved in spraying Spike 80-W, a defoliant, in the Cowichan subdivision of Vancouver Island. This spraying took place at the very time when blackberries were just beginning to come into fruit. For those who do not know, blackberries on Vancouver Island grow to be very ripe, delicious and luscious. People love to pick them. Blackberry bushes grow profusely. They sprawl all over the place. In fact, I have seen places where abandoned buildings have been completely surrounded and covered by blackberry bushes after just a few years.
Here is where we have the problem. People, particularly children, like to walk along the right-of-way where there are blackberry bushes, pick the blackberries and eat them. On the other hand, the railroad is concerned about keeping its right-of-way clear, so it sprays.
Last year when the spraying was done in the villages of Lake Cowichan and Youbou, no notification was given to the local residents that spraying would take place. Even the village council was not notified in advance. When it did find out, it had to go to its own expense to put out a circular letting people know that the spraying was taking place. Later parents were horrified to find that their children were eating blackberries that had been sprayed in this manner. When the village protested to CN Rail, Mr. G. Fowler, the planning engineer for the Mountain Region, wrote back and pointed out:
Signs were posted on our right-of-way in the City of Victoria and at Deerholme but unfortunately the Village of Cowichan was not forewarned. This was likely due to the short notice given Environment Canada. CN Rail, being a Crown corporation, is not required to obtain provincial pesticide permits for work done on our right-of-way, however, through Environment Canada, the provincial agencies are informed of our intentions.
Our vegetation control program on Vancouver Island was discussed with Mr. Doug Wilson, Senior Program Officer Contaminants Control, Environment Canada, Vancouver, and he was well satisfied with the job and felt CN Rail had complied with all regulations.
CN Rail might have complied with all the regulations, but the people of Lake Cowichan and Youbou were far from satisfied with the way this happened. There are no regulations that apply to protect the health of people or the environment from this kind of spraying.
When I wrote to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), she replied:
Environment Canada provides general environmental advice to the Pesticide Control Act Administrator and specific advice on restrictions to protect the anadromous fishery resource from pesticides. . . .
As you noted in your letter, CNR docs not participate in the formal review process of the province. . ..
With regard to CN's participation in the provincial Pesticide Control Act review process, we have been advised that the British Columbia Ministry of Environment has sent a letter to the president of CN Rail requesting that the railway obtain provincial pesticide use permits. We are not aware of CN's position at this time, but I agree that it would be desirable for CN to participate in the same way as do all other railways operating in British Columbia.
I am not completely happy with the environmental protection legislation in British Columbia, but at least when there is going to be commercial spraying of herbicides on a commercial scale, a permit is required. In order to get this permit, there is an opportunity for public input. People can say where and how this spraying would have negative impact upon them, their communities or their environment. For example, on a 1983 application by CPR for permission to spray a right-of-way on Vancouver Island, the Environment Appeal Board ruled that there were certain areas where the spraying could not take place because it would impact in a negative manner upon some private homes and gardens. Even this minimal protection given by the Pesticide Control Act is British Columbia is not available when the CNR decides to spray.
I have received further correspondence from the Vice-President for the Mountain Region, Mr. R. A. Walker, dated December 12. He said, and I quote:
-we are reviewing the legal implications of obtaining provincial permits as a goodwill gesture on future vegetation control programs.
Goodwill gestures are fine, but the people of my constituency and constituencies right across Canada would like more assurance than just a goodwill gesture. They would like some assurance that they are protected, that the railway does have to conform with at least the minimum standards established by the province.
Voluntary participation is another phrase that has been used. Verbal agreements have been reached regarding better notification. That is not good enough. When we are dealing with health and environmental matters, it is not good enough to depend upon goodwill. Goodwill is often subject to the whims of the person who is in charge. Goodwill can find itself victim to the constraints of a timetable. That is not good enough.
It has been pointed out that the problem of spraying on CNR rights-of-way is only part of a larger problem regarding the federal government properties and the provincial environmental regulations. There is also concern about environmental regulations as they would relate to airports, federal prisons and Department of National Defence establishments. The railways are very definitely the chief culprits, however.
One of the objections that might be made to my Bill which would require that all railways be subject to provincial health and environmental regulations is that the CNR would find itself subject to 11 different jurisdictions. I do not think that is an objection that can stand up. Interprovincial trucking concerns must already deal with different jurisdictions. Certainly the battery of lawyers maintained by Canadian National
April 30, 1985

should be able to figure out what the different jurisdictions require in the way of environmental controls and make sure that the railway complies with those regulations.
A second possible objection to my Bill was suggested by the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard) in a letter to me on December 5, 1984. He wrote:
The question of amending the Railway Act with respect to provincial spraying regulations could involve the whole matter of federal-provincial jurisdiction and precedents for as yet unidentified areas.
It may be true that there is a question of federal-provincial jurisdiction here. I would suggest that the health of the people of Canada is more important than federal-provincial jurisdictional squabbling. I would urge federal and provincial authorities to get together to make sure that this area is covered because it is not covered at present.
A couple of weeks ago, we saw the sorry spectacle in this House of the buck being passed from the federal Government to the provincial authorities when we were dealing with the PCB spill which occurred in northern Ontario. Very luckily, as far as we know, no one was harmed by the spraying that took place last summer in the Cowichan area. We are not aware of any harm that was done to any specific individual, but must someone suffer to the extent that it becomes a national scandal before we are willing to take action?
The basic question I wish to leave before the House this afternoon is, do we have to wait until there is an emergency before we put in place the kind of regulations that will give basic protection to people? On that basis, I would urge Hon. Members to consider the Bill. I think it makes sense that railways operating in a province should be required to conform to the environmental and health regulations established by that province for its citizens and its companies. I urge compliance by all Members of the House.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some interest to the Hon. Member. The subject with which he is dealing, as you will know, Mr. Speaker, being a senior and distinguished Member of the Chamber, is one that has been of interest to Members from all sides of the House for a number of years.
The Hon. Member is to be commended for bringing the matter forward at this particular point in time. Our concern in a topical sense with respect to dangerous products has been heightened in recent weeks by a near disastrous incident which occurred in northwestern Ontario. It is therefore appropriate that we are now speaking in a broad and general way of a measure which would indeed require the railways to take some cognizance and be aware of the environmental and other concerns as they relate to the provincial authorities in this country. I know from the Hon. Member's past participation in matters in this Chamber that his interest is perhaps broader than that which is defined specifically by his proposed amendment to the Railway Act.
Section 219 of the Railway Act presently reads as follows:
Every company shall cause thistles and all noxious weeds growing on the right-of-way and upon the land of the Company adjoining the railway, to be cut
Railway Act
down or to be rooted out and destroyed each year, before such thistles or weeds have sufficiently natured to seed.
Earlier today during the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, we dealt with a piece of legislation that was introduced and passed by this Chamber in 1919. The fact that that piece of legislation has lasted for 66 years remains something of a testimony to the drafters of that legislation. Here I am referring to the Aeronautics Act. Surely the section I have just read needs the attention of this Chamber that has been occasioned by the Hon. Member's amendment.
Further to that, Section 220 reads:
The company shall at all times maintain and keep its right-of-way free from dead or dry grass, weeds and other unnecessary combustible matter.
We must recognize that the Railway Act has been in force for a number of years. The historical concern regarding that section was related to fires caused on the right-of-way by sparks falling into the underbrush from hot boxes, seized wheels and so on. The philosophy behind the section was one of weed control, and in past years that has been dealt with in a labour-intensive fashion, specifically by digging up and burning the offending bush.
In the last three decades, there has been a growing use of chemicals by the railway companies to meet the requirements of Section 219 of the Act. During the same period of time, there has been an increased awareness of the effects of chemicals on the environment and on the health of people and animals in areas where these chemicals are used. There are no provisions in the present Act to regulate the use of chemicals and it seems valid that the Act should be amended accordingly.
I do not mean to presume on what the Hon. Member has specifically put forward in his amendment, but implicit in it and clear to all of us is that his intention is much broader. The railways operate in all provinces and if, as this amendment proposes, they are to be required to comply with the statutes of the provinces in which the chemicals are being used, then there must be a mechanism whereby the railways can be exempted from particular portions of the provincial legislation which is unnecessary, unreasonable or inconsistent with the Railway Act. This mechanism should be embodied in the amendment.
We must have an appreciation of the existing pertinent federal and provincial legislation which impacts on this issue and we must examine this with some care and thought. Any amendments to the Railway Act with respect to this matter should be made in the light of the details of all such legislation. If it is proposed by the Hon. Member to amend Section 2 of the Railway Act which, incidentally, covers the definitions of words and terms used throughout the Act, I would suggest that the proposed amendments are ill-suited to Section 2 and would be better dealt with elsewhere in the Act.
In the fall of 1984, the Hon. Member wrote to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) and to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), in some detail and with some thoughtfulness, with respect to this issue. The Minister

April 30, 1985
Railway Act
of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard) replied that the subject would be taken under advisement in the context of the national transportation policy and legislative review that was being conducted by the Department.
The Minister of the Environment informed the Hon. Member that the CNR does not participate in a formal provincial review process. However, CN Rail does submit a summary of all herbicide spray proposals to the Environmental Protection Service.
Further, Mr. R. A. Walker, Senior Vice-President of CN Rail, informed the Hon. Member on December 12, 1984, that there would be a review of the matter of vegetation control and that a resolution would be arrived at prior to the 1985 program being initiated. Once again, 1 am drawing the attention of Members to the pertinent information which has been conveyed with respect to the subject matter of the proposed amendment. As recently as today, Mr. Walker informed the Minister's office that CN is voluntarily complying with the appropriate provincial legislation. I understand that contracts for such work are issued and that they stipulate compliance with provincial legislation.
There is another point which I would like to discuss, given this rare and very welcome opportunity. Perhaps it is not intended within the scope of the Hon. Member's motion, but I think it should be on the record. If the intent, or partial intent, of the amendment is to impact on employees under, for example, Part IV of the Canada Labour Code, I would dare to caution the House that that could have a detrimental effect on the Government's objective of ensuring uniformity in the protection of the safety and health of all employees working in undertakings which are within federal jurisdiction. The amendment which is proposed by the Hon. Member could have legal ramifications far beyond the area of clearance of the right-of-way. That is, it would obviously affect the question of the health of employees, for example, those employees involved in the construction and maintenance of rail lines, or in the removal of stations and facilities which are no longer in use. If the intent is only to apply provincial laws to the use of chemicals for clearing the right-of-way, it would be more appropriate to amend Section 219 of the Railway Act-which refers specifically to the question which is implicit in the proposed amendment-using Section 210 of the Railway Act as a mode. The latter section has been in existence for many years and provides a mechanism by which provincial drainage laws can be applied to railways. It would seem that the concern of the Hon. Member is very analogous to this situation, and an amendment to Section 219, along the lines of what is already contained in Section 210, would be appropriate. As I do not believe that that is the intent of the Hon. Member, I shall not dwell on that point further.
On the whole, the Government recognizes the merit of the Hon. Member's suggested amendment. It is certainly well-intentioned and it seeks to enact a greater common good. It is the philosophy of this Government to recognize such Private Members' Bills, whether they be from government or opposition benches. Indeed, it gives me pleasure, as Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport, to be in the position in which I can co-operate with the Hon. Member.
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) has taken the step and moved this amendment. For many years when I was a back-bencher in the Opposition I was not able to do that because of the intractability of the then Government. Very seldom in my experience in this Chamber have opposition Members been able to have the subject matter of their private Bills referred to the appropriate standing committee for review and consideration. Indeed, with respect to transport, some Members of the Chamber will be aware that for 15 years I attempted to take the regulatory branches of transport away from the responsibility of having to investigate accidents and incidents which occur within the ambit of that regulatory body. There is a conflict if one judges one's own work. I put forward a great idea. A series of Ministers of Transport agreed to it over a period of years. Indeed, I was successful in having the Bill discharged and the subject matter referred to the standing committee. But what happened? It died.
That is not the attitude of this Government. The subject matter of the proposed amendment to the Railway Act is serious. It requires consideration and action by the Standing Committee on Transport. With some pleasure, if it meets the approval of the Hon. Member, 1 will move an amendment. Accordingly, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-229, an Act to amend the Railway Act. 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 Transport."
I do so in the hope that it will have the support of the House.
In closing 1 would like to commend the Hon. Member for his thoughtfulness and concern. It is a concern which, I believe, is shared by all Members of the Chamber. I hope the standing committee will give its full consideration to it and report back to the House in due course.


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


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the House has seen fit to adopt the amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall) and that the Bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport for a consideration of the subject matter of the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. We are not debating the amendment. Does the Hon. Member want to speak on the amendment? It has not been adopted as yet. It has been proposed.


Howard Edward Crosby: I understood it had been adopted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane).
April 30, 1985


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have a chance to address the legislation which has been proposed by the Hon. Member. It is also refreshing to see that Hon. Members in this House feel encouraged to prevent their Private Member's Bill and that the Government takes it very seriously when a private Member has a concern he would like to bring to the attention of the Parliament of this country. It is nice to see that our past performance in this regard has encouraged this Hon. Member to put forward his ideas in the form of Bill C-229. All too often in the past, the initiatives of back-bench Members of Parliament have been relegated to a secondary status in such a way that it has not encouraged people to put forward their ideas, so I am pleased to be part of a Government which does encourage back-bench Members and private Members to draw their concerns to the attention of the House of Commons.
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) has proposed in Bill C-229 to make all railway companies under the jurisdiction of Parliament comply with provincial laws in respect of health and environment. This could be accomplished by amending Section 2 of the Railway Act.
From what I understand of the background of this situation, the Hon. Member is concerned with the defoliant spray program conducted by the railways on their tracks. This is evident from the correspondence received from the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), the vice-president of the mountain region of CN, and also from the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard) to which the Hon. Member referred. The purpose of the amendment, I believe, is to require the railways to seek provincial authority for any spraying which takes place on rights-of-way and to comply with the environmental and safety standards of our provinces.
I represent a constituency which for many years has relied a great deal upon the existence of the railway and its compatibility with the surrounding community. I can very much endorse the principles of Bill C-229 and also express my concern about the use of defoliants along the railway tracks and the effect that that may have upon adjacent communities.
Certainly, as a member of the Standing Committee on Transport who had an opportunity recently to visit western Canada and to follow the railway through the Rocky Mountains as it went beside the Fraser River and the Thompson River, I do share the concern of western Canada that the defoliant spray should be used with prescribed guidelines so that we do not put into jeopardy the vegetation which exists along these tracks. Certainly, with the close proximity of the railway tracks to rivers in the western part of the country, we must all be concerned with the effect of chemicals upon our river systems and the areas they service.
Section 219 of the Railway Act requires railways-as the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) mentioned earlier-to eliminate on an annual basis thistles and noxious weeds on its right-of-way and upon lands of the company adjoining the railway. Chemicals have been utilized by the railways on an increasing basis over the last 30 years to meet the requirements of Section 219. During the same time,
Railway Act
the public has become increasingly aware and concerned about the effects of chemicals upon the environment. There is no question but that the public has every right to be concerned as we look at a number of incidents which have happened in our country where perhaps there was not due care exercised or attention paid to existing legislation with regard to chemicals and their effects upon our environment. There are no provisions in the Railway Act at present to control the use of these chemicals. I would concur with the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands that appropriate amendments are necessary and possibly long overdue.
There is, however, Mr. Speaker, a serious concern with the drafting of this legislation. While it seems clear that the Bill is aimed at limiting environmental impairment, the reference to the protection of health in Bill C-229 would require compliance by the railways with provincial occupational safety and health statutes. While the Bill appears very basic and straightforward in its drafted form, there are a number of ramifications with which we must concern ourselves. However, I do not believe that is the desired result of the Hon. Member's Bill. In fact, from listening to his address I believe that he is primarily concerned with the effect that the kind of spray used by the railways would have upon the adjacent areas and the people who would be in contact with it. I think his concern is to make sure that existing provincial legislation, as it applies to these defoliant sprays, is applied to the railways as they attempt to conform with the provisions of Section 219.
The field of occupation safety and health relative to the rail industry is covered by federal statutes, and the danger of the proposed legislation is that it would unintentionally permit the entrance of provincial legislation which may or may not be compatible. I think all Hon. Members would agree that it would be chaotic to have ten different provincial safety and health statutes incorporated into the Railway Act. By the very virtue of our railway system in Canada, particularly as it applies to Canadian National-which, of course, travels right across the country-it would be extremely difficult for those attempting to maintain the railway tracks to be cognizant of each and every borderline between the provinces and the various regulations which would apply with regard to the operation of the railway in that particular area.
I respectfully suggest to my colleagues on both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed amendment to Section 2 of the Railway Act does not meet the legislative goals of the Hon. Member. If my colleague is specifically seeking to protect the public and the employees of the railway against the residual effects of weed spraying on the railway right-of-way-which I believe is what he is intending to do-then I believe the course of action should be to amend those sections of the Railway Act which address this position.
Rather than take a position today by which the Bill would be set aside, I would concur with the amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport that it be set aside and the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport. The present Section 219 of the Railway Act which deals with the control of thistles and

April 30, 1985
Railway Act
noxious weeds was written long before chemical control of weeds was practical and before the intense public awareness of the difficulties which may arise as a result of not having proper legislation with regard to the application of these chemicals.
I do agree that because of the length of time that Section 219 has gone unamended, it may be the right time now for a revision of Section 219. The best way for us to deal with that and, hopefully, zero in upon the issue brought forward by the Hon. Member, is to endorse the amendment so that the material could be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Transport, which would take a look at the intent of the Hon. Member's Bill as well as at the ramifications which might result if Bill C-229 were forwarded in its present state.
1 would be pleased as a member of the Standing Committee on Transport to have an opportunity to look this material over and to attempt to recommend some adjustments which could be made with regard to the legislation so that the true intent of Bill C-229, as put forward by the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, can be adopted and put into effect. In that way, the desired effect of his concerns would be handled through the Standing Committee on Transport for eventual report to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. 1 believe there was a little misunderstanding between the Chair and the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby). I am sure he has a few words to contribute to this debate. I recognize the Hon. Member for Halifax West.


Howard Edward Crosby: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, there was a kind of misunderstanding. So to put the matter in perspective, may I precede my remarks by reviewing the technical process and procedure which we experienced in the House of Commons today, as I understand it.
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) has moved by way of motion the second reading of his Private Member's Bill, Bill C-229, an Act to amend the Railway Act. In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall), the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, proposed an amendment the result of which is to refer the subject-matter of the Bill, namely, the health hazards involved in railway rights-of-way and related matters, to the Standing Committee on Transport. I think that that is the eventual appropriate disposition of this matter. I realize that Your Honour has called the motion put forward by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, but it has not yet been put to the House so we are in the discussion stage. I merely want to make a few remarks by way of discussion of both Bill C-229 and the proposal made by the Parliamentary Secretary.
Let me begin by saying in a sort of personal way that I have no difficulty in recalling Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands. In case I say anything that the Member may not find acceptable, I want him to know that there is nothing personal in it; 1 have visited his riding and I know from whence the name comes because in travelling along the highways of Vancouver Island-he can correct me if I'm wrong

I encountered an old sign post that had three pieces in the form of arrows, one of which said Cowichan, one of which said Malahat, and the third of which said The Islands. So if you happen to be in Vancouver Island and see that sign post, you will know where Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands is located. So 1 was proud to be in that constituency and I know it is a very important part of the Province of British Columbia, which brings me to my first point, and that is that in the Bill before the House the Member proposes that the Parliament of Canada ought to incorporate by references health and environmental protection laws of the provinces of Canada, including the Province of British Columbia. But I point out to the Member and to other Members of the House that this is a risky proposition because across this country, if there is one thing we lack it is uniformity in provincial laws. And if the Member wants an example, or any Member wants an example, let me talk about the spruce bud worm which is involved as a plague in some areas and apparently as an animal to be carefully protected in other areas of Canada notwithstanding the damage that it wreaks on our forest.
So if you consider the laws of the Province of Nova Scotia that under certain circumstances allow spraying for spruce bud worm in order to protect our important forest resource, and compare them to the laws of some other provinces like the Province of New Brunswick that exclude any kind of infliction of death or other serious damage on our friend the spruce bud worm, you can get that kind of serious difference. So, to use an old expression, you're buying a pig in a poke when you make provincial environmental and health laws applicable to a matter under federal jurisdiction.
So 1 would say to the Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, with no malice intended, that if there is an evil that exists and you want to protect the public against that evil, then you should take the time and the trouble to enact a law that will accomplish that end, and not simply grasp at straws by making provincial laws of unknown and uncertain origin and content applicable. So while I think that the Member's motives are surely honourable and intended to be a protection to the public and to those who may come in contact with the dangers that exist on railway rights-of-way and other railway property, 1 think that if you are going to accomplish the desired end you have to be more careful in the means and methods that you choose to reach that end.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, let me say that incorporation of laws by reference is always a dangerous course to follow. When you are talking about an evolving and developing field like health and protection, health protection and environmental laws, you are on an even more uncertain course of action. So I do not think this is the course of legal action that is acceptable to the House of Commons. It is not an acceptable method of legislative enactment, and 1 think that the much wiser course is the one proposed by the Parliamentary Secre-
April 30, 1985

tary, that is, a reference of the subject matter to the standing committee. I hope that disposition will be acceptable to the Member.
In his presentation to the House of Commons, the Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands made specific reference to the dangers that exist on the railway rights-of-way and spoke of the exposure of young children especially to toxics and poisons that might have been used in controlling foliage on rights-of-way. I would like to address some remarks very briefly to the continuing danger that exists with respect to railway rights-of-way. I would put higher on the list of priorities for actions not the toxics and poisons that might be used but the every-day danger of railway crossings, level crossings, that still exist across Canada. We have not changed for decades the law that controls railway level crossings and every day, in fact this very week unfortunately, there are tragic accidents. In the constituency of my colleague from New Brunswick, in Fundy-Royal, just the other day there was a tragic accident that involved a young boy who was walking along the railway tracks while listening to a Walkman. And of course this use of a Walkman interfered with his hearing. He was apparently unable to hear an approaching train, and even though the engineer responsible for the train saw the boy, knew that he had a Walkman in place and that his hearing was obscured, he could only react by blowing the whistle and attempting to apply the brakes unsuccessfully. The collision occurred and, unfortunately the boy was killed.
1 could recite many other similarly tragic incidents. Just this summer, during July and August of this year, we had a tragic accident in my constituency in the village of Kinsac where young children at play after a while take the rail level crossing for granted, so to speak. That is, it becomes so much a part of their playground that they fail to realize that from time to time trains pass. They take no precautions because of the lack of traffic and then fail to notice the approach of a train, with tragic results as in that case in the village of Kinsac this summer. I am sure other Members could recite similar tragedies, and they will occur today, tomorrow and in the months hereafter unless some specific action is taken.
Certainly it is a costly matter to provide a solution to this kind of problem, but how do you measure that kind of cost against the tragic loss of life that we have experienced in all provinces, in all parts of Canada, as a result of railway crossing accidents? So if the Parliament of Canada is going to address the problem of safety on railway rights-of-way, if that ought to be and it is properly the concern of the House of Commons, then let us get at the big problems, let us not just get at the esoteric problems that may or may not occur, and particularly may occur at only parts of times of the year, but let us get at that day-to-day problem right across this country, the dangers that exist on railway crossings.
I say to the Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands that I do not mention that by way of criticism. I just mention that by way of the fact that there is a big job to be done, so that perhaps when the Transport Committee accepts the reference, which I hope the House of Commons will make today, it
Railway Act
will consider the broader problem of safety on railway rights-of-way right across the board, not simply with respect to health hazards but with respect to all aspects of safety.
Let me just talk for a minute about the progress of the Canadian railway companies, that is to say those institutions that are in business for Canada, as the Canadian National Railways ad said, and just what they are doing, because I think the Member has accomplished one purpose in presenting this Bill C-229, and that is, to focus attention on what the railway companies are doing across Canada, what progress they have made. I will give you a good example, Mr. Speaker. The Saturday newspaper in the City of Halifax always carries a column "Thirty Years Ago Today". This past Saturday that column referred to a remarkable event that took place 30 years ago, and that was the institution of the Ocean Limited travelling between the City of Montreal and the City of Halifax. It was described as a hotel on wheels that only took 21 hours to transverse the distance from Halifax to Montreal. Do you know what the Ocean Limited takes today, 30 years later, in 1985, to transport itself from Halifax to Montreal? The same 21 hours, and on bad days, much longer. That is progress in the railway business in Canada. That is a company that is in business for Canada. It took 21 hours for this hotel on wheels to travel 700 miles in 1955 and in 1985 it takes a little longer, accounting for more and longer stops along the way. That is railway progress. It is present in the trains and in the situations which exist on the railway rights-of-way. We still have the dangers that exist on level crossings and other places.
If the Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands is reminding the House that Canadian railways, and in particular the Canadian National Railways, have not progressed a great deal in the last three decades, then his point is well taken. We have certainly seen a lack of progress. The same old trains are chugging back and forth between Halifax and Montreal. I know that efforts have been make to improve the rolling stock, but the fact is that the methods have been substantially unsuccessful. The result is that Canadians no longer use the train, which is one of the most important and effective means of transportation everywhere in the world except Canada. This is a progressive country. We have all kinds of technology. We are participating in outer space activity. We are very proud of the Canadarm attached to satellites, but it still takes 21 hours to get from Halifax to Montreal by train. The progress which we have made has certainly not been reflected in railway activity.
Members of Parliament who are interested in transportation generally ought to take a closer look at the Canadian National Railway and other railways operating in Canada. 1 hope the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Transport, will be the beginning of a re-examination of the very practical aspects of the operation of railways in Canada, particularly the Canadian National Railways.

April 30, 1985
Railway Act
I know that other Members want to make some remarks. 1 will not take up any more of the time of the House of Commons. Thank you again for recognizing me the second time around. I do not mind. It is all in the interest of progress in the House. I hope the Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands will take the proposed amendment in good faith and that we can proceed and progress from here.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish that the subject matter of this Bill were not constrained to the Transportation Act. Unfortunately, man has had to depend upon science for a great many purposes, one of which is to eat. We sometimes lose track of the fact that without chemistry, physics, and science we would not be able to produce enough food on this continent to eat. We are therefore dependent upon the scientists of mankind to deliver to us the ways and means of effecting a lot of services, including the production of our food. We need it in the forest protection program, as has been mentioned by my friend from Halifax. We need it in agriculture and we need it very badly in the processes which are discussed in this Bill, namely, keeping the right-of-way clear of debris, weeds, et cetera. We need it in the home if we do not wish to live with flies. We need it throughout our entire life.
It is unfortunate that very often we have been deprived of the use of certain scientific inventions and creations by virtue of the objections of some extremists in this world who have the proper motives. That motive is, of course, the better safety of mankind. When one responds to an extremist-and 1 am not referring to the Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands at all-we do lose something which we need very badly. We have made a great deal of progress in the application of pesticide. What we still need in the worst way is a proper testing method which will establish the fact that a particular chemical is indeed safe if applied in a particular fashion and in particular concentrations.
When this subject matter goes to the Transport Committee, 1 would hope that all those in favour of that move would broaden their thought, not only as it applies to the right-of-way, but as it applies to household, farm, and forest use of pesticides. We have lost the use of chemicals which might have been very profitable for us to use. In some instances, we have lost the use of a pesticide due to a single accident by an applicator of pesticides who did not read the label or prepare the proper concentration. He may have sacrificed his own life through his carelessness. I agree that that is not good. However, we do not know what method we should be using for application. At the scientific forestry level we do not know what droplet size is safe and practical for the application of a pesticide. Today we have mechanical means by which we can apply pesticides with virtually no possible drift. However, these methods are not generally in use. If they were in use with most of the pesticides presently being used, we would not be concerned about the drift to other areas.
The cost of manpower to eliminate the pests in various rights-of-way is prohibitive. We must, therefore, look at a safe method by which this can be done through pesticide use. I
would appeal to the Member to have that subject matter expanded to study the chemical, the diluent and the mechanical method of application. Can we bring to the conscience of Government the fact that we just do not have the knowledge that we need for safe pesticide use in Canada for the betterment of the entire human race?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It has been moved by Mr. Forrestall, seconded by Mr. Crosby:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-229, an Act to amend the Railway Act, 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 Transport.'*
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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. Paproski):: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 45. On March 26 in the House I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) if he intended to have the tragic plight facing many Jews living in Russia on his agenda when he visited Russia. I was assured by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that, yes, he did
April 30, 1985

intend to raise this important issue. Further, he had the benefit of consultations and briefings with many leading members of the Canadian Jewish community.
There are now approximately 1.8 million Jews living in Russia, some 350,000 less than in 1970. However, only 896 Jews were able to emigrate in 1984, the fewest in number since 1970. So far this year the emigration rate is almost non existent. In 1979, 51,320 Jews emigrated from the Soviet Union. Clearly there has been a deliberate reduction in the number of Jews allowed to emigrate since 1980.
The Jewish community in Russia undergoes many forms of merciless harassment. This harassment impacts on their daily lives physically, culturally, mentally and spiritually. Many Jews have been denied family reunification. Some 20,000 "refuseniks" who have applied for exit have had their visas denied. After a "refusenik" applies to leave, it seems that he often is routinely dismissed from his job. Some have had their children expelled from college, some have been arbitrarily arrested and some have had their personal property confiscated.
What can we do about this situation as Canadians and Members of Parliament? I suggest that we can organize. Certain steps have already been taken, one being the formation of the Canadian Parliamentary Group for Soviet Jewry. I recently had the honour to be nominated to serve on the executive of that committee. There are a total of 273 Members of the House of Commons and the Senate who are a part of that group.
Some of the activities which have occurred recently include a delegation a few weeks ago to visit the Russian Embassy here in Ottawa. Not too long ago, the President of our group, the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), and several other Members of Parliament visited Russia to see and hear first hand some of the actions that have been taken there and to investigate this widespread harassment.
Another step that we can take is to communicate with individual "refuseniks." I have personally adopted a "refusenik". His name is Simon Shnirman. He is 28 years old and is a metallurgist. He was arrested on October 1, 1983, when he refused a call up to the army because he was intending to emigrate. I recently wrote to his wife, Leah Shnirman, to introduce myself. They have a young daughter and are very concerned that Simon's sentence of three years could be increased due to alleged "breaches of camp regulations". I do not believe that Simon has even seen their young daughter. Many concerned Canadians have also adopted "refuseniks". Representatives of 35 countries are holding a human rights conference here in Ottawa, beginning on May 7. They are planning a six or seven week conference. This meeting, which includes Russian representation, is the first meeting devoted exclusively to human rights.
These countries signed the 1975 Helsinki Accord in which it was stated, "Participating states will deal in a positive and humanitarian spirit with the applications of persons who wish
Adjournment Debate
to be reunited with members of their family". The Soviets are clearly not abiding by this agreement.
The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs recently said in the House of Commons that Canadian officials would pursue the issue of discrimination against Jews in Soviet bloc countries at the conference. He went on to say that there were a variety of ways in which cases could be raised, both generally and specifically, in formal sessions and in the corridors. He also stressed that he would give his commitment to find ways to raise individual cases with the Soviet Union and with others in a way which would lead to a successful conference.
We know that anti-Jewish propaganda has been increasing recently in Russia. There exists an anti-Zionist committee which uses its title to spread anti-Semitism. As well, an hour long documentary has been shown on Leningrad television which equates "refuseniks" with anti-Soviet behaviour. The anti-Zionist committee has been given widespread media coverage in its claims that Hebrew teachers and cultural activists are spies, criminals and traitors.
In closing, I stress that Canada has a unique role to play in dealing with this type of harassment and lack of basic freedoms. 1 applaud the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs for his leadership in this regard. I believe many of us, both in the House and in the Senate, have a real job to do and indeed a real obligation in this respect.


Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) for his concern and for his dedication to a cause which is dear to almost all of us. I had the pleasure of sitting at the same table as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and Mr. Gromyko when the discussion took place. All of us would have been proud of the dynamism and force with which the Secretary of State for External Affairs raised the issue of human rights, Jewish human rights, and family reunification. Even when he was told that it was a domestic matter, he continued to pursue it. He said how it would affect the perception of Canadians in terms of how they feel about the Soviets. We just kept pursuing the issue. The cases of people like Shcharansky and Sakharov were raised on three different occasions that day. The Secretary of State for External Affairs told them how much we wanted Mr. Shcharansky freed.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs went to the Soviet Union in the first week of April with a number of objectives in mind. Among them was his desire to develop lines of communication with the new Soviet leadership in order to discuss the full range of Canada's bilateral interests with the Soviet Union. High among those interests are our humanitarian concerns. In this context, the Secretary of State for External Affairs raised the issue of Soviet Jewry.
This Government views the situation of Jews in the Soviet Union in light of the commitments undertaken by the Soviet

April 30, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Union as a signatory to various international agreements on human rights, including the Helsinki Final Act. The Government has also sought to reflect democratic values of the Canadian people. It is for this reason that Canada considers respect for human rights as an important factor in our relations with the Soviet Union.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs raised the issue of Soviet Jewry during his meetings with Soviet leaders. He informed them of the importance Canadians attach to the respective human rights. He urged the Soviet authorities to allow the emigration of Soviet Jews. He stressed, in particular, Canada's hope for the release of Anatoly Shcharansky, and he raised the case of Mr. Sakharov as well.
This Government will follow up by promoting respect for human rights already guaranteed in international instruments bilaterally with the Soviet Union and other countries, and multilaterally through the United Nations and the Helsinki process, notably at the meeting of CSCE Experts on Human Rights, now taking place in Ottawa, the first CSCE meeting to take place outside Europe and the first devoted to human rights.


HEALTH-TESTING OF TOXIC HORMONE TO CONTROL COCKROACHES
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, on April 19, I directed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) in connection with what steps the Department was taking to test a low toxic hormone called hydro-prene, which is being used very effectively in the United States for the control of cockroaches. At that time the Minister indicated he was aware of the fact that the Department was testing hydroprene, but he had no up-to-date information as to when those tests would be completed or when it was likely that hydroprene would be accepted for sale in Canada.
This particular subject, while it may appear somewhat peculiar and unusual to be debated in the House of Commons, is certainly a subject that is of high interest to the people of this country, particularly to apartment dwellers. Anyone who has served on a municipal council is well aware of the problem that roaches cause for the people who live in apartment buildings. In the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, where I am from, approximately 50 per cent of the people who reside in the city live in apartments. In my constituency, something in the neighbourhood of 61 per cent of the people live in apartment buildings. This subject is of particular concern to apartment dwellers.
The problem is that cockroaches are great disease carriers and a health hazard to all Canadians, in fact, to all people around the world. Roaches are terrific breeders. One female roach produces something like 500 eggs in the space of one year and, therefore, multiplies exceedingly quickly. This means that these little bugs are carrying a great many diseases to all of us. It does not matter whether or not we are good housekeepers, they are transmitted very easily.
In Metropolitan Toronto it is claimed that most cockroaches are transmitted by people riding the transportation system. If you sit on a bus or subway train, you may well come in contact with an insect of this variety. It attaches to the clothing, you carry it home and infect the entire household.
This sort of problem is particularly acute in apartments where there are so many people and so many units. This kind of insect is transmitted very easily through all of the cracks and crannies that develop in an apartment building, or any residence for that matter. In the past and at the present time we have tried to control this by the use of pesticides.
I was interested to hear the discussion in Private Members' hour relating to pesticides and the problems in testing them. The two pesticides that have been used extensively in controlling cockroaches is dursban and diazinon. Both are used extensively in spraying to kill roaches, but unfortunately the roaches have become immune to this kind of spraying. They seem to thrive on it, whereas it has bad effects on human beings. Another method that is used, because they come through cracks and nooks and crannies, is caulking materials and the use of fossilized shavings in order to block the cracks to prevent their transmission.
All of these things having been said, nothing seems to be working. The problem becomes more and more acute all the time. It is wonderful to learn that in the United States there is a hormone, hydroprene, that is being used, not as a killer, but as a method of birth control for the male cockroach. It has the effect of very substantially reducing the number of fertilized eggs that are laid by any female cockroach. In that respect, it controls the population and should be a very effective method in solving this problem, not only in the United States but in Canada as well.
The people of this country, particularly apartment dwellers, are looking forward to the introduction of hydroprene on the Canadian market. So far, I understand it is still being tested by the Department of National Health and Welfare, and we look forward to the completion of those tests. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us today when we can expect those tests to be completed so that the people of Canada as well as the people of the United States will have the benefit of the use of this hormone in controlling this very, very terrible pest that has been plaguing us for so many years.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), but I do so with some trepidation-treading where angels fear to rush in.
If I could respond to the Hon. Member, let me advise him that National Health and Welfare does not in fact carry out the mandatory safety tests in order for pesticides to be registered in Canada under the federal Pest Control Products Act. Notwithstanding that, upon request by Agriculture Canada, the Department had for many years evaluated the potential health hazards of pesticides based on results of safety tests carried out by the manufacturer. These mandatory safety tests
April 30, 1985

normally apply to all pest-control products to be registered for use here in Canada.
In October 1984, Health and Welfare received from Agriculture Canada a data package on hydroprene which lacked several important safety tests normally required for pesticides. In November 1984, the Department advised Agriculture Canada that the applicant should submit the full complement of safety tests normally requested for pesticides. I regret to advise the Hon. Member of this, but so far the Department of National Health and Welfare has received no response to this request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I regret to inform the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that his time has expired.
[ Translation]


TRANSPORT-(A) CONSTRUCTION OF VIA RAIL MAINTENANCE PLANT-GOVERNMENT POSITION. (B) TRANSPORT INDUSTRY'S FRAGILITY IN MONTREAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me this evening. On April 24 last, I asked the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard) a question on the report that was made public very recently by the Office de l'expansion economique de la Communaute urbaine de Montreal, which revealed that the transport industry was showing signs of fragility in the Montreal area. I wanted to know the Minister's views on this subject and what the Conservative Government intended to do precisely to solve this problem. The minister's answer was rather odd. In fact, the Minister began to accuse the previous Liberal government of being the source of all the problems faced presently by Montreal. I would say that in other circumstances such totally unfounded claims would be funny. But considering the difficult economic situation in Montreal, the high unemployment rate in the transport industry, I think the Minister should look at his files and make a much bigger effort to help the Montreal area.
I would remind him that the transport industry is absolutely essential to the economic health of Montreal, according to the chairman of the executive committee of the City of Montreal. As a matter of fact, the report I mentioned earlier says that in the area of labour, of employment alone, maritime, railway and air transport companies produce what amounts to 69,411 person years in terms of global impact.
The Minister of State seems to think that the previous administration did not do much in the area of transport in Montreal. I will remind him very briefly that a Liberal administration equipped the Port of Montreal with the adequate and modern facilities it has presently, which enable it to be the most important container port in Canada, if not in North America. It was also a Liberal administration which a few years ago purchased Canadair from the American company General Dynamics for some $46 million at the time, which was a fairly large amount of money and which enabled
Adjournment Debate
that company to remain in business. That move enabled thousands of workers of the Montreal area to continue to earn a decent living at Canadair. It also enabled the company to develop, in the Montreal area, water bombers which are used not only in Canada but all over the world, and to develop a very sophisticated and very important airplane, the Challenger.
I could mention the efforts made by our government to help the Bombardier company to purchase the required technology to sign substantial contracts for the construction of the New York and Mexico subways. It is our government which helped some companies such as Pratt & Whitney, Paramax, CAE in the Montreal area to get important contracts in the aeronautic and aerospace fields. Moreover, it was the Liberal government which supported the research of SPAR Aerospace which developed, as you know, the arm used on the American space shuttles. That is a great honour for Canadian technology.
This a series of achievements of the former government which the Minister of State seems to forget.
Finally, I would like to remind the Minister of State that his record is far from wonderful as far as Montreal is concerned. He was the one who announced that the Air Security Board would be moved from Montreal to the National Capital region. He was the one who told us that the construction of a maintenance centre for VIA Rail in Montreal would be indefinitely postponed. He was the one who told us that the trains needed by VIA Rail would not be purchased from Bombardier but from General Motors. And finally, he was the one who announced that the construction of frigates by Marine Industries in Sorel, in the Montreal area, was cancelled.
Now I respectfully submit to the Parliamentary Secretary who will answer me to convey those comments to the Minister of State so that he may become a little more considerate of the aspirations of Montreal.
Finally, I will quote journalist Franqois Roberge who said:
With respect to another issue, that of Mirabel and Air Canada, the Minister of State for Transport, Mr. Benoit Bouchard, has also raised misleading if not vicious arguments to justify his future inefficiency to keep in Montreal the remains of the important air transport industry of Quebec-
It is inexcusable of the Minister to show his ignorance of matters under his responsability while giving up on the issue of the Quebec aeronautic industry which, at first, he attempted to defend-
Mr. Speaker, such is the subject matter of my comments. 1 appeal to the Minister of State to listen a little more carefully to the demands of transport workers in the Montreal area.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, sometimes I have to wonder just where it is that the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) is coming from. He well knows that the Government is faced

April 30, 1985
Adjournment Debate
with a $35 billion deficit, accumulated as a result of the wasteful spending, mismanagement and a total disregard of the taxpayers of the country by the previous Government. Economic recovery in Canada will be achieved evenly, from one end of the country to the other.
The distinguished former Minister knows very well what is going on in Montreal. He knows the role which is being played by Crown corporations. Air Canada, for example, has 40 per cent of its total workforce in Quebec, mostly in Montreal, and it injects close to $800 million in salaries.
The Government's intention is well known. It has no concept whatsoever of interfering with the very prominent role which is played by large active Crown corporations in the continuing development of the City of Montreal.
Montreal is one of the world's great ports. Last year it set records and this year it will set more records. What supports that? What are we doing to make the Hon. Member so upset? The Hon. Member is very much aware of the former Government's intention to remove Transport Canada's Transportation Development Centre. That was kept in Montreal by the


actions of the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) and the former Government under the leadership of the Right Hon. Joe Clark. They kept it there because we are concerned about Montreal.
With respect to the Hon. Member's very specific question, he knows that the development centre will not create new jobs. It will simply be a method of transferring jobs from one centre to another. It will not have the thrust that the Hon. Member is seeking. There is no intention, Mr. Speaker, on the part of this Government to be other than most attentive to the aspirations and hopes of the cities of Montreal, Halifax, Toronto and Vancouver.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 1, 1985