1985-05-01

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the voters of Ontario are shocked to learn that the Premier of their province is using intimidation and threats to win support in tomorrow's provincial election. He told the residents of Simcoe that only by electing Progressive Conservatives would they be assured of getting fair treatment from the Tory Government, if it is to be re-elected, and God forbid it should.
The Premier said that the area which elected two Liberal Members in the last election would continue to be neglected unless it was painted blue. This is inexcusable behaviour for a man who calls himself Premier. It is blatant discrimination and shows the desperate attempts of a candidate who, in the final days of a campaign, has gone from promising to bullying. It brings to mind the behaviour of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he warned that there would be jobs for Liberals only after there was not a single, living, breathing Tory left in the land.
Canadians are in fact protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms against such threats and overt discrimination as we have seen practised not only by the Prime Minister but by the Premier of Ontario. In light of all this, I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) should review these extraordinary threats, and advise Parliament how the constitutional rights which have been given to Canadians, and which the Minister is sworn to uphold, can be fully protected against such threats.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada owes some home owners in Malvern, Scarborough, the price of their homes which they were sold under false pretences. In 1972 CMHC sold land in Malvern, Scarborough, to the Ontario Housing Corporation, land which it knew was seriously contaminated by radioactive waste. CMHC knew
that Ontario Housing Corporation would sell the land for housing purposes, and it did so under a program with the cynical name of "Home Ownership Made Easy".
Unsuspecting families bought these houses and only later learned that they were the owners of a radioactive waste dump. Their children play on contaminated soil, and noxious fumes leak into their basements. Home prices have dropped disastrously. These home owners appealed to their Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan), last fall, but it seems that he has done nothing about this mess.
The previous federal Government cheated these home owners, with or without the connivance of the Conservative Government of Ontario, by concealing the fact that the land was poisoned before it was purchased. I call on the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), who is responsible for housing, to buy out those homes at a fair market price.


REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a situation that has existed for a number of years, and which I find deplorable. I am referring to the tax discounters. The number of Canadians who avail themselves of the services of these discounters has almost doubled in two years. In 1983, 118,000 people used the services of these companies, while in 1984, their number rose to 274,000.
The customers of these discounters are poor people, mothers of single-parent families and welfare recipients. In fact, 64.5 per cent of these customers who must give part of their tax refund to the discounter have a gross income of less than $8,000 per year. We can safely say that the victims of this system are among the neediest in our society.
Furthermore, the 15 per cent interest that may be charged by tax discounters works out to an exhorbitant rate when calculated on an annual basis. In fact, it means that on an annual basis, these organizations may charge up to 90 per cent interest. This should not be tolerated, since Section 305 of the Criminal Code protects Canadians by prohibiting interest rates over 60 per cent, and even that is excessive.
According to the Association cooperative d'economie fami-liale du Quebec, people go to these companies because they

May 1, 1985
cannot wait until they get the money through the usual channels.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the two solutions proposed by this association, which are to abolish this type of service and to repeal the legislation that allows the existence-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am sorry to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the question of Japanese automobile import quotas is far from simple, particularly in the auto parts industry. This problem cannot be solved by a simple percentage formula of letting in just so many Japanese cars each year.
As we all know today, what looks like an American, German, Swedish, French, or Japanese car may contain a variety of parts made in a half a dozen countries. Appearance and name-plate may mean nothing at all so far as origin is concerned. Components for a Renault may be made in Mexico; General Motors products are now manufactured in South America and Japan; Volkswagen is manufacturing parts in Japan as well as Pennsylvania; and Australian Mazda is marketed under the Ford label. This is just a sample of what has become universal practice in the auto industry today.
Because of this, it is somewhat futile to be over-concerned with Japanese auto imports per se. What is really needed is protection for Canadian auto parts manufacturers with a firm policy such as that recommended in the 1983 report of the auto industry task force. Quite simply, exporters of foreign cars to Canada must either buy all of their parts and repair parts in Canada, or they must invest in the assembly of vehicles in Canada. In other words, reduced to the simplest formula, there should be no sale of foreign cars here that do not make available Canadian-made parts. For our own best interests, this is the only possible solution.


HOUSING
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on behalf of the mayors of Quebec's regional and rural municipalities, who like all... Mr. Speaker, there are some people here who are barking, and I wonder if you could ask them to go and bark outside.


An Hon. Member:: They are not barking, they are caterwauling.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on behalf of the mayors of municipalities who are unhappy about the Government's decision to make cuts in the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. The Regional Municipality of Arthabaska is complaining about the Government's cutbacks in the RRAP program-its budget for $412,000 has been reduced to $183,000. The Mayor of Becancour is facing a reduction of 69 per cent. In the Municipality of Bellechasse, they had $540,000, now reduced by $240,000. In Noranda, cutbacks from $140,000 to $81,000, and in the City of Sherbrooke, a reduction of $225,000 on the original $724,000 requested; in Rimouski, a budget of $6.5 million has been cut back by $3.4 million.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask all Members of this House, especially the Members from Quebec and from the regions concerned, to ask the Minister for additional funding to remedy the injustice caused by the new formula introduced by the Minister, which is making Quebec lose $17 million from the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, a program that is very important to improve the quality of our housing-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I would hope all Members of the House would join me in lamenting the tragic passing of the Rhinoceros Party of Canada from Canadian politics.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: This incarnation of cynicism about politics and politicians, a cynicism so often justified by past and present political events, provided our elections with a source of humour that many appreciated, with the exception, in my experience, of Marxist-Leninists and Tories, who share the same psychic inability to laugh at themselves.
Perhaps the greatest legacy of the Rhinocerous Party will be its very useful suggestions on reform of the Senate. By turning the Senate into a general lottery, available to all Canadians and not just to Liberal and Conservative political hacks, the Rhinocerous Party showed a true commitment to the democratization of the Senate, albeit in an unusual way, and a true understanding of just how farcical is the current situation.
I am sure the late Leader of the Rhinocerous Party, Dr. Ferron, would understand if we all agreed to appoint him to the Senate posthumously, on the easily met condition that his activity therein not exceed that of the average Senator.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 1, 1985


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in the Northwest Territories there are some one and a third million square miles of land, over 99 per cent of which is owned and controlled by the Government of Canada. With a population of less than 50,000 one would assume that there would be enough land to go around. However, as a result of years of restrictive policy, this is not the case.
Territorial residents find it prohibitively difficult to obtain land for residential, commercial, recreational or agricultural purposes. Oft-times they are forced to leave the North in order to obtain real property, the right to which southern Canadians take for granted.
Although the federal authorities are not solely to blame for this deplorable situation, they must change the left-over policy of the previous Liberal Government.
A new land policy ought to encourage land ownership, not discourage it. It should facilitate land ownership, and not place impediment after impediment in the way of Canadians who want to own a small piece of their own country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 25 last, my riding office staff mailed about 1,000 letters to addressees within Quebec-Est. The letters were picked up at 4.30 p.m. the same day. The morning after, Friday, April 26, five of those letters were returned to the sender with the 9.30 a.m. mail delivery and, on Tuesday, April 30, 125 of those letters came back to me. In most cases, they mention "Left, no forwarding address" stamped on the envelopes. That does not make sense to me and, as an example, Transport Couture, a moving company, has been at the same address for many years and would surely not move without leaving a forwarding address.
Some of the letters came back exactly as they were mailed, that is without any indication. I cannot understand how this could happen, or that a letter sent to South Dakota ended up at the newspaper Le Soleil, a fact I can prove.
All taxpayers, individuals and businesses alike, and Governments must be able to rely on postal services. Mr. Speaker, why should so many efforts to communicate-


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


AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, here is what one could read last week in Quebec City's newspaper Le Soleil:
Farmers chase public employees out of their office.
I quote:
On April 15, 1985, about twenty farmers led by the Agricultural Producers' Union president chased Sherbrooke's Farm Credit Corporation employees out of their office to protest against the new Government guidelines concerning the choice of notaries. They intend to keep the employees out until the Government rescinds the guidelines.
The APU farmers are furious and they have every right to protest against such shameful patronage on the part of the Conservatives.


An Hon. Member:: Scandalous!


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: On their behalf, I urge the Government to reconsider its decision and to treat Canadians with the respect they deserve. The Government ought to review its decision, drop its presidential approach, and stop interfering with the daily life of Canadians while pretending, Mr. Speaker, that it is seeking more favourable interest rates for the agricultural community.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed rate increase by Canada Post came as a blow to Canada's small business sector. In addition to raising the cost of domestic mail, Canada Post proposes to increase the cost of many business-related services. For example, second class advertising rates are to jump 4 cents, large volume rates will go up 4 cents per kilogram, and third class mail will increase between 2 and 3 cents.
If Mr. Warren truly wants to see a more competitive and customer driven Post Office, I suggest he is going about it the wrong way. Instead of placing the burden of past mismanagement on the backs of Canadians, Canada Post should sort out its own problems within the corporation. Mr. Warren should take strong and effective measures to increase productivity and cut costs. The proposed rate increases will hurt Canadians, and Canadians have been paying for the costly mistakes of the Post Office for far too long.

May 1, 1985
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The federal Government has been burying every issue it can which might publicly embarrass the provincial Conservative Party in Ontario. We have received no straight answers for the delay in the presentation of the Budget by the Minister of Finance, for the potential gas tax increases, or for the situation regarding the import quotas on Japanese automobiles.
This morning, from a letter written by Premier Frank Miller to the doctors of Ontario, we learned that we do not have the straight story in this House about secret negotiations between the Province of Ontario and the federal Government on extra billing by doctors. Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why the Government is denying this Parliament the reasons and the facts? Is it to protect the very shaky position of the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Prime Minister-the Leader of the Opposition that-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That might be the best forecast the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to hear, but his future is probably behind him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that he is wrong when he says that there are secret negotiations. He is absolutely wrong. There are negotiations on this basis: after the election of this Government I met with all the Health Ministers and subsequently we have been meeting on the issue of the interpretation of the Canada Health Act, which had not been completed, and the regulations, and we have been meeting on the future of the health care system. I believe that is a responsibility 1 have.
For too long, I think, health care in Canada has been a battle zone rather than a co-operative area between the provinces and the federal Government. So I say to the right hon. gentleman that there are no secret negotiations, but there is very much an approach of co-operation between all provinces and this Government.


POSITION OF ONTARIO PREMIER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Premier Miller has told the voters in the Province of Ontario that he has not made up his mind about extra billing. But in a letter he wrote to the doctors of Ontario he said that
the right to extra bill is a "symbolic principle"-those are his words for "sacred trust"-even for doctors who choose to take part in OHIP. Would the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell us what the Premier of Ontario has said to him in private about his intentions with respect to extra billing? And would he reveal to this House the position of the federal Government with respect to any initiatives which Mr. Miller might take to further extra billing?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do so. First, 1 have had no negotiations with Premier Miller, nor has he asked me to have any negotiations with him. As I said to the right hon. gentleman in my first answer, 1 have been meeting with the Minister of Health for Ontario, as 1 have been meeting with all other Ministers of Health, both in the provinces and the Territories, on the issues which I have already explained.
I want to inform the right hon. gentleman that the Canada Health Act, which was supported by this Party when we were in opposition, and which is the policy of this Government today, does not outlaw extra billing. What it allows for is a withholding of funds if extra billing is continued in the province, or if there are user fees.


AGENDA FOR MEETING OF MINISTERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I, of course, accept the word of the Hon. Minister. However, the Premier of Ontario has been telling audiences that he has been hopefully negotiating the province out of extra billing penalties. He has been saying that quite consistently across the province. He has been writing to doctors that he intends to allow extra billing. Therefore, my question is: why has the topic of extra billing been eliminated from the agenda of federal and provincial Health Ministers for the next meeting of those Ministers on May 16 and May 17?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to ask questions, but it would be much more helpful if those questions were not based totally on speculation, or involved a fishing expedition. May I tell the right hon. gentleman that the issue of extra billing and user fees is an integral part of the Canada Health Act, and that is the first item on our agenda on May 16 and May 17.


REQUEST THAT CORRESPONDENCE BE TABLED
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: the people of Ontario can see what exactly is in store for them after the election tomorrow?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Official Opposition critic that there is no letter to table because no letter has been sent. 1 cannot table something which has not been sent. I do have a copy of the letter from the Premier to the doctors, and what the Premier says in this letter-and this has been the position of the Ontario Government and was the position of the former Government as well-is that doctors negotiate with their provincial Government or through the hospital service if that is the system the province has established. I do not know if he has it, but if he checks the letter the Hon. Member will find clearly that the Premier gives the doctors the right to opt out of OH IP, a position that was accepted by all Parties in the Canada Health Act. So there is no letter to table because there was none received.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Ontario, Mr. Miller, has indicated that he is in the process of negotiating a lesser penalty than that which was stipulated under the Canada Health Act. Why is the Minister now going to back off the principle that he and his Party agreed to under the Canada Health Act when they were in opposition? Will he live up to those responsibilities and protect the interests of Ontario, because we can clearly see that the Premier of Ontario is going to allow extra billing in that province?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again my hon. friend should take a look at what he is asking and what has happened. If he looks at extra billing in Ontario at the end of the first year, which was April 1, he will find that the amount of extra billing today compared with that of a year ago, without any legislation in Ontario, has dropped. The amount withheld per month was based on that first year's calculation of extra billing. Obviously, if there is a reduction in extra billing, as we hope there will be, whether it be in Ontario or other provinces where the same trend is occurring, then the amount withheld would have to be less. That is the discussion we are having, and I say to the Hon. Member that I intend to continue those discussions on Friday with a newly elected majority Progressive Conservative Government of Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PREMIER'S LETTER TO DOCTORS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: I do not know what the Minister has been smoking, but I have a question for him on the same subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Ontario has said that the extra billing fine the people of Ontario are
Oral Questions
paying, which is costing the ordinary people of Ontario about $1 million a week, is not harmful to the medical health system of Ontario. Those are Premier Miller's words. Does the Minister not agree that the system now in place in Ontario, which costs the average person, cumulatively, about $1 million a week, is harmful to that province?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I know what I have not been smoking. I do not know whether it is the Jamaican cigars or the Cuban cigars that he is smoking that are making him ask that kind of question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member may have a bent for a centralized system for everything. Under the Canada Health Act and health care in Saskatchewan, the fundamental principle is for the provinces to have the right of delivery of the system.
The Hon. Member has asked me to express an opinion, but I will not do that. It is the responsibility of the provinces to deal with their doctors and to deliver the system. That is the principle on which I function and the manner in which I will continue.


COST TO PROVINCE OF EXTRA BILLING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a Bill which was brought before the previous Parliament was supported by all Parties precisely because we saw that national leadership was required to deal with certain provinces if we were to maintain a universal system of medicare.
In light of the concern that was expressed in Parliament on the need to maintain a universal system at reasonable cost for the people of Canada, would the Minister consider the outrageous statement made by the Premier of Ontario that $1 million a week is nothing to the people of Ontario? If he thinks it is significant, will he take steps to introduce an escalating system of punishment for a province that does not maintain a low cost and universal system of medicare?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Leader of the NDP probably does not understand this, or chooses not to understand it the day before the election.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Don't be arrogant.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I mean that. I am sure that he would like to get an answer from a federal Minister which would be seen as interference in a provincial system. I will not do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Government would like to see the elimination of extra billing. There is no change in that. During the days of the Diefenbaker Government, when Mr. Douglas was Premier of Saskatchewan, there was a similar

Oral Questions
plan. The only difference then was that you had to withhold all the funds.
If there is going to be a change in Ontario or in Manitoba, where there is also extra billing, let the provinces decide that. We have a Canada Health Act which we supported. The clause which the Member is referring to in his question was rejected by the House when he introduced it last time.


REQUEST FOR DIFFERENT SYSTEM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely true that the clause that I am talking about was rejected before. However, when it was rejected before there was a hope expressed by the Minister himself, when he was on this side of the House, if I remember correctly, that no additional penalty system would be required. Since then the Premier of the Province of Ontario has said that they can go on paying indefinitely without providing the kind of system we think is necessary.
Will the Government now reconsider its position? If the Government of Ontario continues with its process, which is costing the people of Ontario $1 million a week, will the Government of Canada show national leadership by introducing a different system to encourage the Government of Ontario to do the right thing through financial incentives?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to bring the Leader of the NDP up to the present status. The assertion he makes is not correct. In fact, just the opposite has happened. There has now been a move in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick to reduce or eliminate extra billing, depending on the provincial case. In Ontario the percentage is going down. In Alberta the percentage is going down. Therefore the very assertion he makes that it is going up is wrong. I say to him that it might be an issue he would like to raise today, but it does not bear out in truth what has happened in the last year.


PETRO-CANADA DISPOSAL OF CANADA LANDS ACREAGE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Petro-Canada is seeking to farm out vast amounts of acreage it holds in the Canada Lands to other oil and gas companies, regardless of whether these other companies are Canadian or foreign owned. Bill C-15 is doing away with the protection that we had for Canadianization under the Foreign Investment Review Act. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the principle of 50 per cent Canadian ownership by 1990 is still a principle of the Government?
May 1, 1985


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in earlier statements, has been quite clear on the 50 per cent ownership question which the Hon. Member has raised. If he wants to explore that question more fully, perhaps he could do so with the Minister of Energy, upon her return.


CANADIANIZATION OF INDUSTRY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is reported to have said on only one occasion that she favours 50 per cent Canadianization by 1990. At the same time as she was reported as having said that, she also said: "I am not an intervenor; the oil and gas companies know the policy of the 50 per cent requirement of Canadianization". In view of the Government's hands off policy on Canadianization, how can the objective of 50 per cent Canadianization by 1990 be achieved?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member feels that he is confused about any statements issued by the Minister of Energy, he should take my suggestion and talk directly to her upon her return.
As far as the Canadianization goals in Canada are concerned, I think we are making great progress. 1 would invite the Hon. Member to read some of the stories that are coming out about Gulf Canada. He may find that there will be news very shortly concerning a move with respect to that company that, hopefully, will increase Canadianization quite dramatically.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and it concerns the committee of inquiry on Crow benefit payments. The Hall Committee has admitted that it made its recommendation for payment to the producer in spite of the lack of a consensus position among the groups who made submissions and, since this detracts considerably from the credibility of the recommendation, will the Minister assure the House that he will not proceed with legislation implementing this report without looking into the detrimental effects of the recommendation on producers?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I said in my press release yesterday that we intended to seek the views and the opinions of all producer groups and organizations throughout the country. This is a recommendation that has been advanced by the special committee of
May 1, 1985

inquiry that was established under the auspices of the Act. It is a unanimous report. It brings forth a specific recommendation and it should be given serious consideration. But what we really are expecting here is a full, comprehensive debate on the
issue.


COMMITTEE EXAMINATION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has referred ihe report to the Transport Committee. If the Minister expects the Transport Committee to make a judgment on the recommendations in this report, will he ensure that the Transport Committee is provided with all of the studies that were carried out in relation to that recommendation? Will he provide for further study into the detrimental effects of the recommendations?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that will certainly depend upon the decision of the committee about what information they want to seek. In addition to the valuable input of the standing committee, I will be asking the members of the Hall Committee to make themselves available to any group, Members of Parliament, or whoever may want to consult them to get a full briefing, so that there is a clear understanding of the background and recommendations that have been advanced-I might repeat, advanced in a unanimous manner.


FORESTRY
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Forestry. It concerns the budworm infestation which is ravaging millions of acres of our forest stands in northern Ontario. It is approaching the proportion of a national disaster for many communities in northern Ontario.
So far, the Ontario Conservative Government is refusing to make a commitment to save the forests of northern Ontario from this infestation, and establish a proper control program. Can the Minister, who, I assume, is in daily contact with his provincial counterpart, explain why no action is being taken to control this infestation which threatens the very existence of hundreds of communities and thousands of jobs in northern Ontario?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member is aware that the whole question of spraying and protection of the forests is a matter of provincial concern. They have undertaken in no uncertain terms to deal with that on a public basis. They have had tours and displays, and meetings with the public, in order to deal with that particular issue.
Oral Questions
The Minister has stated publicly that the Government will be dealing with that policy and will put it before the public within the next few weeks.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Surely the Minister cannot wash his hands of this matter as easily as that. He was a provincial Minister.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister knows that the time is running out for a decision to be made on this matter. There must be a 30-day lead time for environmental considerations. Surely the Minister would not want to be party to some kind of secret deal in which no decision is made by the Ontario Government.
Will the Minister make a commitment to the House right now, and to the people of northern Ontario, to phone Premier Frank Miller this afternoon and point out the gravity of this matter to him, and urge him to make a commitment today that he will bring in a proper program to control this infestation?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to call the Premier of Ontario on a matter like this. He is certainly aware of the importance of forestry, and he is aware of the importance of spraying in that operation. The Premier and the Minister will make that decision in due course.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. When the Justice Hall Committee process was set in place some time ago, one of the basic economic assumptions was that a change in our Canadian farm policy that would be assisted by changes to the Crow rate would permit beef and pork producers to export products into the United States, Japan, and Korea. This assumption was disputed at the time by some of the leading meat packing industries spokesmen, including Mr. Childs and Mr. Kaumeyer. Since then we have seen the United States implement a tariff of 5.3 cents per pound on hogs, on the assumption that we are subsidizing hogs with the stabilization program.
Given that the assumptions have changed, will the Minister reject both the assumptions and the recommendations from that report and start over from square one?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, First I would remind all Hon. Members that this was a government inquiry that was established under Part I of the Inquiries Act. There were two very important criteria included in the terms of reference which I believe should bear some consideration. One was that the method of payment should be

May 1, 1985
Oral Questions
established in such a way as to be the most conducive toward the growth and development of agriculture throughout Canada.
I believe that the other important term of reference is that the method of payment should not provide for an unfair or disproportionate advantage to sectors of western agriculture relative to other regions of agriculture in Canada. I think it is within that framework that the recommendations have been put forth.
The Hon. Member may want to engage in debate on certain aspects or elements of this very important report and this very important issue, but I would remind him that what we are asking and seeking is a full comprehensive discussion on the pros and cons of this issue. I think, because it was put in the context it was under the Inquiries Act, it merits worthy consideration.


DIRECT PAYMENTS TO FARMERS-UNITED STATES REACTION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister recognize that direct payment to farmers could only be construed by the United States as a subsidy to agriculture? The payment to the railways was at least defensible in that they, the Americans also subsidize their canal and river systems and we could be doing similar things. How do we defend ourselves when we are doing this, given the action that the U.S. has taken?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this particular proposal would apply both to domestic and export grain, and again, as I said, this is one element of the debate. I am sure the Hon. Member will have lots of opportunity to put forth his views and those of his Party. He certainly is entitled to his opinion. I welcome the fact that he is expressing his opinion, as I will welcome all other people who have a view and an opinion on this very important and sensitive issue.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of External Relations. According to a report in the Washington Post, the Ethiopian army, equipped with Soviet made helicopters, burned and evacuated by force a large Ethiopian famine relief camp which was operated by reputable organizations, including World Vision and the International Red Cross.
What representations will the Canadian Government make to ensure that the hapless 52,500 refugees left without water or medical treatment, and forced to walk hundreds of miles, although thousands of them are under five years of age, will receive adequate care and that Canadian assisted centres will
not suddenly be closed down in the same ruthless manner? Irish relief workers at the camp fear that one-half of the walking refugees will perish.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, we have contacted our ambassador in Addis Ababa and, apparently, the reports are probably accurate. We have asked the ambassador to do whatever is necessary to meet with Ethiopian authorities, but it was impossible because May 1 is a statutory holiday in Ethiopia.
As soon as we get more information, we will be in a position to confirm to the House that we continue to help the people involved.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Wow!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: We all know by now the practice of deceit and of broken promises on the part of the federal Conservative Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: We now have a provincial Tory Government resorting to threats and intimidation of the Ontario electorate. I refer you to the statement by the Premier of Ontario that only Tory held seats will be favoured by that Government if elected, God forbid.
In the light of such a statement will the Deputy Prime Minister instruct federal government lawyers to investigate whether such a practice does contravene our Charter of Rights which allows all Canadians, including the Ontario electorate, the fundamental freedom of political association without fear of discrimination? This certainly shows how worn out the Tory organization is in the Province of Ontario.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, obviously it will be polling day tomorrow in the Province of Ontario judging from the allegations that are being made by the Liberal Party across the way. When the Hon. Member speaks of deceit of a political Party, he certainly should know what he is talking about, sitting where he is.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I do not accept his allegations for a moment. Indeed, I think the people of Ontario can expect more of the
May 1, 1985

honest, forthright, good management government that has been given to them by the Conservative Party in Ontario for over 40 years, after the polls have closed tomorrow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: What have you been smoking?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, that attitude just shows that this Government is worn out after a few months.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MEMBERS' INVOLVEMENT IN ELECTION
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the Deputy Prime Minister's response, it is public knowledge that many federal Conservatives, strangely enough, are heavily involved in the Ontario election.


Mr. Dick:: Where were you last Friday?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: 1 am just trying to be kind to them, Mr. Speaker. Let them just settle down a bit. They are a little excited today.


Mr. Nystrom:: Erik looks scared.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: In order to eliminate any suspicion of guilt by association, will the Deputy Prime Minister instruct members of his federal caucus to dissociate themselves totally from the provincial Tories who are practising such blatant political threats, or do they, too, not believe in freedom of political association?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the political health of the country is very important. In response to a question of that nature, I would urge the Ontario members of the Liberal Party to get involved in the election campaign that is going on in their province.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Like last Friday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I really find it exceedingly strange when they speak today and when they did last week about the practices they are so familiar with and that all of a sudden they now find so evil and of sufficient degree to have brought forward a non-confidence motion last Friday at which their own Leader was absent, the Leader of the New Democratic Party was absent-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Erik Nielsen: -and only nine of their 40 Members were here to vote on their own motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


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


Erik Nielsen: Such hypocrisy, Sir, will be seen not only by the people of Ontario but by the entire population of the country.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You should know. You are the expert.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PARLIAMENT
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. Prior to the introduction yesterday of a Bill respecting employer-employee relations in the Senate and the House of Commons, an application supported by over a thousand signed union cards had been made under the Canada Labour Code for certification of those self-same employees. Will the Government consider those signed cards as valid under the new Act which the Government proposes to have passed by Parliament?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I know the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain was at my press conference and was standing there with the rest of the journalists giving a standing ovation after I outlined the provisions of the new Bill to him.
This legislation provides a framework and does away with the confusion that now exists in terms of the legalities with respect to the rights of employees. For the first time it gives to employees on the Hill the ability to organize and bargain collectively. This is a progressive and modern piece of legislation, which I hope will be supported by the Hon. member and his Party.


John Edward Broadbent: Answer the question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is one that was based upon an all-Party draft brought down last year. I hope the Hon. Member will be able to support this legislation because it is important to employees on the Hill.


Ian Deans: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you noticed the answer to my question. I certainly didn't.


SIGNING OF CARDS BY EMPLOYEES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council a supplementary question. The employees to whom the Minister intends to give bargaining rights have already chosen a representative. That representative has made representation under the Canada Labour Code on the right to represent these employees. Over 1,000 of them have already signed cards. Will they have to go back through the process of getting those same people to re-sign in order to comply with this somewhat undermining piece of legislation which the Government has brought forward?

May 1, 1985
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the position taken by the House Leader for the New Democratic Party because this is based upon draft legislation which is put forward by representatives of his own Party. All I can say to him is that in the present context I am sure the Public Service Staff Relations Board will not be oblivious of what has transpired over the past months.
The reality is that we have to put this into context. We have to move forward to allow these people to take their legal rights and to understand these legal rights. I urge the Hon. Member to assist in doing that by supporting quick passage of this legislation. It is for the good of the employees on the Hill, and for the good of the people of Canada that this institution have progressive labour legislation.

[ Translation]


TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and concerns the closing of textile mills.
Last week's newspapers announced that one of the companies whose machinery I installed more than 25 years ago was on the auction block. Three months ago, Tricot Majestic of Saint-Hyacinthe closed its doors, as did the Wabasso Company in Trois-Rivieres. The textile industry is falling off because of a failure on the part of the former Government to provide assistance. Can the Minister tell the House whether he will recommend short-term measures to get that industry back on an even keel?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member from Drummond I want to assure him that the textile industry has been meeting with us as an association, and as well we have met with representatives of the companies within that industry. We are currently working on a plan that we hope will be acceptable to the industry and to the Government, to ensure that some of these problems they have been living with be lessened, if not eliminated completely, in future.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that it is May 1 and we still do not have a date for the Budget. My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. There is a rumour I
have heard to the effect that the difficulty of coming up with a date is the risk of conflict with a Stanley Cup play-off date, if you can believe that, which could occur on either the Tuesday or the Thursday. We have had enough skating on this issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: I see I have the approval of the House Leader. Will the Deputy Prime Minister do the Members of this House a courtesy, and others who have to travel and arrange their plans accordingly, and provide us with a date not later than the end of next week of when the Budget will be handed down?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the Hon. Member's prowess at hockey, he is not one of those about whom the late Foster Hewitt could say "He shoots, he scores!"


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: He knows as well as I do that traditionally in this House the date of the Budget is announced by the Minister of Finance. The Minister said earlier this week that he will be announcing the date of that Budget in the House of Commons. As Hon. Members know, the Minister of Finance is in Bonn with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. No doubt if the Hon. Member puts his question on the return of the Minister of Finance, he will have the appropriate response.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is a pretty good skater as well. The Deputy Prime Minister has also been accused of slashing, if we can continue the analogy. He is the chairman of a committee of members of the private sector charged with producing cuts in programs, appropriately known as the Nielsen committee. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that the full conclusions of that committee, not sanitized, but the full conclusions, which have been paid for by the Canadian taxpayer, will be tabled or made public here in the House, preferably at or prior to the budget date?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I take that as a compliment from the Hon. Member in the sense that he expects the task force on program review to produce a conclusion this month, which amounts to about eight months' time, a conclusion that it took Glassco three years to reach, to perform the work of examining well over a thousand programs. That is simply not possible. I should think the Hon. Member would be very encouraging about the approach we are taking to inject more management and order into the affairs of the country, a task which will take until toward the end of the year to complete in
May 1, 1985

a preliminary way. Certainly he should not be disappointed as we proceed. As I have been doing thus far, we will be making announcements about the results of the task force on program review when they are ready.


SMALL BUSINESS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses. At the pulp and paper plant in Desbiens, a town in the Lac-Saint-Jean area, 125 employees are still waiting for the Prime Minister to keep his election promise to settle the problems besetting this plant, which has been closed for nearly four years. Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows: Two months ago, I asked whether the Government would grant the financial assistance requested by the company and the employees, and today, I ask the Minister to inform the House when he is going to make a decision and whether the decision will be a positive one for these unemployed workers.


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, the Desbiens plant submitted a proposal not long ago. It is now being examined, and as is the case for all proposals received by the Government, we take the time to analyze them, especially those coming from the pulp and paper sector. We are looking at all the implications, and we will make a decision as soon as possible.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ELECTION PROMISE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister said the same thing two months ago in the House. His party and his boss made an election promise last July. Could the minister inform the House today when he is going to take action and do something about this problem, or does the minister intend to break another election promise?


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to break any election promises. We are considering the matter, and as the House is aware-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Considering, always considering-


André Bissonnette: -as you know, the Prime Minister made no formal commitment to start up the plant again-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Bissonnette: -but asked the plant to submit a project. We are looking at this case, and one thing is certain, namely that all job creation projects are considered very carefully, and
Petitions
that this Government intends to create jobs in Quebec the same as anywhere else in Canada.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, an international agreement between Canada and the EEC is being blatantly violated by a member country of the EEC. My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. There are 9,500 tonnes of codfish allocated to the EEC in Area 2J3KL, recognized by international agreement as Canadian jurisdiction, a Canadian resource within and without the 200-mile limit. The West German fleet has already caught three times that quota, and it is still fishing today. What is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans doing about that?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the matter raised by the Hon. Member is serious. I have now received some preliminary information concerning it. I will take very careful notice of the representations of the Hon. Member. I hope I will be able to give him a response by at least this time tomorrow.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that action is being muzzled by those who are staging the Prime Minister's Hollywood production in West Germany today.
Could the Minister verify to the Chamber that he could, if he wanted to, close ports, impose sanctions, or terminate the entire agreement with the EEC? Does the "old pal" attitude take precedence over the fishery of the country?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I could do all of the things the Hon. Member wishes me to do, but until we have a much better and more complete understanding of the facts, it would be completely irresponsible. 1 told the Hon. Member that 1 have now received notice of the problem and that 1 hope that I will be able to respond effectively and in a reasonable way by this time tomorrow.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East

May 1, 1985
Privilege-Mr. McCrossan
(Mr. Ravis) on Tuesday, April 30, 1985, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
I received notice earlier from the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) of an attempt to raise a question of privilege at three o'clock.


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have indicated that I am trying to hear the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River on a question of privilege of which he has given me notice.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I raised a matter with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). The matter I raised now appears to have been confirmed. She had not confirmed the matter yesterday.
The individuals in the program of which she was speaking have in fact admitted that they are receiving substantial amounts of money from the program. It was my opinion that the Minister completely misled the House yesterday and that some definite action should be taken-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There may be a difference of opinion as to the facts but it is clearly not a question of privilege.


MR. McCROSSAN-STATEMENT BY MR. HEAP UNDER STANDING ORDER 21
Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In a statement made before Question Period the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) appears to have misinformed the House concerning my actions on the issue of the removal of the radio-active soil on McClure Crescent in Malvern.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is clearly a dispute as to facts. Is it a question of privilege or a point of order?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: It is-


Mr. Speaker:: It is neither a point of order nor a question of privilege. The Hon. Member has the right to rise tomorrow under Statements Pursuant to Standing Order 21 to make a statement of his own, if he chooses. Does the Hon. Member have a point of order or a question of privilege?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Is it a question of privilege? I am not a lawyer. However, the Hon. Member has misstated my actions without attempting to verify the facts with me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. All Members of Parliament have the right to say what they wish in the House of Commons. That is the privilege of free speech. If the Hon. Member believes that
there is a dispute or that a correction to the record needs to be made, he has the right to rise tomorrow under Statements Pursuant to Standing Order 21 to make his own statement. That is the way it works in a free debating environment.


MR. CASSIDY-ACTION OF RCMP-REMOVAL OF TABLE FROM PARLIAMENT HILL
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. At 2.30 this afternoon, the RCMP removed from Parliament Hill a table at which my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) and myself had been distributing literature about peace yesterday and today. This unusual kind of privilege which allows Members of Parliament to distribute material but not citizens would-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows full well that matters that do not occur in the House during Question Period may not be raised in the House as questions of privilege without giving the Speaker proper notice in writing at least one hour in advance. I appreciate the Hon. Member's interest but the Hon. Member is an experienced Member and he knows that he must abide by the rules.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a legitimate point of order which relates to the matter of House business. In light of the fact that I would like to give notice with respect to the Business of the House as soon in advance as possible, particularly when it involves many days, I rise now to designate Friday as the fourth allotted day in this Supply period. Other Business of the House will be under discussion between House Leaders later this afternoon and I hope to make further announcements during the course of the next few days concerning that Business of the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition on behalf of more than 450 residents from Saskatoon, a majority of whom live in the subdivision of Forest Grove. In the petition, they express their desire for better postal service, and they deserve better postal service. They make representations to the Canada Post Corporation for the establishment of a much needed sub-post
May 1, 1985

office in their new subdivision. This is the second petition concerning the lack of postal service in as many days.


DIVORCE ACT
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Divorce Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

John Carnell Crosbie: for leave to introduce Bill C-47, an Act respecting divorce and corollary relief.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

John Carnell Crosbie: for leave to introduce Bill C-48, an Act to provide for the release of information that may assist in locating defaulting spouses and other persons and to permit, for the enforcement of support orders and support provisions, the garnishment and the attachment of certain moneys payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Investment Canada Act QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to 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).
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I had a few minutes left yesterday when the House was debating the Bill, and particularly the amendments. I was saying how important employment is back home and that we must ensure that this Bill and these amendments do protect our jobs. I was referring to recent riots in our region because people thought or expected that their jobs would be taken away from them. Why riots? Quite simply because there had been no consultation, because the people, the contractors had failed to talk to the workers and discuss the issue with them. Unions and workers were cornered and it was indeed the only means left to them to protest against disappearing jobs. Because machinery was taking jobs away from manual labour, those people reacted violently. I can tell the House that with 2,000-odd people involved, it was not a pretty sight.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is something we might witness again if the House rejects the proposed amendments, with the result that new companies setting up shop in our regions might

May 1, 1985
Investment Canada Act
not have to answer to the people, the Government or even the workers.
Mr. Speaker, those are the reasons why 1 support the amendments. Needless to say, my very first consideration is the protection of jobs in this country, particularly in the Atlantic region with which I am more directly concerned.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Motions Nos. 8, 12, 32, 63, 69, 74 and 75 which have been grouped for discussion. All of the motions deal with making information available to the public and potential business investors in Canada as it applies to foreign investment.
The amendments were put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). They are designed to assure the public's right to know about the activities of foreign investors. As well, we hope to accomplish four or five very basic things which we believe are necessary for business to operate in a proper manner in Canada, in order that all Canadians can feel confident that the investment will in fact be beneficial to the country. The method by which we could determine whether the provisions are being met is through the availability of information. That is the intention of most of the amendments.
In order to ensure that foreign investment is providing a benefit to Canada, we believe it is necessary to be able to perform studies on foreign investment patterns and behaviours. We should be able to research such questions as: What is the nature of the investment? Is it coming from outside Canada, or is the investor using Canadian funds to take over a Canadian company? Is the benefit to the country one of combining existing technology or marketing expertise with an outsider? There are many instances in which combinations could be beneficial both to workers and investors in Canada by establishing a joint venture in new technology or marketing expertise with a company from outside Canada. All Members of the House are aware of instances in which the combining of forces has been beneficial to Canadians.
However, the point which is at issue in these amendments is the question of how to monitor the decisions. How do Canadians or potential investors get information to determine whether the benefits which were espoused in fact accrue to Canadians. We believe that more information should be made available which relates to the performance of foreign business in Canada. That is not something which is beyond dispute. It is a question which many people in business and in Government have wrestled within their own minds.
We all know that Americans have far more access to information concerning investors and business than we do in Canada. Some of the amendments attempt to give Canadians, who are interested in what is happening in Canadian business, a similar kind of access to basic information about the companies. That information is available to interested persons if they
go to the United States and research the companies which have branches in Canada. If a Canadian wants to find out what a particular chief executive officer of a company in Canada is paid, he is more likely to find that information by going to sources in the United States than to sources in Canada. The information is simply not available in Canada. It is basic information and should be made more available to the public.
During the course of this debate we will also be proposing amendments which set out the types of reviewable investment, that is, investments which have resulted in take-overs of Canadian companies. We believe that the rules and the requirements for the company which is taking over should be made more explicit and that the requirements for the provision of information should be made stronger.
In addition, one of the amendments attempts to have undertakings made by the foreign investor to the Agency in exchange for approval. The Agency would then have some bargaining power to extract basic information from the investing company in exchange for permission to invest in Canada. Along with that permission would come certain requirements and undertakings with which the investing company would have to live.
The last set of amendments which are proposed would have the effect of providing a more systematic and public monitoring of approved take-overs to ensure compliance with the undertakings which the investor had given.
The question of secrecy in business is one which is much discussed in Canada. The question of public disclosure and freedom of information has been a very favourable topic in this Chamber. Over the past number of years I have listened with interest to members of the Conservative Party, when they were the Official Opposition, spell out in very clear and concise terms why it is that Canadians should be entitled to more information on government activities, cabinet decisions and decisions which are made by Crown corporations. We submit that decisions which are made by private corporations should also be made available.
That question was put to witnesses who appeared before the standing committee. One witness, Mr. Gorse Howarth, a former Commissioner of FIRA, gave some interesting testimony on the issue. He said:
I recognize as well as anybody does that every business has its secrets and that it would be exceedingly bad for some of those secrets to become known to its competitors, perhaps even to its workers; and, I have even heard it suggested, to its shareholders. But not everything should be secret. Not everything should be placed under this cloak of secrecy. Or, if you do, then there will be the same criticism and there will be the same sense of unfairness.
So it is to correct this potential for unfairness, or sense of unfairness that we are supporting the amendments to the Bill before the House at this time. Former Commissioner Gorse Howarth went on when questioned to say:
-we should encourage, for instance, workers and their unions to come forward and say what they thought about this and how they saw it developing. I do not know whether we were right to do that or not, but we did. I suppose you could
May 1, 1985

rationalize it by saying that anybody is entitled to speak to the Government of Canada-any Canadian certainly.
So that at least one of the individuals, one of the commissioners for FIRA, had some second thoughts about the amount of secrecy which existed under the first legislation. Since the Government has chosen to open up the legislation to some extent; to dramatically reduce the mandate of the old FIRA legislation, and to loosen things up in the Investment Canada Bill we have before us, it is still very important, and I think consistent with the many speeches and protestations from the former Opposition, now Government, that we have introduced into this Bill the kinds of access to freedom of information and extra information which these amendments propose. We would assume that government members would, therefore, support it.
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this further opportunity to take part in a debate that is vital to the future of Canada's economic well-being. 1 see a group of young people here in our visitors gallery, and 1 imagine that, like me, they must realize that we have here in front of us a Government that is losing its grip. We are considering a very important Bill, and out of a majority of 211 Members, only a handful of Members are here in the House to listen to what the Opposition has to say about this important legislation. They have 40 Ministers, the biggest Cabinet in this country's history, Mr. Speaker, and-


Mr. Gormley:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member may be belabouring the Bill unnecessarily, but 1 believe he is also belabouring the Standing Order which would prohibit reference to the presence or absence of other Hon. Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, I have to agree with the Hon. Member. I would hope that the Hon. Member, who has been in the chamber for a few years, would realize that he should not talk about Hon. Members being present or absent from the chamber. I am sure that he will now get back to the amendment.
[ Translation]
The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Chair will consider the time taken by our hon. friend on the Government side and will add it to ours.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


Jean-C. Lapierre: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Instead of getting upset, I think our hon. neighbour should count how many of his colleagues are present, because sometimes they cannot even keep a full quorum in this House. Instead of getting upset about the fact that I was commenting on absences, the Hon. Member ought to make sure there are at least enough Mem-
Investment Canada Act
bers present to make a quorum. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the Minister who just woke up, because I hope he is going to listen and realize that the Bill definitely needs the amendments proposed by Opposition Members.
Mr. Speaker, we are asking to have the information made public. That is not unreasonable. In fact, we are asking this for the sake of our Progressive Conservative colleagues, because we know that when decisions are made, as was the case recently, and they do not have to look so smug, Mr. Speaker. 1 am sure the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) was never consulted when the time came to appoint Mr. Sherman to the CRTC, because otherwise he would have objected, just as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) was never consulted, and just as the president of the Quebec caucus was never consulted. So it is quite obvious that they are unhappy about having things imposed on them, and I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault), for instance, would like to be notified if a company in his riding was about to be sold to foreign interests. I think it would be important for the Hon. Member for Drummond to know whether the change in ownership could affect employment in that particular plant in his riding, and whether it was going to bring in new technology, or would the Hon. Member prefer to let the Minister responsible for the agency organize it all in secret?
Mr. Speaker, to the other Members of this House I have this to say: for once, they have a chance to demand that the Government be accountable, and that is why these amendments are before the House. The point is that Members would know that, if feasibility studies are made, for instance, on take-over proposals, the results of those studies would be available to them, as they would be to all Canadians. A person would have to be trusting in the extreme to leave the fate of our constituents in the hands of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens).


Michael Morris Cassidy: You have secrets about the Liberals and we have secrets about the Conservatives.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, if Donald Duck over there could keep quiet... Our NDP friend would be better off canvassing in his riding next door instead of talking nonsense here in the House.
One point I want to make is that the amendments before the House will make it possible for Hon. Members and for the Canadian public to know what is going on with respect to foreign investment. We are not asking for the moon. All we ask is to be informed. We want workers who fear their plant will close down because it was taken over by an American competitor to be informed. I do not see why our friends opposite object to that. Have they become so obsessed with secrecy that they do not even want to know about decisions

May 1, 1985
Investment Canada Act
that may have an impact on their ridings? That is the purpose of these amendments. Our NDP colleague should be pleased we are supporting his amendment, but he is still complaining. I think he will always be dissatisfied, and 1 am sure the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) will agree.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I certainly do.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my point is that these amendments are like virtue and motherhood. Who could be against information? Who can begrudge the public the right to be informed? I am sure the only people ... I am sure the members of the public who are here would like to be informed if their jobs were at stake. And if they went to see their Member, at least he would be able to give them information. However, for the time being, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is being given a free rein.
I see the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault) and I am sure he does not want to give the Minister a free rein. He is much too worried about what is going to happen in textiles, clothing and footwear to be willing to give the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion a free rein. I know the Hon. Member has good judgment and that he will vote in favour of this amendment, because its purpose is to keep him informed of decisions that affect his riding, his workers and his constituents.
Mr. Speaker, that is the point I would make, in urging our friends opposite to wake up. I realize that the telegram of congratulations they received from the Prime Minister included the words: Keep quiet! But Mr. Speaker, that was six months ago. There is a time for congratulatory telegrams, the day after the election, and there is a time for decision, and I think they should understand that. I hope they are going to forget the order they received from the Prime Minister's Office, and that now, they will rise in the House. Our friends in the gallery must be very upset to see there is not a single Conservative Member rising today.


An Hon. Member:: Velcro lips, all of them!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Imagine! They call them Velcro lips, Mr. Speaker! I am sure the Canadian public is astonished to see no one is rising to support all these amendments that have the support of the public. They are not even rising to speak against them. That just shows how short they are of arguments. I would invite our hon. friends opposite to tell us this afternoon why they are against the public's right to be informed. Why do they want all these secret operations with foreign investors to go on in the office of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion? I would not trust him for a minute, Mr. Speaker. And I am convinced that my constituents would be inadequately served if it were strictly a decision of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
I see the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette), the translator of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and his factotum, as my colleague the
Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) would call him ... he is not aware of the decisions, because Cabinet is not even consulted. It will be strictly the responsibility of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who will decide as it may please him. His Parliamentary Secretary (Mrs. B. Tardif) who is here to support the Bill is not aware of the decisions either. The whole process will take place in an atmosphere of secrecy, and that is what we want to prevent. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you support entirely the principle of public disclosure. Because you are a wise man, you would not like to be taken for a ride, something which is likely to happen to us.
I urge you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to use all your influence to persuade our hon. friends opposite to wake up and support this amendment, failing which they might be very sorry when they see plants in their own ridings closing down following their take-over by foreign interests.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, 1 have great respect for the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) and 1 welcome his support for the principles of this Bill. I note the fact-and this is why I interrupted him-that when the Liberal Party was in office it was responsible for FIRA, and FIRA's restrictions concerning information to the public were similar to those contained in Bill C-15 now under consideration. That is precisely why we want some changes and have introduced amendments. 1 gratefully accept the support of the Liberal Party. Unfortunately, however, when that Party was in office it could have brought in radical changes so as to share information on the conditions and agreements made with companies investing in Canada, but it did not introduce the necessary legislative amendments with a view to opening the books to a wider audience than the restricted circle of officials of the Minister responsible for the administration of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, the amendments proposed by this Party highlight the fact that the process advocated in Bill C-15 is shrouded in secrecy. To put it another way, a company prepared to invest in Canada may very well have to guarantee to the Government that its investment project will be of benefit to Canada, but such corporate guarantees will never be revealed and made public. Therefore, the only control measure proposed by the Government in that case is what might be termed administrative accountability, or accountability to public employees. It will therefore be left to the discretion of Investment Canada administrative staff to decide whether we should know-two, three or even five years down the road-if a company has lived up to its guarantees once the investment has been made.
That is expecting quite a lot from them, Mr. Speaker, because they are a busy crew with all kinds of things to do. All the more so because it is difficult to interpret today the full
May 1, 1985

extent of a guarantee given years ago. It is difficult because the staff are forced to work in a rather nonsupporting environment, especially if the Government of the day happens to be Conservative. They have shown a bent for foreign investment, but they do not seem overly concerned about the rules and conditions inherent in investment approval.
As it is, one public employee is expected to do on his own something which calls for well-advised public input. It should not be the exclusive responsibility of somebody who works in an office in Ottawa, for the workers and the people in the community want to know what is going on, because they may be the people who supply parts to the manufacturing company that has made the investment. The same goes for people who buy the products and others in service industries created by that investment. All kinds of people must be in on it, that is the guarantee, including the shareholders, I would say, since many of those companies probably have shareholders in Canada and in other countries. But Canadian shareholders especially have the right to know exactly what guarantees have been offered by the company and whether it will actually live up to them.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind Hon. Members that in the past, the concept that information is something very important, that it should be shared with the public rather than restricted to officials or even Members of Parliament, was a view that was never assumed by any spokesman of a Progressive Conservative Government.
The former Member for Peace River, for instance, a man who was respected by all sides of the House because of his efforts in trying to achieve freedom of information, Mr. Ged Baldwin, stated on February 12, 1976, as reported in Hansard, and 1 quote:

He said:
-it is time for us to act. I know there will be some argument about detail. We will all agree there must be exceptions. Government cannot be asked to conduct all its discussions in a goldfish bowl. When there are working papers leading up to a decision, then 1 am quite prepared to accept the fact that those working papers should not be available during the time the decision is being considered.
Our recommendations are that the negotiations can be carried out in secret. But then Mr. Baldwin said:
But once the government has arrived at a decision, it would be my submission that all working papers of a factual or statistical nature should be made available so that members of the public would be able to examine the bases upon which the government acted, and evaluate whether or not the government's decision was sound.
What we are saying is that the promises and undertakings made by companies regarding their investment in Canada should be made public as part of the record. If that is done, then you can genuinely have accountability under the foreign investment review process proposed by the Government. It will not just depend on the civil servant, with many other things on his plate, occasionally saying, "well, gee, I wonder about that particular investment that was made three years ago; are they living up to their promises or not?" The chances are under this legislation the civil servant may never get around to it because he will be too busy, and the company is not required to report
Investment Canada Act
every year, as our amendment proposes it should, about how it is fulfilling its undertaking.
In other words, we are not saying that one person who may have dozens of investments to oversee and many other responsibilities, should be responsible for seeing that a promise to create 1,000 jobs in Canada is fulfilled, or a promise to source spare parts in Canada is being fulfilled, or a promise to generate research in this country is being fulfilled. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is not enough. It is well known that the span of control of individuals can only go so far.
One way of getting around that is to make things public so that if something is going wrong, then the workers in a particular plant, or the middle managers or the community or the customers or the suppliers can speak up. They can say that when this company came to Chatham or Ottawa or Montmag-ny or some other part of the country, it promised to create 350 jobs and buy parts from Canadian suppliers, and it has not achieved that. They can say that this company promised that by 1986 some 49 per cent of its shares would be Canadian owned and it is not moving in that direction. That is the kind of accountability which you cannot have with a secret process.
I recall very much during the course of the election campaign that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised we would have a new kind of government. We would have change because so many Canadians were fed up with what had happened under the Liberals.
I welcome the comments of the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) supporting these amendments calling for much greater openness, and I deplore the fact that he forgot to mention that his Liberal colleagues in government prior to last September had not brought in that openness by making the necessary amendments to the Foreign Investment Review Act. We have the opportunity to make up for the failures of the old government. We have a government in power which promised to do that and bring in a process of openness. Our amendments are directed to that process so we can learn from our mistakes, ensure accountability, and get information about how foreign investment actually behaves.
This is not just good management practice. We have to learn to share information with employees if companies are going to be managed effectively in the country. This also does a favour for those foreign investors who want to be good corporate citizens. The foreign investor who wants to be a good corporate citizen is tarred with the brush of those companies that are not good corporate citizens. I am sure there are cases where technology has come across the border and some foreign investment that has been of benefit to Canada. Unfortunately, there are too many cases where foreign investment has not been of benefit to Canada.
However, when the company is living up to its obligations by doing a good job and bringing net benefit to Canada, it is in its interests, as in the interest of all of us, for that information to be there. There was a voluntary process under the Foreign

May 1, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Investment Review Agency which led to a total stifling of information. It is time to ensure that it is obligatory. I call on members of the Government, particularly the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) to support these amendments.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-15. Each time I speak I become more concerned about this Bill. The Bill is called Investment Canada which is a complete misnomer. It should be called "investment anything else but Canada".
The actions of the Government give us more reason to be concerned about this Bill. The amendments we are considering today contain very important points which we should keep in mind. As the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has said, we want more openness in this type of legislation. He has rightly said that under the Federal Investment Review Act there was not as much openness as a great many of us would have liked to have seen. That is correct. However, there is now considerably less openness in this particular legislation. It is frightening to think that investment in the country is being completely shrouded in secrecy, and to realize in whose hands the information is located.
Investment Canada is going to put more and more power in the hands of one Minister. It is even more frightening to realize who the Minister is, "Mr. Compassion", the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). That is of very deep concern to me personally and to other Members on this side of the House.
Yesterday I asked the Minister about the sale of Gulf Canada by Chevron Corporation. That is a very important aspect because we want to ensure that Gulf Canada is sold to Canadian interests. That is tremendously important because we want to maintain the principle of 50 per cent Canadian ownership of the oil and gas industry by 1990. From 1980 to 1983 Canadian ownership increased from approximately 28 per cent to over 40 per cent. As the ownership gets higher, it will be more and more difficult to obtain that 50 per cent level. It is an important issue. The Government is continually dismissing it.
With the Government's present frame of mind, and its present policies, there is no way that there will be any consideration for decentralization. The Government is too intent on following the policies of the United States. In his speech on December 10 at the Economic Club in New York the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that we are open for business. His Government will not do anything to review any take-over or investment in the country. This Act is supposed to say that anything under $5 million will be reviewed, but it will not be reviewed, Mr. Speaker, because the Government will not want to antagonize or hurt the feelings of the United States in any way.
This is a problem in respect to Canadianization. It is not only threatened, it is a concept which the Government is not even considering. The Government is following lock-step with
what it believes is wanted in the United States. This is the first time that a Canadian Prime Minister has gone to a summit without a distinctive Canadian monetary policy. While in Bonn the Prime Minister is "me tooing" exactly what the Government of the United States wants. This is not only frightening, but shameful, in view of the monetary problems which exist in the world today. This is a threat to the economy of Canada and the Canadian industry, not to mention the principle of Canadianization.
What about the policy of Canadianization? I asked the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion today about that. 1 asked whether the Minister could tell me if they are adhering to a policy of 50 per cent Canadian ownership by 1990. He said that I should wait until the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) comes back. She is going to be away for a month. That is great consideration for Canadianization or whatever goes on in the country. I do not object to her being away, but that is no reason that the Minister cannot answer a question of fundamental importance to the people of Canada.


Mrs. B. Tardif:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Honourable Parliamentary Secretary on a point of order.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I would like again to question the relevance of the debate now going on. I think the Hon. Member does not even know which motions we are now discussing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 believe all the motions deal with public information. I am sure the Hon. Member will be relevant to the clauses.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks 1 mentioned the motions we were discussing, the issues in those amendments that are of concern, and the issues that these amendments address which, if accepted, would go part way toward allaying the fears of the country with regard to this Bill. I do not object to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources not being here. As far as I am concerned, she can stay away as long as she wants. However, I do object to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion refusing to answer questions of fundamental importance in the House of Commons. A supposedly important Minister should be able to give the Government's position on a principle which is supposedly being adhered to by the Government and which was in place long before the Government took office.
This will be a concern with respect to Canadianization as well as all aspects of business in the country. If there is no check on foreign investment in the country, the foreign investment may very well be in the form of take-overs. If that is all we can expect from foreign investment, we will be shortchanged tremendously. That must be of very serious concern to the country because we want more than just take-overs from foreign investment. I do not disagree with foreign investment. I
May 1, 1985

think there is a definite role for foreign investment and we need it. However, it must be understood by foreign investors that we want new investment. That is what it is all about. This is supposedly why this stance has been taken. Yet, it seems that there will not be any kind of check whatsoever. If we do forget about it, we will suffer.
One of the principles that the Government is discussing and putting forward is that this is supposed to be a benefit to regional development. If foreign investment is not checked it will not be of benefit to regional development because the industry will be placed wherever the investor wants it.
It has not been indicated to my satisfaction, or to the satisfaction of many other people in this country, what benefits we will be able to achieve. There has been much talk about broad theorization, but nothing to indicate that this Bill will be an improvement. In fact, the more one studies this Bill the more one believes that it will be a detriment and a large step backwards from the Foreign Investment Review Act that has been in place in this country.
If there is a downturn in the economy, it is the branch plants of these foreign companies that will be the first to lay people off. They will be more concerned with their head offices in other countries and will buy the products from their head offices and main corporations. These foreign interests would not have the same incentive as Canadian operations to operate in Canada.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join in this debate on the amendments to the Investment Canada Bill introduced by my Party. These amendments are important because they address the whole question of secrecy.
As I have stated in other speeches I have made with respect to this Bill, this Bill is deplorable and represents a backward step in our struggle to maintain our cultural and economic identity. This Bill is a blow against our efforts to maintain an economically independent Canada.
The Government's efforts in this area are not unique. Such backward steps can also be seen in the Government's cutback on our cultural agencies and the CBC; on foreign policy and defence policy in which it is trying to destroy Canadian independence. Therefore, it is no surprise to us that Bill C-15 is a blow against our economic independence.
With respect to these amendments, I would point out how strange it is that angels should preside with Opposition Members. When the Conservative Party was in Opposition, I joined with many of them in urging the Government to introduce freedom of information legislation. We often worked closely with prominent Conservatives like Walter Baker to try to squeeze some sense of commitment from the Liberals for public disclosure and freedom of information. As a result of an election, roles have switched and we find that the angels sitting with Opposition Members this time happen to be Liberals. They are now espousing the virtues of freedom of information
Investment Canada Act
and it is the Conservatives who are stonewalling efforts to have a more open and free society.
Information is essential in a democracy because the public depends upon it to know what is right and what is wrong when it makes the ultimate decisions. It is up to society to define public morals and standards, and this can only occur when the public has the information upon which to make decisions. That is why it is essential in a democracy to have freedom of information.
In our increasingly complex and interconnected society, each part of our social economic structure affects our society as a whole. For example, a decision made by the board of directors of a corporation not only affects the shareholders and the investors in that corporation, it affects the employees, the consumers, the community and ultimately the public at large. Therefore, I reject the notion that much of the information in such corporations should be considered private.
Many of these corporations receive large direct Government grants and enjoy tax breaks. They enjoy the use of the public infrastructure such as roads, railways and telephone networks. They enjoy the products of our educational system. I suggest they could not exist without our modern state that provides all of these services to the community as a whole. Therefore, I reject the notion that much of the information of those companies should be considered private.
When we are dealing particularly with foreign investment, I submit that it is important for information to be made public. For instance, if a foreign company makes commitments to the country before acquiring a Canadian firm, surely the affected Company's workers, the community, its suppliers and the public as a whole have a right to know about those commitments. I suggest that the public is the ultimate judge in a democracy, and therefore has a right to all information in order to make that judgment.
Let me give several examples. A few weeks ago Dr. Stuart Smith of the Canadian Science Council appeared before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. He brought to our attention that a company from Massachusetts was planning to buy up small companies in Canada that were low in capitalization but high in technological know-how. Many of these small Canadian companies had receive either direct Government grants for research and development or the benefit of the R and D tax credit. There is an aspect of public investment in these young Canadian companies that have been nurtured by public policy. Therefore, I would suggest it is immoral for them to be acquired by foreign companies. Surely the public has a right to know if these firms that are receiving public funds are being gobbled up by foreign companies. That is why it is important to allow access to information.
Let me give another example concerning the environment. An American company involved in disposing of toxic wastes could come to Canada to buy out a similar Canadian company. Experience in the United States has shown that gangsters and mobsters are often involved in such companies in the United States. Testimony before the Congress in the United States has shown that some unsavoury characters are involved
4304

May 1, 1985
Investment Canada Act
in environmental clean-up and the disposal of toxic materials. Therefore, Canadians should know the background of these companies which attempt to buy up Canadian firms that are involved in this area of toxic waste disposal.
The provisions of this Bill will never permit the Canadian public to know who is coming into Canada to buy up Canadian firms. We will not know their background and what commitments they are making to the Government of Canada when they come to invest here and take over a Canadian company. We do not know this vital information, Mr. Speaker.
This Government does democracy a disservice by not supporting the amendments we have introduced. A complex industrial society like ours can only function if there is a free flow of information so that the public will have the information to form its opinion and make the decisions on how the economy and this country should be run. By not allowing the public information, we do democracy a disservice and we weaken our free society. For all these reasons I support the amendments.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, might I say that on several occasions in the past I have talked about each one of the amendments in the motions that are here before us. Every one of those amendments has dealt to a large extent with the process, the results of the review of the acquisitions undertaken and the method by which the new Investment Canada Bill wishes to undertake those reviews. I think that nothing could have brought home to all members of the House in a better way the need for some amendments to these motions before us on Investment Canada than the situation that arose earlier this week with respect to the take-over of Canadian Porcelain Company by an American firm called the Lapp Co., New York.
Here is a situation whereby the jobs, the employment record, I suppose, and to some extent the economic importance of those jobs to the City of Hamilton have been jeopardized by the actions of a competitor from the United States which has dumped its product at below cost into the Canadian market in direct competition with the Canadian Porcelain Company. The dumping was done to such an extent that the Canadian Porcelain Company had to go into receivership. At that time the receivership was being handled by Peat, Marwick and company. In turn Peat, Marwick approached bankers and others interested in bailing out the company. Lo and behold we find that the purchaser of the Canadian Porcerlain Company will be the same company that dumped its products into the Canadian market in order to put that Canadian company into receivership.
I find it incredible that we on this side of the House in the Opposition have had to ask day after day to have the Investment Canada Bill amended so that the definition of benefit to Canadians is more clearly understood in the Bill and that the responsibilities which the Minister would have to live up to are contained in those amendments that we are suggesting. I say that because here is a situation in Hamilton that I think in a
way illustrates why we must have the definition of benefit further explained in the Bill. These workers are asking themselves some very valid questions. Of what value will the take-over be of Canadian Porcelain Company by Lapp Co., of New York? Absolutely none, Mr. Speaker. It will be done with a loss of jobs in Hamilton, a loss of jobs in Canada and with a loss of economic impact in terms of the salary components in the City of Hamilton.
Workers were not informed about that take-over. They were not informed whether there was to be some provision in the take-over about their job security. These workers are basically at the mercy of the receiver, the Royal Bank of Canada, that will be funding the take-over by Lapp Co. Workers have no say in the way in which job security can be protected.
Under the Foreign Investment Review Act, the legislation that is in place today and which was put in place by a previous Government, we allowed the take-over of Canadian companies by multinationals. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when a multinational or a foreign interest decided to buy out a Canadian company we certainly asked questions; for example, what will this do to jobs in Hamilton? What will this do in terms of the investment climate in the City of Hamilton? We made sure that workers would be protected in a take-over of that kind. I think the workers in Hamilton realize this week that, thank heavens, the Foreign Investment Review Act is still in effect, and they are asking this Government and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Stevens) to ask those same questions of the company doing the take-over.
With respect to that particular case, I think you are well aware, sir, that because of questions raised in the House this week the workers involved at the Canadian Porcelain Company have decided to pool all their resources and, with the aid of various groups in the City of Hamilton, including the Chamber of Commerce, labour groups and church groups have put forward a competing bid to buy back their own company. By doing that, at least the Canadian workers can ensure that they will have job security. That is something the Lapp Co., of New York will not guarantee. It is something that the present Conservative Government of Canada will not guarantee to those same workers in Hamilton.
When we are considering the review of Investment Canada, why do we not apply the situation that exists today in Hamilton to the need to have those amendments put on the books? If the previous legislation is to be thrown out of the window with the approval of the Investment Canada Bill, why are we so silent about the need to make sure that the same privisos are in this new Investment Canada Bill, namely to defend the interests of Canadian workers, because that is what they are asking. That is what they ask of their Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). It is the same question I raised in the House two days ago.
I find it astounding that we have the Canadian labour movement behind a group of workers in Hamilton who are concerned about the so-called benefit to Canada of this acquisition by Lapp Co. of New York yet getting no answers from this Government. Quite frankly, they are not getting any
May 1, 1985

answers from their own Conservative Members of Parliament who represent the Hamilton region. I think the conspiracy of silence among back-benchers of the Conservative Party will be reflected in the actions of voters in the Hamilton area in the next election. People expect more of their Members of Parliament. They expect them to defend their constituents' interests.
1 have found that we as an Opposition have been required to put up all the speakers for these motions before us on Investment Canada. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, if you asked individual back-benchers for the Hamilton area to try to defend their silence when their constituents are losing jobs because of the lack of provision in the Act and the lack of willpower by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to protect their interests as labourers and as contributors to the economic activity of the Hamilton region, you would be astounded by the lack of response.
When we talked earlier about the way in which the previous government Bill, the Foreign Investment Review Act, was put into place, and the way in which we have used it over the years, there seemed to be a misconception that FIRA was responsible for a decrease in the flow of foreign capital into the country over the last seven to eight years since it was implemented in the mid-1970s. Nothing can be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. There has been only one year in which foreign investment showed a decrease in terms of the amount invested in this country. That year was 1981. It was the year in which the National Energy Program was introduced by the Liberal Government. The reason for a net outflow of capital was the buy-out of the multinationals so we could have a window on the oil industry. With the exception of 1981, despite the existence of the Foreign Investment Review Act, there has always been a surplus of foreign investment in Canada.
I remember very well the speech made by the Minister when first reading was given to the Investment Canada Bill. He made quite a thing of the fact that he felt with the implementation of Investment Canada billions of foreign investment would flow into the country. To this day I am still waiting to see the result of that new mood of optimism expressed by foreign investors. The facts do not show that these dollars have flowed into Canada in the last six months. If anything, the situation is to the contrary.
Much was said about the Prime Minister's economic statement in his speech to the business community in New York last fall about how he felt that Canada was open for business again. As my Leader has said, whoever said that it was closed? Canada has never been closed. Every year we have had more and more foreign investment pour into the country, even under FIRA which did a lot more to protect Canadian interests than this Investment Canada Bill. I suspect that if in the United States, the country in which the Conservative Government has put so much hope, the rebound in the economy that is supposed to bring all kinds of goods to Canada as well as investment and job opportunities fails to materialize, the people of Canada will not forget what this Government stands for.
Investment Canada Act


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to make a few remarks on this third grouping of amendments to this Bill. I suggest that the principle involved in this grouping of amendments is one that should certainly be acceptable to government Members. The principle is one that they used as the basis for a good deal of their campaign in the last election. It is the principle of accountability combined with the principle of the right of the public to know, the principle of open Government. We heard a great many of those phrases in the few months prior to the election. We have not seen a great deal of result since the election on September 4.
The Conservative Party has a legacy of which I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker. Before I came into the House 1 was very much aware of the fight that was put up by Ged Baldwin leading the campaign for freedom of information. That whole movement was initiated in the early 1960s by Barry Mather, a New Democrat from British Columbia. It certainly achieved a great deal of prominence under Mr. Baldwin. In the last Parliament, the late Hon. Walter Baker carried on that struggle for freedom of information. The whole principle of open Government was something we heard espoused time and again by Conservative Members when they were sitting on the Opposition side.
When the testimony was being presented before the committee on this Bill, the former commissioner of FIRA, Mr. Gorse Howarth, testified that very often the present legislation respecting the Foreign Investment Review Agency left no option but to keep everything concealed and hidden. Secrecy was built into the law. That was one of the unfortunate drawbacks of the present legislation. Unfortunately, the previous Government built that in. One criticism business often made of that legislation was that it felt that it was before some sort of star chamber. Mr. Howarth pointed out that there has been no change, that the criticism that people made of the present FIRA legislation also applies to the legislation respecting Investment Canada. What was required to be secret and hidden under the FIRA legislation will also be required to be secret and hidden under the present legislation. We want to see that opened up, as I am sure many Members opposite would like to see.
We all recognize that there is a need for business confidentiality. If business is going to operate, it has to be able to do so with the knowledge that not everything it does will be on the front page of the paper or in the business section of The Globe and Mail the next day. The whole concept of business confidentiality can be abused, very much like we have seen an abuse of the concept of national security or Cabinet security.
I will give an example from my own riding. Last year people in that area were very concerned about the export of raw logs from our area. I applied under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain details about these exports. I tried to find out where these raw logs were going, what volume was involved, and what prices were being paid. I was not able to get that information. The answer I received was that to reveal that

May 1, 1985
Investment Canada Act
kind of detail would destroy the concept of business confidentiality, that it would undermine the competitiveness of the companies involved.
We were concerned with the export of basic resources from this country to another country. These resources were being exported with no processing at all. We were receiving the minimum benefit, yet we could not get information about what was happening because of the concept of business confidentiality. That has been carried too far. Certainly the present legislation carries it too far.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) spoke about the need for performance accountability and the need for that accountability to be made public. If a company comes into Canada, obtains a corner of a key sector of our economy, promises a certain number of jobs, makes a commitment about the research and development it will be performing in Canada and a commitment about Canadian purchasing, those commitments should be made public so that the people understand the kind of commitments that are being made. Following the investment, there should be a monitoring process, the results of which should be made public. In other words, there has to be built-in accountability. We cannot presume that every dollar of investment that comes into Canada will automatically result in some good for the Canadian economy.
Getting back to the whole concept of business confidentiality, it is important to note that several of the amendments contain clauses that allow specific areas to be protected if the whole question of confidentiality is required. We want full public disclosure of company commitments involved in takeovers of Canadian business.
I want to make a few comments on the right of the public to know. It is not simply an abstract virtue, something that we say is nice, kind of a frill and, if at all possible, the public should have the right to know. In a democracy the right of the public to know is fundamental. Democracy depends upon an informed electorate. Indeed, it depends upon informed legislators and an informed Opposition. Unless the legislators and the Opposition have access to information, they are not going to be able to deal in an informed way with the problems that face us.
We live in a world of managed media news. A good deal of what passes for news is really nothing more than a staged photo opportunity. We see a lot of managed media rather than substantive reporting. Every so often an issue arises where the public insists upon having the truth, where it wants to know, where it is not satisfied with merely a glossy photo on the front page. In those situations where people are prepared to do the digging, they should be able to get the facts. That is why we want these amendments adopted. They would make the facts available. They will not always make the front pages of the newspapers, but the facts will be available for those who want them.
In conclusion, as I see you are giving me the sign to wind up, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize to Members opposite that they campaigned on the need for open Government. The Government has that mandate now. As it brings this legislation before the public, let us insist that written into it is the kind of guarantees we need so we can do our job, and that the public needs so that it can stay informed and make a responsible decision at the time of the next election.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker-


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Hear, hear!


David Berger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose I should thank the Hon. Member for his encouragement.
Today we are debating Motions Nos. 8, 12, 32, 63, 69, 74 and 75. In speaking to these motions, I would like to remind Hon. Members that their purpose is to provide a balance in the tremendous powers that have been given to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) under this Bill. In light of the powers given to the Minister, these amendments are concerned with the publication of information and access to information. This would provide some balance to the powers of the Minister under this Bill.
I would like to remind the House of the powers of the Minister. Under the Investment Canada Bill, as opposed to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, final authority is to be vested in the Minister rather than in the Cabinet, and no provision for appeal to higher authority is formally stated. Therefore, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is given discretionary power to decide by himself whether or not a foreign investment in Canada should be accepted. How can there be any justification for putting in the hands of a single Minister the power to make the final decision on such important investments for Canada? Any amount of money, be it $500 million or $100 million, could be involved. As has been pointed out by previous speakers on behalf of our Party, the Cabinet has totally relinquished its responsibilities under this legislation.
These amendments propose to provide the balance of which I spoke earlier. They speak to the need for greater openness about the process and about the results of reviews of the acquisitions undertaken under this legislation.
The amendments before us today have been proposed by Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party, and many of them are similar to amendments we proposed in other motions. These amendments are all supported by the Liberal Party with the caveat that those who are directly affected by them should be allowed to make the case that commercially valuable information would, if released, damage their business in a measurable way.
I would like to refer specifically to several of these motions. First, Motion No. 8 would amend Clause 5 which deals with the duties and powers of the Minister to carry out research and analysis relating to domestic and international investment, and it simply states that the Minister should make public this research and analysis where not expressly prohibited by federal legislation. There really should be no unwillingness to accept this kind of an amendment. We are not talking about confi-
May 1, 1985

dential information in the possession of any company. We are not talking about business information. We are simply talking about research and analysis which will have been conducted by the Minister or by the agency under the authority of this legislation.
Motion No. 12 provides for similar disclosures. Again, under this legislation, the Minister must ensure that notification and review of investments are carried out in accordance with the Act. Again this appears in Clause No. 5. Motion No. 12 would add a further subclause (g) under which the Minister would be obliged to 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.
One of the important reasons for having a requirement of this nature was brought up during the course of the committee hearings by the Chairman of the Science Council of Canada, Dr. Stuart Smith, who proposed an amendment to the Act which would allow the Government to review foreign takeover bids for Canadian enterprises that have received over $100,000 of federal money for research and development in the preceding five years. This amendment which was proposed was, as I understand it, defeated in committee and was ruled out of order by the Speaker as being outside of the four corners of the Bill.
I think it makes sense that takeovers in situations where companies have received substantial assistance from the Canadian taxpayer for research and development be subject to review. Indeed, when this suggestion was made there were comments from the private sector which indicated that when companies have undertaken research and development without any assistance from the taxpayer there is no reason, other than a moral reason, that they should be accountable to the Canadian public. However, when such assistance has been furnished by the Canadian taxpayer, it seems eminently reasonable that such takeovers should be subject to review.
As I mentioned previously, this amendment was not accepted in committee. However, Motion No. 12 which is now before us would oblige the Minister to compile and make public information pertaining to the performance of Canadian businesses owned and controlled by non-Canadians, and this information would of course be compared with information regarding the performance of Canadian businesses owned and controlled by Canadians. This would give Canadians the opportunity to review the performance of foreign-owned companies as opposed to Canadian-owned companies in the area of research and development.
Another amendment we are debating today is contained in Motion No. 63. I was very interested to hear the remarks made earlier by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). He said that the previous Government was just as secretive as we are accusing the present Government of being. I would simply point out that the amendment in Motion No. 63 indicates that the Minister should make public his ruling, including all undertakings made in connection with the investment.
Investment Canada Act
I have with me a sample undertaking from a firm which made an acquisition under the auspices of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Several years ago, a certain company acquired control of a Canadian company. At the time the acquisition was announced, it was announced that the foreign company had undertaken to expend certain amounts of money for the purchase of plant and equipment, to export actively a certain percentage of its sales, and to give the Canadian-owned company a mandate to export a line of products world-wide. There is no guarantee in that type of undertaking that those undertakings will be made public under the present legislation. However, if this motion is accepted, they will be made public.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat certain points which have been made with respect to the motions which are before the House because I do not believe that they can be made too often. The motions deal with the need for a greater openness about the results and the reviews of the acquisitions which are undertaken.
I am concerned about the effects which foreign takeover will have on certain areas of the country, especially those areas which are underdeveloped and more vulnerable than others. In particular, I am referring to Atlantic Canada and my province of Newfoundland.
As the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson) will know, a group of people appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry yesterday who spoke about an area in which private enterprise is very vulnerable. I am concerned that foreign companies will be allowed to come in holus-bolus to any area of Canada and take over companies in areas in which Canadian companies are struggling for survival.
While the fishery is in a very difficult situation in Newfoundland, it is the small private companies about which I am concerned. I am glad to see that the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Bissonnette) is in the House today, because he will know from my remarks that it is the small fishing companies in Newfoundland which have survived and done very well. It is the larger companies in Newfoundland which have not done very well. I am afraid that foreign companies will come into Newfoundland, without reference to Newfoundlanders, and take over companies in a holus-bolus fashion. This Bill gives the Minister the right to let that happen without reference to Parliament or Cabinet. There is no requirement for consultation. A foreign company can come in, in the dead of night, and take over an operation in which a small-businessman is struggling to survive.
The Bill may make some sense in principle, but certain aspects of it require a closer look. One of the amendments which is before the House asks for consultation with people in the underdeveloped regions. There is nothing in the Bill to target foreign investment. A foreign company from any country could suddenly decide to invest in Canada. That company will go to the area which has the best prospects. There should

May 1, 1985
Investment Canada Act
be an incentive, target or carrot in the Bill to lure investment into the areas of Canada which need investment the most. There is nothing in this Bill that does that. There is nothing in the Bill that indicates that investment should be made, for example, in Atlantic Canada or Labrador. I would like to see that provision in the Bill.
Returning to the point which I made earlier, apart from not having a carrot, incentive or provision to target the investment, there is no provision for consultation with existing businesses and the people who work in those businesses. There should be consultation with existing business groups, chambers of commerce, unions or other groups which will be directly affected. There should be consultation with local communities. As well, there should be a provision for existing Canadian firms, if they so desire, to take advantage of the opportunity which a foreign firm identifies. Of course, that would be done without any prejudice to the foreign firm.
The situation in Newfoundland is quite critical. Newfoundland has the highest rate of unemployment and the highest cost of living in Canada. Government cut-backs are having a disastrous effect on many people in Newfoundland, both the workers and the consumers. For example, the increase in ferry rates is having a detrimental effect. The trade which existed between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland will be affected by that increase. Those cut-backs are having a disastrous effect on the economy of that area.
First, I believe that there should be safeguards to protect existing Canadian business and workers. There should be a provision for consultation with Canadians before a decision is made by the Minister to allow a foreign company to invest in Canada. Second, there should be a provision for targeting. Previously, there were provisions for targeting. As a matter of fact, part of the mandate of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion was to do that. The mandate of that Minister was to enhance, develop and promote regional development in Canada. That was the original principle behind DREE. However, DREE has been replaced by DRIE. Some people refer to it as "Canada DRIE". Some people say that DREE has dried up. It has dried up in Newfoundland, because DRIE was primarily for manufacturing, and Newfoundland, like many western provinces, has a resource-based economy.
Part of the mandate of the Minister is to target investment and to give incentives to companies, whether they be Canadian or foreign, to set up their businesses in underdeveloped areas. This Government has already implemented certain measures which have militated against that kind of development. For example, the cut-backs in government programs and the changes in unemployment insurance regulations will have that kind of effect.
I would like to mention PIP grants. When the Liberal Government was in power it told the oil companies, whether they were foreign or Canadian, that if they drilled and explored in a certain area they would be given a certain amount of money, provided that jobs were created for Canadians, that Canadian goods and materials were used and that Canadian companies had a chance to bid. There had to be
some benefit to Canada. That was the principle behind PIP grants. However, PIP grants have been done away with. So far, nothing has been established to replace those grants. There may something in the Budget. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) may tell us that he will give tax breaks to companies which explore in the offshore. However, the policy which gave investors assistance, if there was Canadian content and a benefit to Canadian companies and workers, has been abolished.
I am seeing evidence of the removal of the existing incentives to Canadian companies, of benefits for Canadian workers and of the existing provisions for Canadian content. I think they must be highlighted in this Bill. We are telling the Minister that amendments are required to improve the Bill on behalf of Canadians, and in particular on behalf of the Canadians who live in underdeveloped parts of the country.
In conclusion I do want to emphasize again that I think the Government and the Minister should take the points I have made into account. I think the appropriate amendments should be made to this Bill before it comes to us for final approval.
IVIr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my comments this afternoon to the proposed seven amendments with respect to Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, and in particular to the amendments which reflect the desire of the Opposition to have divulgence of information or, as the Opposition likes to say, to make it a more open Bill. I would like to address my comments to the intent of the Opposition in asking for the kind of information contained in the seven amendments.
Essentially, the amendments seek, through various ways, to open up Investment Canada so that the Minister will be forced or empowered to release a great deal of information which, I think, on the face of it, is highly unfair to business in Canada and to those non-Canadians who come to our country to invest. It all sounds very good. The Opposition talks about open Government and about giving the ordinary Canadian the ability to look into those companies. But it is highly irregular for a Government to do what the Opposition would like our Government to undertake. On the one hand, it is suggested that Government demand information, some rather commercially sensitive information. As Hon. Members who are in business would know, that kind of information would affect a company's competitive position and investment capability. The Opposition would like the Government, through this Bill, to divulge that information openly to the public. What is so unfair is the burden which this places on the Government, which would first have to ask for it and then turn around and open it up to anyone in Canada who would like to see the information, even information which would be commercially sensitive.
I will isolate three motions as examples: Motions Nos. 8, 12 and 63, which were proposed by the New Democratic Party. Motion No. 8 asks to make public the results of agency research. It sounds noble on the face of it, but if one looks a
May 1, 1985

little more closely, one finds that there would arise, in any agency research through the examination process, confidential information. That would only be natural if the agency research were done to a respectable standard. The New Democratic Party would ask that that information be made public, and I believe I speak on behalf of all businesses when I say they would be very strongly against operating in the kind of environment where, on the one hand, we encourage investment which will open up Canadian jobs, opportunity and economic growth, and on the other hand we say, "Well, the agency has done some research, has uncovered some confidential material and now anyone in Canada can come and take a look at it". I think that is very unfair.
Motion No. 12 asks for the agency to compile and publish information about the performance of foreign-owned companies, again, with typical New Democratic Party fervour. To examine these foreign-owned companies sounds very noble, on the face of it, and when one looks at the role which we see for Investment Canada, one finds that, of course, within reason, there will be the release of statistics and information which will be relevant to the different industries which are involved. The implication in the wording of this motion that the performance of a company is going to be monitored for some purpose-the purpose is unstated in this motion-and it is told that it has to fulfil certain criteria, is something to which I addressed myself earlier. What I told the New Democratic Party then, and I must now repeat, is that in my home Province of Saskatchewan we looked at the nationalization of the potash mines and the role which the state plays to such a great extent in the lives of business people, and found out what that does to the psychology of investment. The Government should deal realistically and openly with the people, hoping to become part of their economy. The people should not think that their Government does not really trust them. Their Government should not act as if it does not give the average man and woman investor in this country enough credit for their ability to know what is good for the operation of their company within the safeguards of our Bill as it stands.
Motion No. 63, Mr. Speaker, is another New Democratic motion. I do not know why I chose three New Democratic motions, except that they seem to be the most hopelessly off-base of the package. This particular motion requires the publication of decisions and undertakings. Again it sounds so noble in all the idealistic and rather naive fervour of the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Riis:: You don't have open Government.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There's not one of them that's ever met a payroll.


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


John Kenneth Gormley: The Minister says that not one of the New Democratic Party Members ever met a payroll, and I think that this is a very accurate statement to those who follow this political Party's attempts in this House. Undertakings will sometimes contain or reveal commercially sensitive informa-
Investment Canada Act
tion. I think that is self-evident. An undertaking by anyone who is dealing with Investment Canada, by its very nature, will contain commercially sensitive information.
I would like to look now at Motion No. 63 and perhaps address my concerns in a little broader way about the communication and disclosure which is a part of this Bill by its very nature. For example, Motion No. 63 asks that somehow the decisions and undertakings be publicized. Originally, in Bill C-15 there was no prohibition on the disclosure of decisions or of information contained in written undertakings in a lot of cases. This will ensure that the public can be informed, and the Government has already shown that it means to disclose the information in cases where there is a public interest, such as, for example, in connection with the recent Chevron-Gulf and Texaco Canadian reserve cases where details of the undertakings were in fact made public. Again, if we go back to what Bill C-15 attempts to do, we find that safeguards are already evident, as well as the important measure of accountability.
It has been said by some Hon. Members of this House, in addressing their thoughts to accountability, that the Bill does not make the Government accountable. If I can refer members of the Opposition to Clause 44 of the Bill, they will find that accountability is spelled out. This ministerial accountability will empower the Minister to prepare a report on the operations under this Act to be laid before each House of Parliament. Rather clearly, this clause has the Minister explaining to the committee and to the House of Commons the functioning of Investment Canada.
I have not been very political up to now, Mr. Speaker, on the way this Bill has passed through this House to date. But I think what should be on the record at this point is the performance of the opposition Parties in the plethora of motions which have been moved, the taking up of so much valuable time of this House of Commons and the level of debate which has gone on to this point. Debate on second reading of this Bill lasted 16.5 hours. This particular Bill was in committee for 40 hours where all seven of these motions were dealt with in some form. Now the Bill is at the report stage and we have been in debate for over 18 hours. I would like to say that these motions as proposed would simply reduce to the most distrustful terms the way that Government encourages business in Canada. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I speak strongly against these motions.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my Party to speak about an extremely important matter. What propelled me to this House with such haste to ask my colleagues whether I could speak out of the normal order was the opportunity I had to listen to the speech on television of the Hon. Member who preceded me. He talked about-


Ms. McDonald:: A lot of drivel.

May 1, 1985
Investment Canada Act


Raymond John Skelly: My collleague from Broadview-Greenwood says "A lot of drivel".


John Kenneth Gormley: She would.


Raymond John Skelly: Unfortunately, I have to agree with her. For those who think this debate is not serious we should examine the facts. This Bill proposes to sell out Canada and do it in secret. I am appalled at what I see across the floor of this House.


Mr. Siddon:: You guys have destroyed the country.


Raymond John Skelly: I have worked many hours in committee with many of those people across the floor. We have battled together to condemn the Liberal Party and the Liberal Government for exactly the same kind of thing that the legislation before us today is trying to prevent: honesty in government. It took the Liberal Party of Canada 50 years to reach the low level they had reached in this country. We all remember the attempts to get information in this House. There are Members across the floor who have been here since 1979 and we fought together to try to extract information that was impossible to get. I see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) smiling. He fought those battles as well. Members across the floor screamed loudly about patronage when the Liberal Party sank to depths we just could not comprehend. In the dying days of the last Parliament it was nothing less than disgusting. The amendments before us today are an attempt to stop that from happening in another agency of this Government. It is a sad situation when the Conservative Party starts at the low depth at which the Liberal Party ended up, and it is going down faster.
I will give you one example of what I think will happen with this and other agencies while this Party is in power. This is definitely not a humorous matter; it is a matter which is extremely serious. We have seen the appointments to Air Canada, VIA Rail and other government boards which are nothing less than disgusting examples of Tory patronage. We know we will never see a shred of information, that we will have to do things that the Conservatives, when they were in opposition, never thought of in order to get the kind of information we need to have from this Government. The Conservative Party of Canada did itself a great disservice in making some of these patronage appointments, and I suggest they have reached new depths of which the Liberal Party never even conceived.
To give you another example, and it is probably as nasty and ugly as any we would want to see, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) decided to give a $5 million grant to three Conservative organizers. Essentially she said, "You can spend one third of it, or approximately a third, let's not dicker about numbers", and with undignified haste they began to put that money in their pockets. That money is not going to unemployed Canadians on the coast of British Columbia, it is going into their pockets. We suspect this has become a vehicle for handing out money to people who had served the Conservative Party. This situation, we understand,
was not the fault of the Minister of Employment and Immigration; it was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) who had advised her to do that. We then see three prominent Conservative organizers-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to know which clause the Hon. Member is speaking to, which one this is relevant to, if he does not mind?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the clause is in Motion No. 8, that this Bill be amended in Clause 5-I hear my friends from the Conservative Party laughing and giggling. I think they must be new Members because they do not realize that at one time we fought together on this issue. But it was false morality, strictly political stunts, and today they have gone too far.
These amendments before us deal specifically with open Government, honesty, access by Members of Parliament to information, and I suggest that from the examples of withholding information, the hard and blatant patronage we have seen, this is clearly relevant and an example of the manner in which this Government will be operated.
We remember the example of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) flying across the country and talking about Liberal patronage. He joked about it, much the same way his colleagues here said-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I really think the Hon. Member should get back to the clause, if he does not mind, either Clause 8, Clause 12 or the many other clauses he can speak to. I do not think that what he is saying is really relevant.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, if the business of patronage is not relevant, if honesty is not relevant, if openness and fairness in government is not relevant, I do not know what purpose any of us are serving here. These clauses basically deal with those types of questions, and I tell you as honestly as I can that the Minister of Employment and Immigration yesterday in this House, in attempting to deal with those issues, completely misled the House. It strikes me that if the Government is not prepared to address that issue, this whole thing should be put forward to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and we should get to the bottom of it so that some kind of justice is done here.
The clauses before us would move us forward to more honesty in government. There would be less patronage. It strikes me that for the House not to pass these clauses would be absolutely astounding. I am absolutely astounded at the hypocrisy in the Conservative Party, a Party which fought in this House against patronage, the dishonest handing out of taxpayers' dollars and applying them to purposes which are completely unacceptable. Then we have the situation where a Minister can stand up and say with some pride that she is giving money out in this fashion on the recommendation of other senior Cabinet Ministers. I am completely astounded that that kind of thing would happen. For a Government and a Minister of the Crown to mislead the House in her statements is completely astounding.
May 1, 1985


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, it is one of those afternoons when we have had a number of lectures from distinguished Members of this House, and I want to continue that by going back over a little bit of history. Some of those who are academically inclined would recall that in the United States during the 19th century there was a political Party called the Know Nothing Party. That Party was characterized primarily by the answer it gave to every question, which was, "We don't want to know anything about that". Well, Canada has once again duplicated in all its glory the American pattern with our own Know Nothing Party, otherwise known as the Government of Canada.
From time to time we have heard statements made by members of the governing caucus. In answer to questions for information their basic response is that it is better if Canadians do not know what is happening to them. There is no point in having information, understanding what is going on, or trying to analyse the impact of foreign investment. They want to ensure that the people do not know. They tell us to trust in them, have faith, and believe. That is all right if you are in church, but we are in Parliament. Parliament expects a reasoned, rational approach to public policy dependent upon useful information and, more particularly, information that will ultimately hold members of the executive accountable for their actions.
In the Investment Canada Bill the most serious investment they are talking about is the investment of the Minister responsible with the most extraordinary powers ever given to a Minister under any statute ever passed by this Parliament. He is accountable to no one for any of it. He will be responsible for billions of dollars of investment decisions and no one will know why, how, who, or what the exact result will be. One wonders if the Conservative Members of Parliament realize the kind of power they are giving to their Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. If I were a Member of Parliament from Quebec I would be a little concerned. We saw how sensitive he was to the concerns of Quebec with regard to Domtar because he had arbitrary powers. They should be equally concerned that this Minister has full and total responsibility for making decisions and that he reports to no one. Yet they argue time and again that they do not want to know. I guess if you are a member of a know-nothing Party, that sounds reasonable. They feel that perhaps they can slide it by and no one will notice what the Minister is doing. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is not that easy.
We have seen time and again that decisions by foreign investors sometimes have a devastating impact upon communities, workers and industries. The case of Canadian General Electric was raised in the House this week. The parent company in the United States imposed requirements upon its subsidiary basically to strip the company to improve the dividend performance of the parent company. The parent company said that if the subsidiary did not do that, it would shut it down or sell it off.
Investment Canada Act
Under the Investment Canada Bill it will be increasingly hard to get information about those kinds of decisions. We introduced amendments in the last grouping which were turned down, amendments that attempted to make the Minister accountable. At this stage we are giving the Minister an incredible amount of power and putting a veil of secrecy around those decisions to ensure that Canadians will not know what the impact will be.
I would like to point out another very telling case, Mr. Speaker. Time and again we were told before the committee that there is a substantial difference between the performance of foreign-owned companies and that of Canadian-owned companies. That was not socialist propaganda or Liberal mythology. We heard that from the Conference Board, from the Science Council and from reputed research organizations, which said that foreign investors import a much higher range of components from their parent companies, therefore substantially impacting upon our balance of payments. It is also true that subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies are not allowed to export or compete against their parent company. It is also true that subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies do not provide nearly the same amount of research and development.
If those suppositions and representations have any element of truth to them, Mr. Speaker, the Government that is responsible for the economy of the country should be prepared to do the analysis and intelligence and to provide the information to determine what the impact of foreign-owned investment in the country should be. It should also be prepared to share that information with Parliament so that all legislators would know it in case of need for remedial legislation or for a response.
If the Government is saying that the great panacea to our economic condition in Canada is wide open foreign investment, then logically Parliament should be able to determine in the future whether that hypothesis is correct. At least the Government should be willing to put its hypothesis to a test. If members of the Government are as firmly convinced as they say they are that wide open foreign investment is the answer, then why are they afraid to have that information shared with Parliament so that in a year or two they can be called to account?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Because they are know-nothings.


Lloyd Axworthy: Because they are know-nothings, and furthermore, I suspect that they do not have the courage of their convictions. I think they are chicken. Otherwise they would agree to the amendments that have been brought forward by the Liberal and New Democratic caucuses asking for further information so that we can hold them to the test and determine whether their blind faith and true belief in the miraculous solution of foreign investment pans out. They are not prepared to live up to the faith they have placed in their commitments. They are not prepared to do the intelligence or allow Investment Canada to publish that information for the benefit of Members of Parliament and the public.
I can only conclude that they know something that the rest of us know, even though they are not prepared to admit it, that

May 1, 1985
Investment Canada Act
is, that foreign investment is not the economic answer to what ails Canada. The answer must be found within Canada, through Canadian investment and Canadian growth. It is embarrassing for all Canadians when the Government says that it must rely on foreigners to solve our economic problems. It is churlish of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) to preach that someone else must provide the solutions to our economic ills.
Time and again, as the Government has rejected amendment after amendment, we have seen that it is not prepared to provide improvement to this Bill which would encourage further enhancement of Canadian investment or to hold the Minister accountable for his actions. It is not prepared to provide information to Parliament that would determine whether foreign investment is working. It is are not prepared to support amendments that would give Canadians the right to ensure that the technology and investment which takes place here will be worth-while and beneficial to Canadian workers. It is providing us with a know-nothing solution. It is asking Canadians to act on faith and belief. Mr. Speaker, its theology is faulty and its faith is lacking. That is why the Opposition intends to continue to oppose this Bill and why our Party supports these amendments.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to some of the comments made by some of my colleagues in the Conservative Party this afternoon. We in the New Democratic Party feel very strongly that we do not have to look to foreigners to solve our problems. We do not have to look to Hong Kong to solve the economic and social problems in our country. We have faith in Canadian investors. We have faith in Canadian businesses. Given the right leadership and opportunities from the federal and provincial Governments, we can create the economic climate and expansion, and therefore the jobs, to put the 1.5 million unemployed people back to work in our country. We have faith in Canadians.
This Investment Canada Bill says that the Government does not have faith in Canadians. The Conservatives are saying that they want to make it easy for foreign investors and business people to come to Canada because they do not have faith in Canadians to do the job. The fact that there is more foreign control of our economy than in virtually any country in the world is overlooked. This Bill displays almost a religious zeal that is built on the assumption that making it easier for foreigners to come into our country will automatically make life in Canada better.
In the last number of months I recall many of my colleagues standing in the House holding letters written from the head offices of foreign corporations based in the United States, Japan and Europe directing their branch plants operating in Canada not to do any research and development in Canada. This is taking place at a time when research and development in our country is of paramount importance. Yet the directive
to branch plants in Canada was not to participate or make expenditures in research and development because it is being done in Dallas, Texas, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Hong Kong or Singapore. We do not want to see a situation in Canada where firms are encouraged not to participate in research and development into new product lines and economic activity.
A second directive that has been quoted time and again by Members of the House has been for the branch plants of foreign head offices not to participate in export development or try to sell the goods they are producing to another country. Again, that is the job of the parent corporation. At the time when we need more export development, export opportunities and more research and development, the provisions of this Bill will prohibit that development. It is almost a guarantee that firms within Canada will not participate in research and development and the creation of export opportunities.
Government Members are declaring that this Bill will help business in Canada. I recall listening to bankers when they appeared before the committee. These were domestic bankers from schedule A banks, schedule B banks as well as foreign bankers. They were asked if this Bill will result in a significant amount of additional investment in Canada. Their answer was no. They said that in their estimation the Foreign Investment Review Agency did not really stop any investment of any substance in Canada. I am not talking about fly-by-night operators who want to come in and rip off the system for a short term without having to go through all the hassle, but legitimate firms who wanted to come to Canada to make a long-term investment in an operation. They were quite prepared to demonstrate to the FIRA officials that in fact their development in Canada would be for the benefit of Canadians.
I am most surprised when I hear government Members saying that they will vote against these motions of the NDP and the Liberal Parties. These thoughtful motions from our two caucuses are simply asking that more information be made public. Government Members are saying that they do not want that to happen. They want to impose a veil of secrecy over this operation. They do not want to obtain and provide information to parliamentarians that would demonstrate what the role of a foreign corporation is in our country. They do not want those firms operating in Canada to demonstrate how they are benefiting Canadians in the Canadian economy.
If this discussion were taking place eight months ago when the Conservative Members were in opposition, I suggest that they would be standing up one after the other ranting and raving, screaming and shouting, ringing the bells and stopping votes because of the dictatorial powers that this Bill gives the Minister responsible for Regional Industrial Expansion.
The other day we saw the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion hand out tens of millions of dollars to a central Canadian corporation because he felt that it was the appropriate thing to do. This Bill gives more powers than we have seen given to any other Minister responsible for an economic portfolio in this country.
While I might have a lot of faith in the present Minister, I am not certain that any Minister of the Crown should have
May 1, 1985

these incredible powers to make economic decisions as though he were being given the divine right to decide on the future of what corporations and what type of economic development would be in the best interests of our country.
When listening to witnesses who appeared before the committee, Mr. Howarth, a former FIRA commissioner, made a presentation. Let me read a few of his words about the whole matter of secrecy. 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. 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 and cover up their own misdeeds and so on and so on. 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.
This FIRA commissioner went on to say:
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.
I think the people of Canada understood that the Government was committed to making the proceedings of Government more open and accessible to the public; that it was going to allow the public to see the inner workings of the system.
This new Act, as reflected in the words of a former commissioner, is making things as secret if not more secret. Surely that is the motivation behind the presentation of these motions which we are discussing. They would shed some light on those activities so that the public could see what is happening. Presumably the Government has nothing to hide about how it will deal with corporations under this new Act. Surely the firms that will be operating in Canada from foreign bases will be acting in an honourable way. That is what we want to see.
In closing let me say that if we as parliamentarians are going to be responsible, it would be very naive of us to assume that the operations of a foreign based corporation in our country will be in our best interests. When one sees what the petrochemical companies have done to our river system and our environment generally, one finds that it is one of many examples of corporations that have not acted in the best interest of Canada and Canadians but only in the best interest of their shareholders.
Looking at the track record I suspect that foreign-based firms are the greatest culprits. All that we are asking in these motions is to be more open and to let Canadians have an opportunity to see the activities of these corporations in Canada. Surely, in the spirit of openness and freedom of speech, that is not an unreasonable request.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Investment Canada Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). It is my understanding that Motions Nos. 8, 12, 32, 63, 69, 74 and 75 are grouped. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [DOT]


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded divisions on the proposed group of motions stand deferred.
The next grouping is Motions Nos. 19 and 20.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 19
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 12 to 14 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"the Minister in exercising his powers under this Act, to secure notifications and conduct reviews of investments by non-Canadians under this Act, and provide to other relevant federal departments and agencies information about means to stimulate investment by Canadians in Canada."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motion No. 20 is to be moved by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). He is not here. Could I have unanimous consent to have the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) move Motion No. 20 for the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor? Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We are debating Motion No. 19.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to have a clarification on the proceedings. We were intending to debate Motions Nos. 19 and 20 together. Is it your ruling that we are not now doing that because unanimous consent was not given?

May 1, 1985
Investment Canada Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We cannot propose Motion No. 20 because the Hon. Member is not in the House and unanimous consent was not given. That is correct.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would you clarify for me exactly, because I am not certain about the interchange you had with the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). Is the result of it that Motion No. 20 will now be lost?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, I am afraid so. It cannot be proposed. It was grouped together with Motion No. 19, but it cannot be proposed because the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) is not in the Chamber. We are now debating Motion 19.


Raymond John Skelly: My I ask one further thing, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, you may.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, there have been other occasions when Ministers and other Members of the House have requested this type of permission and it has gone forward without too many problems. I am quite surprised that members of the Conservative Party would not recognize this-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate that. Any Minister can act for any other Minister because they have collegiality.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on the same point of order? I just intervene because in watching the proceedings I was not sure what the actual indication was from Members opposite. I understood that they were prepared to give unanimous consent to having the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) move Motion No. 20 for the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). At least in terms of the indulgence of the House, you might want to take that sounding again. Maybe we could clarify the matter and eliminate something of a procedural wrangle.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that when we asked for unanimous consent-and I am talking to an old professional, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), and I know I will get his attention-it was in the spirit of proceeding more rapidly. When we ask for special permission from time to time we have a tendency to say no, and that is it. May I just make an appeal to our colleagues? We have three and a half years to go and there may be other times when the Government may want to ask for permission-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Dick).


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate that, by all means, our Party will be happy to give unanimous consent in this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for Motion No. 20 to be moved by the Hon. Member
for Comox-Powell River on behalf of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Raymond John Skelly: Motion No. 20
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 14 at page 5 the following:
"(2) The Agency shall have the power to ask for policy directives from the
Governor-in-Council as it deems necessary."


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is an historic moment in this young Parliament in that we are now working in the spirit of co-operation. I hope the spirit will carry over slightly longer and we might find some agreement on the amendments. Though I understand that will be a proposition that is a little tougher, I am quite prepared to try to make the case. I hope this amendment, the one that we are introducing in Motion No. 19, will speak for itself. Motion No. 19 is a motion that is fair, reasonable and provides to the Government a more accurate portrayal of its own intentions.
During the course of our committee hearings, there was one central theme that we heard from all private sector delegations. They wanted certainty. They wanted to make sure that the Bill as passed by the House would clearly enunciate what the actual objectives were, what the procedures would be and what the rules and responsibilities of the various players and partners would be.
If I were to make any criticism at all of our former FIRA legislation, there were from time to time certain areas of ambiguity about its deliberations. I think that quite honestly and for good reason the people who appeared before us said, "Give us a Bill that, in a very distinguishable way, ensures that when people read the Bill as passed by Parliament they will know what to expect".
I suggest that the amendment we are presenting is presented to meet that concern.
Clause 6 as it now stands, Mr. Speaker, reads:
There is hereby established an agency, to be known as Investment Canada, to advise and assist the Minister in exercising his powers and performing his duties under this Act.
What are those powers and duties? Nowhere in the Bill will you find an elaboration of what the Minister is supposed to do. Again we are transferring a very general, vague set of powers and duties which may be further elaborated by regulation but do not have the sanction of parliamentary statutory passage in this House.
Our amendment at least attempts to clarify in three important respects that the Minister is responsible and so is Investment Canada for advising on questions of notification and review. This will ensure that foreign investors will know what to expect. Second, as a bare minimum the Minister will be responsible for sharing information with his colleagues about how to stimulate investment in Canada by Canadians.
May 1, 1985

In a previous set of amendments, which unfortunately were ruled out of order, we provided eight or nine specific enumerations of what the ministerial powers and duties should be. However, in its wisdom the Chair felt that that was going beyond the scope of the Bill. These are accepted as being in order by the Chair. Therefore, I make the case that they do not interfere with the objectives of the Bill, but do in fact establish that this is still a Bill to review and notify on foreign investment.
I know that some Members opposite may want it otherwise, but you cannot camouflage the fact that there is still to be a review of foreign investment. It will be a weak review, it may be a non-influential review, but it is a review nonetheless. As a result, it is important once again that this be clearly established in the Bill. Perhaps more important, we say that part of the powers and duties of the Minister should be to share information, if not with Parliament, at least with other Departments and agencies so that they can complement decisions taken under Investment Canada with their own investment decisions.
One of the most important reponsibilities of any Government is to get its act together to co-ordinate the various actions of different Departments and agencies. That is not an easy thing to do, especially when you have 40 Ministers, almost one-third the Ministers in history. There is a requirement to bring those different Departments and agencies together in order to co-ordinate the various forms of investment that might be made by the Department of Transport, the Department of Supply and Services or the Department of Communications. We say in this Bill in particular that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion should be required to try to co-ordinate those investment plans that come about as a result of a decision he is taking under this Bill, to co-ordinate that with other Departments.
I make that case because of its importance for regional development. If, for example, a foreign investor is establishing here, because of the review provisions in this Act the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion should know that there may be some impact upon resource development in the Atlantic provinces. That would immediately affect the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of State for Forestry. Surely we should try to bring those various Ministers together to get a total impact of that investment as opposed to having it happen separately in a discordant fashion.
I ask Members opposite what is wrong with that. Surely they are not going to argue that that kind of co-ordination, that sharing of information is somehow inimical to the interests of Canada and inimical to the interests of this Government. Equally, it may be that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion receives notification about a proposed take-over and that some other Minister is working on a proposal for a Canadian investor in the same region, in the same area. That Minister should also be informed of the intentions. It should redound upon the ultimate decision taken
Investment Canada Act
by the Minister responsible under this Act to refuse that application for a takeover or for some pre-acquisition.
I hope that the Conservative Members of this Parliament will understand that the amendment we are bringing forward in this case, Motion No. 19, is designed to ensure that any decision taken by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion will be compatible with Canadian investment opportunities and that we will not by his decision forgo or cancel out some activity by a Canadian investor or enterprise that would be put out of action by a foreign investor. Certainly that fits the objective of the Bill which, we say, is to encourage Canadian investment. I would assume that if there is to be an advantage or a priority, this Government will have to accept that the priority should be given to Canadian investment.
In the remarks I made a few minutes earlier, I pointed out that the evidence is conclusive that Canadian investment carries with it substantially higher economic benefits than does foreign investment in terms of research and development, export potential and less reliance upon imports from other countries. Therefore, we have a clear case. In weighing the balance, if there is some kind of judgment between the advantage of a Canadian investor and a foreign investor, the Canadian investor should have the priority. That will only happen if there is some sharing of information, which is what our amendment proposes.
If Hon. Members accept that basic proposition, they should support this amendment. We will give them enough time, certainly during the debate on this motion, to take it up in caucus, to consult with their Minister and perhaps come in with a willingness to show that they as a Government are prepared to say in a clear way that when it comes down to a choice, they are going to choose Canadians over foreigners, that they will clearly enunciate their belief that when it comes down to weighing the balance, it is Canadian investment that should have the priority. That is not to say that foreign investment will not be considered, but under this amendment we require the Minister under this Act to make sure that in the weighing of the balance the preference will clearly be on the side of Canadian investment and Canadian enterprise. With that, I recommend this amendment to the House. I look forward to its constructive response.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on both amendments. I think the grouping is reasonable. Together they make one very important point, that is, that the base of responsibility for the operation of the agency and the work of the Minister under this Act must be as wide as possible. Both these amendments have the effect of asking for that widening beyond what is provided by the Bill at present. That widening is needed not only so that the operation will be seen to be fair in a situation where there are competing interests and a possibility of the appearance of unfairness of any decision by any person or body, not only for the best chance of fairness and appearance of fairness, but also for effectiveness. I will come back to that with regard to the garment industry as I have become acquainted with it in Spadina.

May 1, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Motion No. 20 proposes, and I quote:
The Agency shall have the power to ask for policy directives from the Governor in Council as it deems necessary.
This is the subsection that would be added. The first reads:
There is hereby established an agency, to be known as Investment Canada, to advise and assist the Minister in exercising his powers and performing his duties under this Act.
Our amendment would go on to say:
The Agency shall have the power to ask for policy directives from the Governor in Council as it deems necessary.
The point of that is very clear. Those who are appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Cabinet and anyone else with whom he chooses to consult must be people in whom he has confidence, and they in turn can exercise that confidence by requesting directives from the entire Cabinet and not exclusively from the Minister who, after all, has the limitation of being only one person, however capable a person he may be. In other words, this widens the base of accountability.
The motion put by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) provides that the agency will advise the Minister in exercising his powers under this Act to secure notifications and conduct reviews of investments by non-Canadians under this Act and provide to other relevant federal Departments and agencies information about means to stimulate investment by Canadians in Canada. That is a very important function. I do not think that function can be adequately exercised if, at a vital point, it has to be entirely and exclusively channelled through one person, however competent that person may be. The one Minister will still have the final responsibility for decisions, but there is a great deal that can and should go before that and a great deal that might come after that in the implementation of the decisions.
What is particularly critical here is the relationship to the investment by Canadians in Canada. Here I am referring to the purpose of this legislation as stated in Clause 2 which indicates that increased capital and technology would benefit Canada and that the purpose of the Act therefore is to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians. In other words, this Bill is not only concerned with investment by non-Canadians but is concerned with investment by Canadians.
I suggest that investment by Canadians is more important than investment by non-Canadians. Canadians may have more money or less money than non-Canadians and they may have more ideas or fewer ideas than non-Canadians, but what they have is a sense of accountability to Canada and very often a superior knowledge of Canada. Therefore, I suggest that the principle must be to integrate investment by non-Canadians into investment by Canadians. For that to happen, there is a great need for consultation with the industry in which the investment may be made. That consultation should not take place through favouritism. There should not be consultation with only those who happen to have the ear of a particular Minister. That consultation should take place in a properly
established and organized way that is accountable through the agency and whatever advisory groups or subcommittees the agency might establish.
In Spadina, there still exists a large and flourishing garment manufacturing industry. Some Hon. Members have heard me mention this before. What I have been told by a spokesman for that industry is that members of the industry are prepared to develop and modernize to a very considerable extent. They are not only interested in modernizing but they say they have the money to do so. They do not say that they can get the money from outside; they say that they have the money to introduce computer-guided technology and other modernizations into the industry. They have certain concerns about the security of their investment and those concerns relate to the Canadian market. They say that we do not need to give them money to develop the industry but that we just need to assure them of a reasonable share of the market for more than a year at a time.
Technological change in the garment industry is moving fast, whether it be in Canada or in other countries. Everyone agrees that Canada must keep pace with that movement. The people to make those changes should primarily be the Canadians who are now working in the industry. The people who could give the best advice about how investment by non-Canadians could be integrated into that industry are the Canadians who are now working in the industry. They would be able to give advice about just what kind of technology and training through our technical colleges is needed. They would be able to give advice about the production of the appropriate machinery and equipment for this technological development.
These people should have the assurance that they will be heard in an organized way. Therefore, there should be advisory structures developed, and the proper point of application for those structures would be the agency as envisaged here. However, the people who work in the industry must have the assurance that that agency will be able to make responsible use of the advice it receives. The final decision will still be in the hands of the Minister but the people in the industry will want to know that the agency is able to request advice from the Cabinet. They will want to know that the agency genuinely shares with the Minister the responsibility for securing notifications, conducting reviews and doing the other work that is necessary under this Act, and they will want to know that the agency will not simply be a rubber stamp.
One person, however capable, cannot provide the assurances to which I have referred because he cannot be instantaneously in touch with many representatives of many industries. Therefore, I urge the House to adopt these amendments in the interests not only of fair play but of effectiveness.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on behalf of the motion brought forward by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). I believe it is a motion that goes quite far not only toward what we hope to achieve for purposes of better information service to the economy of the country but it can also have a very positive effect on the development and management of the regional development of this country.
May 1, 1985

I would like to deal with my first point which is the knowledge of what is going on in the economy of the country. We need this knowledge so that we can minimize the negative surprises we receive when companies pull out of the country and when jobs are taken away from branch plants and given to head offices in foreign countries. We need this knowledge to be able to communicate between Departments. I think it is of vital importance that this knowledge be increased and considered a routine procedure between government Departments. If it is not, there could be takeovers prompted and approved by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion that will have a very negative effect on the responsibilities of the Departments of Science and Technology and Energy, Mines and Resources.
For instance, a takeover could run completely contrary to what Canadians want to see happen, which is 50 per cent Canadianization of the oil and gas industry by 1990. This is a tremendously important aspect. If each government Department had the information that other Departments have, then we could better prevent such negative and sudden turns that are not considered beneficial to the Canadian economy.
As well, I would like to deal with the regional development aspect of this amendment. Here we have something that is a very positive by-product of this motion to amend Bill C-15. If Hon. Members are aware of the concept of regional development in other countries, they will know that regional development is not handled by a Department of the Government but quite often by the office of the Leader of the Government. The reason for this is that, through the Leader's office, a Government is better able to co-ordinate the concept of regional development. It is not left to a Department, with the vested interests of that Department, as is the case in Canada. The Leader, through his or her office, is able to co-ordinate with other Departments the activity of regional development. That is important, not only from the point of view of determining what a prospective investor would want and need to be able to carry on the work of the organization in that region, but conversely, it can also be used by the Government to plan the economic future of that region. The Government would be able to determine what that region required to be able to attract economic activity.
I see that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) is in the House today. I would like to tell him that the removal by his Government of the federal building in Sydney has had a very adverse effect on the economy of that area. The cancellation of the decentralization project of social income security from Halifax to Sydney-and Sydney has over 40 per cent unemployment-is taking jobs away from an area which needs those jobs. The Government is taking away jobs which could have been created instantaneously and which would have had a spiral effect in the community. The project would have provided an economic stimulus and it would have diversified the economy. It would have created business for hotels, motels, and transportation. It would have created an economic spinoff and put additional moneys in the economy if the decentraliza-
Investment Canada Act
tion offices had been moved to downtown Sydney. It would have created a stimulus for downtown restructuring in an area which badly needs the activity.
Had the Government considered the activities of all Departments before making those decisions, it would not have created the additional hardship in industrial Cape Breton which it has created. In addition, the Minister's Department has not followed through with downtown and harbour development in the City of Sydney, thereby making it less attractive to industries which would set up businesses in that city.
There is also a need to co-ordinate with provincial Governments as to what certain areas require. For instance, if an area has adequate school and hospital facilities, of course it will be much more attractive to regional and industrial development than an area which does not have those facilities. Those concepts should be thought out and co-ordinated. That is not being done by this Government nearly to the extent to which it was done by the last Government. The areas of regional disparity are slipping further and further behind the growth areas. It is a tragedy. If the downward slide can be caught with industrial and regional development, then the distance will be less to bring that area back to the Canadian norm and, more important, the level which we in Canada consider to be the level of economic development and life which we want to have in Canada.
More important than the disparity between regions is the disparity between people. In this technological age, because there has been no consideration given to planning and because of the lack of co-ordination between Departments, we do not know what employment opportunities will be provided to Canadians. There are thousands and thousands of young people who have given up hope of finding jobs. There is not even a make-work program into which they can fit. They are not coming off unemployment insurance and they are not employed. They are not disabled. They are young people who want to make a start. Because they have not had unemployment insurance benefits, they cannot qualify for grants because only people whose unemployment insurance has expired can receive them. It is a Catch-22 situation. It is very dangerous. We are dealing with the lives of Canadian citizens. To make it even worse, we are dealing with people who know what they have to offer to this country. We are snuffing out the possibilities and the hopes which young people have. With regard to other Canadians, we are snuffing out the possibility that they will be able to fit into the technological age and the job opportunities which will come from that. If we are not careful, the Government will create a society within a society-one society with possibilities and upward mobility and a second society without any hope of being able to be a part of what this country has to offer.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the two amendments to Clause 6 of Bill C-15. Clause 6 is important because it creates the agency which will be known as Investment Canada. The first amendment was moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and the second amendment was moved by the

May 1, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). They attempt to spell out in further detail what should be the powers and requirements of the agency.
The effect of the amendments will be to increase the scope of Investment Canada. Instead of being there only to advise and assist the Minister in exercising the directives which the Minister may set out, the amendment indicates that the agency shall assist:
The Minister in exercising his powers under this Act, to secure notifications and conduct reviews of investments by non-Canadians under this Act, and provide to other relevant federal departments and agencies information about means to stimulate investment by Canadians in Canada.
The second amendment would further add to that clause by adding the following:
(2) The Agency shall have the power to ask for policy directives from the Governor-in-Council as it deems necessary.
The first amendment would expand the scope of the agency and the second amendment would provide a certain amount of independence for the agency which would permit it to make recommendations to the Governor-in-Council or to Cabinet.
What do Canadians expect from Investment Canada? I think that it depends upon which Canadians you ask. The Government seems to be making this the flagship of its economic policy. It is the only economic change which has been proposed during the term of the Government thus far. It leads one to conclude that the problems of unemployment, high interest rates and getting the economy fully functioning again are being left by the Government to the tender mercies of foreign investors. The Government is putting everything in one basket and relying on foreign investment to bail the country out of its problems.
Is that realistic? I think not. I would like to continue when we next meet again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the Bill is before the House again, the Hon. Member will have the remaining six minutes in which to speak.
It being 6 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 2, 1985