1985-04-23

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Mr. Speaker:: As Hon. Members are aware, there are 99 motions on the Notice Paper in amendment at the report stage to Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada. With the little time available to the Chair, 1 have had an opportunity, with the Table Officers, to examine all of these motions to determine their procedural acceptability or, in any case, to group them for debate. I therefore wish to suggest, at the moment, in a preliminary way, the following. I want to emphasize at this point, and I will come back to it at the end, that this is a preliminary suggestion to the House.
1.	Motions Nos. 1 and 2 should be grouped for debate with a separate vote on each motion.
2.	Motion No. 3 gives the Chair some procedural difficulty in that it appears to violate the principle of the Bill as agreed to, by the House, at the second reading stage and is argumentative in its form.
3.	Motions Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 should be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
4.	Motion No. 5 restricts the Minister's assistance to Canadian owned businesses to exploit opportunities for investment and technological advancement, thereby violating the principle of the Bill as agreed to at second reading.
5.	Motions Nos. 6 and 7 be grouped with motion No. 4 and others.
6.	Motions Nos. 8, 12, 32, 63, 69, 74 and 75 all deal with publicizing the information received by the Agency and should be grouped for debate, with a vote on motion No. 8 disposing of motions Nos. 12, 32, 63, 69, 74 and 75.
7.	Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11 were grouped with motion No. 4 and others.
8.	Motion No. 12 be grouped with motion No. 8 and others.
9.	Motion No. 13 seeks to introduce into the Bill new proposals which go beyond the four corners of the Bill.
10.	Motions Nos. 14 to 18 inclusive were grouped with motion No. 4 and others.
11.	Motions Nos. 19 and 20 would be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
12.	Motion No. 21, like the previous motions referred to by the Chair, goes beyond the principle of the Bill as agreed to at second reading and therefore should not be proposed to the House.
13.	Motion No. 22 goes beyond the scope of the clause it seeks to amend and would infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown.
14.	Motions Nos. 23, 24 and 25 should be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
15.	Motion No. 26 adds a new exemption to the clause and goes beyond the principle of the Bill.
16.	Motions Nos. 27, 30 and 67 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
17.	Motion No. 28 seems to go beyond the principle of the Bill as agreed to at second reading.
18.	Motion No. 29 seeks to impose certain tasks on nonCanadian businesses which goes beyond the principle of the Bill and infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown.
19.	Motion No. 30, as I stated earlier, is grouped with motions Nos. 27 and 67.
20.	Motion No. 31 should be debated and voted on separately.
21.	Motion No. 32 was grouped with motion numbered 8 and others.
22.	Motion No. 33 seeks to establish a committee not envisaged in the Bill and is a new proposition which goes beyond the four corners of the Bill. Motions Nos. 54, 62, 65, 66, 71, 73, 92 and 93 are consequential on motion No. 33 and, as well, should not be proposed to the House.
23.	Motions Nos. 34, 35, 36, 38 and 38A will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
(a)	An affirmative vote on motion No. 34 disposes of motion
No. 35. A negative vote on motion No. 34 necessitates the
question being put on motion No. 35.
(b)	Motions Nos. 36, 38 and 38A will be voted on
separately.
24.	Motion No. 37 would cause the Agency to review the assets of non-Canadians thereby discriminating against them,

April 23, 1985
Investment Canada Act
which is contrary to the purpose of the Bill as agreed to at second reading.
25.	Motion No. 38 was grouped with motion No. 34 and others.
26.	Motion No. 39 would appear to exclude non-Canadians from directly acquiring certain Canadian businesses and goes beyond the scope of the Bill.
27.	Motion No. 40 would oblige non-Canadian owners of Canadian businesses to offer them for sale under fixed conditions and this was not foreseen in the Bill as adopted at second reading.
28.	Motion No. 41 should be debated and voted on separately.
29.	Motions Nos. 42 to 49 inclusive are similar efforts to introduce into the Bill types of investments that would require review. This was not foreseen when the Bill was agreed to at second reading. Motion No. 51 is consequential on motions Nos. 42 to 49 and falls into the same category.
30.	Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53 are in order and should be grouped for debate. However, a vote on motion No. 50 will dispose of motion No. 52. Motion No. 53 will be voted on separately.
31.	Motion No. 54 has been grouped with motion No. 33 and others.
32.	Motions Nos. 55 to 61 inclusive appear to introduce new factors into Clause 20 which will affect how net benefits are determined and are therefore beyond the scope of the clause.
33.	Motion No. 62 was grouped with motion No. 8 and others.
34.	Motion No. 64 appears to add to the scope and purpose of the Bill and infringes on the Royal Recommendation. It also appears to do indirectly what cannot be done directly, that is, amend the definition clause.
36.	Motions Nos. 65 and 66 were grouped with motion No. 33 and others.
37.	Motion No. 67 was grouped with motions Nos. 27 and 30.
38.	Motions Nos. 68, 70 and 72 should be grouped for debate. Motion No. 68 will be voted on separately and a vote on motion No. 70 will dispose of motion No. 72.
39.	Motion No. 69 was grouped with motion No. 8 and others.
40.	Motion No. 70 was grouped with motions Nos. 68 and 72.
41.	Motions Nos. 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75 were grouped earlier by the Chair.
42.	Motions Nos. 76, 76A, 77, 11 A, 77B and 77C are to be debated and voted on separately.
43.	Motions Nos. 78 and 79 give the Chair some difficulty in what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is trying to achieve. If the motions have, as their purpose, the expansion of the scope of the Agency, then for obvious reasons, they are out of order. I will, however, ask the Hon. Member to explain their purpose before making a final decision as to their acceptability.
44.	Motion No. 80 attempts to provide regulatory power that is not contemplated in the Bill, is novel, and new to the Bill and should not be proposed to the House.
45.	Motion No. 81 should be debated and voted on separately.
46.	Motions Nos. 82 to 88 inclusive appear to be directly related. Motion No. 82 attempts to give to a committee of the Senate or the House of Commons authority which was clearly not contemplated in the Bill prior to its adoption at second reading stage. Therefore, it should not be proposed to the House. Motion No. 83 is contrary to the contents of the clause and to the principle of the Bill as adopted at second reading. As motions Nos. 84 to 88 inclusive are consequential to this motion, they should not be proposed to the House.
47.	Motion No. 89 should be debated and voted on separately.
48.	Motions Nos. 90 and 91 are interrelated-a multiplicity of reports. Motion No. 91 appears to place an additional charge on the Treasury and thus involves expenditures not foreseen in the Royal Recommendation attached to the Bill and should not be proposed to the House. As motion No. 90 is consequential to motion No. 91, it would also appear to be out of order.
49.	Motions Nos. 92 and 93 were grouped with motion No. 33 and others.
50.	Motion No. 94 attempts to delete all references in the Bill to the Minister and replace them with Governor-in-Council or body designated by the Governor-in-Council except in the interpretation clause, namely Clause 3. In the opinion of the Chair, this is inconsistent with the interpretation clause and goes against the principle of the Bill as agreed to by the House at the second reading stage.
It is my understanding from the remarks of the Hon. President of the Privy Council, the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn), that this Bill will not be called again until Thursday of this week. It would be the Chair's intention, when the Order is called at eleven o'clock a.m. on Thursday next, to give Hon. Members an opportunity to speak to the procedural regularity of the motions on which 1 have expressed my reservations.
For the benefit of Hon. Members, these are Motions Nos. 3, 5, 13, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 33, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 71, 73, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93 and 94.
For the moment, I suggest that debate begin on the Bill at the report stage on Motions Nos. 1 and 2.
April 23, 1985


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just for the sake of better understanding and better work on this Bill at report stage, there are a couple of expressions that are new to Members, including myself. For example, at item 9 you said that Motion No. 13 seeks to introduce into the Bill new proposals which go beyond the "four corners of the Bill".
Second, in item 8 you state that Motion No. 12 has been grouped with Motion No. 8 "and others". Could you explain what "others" means?


Mr. Speaker:: What is meant in the second case is that the grouping was already indicated in paragraph 6. I was trying to comment on each clause in order. This meant that in dealing with a subsequent clause, that clause was already grouped with an earlier clause.
If the Hon. Member looks at item No. 6 in the document, he will see the point that I am making. In other words, once I have given the grouping once, I do not repeat it.
With respect to "four corners of the Bill", I think pride of authorship allows me to say that it is meant to say outside the scope of the House of the Bill. We will now proceed to Motions Nos. 1 and 2.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry) moved:: Motion No. I.
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 6 to 14 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Recognizing that increased capital investment and innovative technology would benefit Canada, the purpose of this Act is to provide for the notification and review of proposed investments in Canada by non-Canadians in order to ensure that they contribute to economic growth and employment opportunities, and to encourage beneficial investment in Canada by Canadians."


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated, I propose to group that with Motion No. 2 by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Landgon).


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) moved:: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 7 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"the technology under the appropriate terms and conditions established by the government, would benefit Canada, the pur-".


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, may I beg your indulgence to say that I very much appreciate the work that you and the Clerk's office have done in dealing with this substantially large number of amendments. As you say, we have the right to reserve our comments until Thursday but we certainly appreciate the effort that has gone into trying to bring some order to this legislation. The amendments themselves are perfectly clear but we are glad to be able to offer them in a coherent way in order to aid and abet the development of better legislation. Therefore, I want to express my appreciation to you and the staff.
In moving Motion No. 1, I think we should go back to what has been a continual demand for clarity by all those who appeared before the committee. Even in the statements by the
Investment Canada Act
Minister himself there was the admission that in dealing with an investment community it was particularly important for the Parliament of Canada to make its intentions clearly known and not confused with any form of ambiguity.
The reason we moved Motion No. 1 is to attain that objective. First is to demonstrate clearly that the major focus of this legislation is a review procedure for foreign investment. It is a weak review procedure, it is an ineffective review procedure, it is a review procedure that will have limited impact but nevertheless it is a review procedure. To try to camouflage that somehow in the Bill runs against the signalling that is required for us to show the investment community, Canadian and otherwise, what the purpose of this legislation is.
What we are trying to point out is that the investment should be clearly targeted at having a benefit for Canada. One of the overriding concerns that we have raised during the course of the second reading debate and during the committee hearings, which was underlined time and time again by witnesses who appeared before us, is that foreign investment by itself is not an untrammelled virtue. It must be measured and judged by the impact it has on jobs, new technology and direct economic benefits. A number of cases were brought forward to cite how in fact foreign investment could be used to reduce employment, to reduce technological development and to reduce economic performance in Canada and, that foreign investment itself could be used to strip down emerging industries in the high-tech field. It could put newer Canadian businesses out of business. It could be used to crowd out the market-place by the superior market power of the large foreign-owned corporations. The reason for having a review is at least to try to ensure that the ability of this country to protect its own investment community is one that is a clear purpose of this legislation.
It is important to set forward that purpose in a very obvious and unmistakable fashion so that we know there is a purpose here now. Our Party intends to introduce a number of amendments that we hope will be incorporated in the Bill to ensure that that review procedure is improved and we are able more effectively to judge investment applications that will have an impact on Canada in a beneficial way and not in a negative way. We recognize that there is a different philosophy at work, which is simply to say on the part of the Minister and his Government that all foreign investment regardless is good.
But the Minister does not follow the logic of his and his own Government's rhetoric because if that was the point they would have no review procedure whatever. As it is, they maintain a review procedure but the review procedure itself is not a particularly effective, worthwhile or important one because it does not deal with the kind of problems clearly identified during the course of our committee hearings. There can be serious damage or negative results affecting resource communities, smaller businesses in Canada and the investment community dealing in high technology. Those are the areas

April 23, 1985
Investment Canada Act
where we have a high level of vulnerability in our business community. Most other countries do provide some protection. You have only to look at the Japanese market as an example of that. We have a review procedure without teeth. We have a review procedure that only because of the thresholds established and the vagueness of its terms will simply allow most of the investment that has a potential for some problems in our economy to be unreviewed and not judged as to whether it will protect Canadian workers, communities and Canadian jobs.
We have no quarrel with the other purpose of the Bill which is to promote Canadian investment. It has long been a major responsibility of the federal Government that the powers incorporated in this Act are powers which the Minister now virtually has as the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion. If it is there to be included in the Bill, there is no argument with that. We will be presenting amendments that will be used to identify clearly how the Minister might go about promoting Canadian investment in a more active, aggressive way. However, I do not think it would be proper for us to be presenting to the Canadian community on behalf of the Parliament of Canada a statement of purpose which tries to indicate that the primary rationale for this legislation is the promotion of Canadian investment. When we actually look at the substance of the Bill, parts of it deal mainly with setting out who is Canadian, who is non-Canadian, what the review procedures will be, and what the exemptions are to that area.
We think it is important. The Minister should agree with the logic of our position because he has been a proponent of the view that clarity is important and that we must eliminate uncertainty in the investment community. In the administration of an Act, as he well knows from his own experience, public servants, the legal community and others who must deal with the Bill-all those players who are involved with the administration of this Act-start out by reading its objectives as set out in Clause 2. The present Clause 2 is so vague, general and ambiguous that it is difficult to determine what in fact the Government is trying to achieve other than the general global interest of better investment. Legislation of that kind should not be passed; in itself it should relate to what are the prescriptions within the Bill. Therefore, we believe the amendments we have brought forward in no way deny the purpose of the Bill, in no way contradict the objectives set forward by the Government, but clarify, make more cohesive and more coherent and therefore make for a better piece of legislation. They would also establish more clearly what would be the operating principles by which the Bill would be administered and by which the applications would be made.
That is the purpose of the motion we are presenting today. We hope the Government will give it due consideration. We feel that we are presenting, as will always be the case at report stage of a Bill, amendments with the most constructive and positive point of view; that is, to have legislation which in fact will be more effective and more workable and for the general well-being of the Canadian economy.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by expressing a sense of appreciation to the Speaker for his efforts to unravel the great number of amendments which have been presented. What we are attempting to do within the spirit of the Bill as it was passed at second reading is to offer some constructive suggestions about mechanisms by which the Bill could be improved and elements which could be brought into the legislation that will in fact make it more useful.
What underlies the motion we have moved, and what in fact underlies the whole approach we are taking to this Bill, is the sense that direct foreign investment has both contributed to the country and to the problems of the country. Any attempt to deal effectively with this historically important phenomenon in Canada requires that we recognize the potential benefits as well as the potential problems and have a balanced approach which recognizes the significant leadership role of government, a leadership role which our amendment attempts to put right into the purpose Clause of this new piece of legislation.
During the committee hearings on this Bill we heard a great deal from business people about the potential problems which can exist in the context of foreign investment within this country. The former head of a large subsidiary here in Canada came before us and talked about some of the constraints under which he had to operate as the chief executive officer of his particular subsidiary.
Just this past week we have seen the parts producers in the automobile industry make precisely that same point, that left to themselves, foreign subsidiaries tend to constrain the opportunities that are necessary for the Canadian economy to create the jobs and establish the spin-off benefits which are essential to get our economy moving again.
Also, we have had concern registered to us by communities in the course of these hearings. They said to us that the possibility exists that we as a country can see jobs lost in our communities, that we can see workers and suppliers being hurt without a commitment on the part of the Government to take enough leadership in reviewing and encouraging the contribution of foreign investors to this economy.
We have moved the motion that we have to recognize the important role of the Government to set appropriate terms and conditions for foreign investment in this country. It is important to recognize that Government can give a leadership role to foreign investors. The Minister talked about this piece of legislation as signalling a new approach to foreign investors. Part of what we think has to be signalled is a sense of the responsibilities and the kinds of commitments to this community which foreign investors should accept when they come into this country and take over Canadian firms.
We will have a set of amendments which we hope to have included within the Bill. They will involve such important commitments to this country as the commitment to employment equity within firms that are taken over, commitments to economic spin-offs which will benefit all of Canada, commit-
April 23, 1985

merits to good labour relations because that too is crucial within our country. The strategy of our amendments will be a strategy that attempts to make the whole process of review more public. Second, it will try to be even more activist in encouraging Canadian investment within our economy. It will be a strategy that will broaden the range of items to be reviewed because of the necessity to flash signals to investors of what we as a country expect them to contribute to our country and our community.
We hope to see improvements in the criteria that are provided to establish what a net benefit is to Canada in the process of take-over. We hope to clarify the cultural heritage clause of this Bill. In addition, we hope to be able to plug some important financial loopholes which have emerged in the course of detailed scrutiny of this Bill. For instance, those loopholes leave us not even looking at the financial situation of companies intending to take over Canadian companies during the review process according to these criteria.
We have a set of concerns about whether this Act inadvertently leaves out of the review process some very important considerations which 1 think the Government would not want to have left out. Branches of American companies, for instance, need to be reviewed if an indirect take-over is likely to lead to consequences for them and the communities within which they reside in Canada. As well, we need to have a clear definition of what the asset level is of companies which are going to be reviewed. We need to have a sense of what control really represents. We will be offering amendments that attempt to control and improve the financial aspects and details of this Bill through suggestions that will tighten up the wording of the Act.
We start with a basic thrust that there must be a commitment by government to the communities across this country when something takes place that threatens those communities. I refer to take-overs that threaten the jobs of workers, as was the case of Black & Decker, or when a Canadian company goes bankrupt and has to sell its assets, as is happening with a stampings firm now in Smith Falls, about which the Premier of Ontario has expressed concern. When we see cases of companies shutting down, companies rationalizing, jobs being lost, opportunities for Canadian entrepreneurs and opportunities for Canadian communities lost, we see that government has a role and a responsibility. There is a leadership which this Bill should recognize to take and establish the terms and conditions under which we as a country and our communities across this country can expect the very best and most benefits from foreign investment.
We have to make a commitment right at the start of this Bill that we as a country and as a Parliament are taking that leadership. We must recognize our responsibility to set the terms and conditions under which increased investment and increases in technology will be made to contribute rather than to counteract the economic growth that this country requires.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Mlinister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will introduce my comments by simply saying that the words in support of his motion
Investment Canada Act
expressed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and backed up by his buddy, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), were very similar to what we heard when the Bill was before the committee for such a long period of time.
We are dealing with a very fundamental difference between what the Socialist Party seem to espouse as expressed by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor, and to a great extent what the Official Opposition feel likewise to be the case. In considering Clause 2, which after all is the purpose of the Bill, and this is a very fundamental thing that we are dealing with, it is wise to remember what we are proposing to change. I felt that it might be good for the record what the existing Foreign Investment Review Act says under the purpose clause. It was passed in 1974, over 10 years ago, by the Government in power, now the Official Opposition, supported enthusiastically by the Socialists who were the rump group in the Parliament which maintained the Government of that day. This is what the Foreign Investment Review Act says:
This Act is enacted by the Parliament of Canada in recognition by Parliament that the extent to which control of Canadian industry, trade and commerce has become acquired by persons other than Canadians and the effect thereof on the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment is a matter of national concern, and that it is therefore expedient to establish a means by which measures may be taken under the authority of Parliament to ensure that, in so far as is practicable after the enactment of this Act, control of Canadian business enterprises may be acquired by persons other than Canadians, and new businesses may be established in Canada by persons, other than Canadians, who are not already carrying on business in Canada or whose new businesses in Canada would be unrelated to the businesses already being carried on by them in Canada, only if it has been assessed that the acquisition of control of those enterprises or the establishment of those new businesses, as the case may be, by those persons is or is likely to be of significant benefit to Canada, having regard to all of the factors to be taken into account under this Act for that purpose.
The reason I read that into the record is because we must think of its tone. We must think of how offensive that purpose sounds to those who happen to be non-Canadians but might be considering investment in this country.
The reason we felt it was so important to change this type of image is that the record has shown, notwithstanding what the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has stated, that there has been a significant deterioration in this country with respect to job creation and with respect to the inward flow of capital to Canada. In short, the unemployment level of over 11 per cent that we inherited from the previous Government was due in large part to the fact that this type of legislation and its administration tended to kill the natural flow of economic funds that would benefit Canadians.
This debate is about jobs for Canadians. It is time the Socialists and their allies in the Official Opposition levelled with the Canadian public. To the extent that they are trying to frustrate the passage of this legislation, they are denying the creation of wealth in this country for Canadians and, most important, they are denying the creation of jobs for Canadians.

April 23, 1985
Investment Canada Act
We should take a look at the change of thrust that has been suggested by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. I do not know whether or not the entire Official Opposition is behind that Hon. Member, but I can only guess that he has the support of the bulk of the Official Opposition. Our proposed Clause 2 reads:
Recognizing that increased capital and technology would benefit Canada, the purpose or this Act is to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians that contributes to economic growth and employment opportunities-
That is our main purpose. The two Members from the Opposition who have already spoken propose to change that purpose very significantly. They do not propose to emphasize the encouragement of investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians that contributes to economic growth and employment opportunities. They indicate that the Act should provide for the notification and review of proposed investments in Canada by non-Canadians in order to ensure that they contribute to economic growth. They are right back at it. They want to return to the Foreign Investment Review Act terminology. They want to return to the policeman, regulator and agency that discourages investment and economic activity in this country. That is why when this clause was proposed at committee stage, we on the Government side felt that it could not be accepted. It is time we changed the image the world unfortunately has with respect to whether or not we welcome investment in Canada.
A very credible organization, the European Economic Forum, puts out an assessment once a year showing how countries around the world are perceived with respect to investment and economic activity. A year or so ago, its report indicated that in a 24-country survey of how welcome was foreign capital on an inward moving basis, Canada ranked 24th out of 24. Last year, the current report surveyed 28 countries and using the same test, how welcome is the inward movement of capital to the country, Canada ranked 28th out of 28. Is it not truly amazing, Mr. Speaker, that the Official Opposition through one spokesperson, backed up by the Socialist representative from whom we have just heard, in spite of that fact, continues to pound home the belief that the old approach of the Foreign Investment Review Agency should be put in place once again?
The purpose we have set out is the purpose of encouraging investment by Canadians and non-Canadians in economic activity in this country. Since September when we took power, we have approved various foreign proposals for investment in this country. We did a recent survey to find out how many jobs had been created or are anticipated to be created as a result of this new money flowing into Canada. As a result of the applications that we have approved since September under the existing legislation, the figure is 21,000 new jobs for Canadians. We have been able to indicate that another 2,500 jobs will be saved. Think what can be done when we get the positive mandate that Bill C-15 will give us to look for more investment of this type from Canadians and non-Canadians.
We want to reverse the trend of capital flowing out of this country. Since 1979, the startling fact is that there has been a
net outflow of foreign investment from Canada of $2 billion. That is shameful. Never before in our history have we had such an exodus of equity funds from Canada over such a time frame. This is the trend we feel must be reversed and those who speak against the thrust and purpose of Bill C-15 are denying the reversal of that trend and are denying jobs for Canadians.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of remarks to make regarding the statement of the Minister. I find it very funny to listen to the Minister speak about encouraging job creation when this very Minister accepted the cut made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) which removed some $200 million from his Department. From where did the Minister remove that $200 million? It was from his incentive programs. The very area of his Department which has a concrete effect on the high unemployment areas of the country has been cut. Yet the Minister rises in the House today to say, "Look at all these jobs we are going to create".
The Minister should realize that the real job creation in this country comes from the same sector as businesses that have survived the test of time in various areas that have experienced difficulty over the years and that is the sector composed of firms that have been owned and operated by Canadians. In the high unemployment areas, these firms have been family businesses in the primary sectors. The Minister should realize that.
The Minister made reference to the old policies of the Liberal Government, but he forgot to look at our new direction for change to see what we are advocating for the high unemployment areas of the country. The Minister forgets that his Government is saying to the fishing industry in eastern Canada, the greatest employer in eastern Canada, that it should consolidate. The financial statement, though, indicates that the consolidation of employment in the sector would have to be complemented by public and private initiatives to promote job opportunities in other sectors of the economy. What other sectors of the economy is the Minister referring to?


Mr. Gurbin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think all Hon. Members are very interested in the comments of the Hon. Member but 1 wonder if it might be reasonable to expect him to discuss the contents of the Bill at some stage in his oratory?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's not a point of order at all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) is through with his analogy. He has the floor.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were here, and I presume he was here and listened to the Minister and heard what the Minister said-


Gary Michael Gurbin: I was watching and was very impressed.
April 23, 1985


George Baker: He was watching on the television outside and found out that the communications system in the House of Commons probably increases the sound of the Minister's voice but doesn't do anything for his thoughts.
He even criticized the Liberal policy of direct job creation. What has that to do with the Bill before the House today? The point is, Mr. Speaker, that this Minister is introducing a Bill into the House and claiming that this is going to be the be-all end-all of employment opportunities for this country. At the same time he accepts the declaration of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the President of the Treasury Board and chops $200 million from the money which Canadians were using to establish new business and to expand their existing businesses.
The Minister tells us to look at the actions of the present Government since it got elected. Well, if we look at the actions of the present Government, we see in every single Department cuts which discourage economic development, the very thing which this Minister claims this Bill is now going to encourage. The Minister talks about jobs. He says, "Look at all the jobs we created since we got elected"-which are the very words he used-"look at what we've done in six short months". We hear that said every single day in the House.
The Conservatives say they have created 120,000 jobs. Let's look at the three administrations on a month-to-month basis; this present administration, the Turner administration and the Trudeau administration. We find that the greatest number of jobs on a monthly basis was created by the short-term Turner administration; 33,000 jobs a month. In the last three months of the Trudeau administration there were 32,000 jobs created. The present administration is down to about 26,000 jobs a month, but the point is that that was job creation in the entire economy and in most cases, Mr. Speaker, has nothing to do with the Government which is in power.
I should be saying now that the Turner administration created more jobs than any other administration, but 1 am not saying that and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) would not say that. He realizes that a lot of these jobs which this Minister is trying to take credit for were not created by the present administration. The Minister should go back over the record and find out just how bad the record of the present Government is. But this Minister is embarrassed about the cuts in his own Department. He is embarrassed about the reduction in the amounts of industrial incentive grants he can now give out because of the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance. He is thoroughly embarrassed and I am sure he now feels he has to have something positive to say and this is the only thing he can hang his hat on. Time will tell, Mr. Speaker, that this Minister is wrong, the Government is wrong, and perhaps we will see the Minister move to a new Department.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise in support of Motion No. 2 which would require, if it were made part of this particular Bill, that investment and technology in Canada would continue under the appropriate terms and conditions as established by the
Investment Canada Act
Government of Canada. I0feel this is extremely important, not as the Minister inferred because this is some sort of Socialist philosophy or plot, but for very good and pragmatic reasons, given the Canadian context. Developing technology is a means of developing new products which will permit us to be more competitive under export conditions. It also permits us to produce products within this country under more economically viable conditions. There is, along with the development of technology and the utilization and implementation of that technology, the possibility of creating a great many jobs as well as a lot of spin-off technology as the smaller companies develop ways and means of assisting with the various products required by the larger companies in order for their technology to be successful.
What we in this Party fear is a continuation-and I stress the word "continuation"-of the raids on Canadian technology which have been made by foreign corporations up to this time. In my comments, Mr. Speaker, in reinforcing this point, I am going to present to you a number of examples of what has happened within the last few years. I am sure that these occurrences are still in the memories of most Hon. Members of this House.
The first example of technology being developed and then being taken out of this country, and with it a lot of jobs which should have gone with that technology, is a technology which is of interest to me because a lot of mining rigs are required in my particular part of the country. We mine potash and we use electrical equipment to move that potash. In 1969 the General Motors Titan Division developed a mining vehicle which would carry heavy loads and ran with huge electric motors. This was developed in Canada, which made a lot of sense because Canada is one of the major mining countries in the world, and we do not, to a large extent, develop mining equipment in this country.
The General Motors Titan Division had developed this particular technology and were producing a truck which could be used in deep mining. Subsequently the General Motors Titan Division decided to sell this technology to a company in Texas. Not only was the technology in producing these heavy electric motors, and the trucks to go with them, lost to this country, but so were the jobs and the attendant technology to upgrade that particular product. It is now being produced in Texas and if Canadian mining companies want to buy this particular equipment they have to go outside of the country.
What makes it even more sad, Mr. Speaker, is that this all occurred prior to the Foreign Investment Review Agency "sticking its nose in", if we listen to Hon. Members on the Government side. There were, in fact, Canadian bidders who were interested in having an opportunity to bid on this company in order to keep the technology in Canada, but General Motors was not forced to open up the bids to Canadian companies and consequently that technology went down to the United States and was lost to us.
We have before us at the moment, I would remind the House, a possible loss of technology with the problems which the White Corporation is experiencing. An axial-flow combine

April 23, 1985
Investment Canada Act
was developed in Canada with assistance by the Canadian Government. The back-up technology to develop that combine is in the Brantford area, and those back-up agencies and small businesses would be lost if this technology is permitted to leave the country. This is very likely to be the case if we pursued this new policy which the Government is proposing.
1 would point out to the House that during the committee hearings the Science Council of Canada pointed out that it is very common in the Canadian experience for smaller, high technology companies, those companies with a high component of brainpower and expertise but not much capital, to be raided and bought by foreign corporations. They take control of the company and, sometimes within a few months, often within a few years, the employees have been transferred closer to the head office of the new owners and the research and development component in Canada is shut down. We are not only losing jobs, we are losing a lot of the brainpower and training from our universities and training institutions. We are also giving up an opportunity for employment in Canada for graduates from those institutions. We see it as extremely important for this particular amendment to include these high technology firms so that they continue to be subject to review by either this agency or some other agency of the Government.
I am told that the Canadian Advanced Technology Association expressed great concerns about these take-overs. It was not just the Science Council of Canada who, I remind the House, is responsible for proposing science policy for Canada. As part of that role, it saw great danger and future damage to the hightech and scientific communities through this particular Bill. But the Association also pointed out that take-overs would probably continue and accelerate, as had been the case prior to FIRA being introduced. They, too, recommended that there be some sort of review process so that we would not find ourselves being raided by large corporations from outside the country who are after our brainpower, and who quickly drain off the small high technology companies which succeed in Canada, simply as a means of augmenting their technology as a large corporation.
As well, I am told that recently statements had been made by a former chief executive officer of the Philco-Ford Corporation which described in some detail the deterioration of the research component of Philco after Ford had taken it over. We have seen that corporation move most of its research component to the head office in the U.S. and there is no longer any Canadian component to that operation. Even though there had been a very firm and useful robotics operation begun in the Canadian component of this corporation, that has now been taken away and is being done in the U.S.
1 just wanted to show the House that there were a few very real examples of what happens when Canada does not provide a review process to make certain that foreign take-overs of our high technology corporations do not result in those operations no longer being operative in Canada. When those requirements
are not part of the law, we lose technology, jobs, information and the potential for future growth.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to speak in favour of Motion No. 2 put forward by the NDP caucus in this House. With the limited time I have to speak, I do not want to go through the whole motion but it is intended to clarify the legislation. The clarification concerns technology and the appropriate terms and conditions established by the Government for the benefit of Canadians.
What we are saying is that the Government of the day would be in a position to set terms to make sure that investment benefits Canadians. That is a natural right of government and it is expected that government would do that. Before a foreign-owned firm buys out a Canadian operation, the Government would be able to say that there should be certain benefits to the Canadian populace, and some mechanism for the Government to make that sort of decision. 1 do not believe that even under the present system involving FIRA we really look very carefully at foreign take-overs of Canadian firms. It is interesting that almost every application which comes before Cabinet under FIRA is approved. We have heard in the past that the reason for that is that the very concept of FIRA scares away foreign investment in Canada. That might be the belief of some people, but we also have to look at the real situation here. What other nation has so much of its manufacturing industry owned by foreigners? What other country has the majority of its oil industry owned offshore? To save time in this debate, what other country is owned as much by foreigners and foreign-owned companies? I believe this has had a real detrimental effect on the development of Canada.
The very nature of a foreign-owned corporation is such that they have their own corporate strategy, their own goals and plans for the future. That is quite right and exactly what they should be doing. I would think that a board of directors based in New York is going to have concerns different from a board of directors based in Toronto, Winnipeg or, hopefully some day, in Thompson, Manitoba. That is the nature of the beast. But what we are saying through the amendment put forward by my colleague is that we think the Government of Canada should review those applications with a certain strategy in mind. That is not to say that the Government of the day is not going to have a different set of priorities than we as the NDP in government would have. But they would still have that right. They would still be able to put forward regulations and certain guidelines on development which obviously a Party of a different political persuasion would not have. But you would still maintain that right and I think that right is very important.
A Member of our caucus, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), talked about research and the damage there could be to Canadians if new Canadian firms which had advanced research were bought out and the research was then taken to an American or European-based corporation. That is what happened with Philco when it was acquired by the Americans. A lot of the research that used to take place here is no longer taking place here.
April 23, 1985

There was a study done by the Science Council of Canada, even given the present regulations of FIRA, and it indicated we are in a situation where most foreign firms were not spending as much money on research in Canada as Canadian-based firms. Further to that, where there was federal or provincial Government money put into a research project, Canadian firms on average matched that with the same number of dollars of their own money. Not in each and every case but on average. However, that did not happen when it was a foreign-owned corporation. In some cases it did happen and probably in a very beneficial way. However, on average, foreign-owned firms were not matching the money they received from the Canadian Government or provincial Governments.
By denying the amendment put forward by the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), we are making it impossible for the Government to develop strategies for research vis-a-vis foreign-owned firms in the nation. We are a nation with our own problems but also with our own advantages. In order to develop we must be able to take advantage of the capacity of Canadians, their youth and relatively good education. We can do a lot in Canada based on our cheap hydro resources. We have a chance to develop but cannot take advantage of that as long as that development can be taken over in the future without any input from government whatsoever.
I come from a riding which is quite large geographically. It is two-thirds of the Province of Manitoba.


Mr. Lewis:: Two-thirds of nothing.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I hope you are on record for that one. I will be using it in my next campaign literature. I suspect the Member from the Conservative Party regrets saying what he did, because I certainly would use it in my next campaign literature.
I represent a riding which encompasses two-thirds of the Province of Manitoba. Jobs have been created by foreign investment in northern Manitoba. The City of Thompson has a fair sized workforce. Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting in Flin-Flon has a fair sized workforce. Those exist in part because of foreign investment. However, since there has been no Government strategy with regard to that investment, almost no research has taken place in those communities. Almost no women are hired by those companies. Despite the fact that the cities I mentioned are situated in the middle of a huge native population, there are almost no native people employed by those corporations.
Through the amendment before the House we are saying that the Governments of the day should consider affirmative action when foreign companies come into the country. Government should set forth the goals of Canadians, such as having more women and native people employed, having more research done, and having more regional development occurring in the nation. The Government should discuss these goals with the corporations as part of the decision-making process on
Investment Canada Act
whether there should be a foreign take-over. I think that is quite reasonable. Regardless of political philosophy, that is an expectation that most Canadians have of government. Government should have concern about how Canada is developed rather than only that it is developed.
That is what this very clear and precise amendment put forward by my colleague does. It does not say that foreign investors cannot come into Canada or that they must do 15,000 things in order to take over a particular Canadian firm. It does say that government should study any proposed investment and determine whether the appropriate terms and conditions are there. The amendment says that those terms and conditions should be established. This is not a very socialistic measure, Mr. Speaker. It simply says that we have a right to have input in our own future and that government should set out certain terms and conditions as to how the development of Canada should take place.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the amendments to Bill C-15. Both the Official Opposition and Members of the New Democratic Party have recognized, from the time the Minister presented this Bill to the House, and in particular in studying the Bill in committee, that the Minister has really not given any fair consideration to the concerns that have been raised by Members of the Opposition in this Parliament with respect to Bill C-15.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We reviewed it fully.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Minister says that he has reviewed it fully. The Minister has created a Bill, the net effect of which will be to allow foreign investment to come into the country and cherry pick Canadian industries. The primary onus or initiative that existed in the Foreign Investment Review Agency, formed by the Liberal Party when in power, was to determine what foreign investment was good for Canada and would contribute to this country's national objectives and long-term economic health. Those measures, which were implicit in the Foreign Investment Review Act, have been totally wiped out by Bill C-15. We now have a Bill which allows foreign investors to come into Canada and take the best and leave the rest, that which is unproductive, inefficient, old and outdated and needs retooling, to the Minister and the taxpayers of Canada to look after.
A particularly vulnerable and sensitive industry is the fishery. Fishing operations can be picked up a piece at a time for less than $5 million. In Atlantic Canada foreign investment could come in without bringing any new technology or creating one single new job.
In the Atlantic fishery, aside from giants such as Nickerson's National Sea and FPI, small independent companies which can be bought for a lot less than S5 million, and therefore would not have to be reviewed by the Minister's agency under this Act, represent about 50 per cent of the total production of the fishery in Altantic Canada. This Bill could now make it possible for foreign interests, which do not now

April 23, 1985
Investment Canada Act
have access to Canadian quotas of cod because they have been reserved for Canadian fishermen, to buy processing plants in single industry towns. Having bought those plants, they can then demand a share of Canadian fish in Canada's offshore. They can then demand to be allowed to bring factory freezer trawlers into the offshore.
The purpose of the amendment moved by my colleague, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), is to make it clear that the purpose of Bill C-15 is to show that we do welcome foreign investment that contributes to the economic lifeblood of this country. We welcome foreign investment that brings new technology to this country and explores heretofore unexplored areas of resource development in this country. We welcome foreign capital from investors who will treat this country with dignity and respect its value and culture. That is the purpose of this amendment.
The Hon. Member across the way smiles and mentions John Sheehan. Perhaps that is an example of a kind of foreign investment that he wants. Perhaps Members will recall that last time that John Sheehan became involved in a venture in this country at the insistence of and involvement by the Tory Government in Newfoundland under former Premier Frank Moores. The result was the biggest single corporate failure in this nation's history-$600 million-that precipitated the biggest single corporate failure in the history of Japan. It left the people of Newfoundland holding the bag for $70 million. It left the British Export guarantee department holding the bag for $110 million. If that is the Hon. Member's idea of what foreign investment should be attracted by this new Bill, then we in Newfoundland want no part of it.
Canadians who live in single industry towns where their culture and traditional lifestyle is dependent upon the resource sector are very worried because this Bill and its intent as expressed in Clause 2 makes it very clear that the Government has no concerns whether foreign investment creates new jobs or new technology. The Government has put Canada up for sale and no wise investor could be blamed for using the provisions of this Bill to cherry pick and come to Canada and pick those ripe industries and walk away from those that are not quite ripe. That is what will happen and the Minister has been told that.
I have given the fisheries as an example of an area sensitive to foreign investment. This Bill will allow foreign capital to come into the country to take over the most efficient and productive plants in small towns. While these take-overs do not seem to add up to much or give cause for concern when taken individually, the aggregate of 200 or 300 of such purchases could lead to a dominant position in the fishing industry.
Let us consider a Newfoundlander, Nova Scotia or Quebecer on the North Shore who lives in a small village where the fishery has been his lifeblood for hundreds of years. His way of life, his culture and history has been built on that industry. His greatest fear is that a small company that operates in those small villages will be taken over by a foreign concern.
Once that plant has been taken over, that company may claim to have a right to the quota offshore and instead of processing the catch in the plants of the small village it will put a freezer factory trawler offshore to process the fish there. As a result, the plants that have operated in these small villages will close down.
The people of Grand Bank have nightmares that Grand Bank will not be a vibrant fishing community in the future with colourful people and an interesting history but simply a boat named Grand Bank floating offshore. Where 400 people once made their living there, perhaps only 15 or 20 will make their living in this town.
This Bill opens the back door to foreign interests who are not interested in owning fish plants or employing people in small villages but whose only interest is obtaining the fish quotas that were unavailable to them up to this point. I urge Hon. Members to open their eyes, unlike the Minister, to be sensitive and show that they understand the regional nature of this country, and to support this amendment.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the review of foreign investment is a very important principle that was established by the former Government back in the 1970s after a very considerable amount of study. 1 found it amusing to listen to the remarks of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and his attempt to lump the Liberals and the NDP together as being responsible for this measure. I am proud that the Liberals are associated with this policy.
I am reminded of the original NDP attitude toward foreign investment review. When I was a younger Member of Parliament and the recommendations of the Gray report that led to this original Foreign Investment Review Act were brought forward, I recall the attitude expressed by David Lewis who was the then Leader of the NDP. It was that foreign investment review was a kind of smokescreen because there is no difference between a Canadian capitalist and foreign capitalist; they all want the same thing, which is to exploit ordinary Canadians.
We defended foreign investment review on a ground which 1 think deserves repeating. We believe there is a difference between Canadian ownership and foreign ownership. We do not agree with the NDP view that there is no difference between a foreign capitalist and a Canadian capitalist. That opinion animated our approach to foreign investment review.
On the other hand, we were certainly not opposed to foreign investment, but believed that Canadian investment was preferable since developing our own economy in order to have full autonomous control over it and to become a world-class economy in many industries would be better. We also recognized that with the opportunities in Canada and the high standard of living to which Canadians have become accustomed and to which we as parliamentarians should be dedicated to continuing, it was important to recognize that there should be a role for foreign investment in our country. We wanted our legislation to achieve the maximum benefits from any foreign investment that was made in Canada and that was the spirit in
April 23, 1985

which the legislation was established. I believe that is the spirit in which it was administered.
I am aware that it had some very bureaucratic aspects and that foreign and Canadian capitalists are discouraged by red tape and screening requirements. However, although the potential for directing review is considerably reduced pursuant to this legislation, it still provides for an element of review. I believe the Government has done this in recognition of the importance of such a review. The Government realizes that we are an autonomous country and that we should have some kind of control over the flow of foreign capital into our country, whether it is to take over existing Canadian businesses within the meaning of the existing statute or proposed statute, or whether it is to establish new enterprises in our country.
What is troubling about Clause 2 of the Bill which Motion No. 1 seeks to amend is that it does not make that position very clear. Anyone reading the purposes of this Bill would not realize that a review procedure, however, reduced, attenuated and diminished, is still contained in the legislation of the new Government. The amendment proposed by my colleague, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), makes that clear.
I think that there should be the kind of review that is presently provided for in the legislation about to be repealed. I recognize that it has bureaucratic features. I know in the last two or three years efforts were made to streamline those procedures, but I think they can be over-streamlined. What this definition, the statement of purpose by the Government, makes me worry about is the general concern I have about the attitude which the present Government is taking toward the American Government and toward Canada-U.S. relations. Any political party in our country that came forward with an anti-American policy would be defeated in an election.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is what happened on September 4.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It would be defeated because this is not an anti-American country. While I have no doubt that there are people in our country who have anti-American feelings, they are such a small minority in Canada that they would never be able to elect anybody to this place.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The NDP.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: We are pro-Canadian.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: On the other hand, just because we are not anti-American, it is not our primary purpose to be pro-American either. We are not elected to serve the United States. We are elected in our Party not to be anti-American and not to be pro-American. We are elected to be pro-Canadian.
We know Canadians like the country to the south of us. We know that we are very fortunate to have the kind of neighbour we do and we are fortunate to have the kind of relationship that we do with that neighbour. 1 do not think this evasive statement of purpose contained in the Bill should be allowed to
Investment Canada Act
stand. It conceals the fact that in a marginal way there will continue under this new legislation a kind of review of foreign investment. That is as it should be. We should review and take responsibility for and interest in all American policies that affect our country.
What worries me is that I do not think the Government of the day is doing it adequately. I do not think in the area of defence that the Government is adequately respecting the autonomy of Canada or that it is adequately respecting the fact that Canadians want their Parliament and Government to stick up for them and not as a primary objective be a handmaiden, an envoy, or a client of the United States.
Seeing the language stated in this statement of purpose and knowing what I do of the other kinds of policies that have been introduced by this Government, I might mention the area of defence and the united approach to multi-lateral relations as examples of what I am concerned about. One could also talk about the attitude that this Government has taken toward research-sharing projects and even about police exchanges where the treaties signed at the Shamrock Summit opened the Canadian door as wide to the American law enforcement authorities as it is open to Canadian law enforcement authorities. It is something I am uneasy about. I feel we should co-operate with the Americans but that we should co-operate on the basis of an autonomous and independent country whose citizens like the Americans and who want to have close relations with the Americans but whose citizens are not Americans. Our citizens are Canadians.
I have to mention also, in talking about the importance of the Government accepting the amendment contained in Motion No. 1, the experience in my own constituency with de Havilland. The de Havilland aircraft industry was foreign owned. In 1972 when it appeared that its foreign owner was not prepared to give it a world mandate to develop a STOL aircraft for a world market, the Government stepped in and was prepared to buy that company and see it develop, as it has developed over the years, two or three, perhaps even four, new products which are distinctively Canadian and particularly relevant to the Canadian environment, to Canadian market circumstances, to a traveller with less money in his pocket than the American traveller and to an energy-conserving world, which is the world into which Canada is moving rapidly and perhaps should be moving even more rapidly to develop world-class products.
I have heard the Minister who brought forward this legislation indicate his vision of the future of de Havilland. He would like to see it sold. When we on this side asked him for guarantees, the kinds of criteria we had in mind when we were talking about guarantees were the kinds of things contained in the Foreign Investment Review Act.
We are not against the idea of the de Havilland corporation returning to private hands. We are not ideologically committed to public ownership even of some very important industry, like a portion of the aerospace industry. We are not even committed that much to saying it has to be preserved 100 per cent in Canadian hands. But the Minister offered absolutely no assur-

April 23, 1985
Investment Canada Act
ances at all. He said that we would have to wait and see. He said that we would be happy when we found out who the new owners of de Havilland were going to be and what the new rules of the game were going to be. We would like some statutory protections. The kinds of statutory protections that the legislation about to disappear contains were the kinds of safeguards and protections that we would like to have.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to take part in this important debate and to talk about Clause 2, which is in many ways at the heart of the proposed legislation.
There are two motions as I understand it currently before the House. First is the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Second is the motion moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Both of these motions seek to strengthen what is at the present time a very weak and dangerous purpose clause of Bill C-15.
1 might preface my remarks on these motions by pointing out that in my view Bill C-15 is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this Parliament. What we are talking about in essence is the economic sovereignty of this nation. We have had a very early statement by the new Conservative Government of the extent to which it is prepared to cede economic sovereignty to the American corporate sector.
I want to indicate that what we are talking about in this legislation is a move backward. It is a fundamentally regressive move. We in the New Democratic Party have always been of the view that rather than weakening the provisions of the Foreign Investment Review Act, what we as Canadians should be doing is asserting our economic sovereignty by strengthening those provisions. But this Government is moving backward. The effect of Clause 2 and the effect of this Bill is to allow American-based multi-national corporations to determine what is best for them, and it will be their corporate priorities which dominate decisions made with respect to investment of new capital and new technology in Canada. It is for that reason that we fundamentally oppose the blanket statement that increased capital and technology would benefit Canada.
There has been a whole series of studies conducted which have demonstrated without any doubt whatever that the net impact of major corporate foreign investment in this country over the past couple of decades, instead of creating jobs for Canadians, has had the opposite effect. To suggest without any terms or conditions that increased capital and technology will benefit Canada flies in the face of our experience as a nation with foreign capital and foreign-based technology.
It is for that reason that my colleague from Essex-Windsor has proposed an amendment to change that wording to read that we recognize that increased capital and technology under the appropriate terms and conditions established by the Government would benefit Canada.
There is a profound difference in that approach, an approach that recognizes it is up to the people of Canada,
through our Government, our elected representatives, to determine priorities for new capital and new technology. It is not automatically acceptable that the foreign corporate sector should decide what are those priorities. The reality in many cases is that what is good for the foreign corporate community, for the American multi-national corporation, in the short term may be good for Canada, but in the long term it may be tremendously destructive of our economic priorities and may be tremendously destructive of jobs as that foreign corporation seeks to maximize its global profit as opposed to seeking to ensure that Canadian interests are well served. At the heart of the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor is an assurance that it will ultimately be the Government which has the right to determine what are the appropriate terms and conditions and what are the undertakings which must be given by corporations which seek to invest in Canada from abroad.
As the Bill now stands, we are throwing open the door and effectively saying that any new capital or new technology would benefit Canada. As well, I would note that the purpose clause in effect contradicts the rest of the Bill. If there is to be a review process as the Bill sets out-and admittedly it is a very weak and ineffectual review process-what is the purpose of the review process if the Government in its preliminary statement in the Bill suggests that all increased capital and new technology is ipso facto beneficial to Canada? Obviously that makes a mockery of the suggestion that review is important, because review has no meaning if that is the Government's fundamental ideological bias. If nothing else, in order to provide for logical consistency in the Bill with the review process, the purpose clause, that is Clause 2, must recognize that it is ultimately up to the Government to determine what are the appropriate terms and conditions before permitting foreign investment in Canada.
Our concerns with respect to Clause 2 are part of our broader concern about the whole thrust of the Government in this Bill. For example, it is our view that by denying that in effect the Government has a role to play and that the people of Canada have a role to play in determining priorities for investment, the Government is making the review process a mockery and a sham. We believe, to the contrary, that the review process should be more public and more accountable to the people of Canada and to the people who work in corporations, particularly when we are talking about a corporate take-over. I have seen too many examples, both in my own constituency of Burnaby and elsewhere, of a corporation which comes into Canada, takes over a struggling Canadian company, makes certain promises, undertakings and commitments to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and then proceeds to disregard those promises, to the detriment of the workers in the community and ultimately to the detriment of the community as a whole.
A very large corporation in my constituency was a classic example of that. It took a great deal of effort even to obtain a copy of the written undertakings which that corporation made
April 23, 1985

to the Government and ultimately to the people of the country and to the workers at the plant. When I asked what assurance there was that these undertakings were being fulfilled, in fact I was told that there was a monitoring process under way. When I delved a little more deeply, it was clear that the monitoring process was completely inadequate to ensure that jobs were in fact protected, as was the original intent of the review process. We believe that rather than weakening the review process, there should be greater public monitoring of the undertakings of the corporate sector that seeks to establish a new business in Canada or to take over an existing enterprise.
There should be far greater opportunity for intervention by the parties affected by the decision to take over a company or to establish a new company. Those affected parties will include workers, the community in which the company seeks to locate and, of course, possible competitors in the area which may be dramatically affected or undercut, whether it be through pricing policies, anti-labour policies, anti-worker policies, low-wage policies or inadequate environmental protection and so on.
One of the purposes of the amendment we are presently debating is to ensure that the Government has the right to establish conditions with respect to terms of employment and with respect to the impact of new technology, which so often has a particularly adverse effect on women.
I see Mr. Speaker indicating that my time for debate on this particular amendment is coming to an end. However, I want to reiterate that in many ways Clause 2 is at the heart of the Bill because it sets out the Government's broad thrust. In stating without any qualification that increased capital and technology would benefit Canada, the Government is denying the historic reality that in far too many instances the presence of foreign capital in the country has been destructive to the interests of Canadians. We in this Party believe that the motion which has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor will at least enable the Government of Canada, on behalf of the people of Canada, to ensure that adequate terms and conditions are in fact established, so that new capital and new technology benefits the people of the country and does not solely provide for maximum profits for an American corporate entity.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak at the report stage and to comment on the motion moved by my colleague from Win-nipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). I would like to say, first of all, that I was listening carefully to the Minister when he spoke to the House earlier about the purpose of this Bill. The purpose, he said, is to create jobs. I do not think any Member of this House would be against that.
With the amendment in question we are attempting to make the Government understand there should be a number of conditions under which Canada is open for investment. Capital is welcome, but the country is not for sale! We want to maintain in the legislation a number of measures that will
Investment Canada Act
make it possible for Ministers to explain, if necessary, to foreign investors that if they are coming here to invest, it must be in Canada's interests and for the benefit of Canadians, for the purpose of providing jobs, research and development, and that, in terms of an international mandate, this means developing foreign markets for Canada, so that the country's economy will benefit from sales made on those markets and thus experience new growth.
Mr. Speaker, last year foreign investment in Canada totalled $4.1 billion. One thousand foreign companies or foreign investors, if you prefer, invested in Canada. Ninety-seven per cent of the proposals submitted under the Foreign Investment Review Act were approved. I find this encouraging. What does the Government want to do? The Government says: Hold everything! Through its negative stance on this federal legislation, the Government managed to convince Americans, Europeans and the Japanese that the Foreign Investment Review Act was a measure that discouraged investment. That is absolutely untrue, as the Minister well knows. It is just not true to claim, as the Conservatives have been doing for two or three years, that this legislation was bad for Canada. That is totally inaccurate. The facts are there. I repeat: least year, $4.1 billion, 1,000 companies, 97 per cent approved. Why? To create jobs. Why? To promote research and development and to give us a chance to compete on international markets.
The Minister said that Canadian capital was fleeing the country. It was his buddies who were going to the United States to invest, obviously, where interest rates were exorbitantly high, and as all Members of this House are aware, and we might as well admit it, whether we like it or not, we depend on the economy of our good neighbour to the South, the United States. When their interest rates are very high, of course Canada must follow, unless we decide to do what some people suggested, which is to introduce currency controls that would affect the right of Canadians to invest where they want to invest and where they will get the best return on their investment. If this is what the Government wants, it should come out and say so, but it should not try and have the House and the Canadian public believe that the Act, as it was, was bad legislation and was not in the interests of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, for many years Canada has been trying to break into the international market in the research and development area. Hon. Members will recall that the Canadarm is a very good example. Nevertheless, as a country, our record is well below that of other major industrialized countries in research and development. Why? According to the Science Council, Canada's performance could be improved if the level of foreign ownership in our industry were not as high. That is what the Science Council said. The multinationals have a tendency to concentrate their research and development activities in their country of origin, which is normal, and they usually ignore the scientific potential of Canadians.

April 23, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Foreign firms undertake far less research and development activities in Canada than Canadian firms do. In 1982, the level of research and development in Canada by Canadian firms was 1.4 per cent of sales, while for United States firms, this was 1 per cent, and for firms from other countries 0.9 per cent. These figures are even more revealing if we consider the fact that foreign firms are usually bigger and have access to markets already opened up by the parent company.
In addition, the degree of technological imports tends to increase rapidly as the level of foreign ownership rises. Such imports may reduce the creative capabilities of Canadian industry, jeopardize the development of qualified Canadian researchers, and even force many of them to leave the country.
Mr. Speaker, without foreign investment review, without maintaining the right of the Government and the Minister to exercise effective control, foreign investment may have a disastrous effect on Canadian exports, which constitute nearly 30 per cent of our GNP, and are thus a major source of income for this country.
Although foreign companies export a large part of their production, they generally must comply with the parent company's trade strategy. I have said so before and I repeat that they do not develop their own trade network here in Canada. Their products are for the most part shipped to the parent company or to other branches. These internal exchanges may very well prevent the expansion of Canada's trade. I shall, if I may, recall two quite recent occurrences.

The Hyundai company is established in the Minister's riding. It was because of the existing FIRA regulations that we were able to convince this Korean company to invest in Canada and create jobs here. That I applaud. The other one is the White Farm implement company in Ontario. That is an important issue. Borg-Warner, the trustees or holding company of this implement company, under the present legislation has been asked to guarantee that the technology that White Farm possesses in Canada remains in Canada. That is essential. Otherwise, the research and development which has been developed over years and paid for by Canadians, and which should benefit Canadians, will not remain in Canada. That would be wrong.
I will terminate my remarks. I see you are raising your finger, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that I only have a minute left.
I will just repeat what I said at the beginning. This country is open for business. Yes, we welcome investment to Canada, but come here with the national interest at heart. Make sure it serves the national interest of Canadians, first by job creation, second by research and development, which is long term planning that is good, and a world product mandate. Make sure it keeps those three matters in mind. Then investment is welcome to come here.
I would ask the Government to consider the reasonable approach that is proposed in the amendment of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). It is
reasonable and would reinforce the Bill. It would give the Bill much more oomph and guts than it has with the Minister's proposals.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate. We are debating the purpose of the Act. If we are to pass legislation through this House, the first thing we have to be clear about is the purpose of the legislation. I would like to take note of the purpose of this legislation as outlined in the Government's Bill. Under "Purpose", the Bill states:
Recognizing that increased capital and technology would benefit Canada, the purpose of this Act is to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians that contributes to economic growth and employment opportunities and to provide for the review of significant investments-
It goes on. Those are very fine words. We have chosen to amend this stated purpose. The purpose outlined in this Bill is to open the doors to foreign investment without a watchman at the door, simply having an unguarded entry into the country. We have moved a rather short but significant motion which comes into the clause at the word "technology" and reads:
"technology under the appropriate terms and conditions established by the government, would benefit Canada,-"
We are emphasizing capital and investment under appropriate terms and conditions. In other words, we do not think that foreign capital should have a free hand in Canada. Rather, foreign capital should have to live by the standards of the Canadian community as expressed through our democratically elected institutions. The public interest should have an impact on the behaviour of capital in this country.
We are not prepared to leave ourselves to the mercy of decisions made in the boardrooms of international and multinational corporations. Those corporations have their own legitimate interest-to make a profit. Their aims do not always coincide with the national interest and the interest of the community. It is important that this legislation recognize that the community interest is primordial, that it comes first. We allow for people and companies to make a fair profit, but it has to be done in a way that serves the over-all community interest.
I will just give a brief example before one o'clock. In Manitoba, Toro Industries, a company which produces small pilling devices for gardening, decided to set up a plant and do some manufacturing in Manitoba. At the insistence of the provincial Government, the company accepted an affirmative action plan as a part of its industry in Manitoba. I think this is a concrete example of how government leadership can affect the behaviour of capital in a positive way and make that capital better serve the community.

That is the fundamental purpose of our amendment. It is to remind capital that it is there at the behest of the community.
I will continue my remarks after lunch, Mr. Speaker. I see that you are indicating that my time is short.
April 23, 1985


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, "jobs, jobs, jobs", was the Tory election cry, but that cry has left the people of Hamilton crying. Not only has the federal Government failed to take action to protect steel jobs from unfair international dumping practices, but the provincial Tories have refused to support the steel industry bid to recycle steel, not aluminium cans. The only Party which has taken a clear position on this issue is the Liberal Party. The New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party are both "reviewing" the situation.
The people of Hamilton do not want reviews. They want jobs, including people like Ernie Kablau, who has invested $800,000 and is ready to create 18 jobs by launching a Hamilton-based cruise ship on Lake Ontario. The Tory response was: "We won't help because Hamilton is not a tourism priority".
The Tories have always seen Hamilton as a dumping ground for projects like "Go Alert" but have never given us a chance to develop the tourism potential which could help get the Hamilton economy back on track. Instead, the Government is hindering. Not only has approval for Ernie Kablau's project been stalled by federal and provincial Conservatives, the project is now threatened because an American company has applied to do exactly the same thing. We want made-in-Canada jobs for Canadians, jobs in the steel industry, in tourism, home based jobs to make Hamilton proud. We don't want government red tape.
The hollow promises of the past federal Conservative election campaign are being echoed by their provincial cousins. Mr. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), won't you crack the whip with your junior cousin in Toronto-


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


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, with friends like the four Manitoban members in the Cabinet, Manitoba does not need enemies. I am referring to the decision announced yesterday by the Government to establish the new position of senior vice-president for western Canada in the CNR. This position will be "based in Edmonton, and the new powers to be entrusted to it will reflect the reality that close to 70 per cent of CN's rail business is done west from Thunder Bay."
The fact is that the prairie regional headquarters of the Canadian National Railways is in Winnipeg. This announcement yesterday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) gives rise to recalling the fears which Winnipeggers had two years ago when there were rumours there would be a reorganization of the CNR and only one region would be created out of two, the mountain and the prairie region, and that the new regional headquarters would be in Edmonton. Here we have what may well indeed be a foreshadowing of that future by having that new vice-president operate out of Edmonton.
I call on the Manitoban members of the Cabinet to make sure that this is not the beginning of the end for Winnipeg as a regional headquarters for Canadian National Railways. We have already seen the postponement of the VIA Rail repair shop in Winnipeg, the cancellation of the National Research Council project, and the leaking of work out of the CNR east to Toronto and now west to Edmonton. When are those Hon. Members going to stand up for their own province?
* *
*



REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader tabled the Government's response to the first report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, on which I have the privilege to sit.
Mr. Speaker, may I say that I found the response encouraging and that I am enthusiastic about the prospective changes this reform will bring for the benefit of Members of the House, a reform which will undoubtedly improve the perception Canadians have of this institution.
I invite and strongly urge Hon. Members to make suggestions and recommendations to the Committee, for it is important to reform Canada's Parliament so that every Member may be heard and have his or her say about legislation introduced by the Government.

April 23, 1985
I should add that, as a new Member, the Committee provides me with excellent opportunities to become familiar with the rules of this House. I am quite pleased that the Committee reached a consensus under the able guidance of Hon. James McGrath, and that the reform we advocate has been unanimously endorsed by the three parties in the House.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud to belong to a Committee and a Government which historians will describe as having been among the most progressive in the reform of the Canadian House of Commons.


STEVE FONYO
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, in about two hours from now something special will occur on the Trans-Canada Highway in Yoho National Park at the British Columbia border. There Steve Fonyo, our new Canadian hero, will start the home stretch of his "Journey for Lives". When Steve started his courageous journey in the chilly waters off Newfoundland, probably there were many skeptics. Over a year later, as we watched this courageous, gutsy young man maintain a gruelling pace, despite snow and rain, and in constant pain, we are touched deeply by Steve's dedication to the fight against cancer.
Steve's commitment has already raised over $4 million for cancer research, public education, and patient services, and more will come. One million dollars has come from the Government of British Columbia. I know that the people of British Columbia will show their generosity as Steve completes the last 1,000 kilometres of his journey.
On Sunday Steve ran 40 kilometres in blizzard conditions, uphill from the Morley Flats to Banff, and he will have tough days ahead through the mountains of British Columbia and the Fraser Canyon. Millions of Canadians show their admiration for Steve's courage and selflessness. He uplifts and inspires us.
Today, Steve, as you start on the last weeks of your journey, let our message reach you across the lakes and the plains and into the hills. Steve, we love you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that many Members in the House today remember the old days in Quebec when parish priests would tell their parishioners that Heaven was blue and Hell was red. What a sad era for democracy!
Closer to us in time, we remember one election promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to the effect that, under a Progressive Conservative Government, appointments would be made by an impartial committee. Such is not the case, far from it, and incumbents are not even given time to complete their mandate. As it happened, Betty Hewes has been dismissed as Chairperson of the Canadian National Railways' board of directors. She cannot possibly have been fired because of incompetence.
Mrs. Hewes was one of very few Western Canada women to hold such a position. If the Government insists on appointing Conservatives, it should at least replace women by women.
Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted to see that the Government has been unable to find a competent woman member of the Progressive Conservative Party to fill this position. It is an insult to the women of that Party, and I hope that my female Government colleagues will tell the Prime Minister, in no uncertain terms, that they disagree with this kind of appointments.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, may I say that Canadians, men and women alike, have just about had it with such partisan appointments and that, when they will vent their anger, the blue Heaven will turn red.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Rhoda Innuksuk, who has been elected President of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. As the first woman leader of the Inuit people she symbolizes the growing participation of northern women in leadership roles in public and political life.
One of Ms. Innuksuk's first priorities is to deal with the very serious social problems of young Inuits who are experiencing the highest rate of drop-outs, crime, suicide, and unemployment. I urge the federal Government to give every assistance to Inuit people so that they may find effective ways to deal with social and health problems which are related to their invasion by southern society which is disrupting the native way of life.
If the young people of the North are to have hope for the future, they must have access to education, training, and jobs which are relevant to their needs and to their communities. Native health problems must be an immediate priority of the federal Government. Lung cancer in Inuit women has increased by 21 times the national average, and youth suicide by six times. Inuit people have little access to medical services and often must leave their families and fly to strange and distant hospitals, even for childbirth. They should have decen-
April 23, 1985

tralized health services, staffed with trained community health aides.
I urge the Minister to make northern health needs his priority, and to encourage a new style of health delivery which will train local people as health care practitioners-
Mir. Speaker: 1 regret to advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.

[ Translation]


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to express my support for the firm and I would say courageous action taken by one of our colleagues with respect to the campers on Parliament Hill. I do not question the purpose of their demonstration which has been going on for two years. However, this kind of demonstration should not be carried to the point where it becomes an eyesore and an affront to public order and where the Government and people of Canada become the laughing stock of visitors from abroad.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against tolerance, but I do think there are limits to what we can tolerate.
At this rate, pretty soon these people will go and camp on anybody's front lawn, and will help themselves in the fridge, and we will have to go on being tolerant, as some people would have us believe. There are other ways to protest in our society, ways that respect the community, and which do not promote disorderly conduct and anarchy.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the Canadian people and the majority of the Members of this House approve the courageous action taken by our hon. colleague.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important initiatives taken by the new Government has been the Task Force on Program Review headed by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). The task force is charged with a comprehensive review of all government Departments so that services might in future be delivered to the public in the most efficient and cost effective way. It is high time that this took place, and the selection of the Task Force leader lends credibility to the exercise. He is known for his integrity, ability, and concern for the taxpayers' dollar. He is not known, Sir, to curry political favour.
When the various reports are finalized it is likely, secrecy having gone out with the Xerox machine, that they will prematurely become public. It is equally likely that special interests, both within and outside of government, will react noisely if privileged positions are threatened. The Cabinet must hold its ground and follow up in a systematic manner with the implementation of the task force recommendations. To do otherwise would be for the present Government to be no different from its predecessor. The Government was chosen by Canadians to put our federal House in order, and this it must do.


FORESTRY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House are aware of the very special relationship which exists between Members of Parliament from British Columbia and Members of Parliament from Newfoundland. In fact it is well known that the people of our two provinces have been described as the book-ends of Canada. Therefore, in the spirit of that special friendship, I rise today to express my regret at the unfortunate disease which has afflicted Tory Members of Parliament from British Columbia. The disease is called Nielsenphobia. It causes those so afflicted to lose their voice, forget their constituents, and makes them simply unable to find their way around Parliament Hill.
Because they have lost their voice at a time critical to the people of British Columbia, in the spirit of the friendship between our two provinces I shall say for them what I know they would say themselves if they could find their voice or, for that matter, their backbone. It is this. Will the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) quit treating the people of British Columbia with such scorn and disrespect? Will they move immediately to resolve the $75 million squabble with the Province of British Columbia and immediately cease holding up for ransom the future of the most important industry in British Columbia, the forest industry, as a means of trying to resolve that squabble?
While I am at it, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland to the people of British Columbia, and through them to their Members, I hope you get over Nielsenphobia very soon.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that I speak on behalf of every Member of this House when I draw to the attention of all Canadians the fact that many Members of Parliament, like myself, are forced to rent a
4016

April 23, 1985
Oral Questions
constituency office on the second floor of a building which offers no access to the disabled or elderly. This regrettable situation arises because rents in many large urban areas in Canada are three times or more as expensive as those in rural or smaller communities. In effect, budgets for Members of Parliament do not reflect this reality whatsoever in order to deal effectively with this problem.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, I am aware this matter has been addressed. However, the speed at which progress has been made in this area would make a snail's pace appear supersonic. Meanwhile, in many communities across Canada the disabled and the elderly are denied proper access to the office of their Member of Parliament, access which should be a right for those people.
I know I speak for all Members when I say how sincere we are in our efforts to create easy access to our offices for all Canadians.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and concerns the Wilson family compact which resulted in a $234,000 cozy deal between the Minister, his brother-in-law, and his riding association president. It is unusual that the words uttered in the past by Tories such as "fraud", "deceit", and "sham", have now been replaced by "integrity", "objectivity", and sometimes even "sanctity", to describe the present situation.
Would the Minister tell the House if Mr. Robson, during his employment with the Minsiter, was privy to any information which could directly or indirectly assist him in obtaining government contracts? Furthermore, could he tell us whether Mr. Robson and Lawson Murray Ltd, have any other contracts, directly or indirectly, with the Government of Canada at the present time?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday to the House that Mr. Robson was dealing in my office on a totally administrative basis. He was my executive assistant in 1979, as I said, and he understood the way I wanted the office set up. He was dealing strictly on an administrative basis; nothing to do with policy, nothing to do with the awarding of any contracts.
As far as a response to the second question is concerned, I do not know. I have nothing to do with contracts in the Government.


LETTING OF LUCRATIVE CONTRACTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The current situation is intolerable and shameful, and the Minister's defence is even worse.
Is the Minister actually informing this House and all Canadians that any company may send emissaries or representatives to work in a Minister's office and then, quite coincidentally, leave that office with lucrative government contracts, and if so, could the Minister inform the House whether this kind of attitude is reasonable, considering the Canadian taxpayer who must pay the cost of these contracts?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think I made it very clear in my first answer why Mr. Robson was there. He was there because he was my former executive assistant in 1979. He knew the way I worked; he knew the way I wanted to have the office established. I was under a great deal of time pressures at that time if the Hon. Member thinks back, and I had to go immediately to Washington for a series of international meetings. That was the purpose of his work.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I have in my hand a copy of his conflict of interest guidelines for Ministers of the Crown. Section III relates to avoidance of preferential treatment. It says that "Ministers shall not accord preferential treatment in relation to any official matter to relatives or friends, or to organizations in which their relatives or friends have an interest. Ministers must also take care to avoid placing or appearing to place themselves under an obligation to any person or organization which might profit from special consideration or favour on their part". Does the Prime Minister not feel that this guideline has been broken in this particular instance?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Inasmuch as the contract to which my right hon. friend refers is a contract that was awarded pursuant to objective criteria by another Minister completely, I am satisfied that there were no violations by the Minister, who is a man of great integrity. Having said that, I will certainly acknowledge that not only must Cabinet Ministers avoid conflicts of interest, they must also avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest, which is why Canadians were so horrified when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition assumed the position of Prime Minister of Canada and for a number of weeks maintained important corporate directorships. There is the difference between what the Minister of Finance did and what was done in other circumstances. We will defend this Party's integrity any time and in any circumstances.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 23, 1985


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is misstating the facts. I resigned every corporate directorship on June 30, the day I assumed the Prime Ministership of the country. That is a fact, and he knows that.


FORMER OFFICE HOLDERS
John Napier Turner: would like to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the guidelines from Appendix 2, Post-Employment Guidelines for Ministers and, by reference, their staff. In any official dealings with former office holders Ministers "must ensure that they do not provide grounds or the appearance of grounds for allegations of improper influence, privileged access, or preferential treatment". Does the Prime Minister not feel that this particular guideline has been broken?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend raises the question of appearance, with which we must deal. I acknowledge that. There will be further guidelines filed very shortly which will tend to eliminate even that possibility of appearance.
1 point out to my right hon. friend that after he became Leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister elect, he was given secret and confidential briefings. 1 never once protested because of my full confidence in his integrity, notwithstanding the appearance of a conflict. I hope he would extend the same generosity to the Minister of Finance today.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows better than that. He knows that when I became Prime Minister elect I instructed the Clerk of the Privy Council to show me no documents that would provide a possibility of conflict with any of my earlier associations until they had been shed and I had assumed office. He knows that, and he can check that with the Clerk of the Privy Council.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: The
Prime Minister's own conflict guidelines have been broken in two respects. The Minister admitted that he knew of this situation and discussed it with his brother-in-law, and yet did not stop it. In the first place there was preferential treatment given to his brother-in-law. Second, his former executive assistant, vice-president on leave from Lawson Murray, Mr. Robson, was given the appearance of preferential treatment after leaving the office of the Minister. What does the Prime Minister intend to do about this?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing, as was my tendency at the time, given my understanding of my right hon. friend's long tradition of honorability, was of course to give him the benefit of the doubt. When we came in we inherited the same guidelines. We have since improved upon them. They will be filed with the House. I think it is the kind of document of which my right hon. friend would be quite proud. We did not do it overnight. 1
Oral Questions
raised no questions at the time, notwithstanding questions which were being raised elsewhere, because of my feeling for this matter.
I can give my right hon. friend the assurance that the integrity of the Minister of Finance is absolutely unquestioned. I will acknowledge that even any appearance must be dealt with. This we propose to do in the new guidelines which we will publish shortly.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and concerns an absolutely shameless case of patronage in New Brunswick. Recently, the Minister fired ten wharfingers employed in Shippegan and other ports along the Acadian coast.
In a letter dated April 12, the Minister released the wharfingers from their duties effective March 31. The injustice was not only flagrant but also retroactive!
Does the Minister intend to undo this example of political interference in the Public Service or are we going to see further appointments of Progressive Conservatives to these positions?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend would want to know that any changes made in the case which he has raised have been as a consequence of consultation with Members of Parliament. If there has been some injustice which the Hon. Member can bring to my attention, I would, of course, be prepared to discuss it.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, these particular 10 wharfingers won their jobs in an open competition. The local MP has told them that their replacements will start work on May 1. Is the Minister prepared to investigate this matter with a view to ensuring that these people can keep the jobs which they won fairly and squarely?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's representation may not be completely accurate as to numbers or the reference to "fairly and squarely". As I said, if my hon. friend has representations to make about some undue injustice, I would be prepared to discuss it with him.

April 23, 1985
Oral Questions


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is with regard to the Wilson family compact. Yesterday in the House the Minister indicated that he did not know that his sister Wendy was on the board of directors of Lawson Murray Limited, the company headed by his brother-in-law, Doug. The Minister suggested that at all times he was dealing at arm's length with Lawson Murray Limited.
Would the Minister tell the House whether he is aware that one company, namely, Lawson Murray Limited, was paid $27,306.04, or 65.2 per cent of the Minister's total election expenses, during the Minister's election campaign?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what this has to do with the matter that we have been discussing. This company helped me in the advertising during the election campaign, and that is what they were paid for.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual that one company should be paid 65 per cent of the total election expenses.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: The Minister practised nepotism during his election campaign. He is now practising nepotism with taxpayers' dollars.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: This leads one to question seriously the credibility and competence of the Minister to carry on as Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. I am sure that the Hon. Member knows that he is rising in the House to ask Minister's questions with regard to their ministerial responsibilities. I am sure he knows that, and I am sure he has a question to ask.


John V. Nunziata: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
John V. Nunziata: In view of the fact that the Minister discussed the propriety of the $234,000 government contract to Lawson Murray with his brother-inlaw, Doug, and his sister, Wendy, before it was signed, would the Minister not agree that he exercised extremely poor judgment in allowing his brother-in-law, Doug, and his sister, Wendy, to get the contract?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the Hon. Member's question is quite false. He made two mistakes in the preamble.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW GUIDELINES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is related to the issue of the Government awarding contracts to its political friends without any tendering procedure. Last September Canadians voted for a breath of fresh air in the Government's dealings in the area of patronage and tendering.
Are the new regulations in effect, and were they used in the consideration of the contract given to the brother-in-law of the Minister of Finance? Are they being used in the consideration of Camp Associates for the tourism business of the Government?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services I would like to address the question specifically. I do not understand why the New Democratic Party keeps asking the same question over and over again. If they cannot understand a very simple proposition, I do not know what is wrong with them. The answer to the question was given to them yesterday.
When we first came into office we were seized with the old guidelines of the previous administration, the Treasury Board directive. What we did at an early date was bring forward new guidelines which are now in the process of being completed by Treasury Board, and which have been in effect since early this year with respect to the method by which advertising contracts will be selected. This is a cost efficient and a new method in which there is a greater degree of accountability. This is a system that I recommend to the New Democratic Party which does not use it in any provincial administration that I have heard of.
[DOT] (M30)


Rodney Edward Murphy: Concerning the Minister's last comment, I would ask him to check to see what does happen in Manitoba, because they do have contracts going to Tory firms. That is allowed in that province.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A supplementary question.


FILING OF GUIDELINES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, in his response the Minister asked why we have to keep asking the same question. I would like to know the answer to that, too.
Yesterday, in reply to our Leader, the Prime Minister said that there are new guidelines and "we will be happy to file them at your earliest convenience." Today our office tried to
April 23, 1985

obtain those guidelines through the PMO. We were told that they are not available. What is the definition of "your earliest convenience"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: We will be filing them very shortly.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend will see that they are a tremendous improvement over what we inherited. They have been in effect.
Inasmuch as he mentioned Manitoba, I have noted that Joanne McNevin, former aide to the Leader of the NDP, is now a consultant with the Government of Manitoba. Mark Eliesen, research director under the NDP here, is Chairman of Manitoba Hydro.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Chairman of Manitoba Hydro. There's a guy who knows all about lights. Murray Wepler, former executive assistant to the Member for Ottawa Centre, is communications director with the Manitoba Government. It is the Member for Ottawa Centre who needs the communications help.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Cliff Scotten, former Secretary General, is strategy consultant to the Premier of Manitoba.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I could go on, and on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Churchill, on a supplementary question.


ELIGIBILITY OF FIRMS TO SECURE CONTRACTS
Rodney Edward Murphy: If the Prime Minister wants to compare systems, will he allow, in his new guidelines which he will finally show us, non Conservative firms to get government advertising contracts? They do that in Manitoba. You want to compare systems; will you do it here?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, absolutely non government firms, the same way that we have appointed so many members of different political parties.
With regard to Manitoba, can I go on to the second part of the list?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: You won't find a single Tory appointed in Manitoba or Saskatchewan by the NDP, and that is where your sanctimony is disserving you because the Canadian people know you're a bunch of frauds when it comes to the issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is generally liked in Newfoundland because he reminds us of the key ingredient in our favourite meal, pea soup. You're a real hambone.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, but I want to tell him that we say in Newfoundland, you'd have to have the face of a robber's horse to expect Canadians to swallow your answers to the Leader of the Opposition's questions. Is the Prime Minister saying to Canadians. "Okay, so the Minister of Finance broke my guidelines. But that is okay, because tomorrow I will issue new ones." Do his guidelines have teeth and, if so, what happens to Ministers who breach them?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I didn't think that there was a Newfoundlander who could sink lower than Roger Simmons, but was I ever wrong.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Minister of Finance broke no guidelines and he broke no law. He is a man of great integrity, and the Hon. Member would do well to emulate the magnificent example of leadership and integrity that this gentleman has always inspired across Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister is trying to suggest that he does not have guidelines. These are his guidelines. He issued them and he instructed his Minister to follow them. I ask the Prime Minister are his guidelines worth the paper they are written on, or is it a waste of time, a joke?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Now that we have been through the first part of Question Period maybe we can treat the second part with a little more calm and quiet.


Mr. Shields:: Don't bet on it.


Mr. Speaker:: Whoever said "don't bet on it", I think I am with him.

April 23, 1985
Oral Questions FINANCE


FORTHCOMING BUDGET-MINISTER'S SPEECH IN CALGARY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to change the tone. I rise as a humble and insignificant opposition backbencher.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I suppose that is better than being called a nobody, as said by the previous Government.
1 wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is sitting next to that heavyweight to his left. Yesterday he confirmed in Calgary that the first Tory budget of this administration will encourage foreign investment, and that the Government is considering the elimination of the 25 per cent Crown share in federal lands. Would the Minister tell the House the position of the U.S. Government on the privatization of the Crown share by giving a preference to Canadian companies?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member would have to ask the United States Government.


MINISTER'S VIEW
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has discussed this change with the U.S. Government and, if not, does he personally take the view that this change should be discussed with the Americans before the Government makes a final decision? He has expressed this view in the past. Is this still his present view?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how long it takes the Hon. Member to catch up with events, but the Right Hon. Member for Manicouagan is the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I think it would be prudent for the Government of Canada, when we are enacting legislation, to have some idea of the reaction that would come from either private investors or Governments in other countries. But I make the point that while we might seek some indication as to the reaction of other Governments, this Government of Canada takes Canadian decisions here, ourselves, and in the Canadian interest, no other interest.


PETROLEUM GAS REVENUE TAX
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On March 28 it was a great day for Canada, the day the Western Accord was signed. There is one major highlight. The PGRT, the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax, will not apply to new production commencing on or after April 1, 1985. Does this mean that the PGRT will not apply to any new production, including reserves that were shut in prior to March 28 and may come on stream or be produced after April 1?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the revisions to the PGRT were designed to create activity in the oil patch to provide new jobs and new exploration. Having said that, I can tell the Hon. Member that there is a working group under the aegis of the Minister of Finance that is taking a look at regulations to govern the new petroleum and gas revenue tax, and this group will be giving its report to this House in due course.


FINANCE
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, folllowing on the question from the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, can the Minister of Finance tell us whether he authorized the Secretary of State to make these budget disclosures to the Chamber of Commerce in Calgary, or is this just another example of sloppy disregard for the budgetary process?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could read the sentence that gave rise to the headline in The Globe and Mail today. It reads: "Our first major initiative was to replace FIR A and Michael Wilson's budget will continue the encouragement of enterprise and investment". It was two separate thoughts combined into one to make a headline.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, with that 1 think 1 should go to the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Benjamin:: I wish you would.
April 23, 1985


PRESENTATION OF BUDGET
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister assure us today that when the Budget is delivered it will be delivered here in the House of Commons, and that it will be delivered by this Minister of Finance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it will be delivered here in the House of Commons by this Minister of Finance, and it will be one hell of an improvement over previous Budgets delivered here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister about the Lawson Murray-Wilson affair. It has to do with the Prime Minister's statement that the new guidelines, which he promises to let us have a look at soon, appear to prohibit the apparent or real conflict of interest in which the Minister of Finance found himself with respect to that contract.
Recalling both Conservative and NDP unhappiness with the kind of narrow, legalistic arguments we used to get from former Prime Minister Trudeau about something being right only because it was legal, why did the Prime Minister not, in anticipation of the new guidelines, instruct his Government to behave in that way because that is the way Members of the Government ought to have behaved in any case, and not just because there were no guidelines to say they should behave that way?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I get the full question except that I agree with the implication of my hon. friend that guidelines are worthless unless they are accepted both in spirit and in letter, and with enthusiasm, and when I indicated these guidelines, I indicated at the time of the appointment of Ministers that there would be enhanced and more rigorous guidelines at the earliest possible moment. I demanded of them what my hon. colleague would want, the highest possible standards of deportment. I believe that has been the case. You may quarrel from time to time with the procedures involved in awarding contracts. There will be procedures for them as well, and enhanced ones. Surely there cannot be the slightest doubt as to the integrity and the honesty of the Minister of Finance. That is absolutely beyond reproach.


INTRODUCTION OF NEW GUIDELINES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I never questioned the integrity and the honesty of the Minister
Oral Questions
of Finance. 1 ask the Prime Minister whether the new guidelines prevent this kind of situation from happening, and if they do prevent this kind of situation, why did the Prime Minister not ask his Minister and his Government to act that way before the guidelines came into effect because they knew what was the right thing to do?
If the guidelines do not prevent that kind of situation from happening, then obviously they are inadequate, but we will not know until we see them. When can we see them? And when will the Prime Minister say, as I think he ought to, that the Government ought to have acted in a way to leave out possible conflict of interest even before the guidelines came in, given the inadequacy of the old ones and the possible inadequacy of the new ones?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I share the apprehension, and I recognize the legitimacy of my hon. friend's point. As some of my colleagues here from the private sector are aware, when I was President and Chief Executive Officer of the Iron Ore Company of Canada 1 imposed on the management of that company the most rigorous and demanding conflict of interest standards I believe that existed anywhere in Canada. Those are the kinds of standards we must have. I can assure you that the guidelines that will be filed will be the most rigorous ever demanded of federal politicians at any time.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Prevent it from happening again.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY LEVEL OF TOLLS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. At a time when the marine industry is in the doldrums, when shippers and shipbuilding are on the decline, and passage-way on the St. Lawrence Seaway is decreasing rapidly, does the Minister consider this is an appropriate time to increase the Seaway tolls or the lockage fees on that great waterway?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, a few months ago we announced the Government's intention to continue the tolls at the current level. There is at the present time no consideration being given to any increase in those tolls. I think the Hon. Member would know that any increase in tolls would be subject to consultation and collaboration with the American authorities as well.

April 23, 1985
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue a question that I asked twice yesterday during the environment debate of the Minister of the Environment, without getting a reply.
Why, as of April 1 this year, can Canadians no longer count on the toxic chemical control program which was suddenly dropped without any notice, a program meant to protect the health of Canadians? It measures the presence of toxic chemicals in lakes and rivers. It monitors the leaching into the Niagara River from the chemical dump sites there which are of great concern to four million Canadians who live in the Niagara Peninsula. Why did the Minister all of a sudden cancel this program, without any notice?
[ Translation]


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the research program to which the former Minister of the Environment is referring was a temporary one which existed already under his mandate. He is therefore well aware of the terms of reference of this research program. It was a temporary one which was due to expire at the end of the fiscal year 1984-85. Mr. Speaker, this is the type of spurious issue and question which the former Minister of the Environment likes to raise in the House. If he should require further information, I would provide it to him in writing. This program has never been cut.


REQUEST THAT PROGRAM BE RENEWED
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister look at her mandate, her responsibilities, her duties, and discover that if she were to do that she has the full power and responsibility and the mandate to go to Treasury Board and ask for a renewal of any program, particularly a program having to do with the health of Canadians? Why did the Minister surreptitiously cancel this program and not take the trouble to renew it for the protection of the health of millions of Canadians in the Niagara region?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, the dramatic stance which the former Minister of the Environment has taken does not fool anybody. I repeat that this program came to its normal end, and that if I did not reinstate it, it is because it was a temporary one and is now included in my main estimates.


NATIONAL EPIDEMIOLOGICAL CENTRE PROPOSAL
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the House in the last week or so, as well as in northwestern Ontario, we have been concerned about the immediate impacts of the PCB spill, but I would like to take a look at the longer term. The Minister knows that the registration of incidents of birth defects and certain diseases can assist Governments, both federal and provincial, in pinpointing above average outbreaks. In some cases this pinpointing can allow Governments to determine that there has been an environmental cause or environmental link.
Would the Minister be prepared to provide sufficient funding for the operation of a national epidemiological centre so that we could monitor the eruption of any specific diseases in a specific area, and therefore react more quickly to the impacts of chemicals on our environment?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, he should be aware that both through the Department of National Health and Welfare and provincial Departments of Health there is a constant monitoring of any risk factors. If he is specifically referring to risk factors as related to the PCB situation in northern Ontario, which perhaps has given rise to the question but is not the specific point of his question, there is very close co-operation between the federal and provincial Governments in terms of assessing risk factors. At the moment, unless other evidence is made available to me, I believe the system is working well and protecting the health of Canadians.


MONITORING OF BIRTH DEFECTS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, agencies like the Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System have raised some concerns about the lack of proper funding for them to do the kind of job they need to do to monitor birth defects. Would the Minister reconsider the level of funding which is going to that organization, to ensure that at the very least, when children are involved, we begin to see some patterns to which we can react to make sure that we treat the problem, and not just a band-aid?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on the questions of congenital birth defects and exchange of information, it has been my experience in discussing the issues with my provincial counterparts that what would possibly be more helpful is a more free exchange of information that is already available both within provincial jurisdictions and within federal jurisdictions. If he goes back to the Canada Health Act, there was a provision for information
April 23, 1985

largely to be used as a cudgel by the federal Government over the heads of provincial health Ministers.
I have said let's use this information in an open manner and, as we will do on May 16 and May 17 at a national conference of Health Ministers, look at the future together. Maybe we could use this kind of information. I believe it is there. It might have to be bolstered a bit, but I would rather go the route of co-operation than set up another superstructure which would really give us the information 1 think we already have.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk in Government circles about dismantling the Federal Business Development Bank. The Bank, which has its headquarters in Montreal, employs 500 people whose salaries contribute $ 18 million to the economy of Quebec.
My question is directed to the Minister of State (Small Businesses). Since the Minister has just come back from a long trip across the country, can he now inform the House whether he intends to maintain the Federal Business Development Bank?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, to answer the Hon. Member's question, as you know, all Government programs are now under review, including the Federal Business Development Bank. We are in the midst of a review and organization process, and we should be submitting a reorganization program by the end of June or the beginning of July, and we will see what we will be able to do with the Federal Business Development Bank.


NEED TO ASSURE MAINTENANCE OF FINANCING FOR SMALL BUSINESS
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Business Development Bank has been in existence since 1944, and it may be time to reassess its mandate but certainly not to dismantle the Bank. We have just been informed that during the last fiscal year, the Bank lent $85 million to 4,571 customers, and 40 per cent of its work is done in Quebec. Is the Minister prepared to inform the House that he will refrain from taking any drastic action with respect to the Federal Business Development Bank, so as to ensure continuity of financing for small businesses?


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, we are rethinking the role of the Federal Business Development Bank. The role of the Federal Business Development Bank-


An Hon. Member:: You have a headache.
Oral Questions


André Bissonnette: I hope the Hon. Member who just spoke listens to himself from time to time ... As I was saying, the role of the Federal Business Development Bank is actually to support small- and medium-sized business, and we are trying to redefine that role. We will do so and we will have something to submit by the end of June.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Yesterday the Minister, using the police forces at his disposal, threw the peace campers off the Hill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: He used the force of law to get rid of these idealistic young Canadians-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: -who are trying to bring us a message about the survival of humanity on this planet. The Minister had another option. Rather than using police forces he could have taken peace initiatives. He could recommend to his colleagues that there be no more Cruise testing in Canada and that there be no participation in star wars.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Cyril Keeper: Will the Minister consider recommending peace initiatives to his colleagues rather than abusing young people with police force?
[ Translation]


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member and all his colleagues in the House know full well that we are in favour of disarmament, and the sooner the better. I have already explained the reasons and, in a non-aggressive manner, I told those people a fortnight ago that they would have to leave Parliament Hill. They responded by urging me to throw them out. In those circumstances, 1 would suggest that nobody was taken by surprise. 1 said and I repeat that Parliament Hill will no longer be a camping ground, not even for the Hon. Member across the aisle.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to imply that the peace campers were simply camping, not demonstrating for the cause of peace. In his reply yesterday he said that there was no connection between the peace campers and the peace movement. In light of the fact that last night the Ottawa Disarmament Coalition

April 23, 1985
Oral Questions
praised the Peace Camp as a symbol of the peace movement in Canada, will the Minister reconsider his decision to use police force against young Canadians who are protesting war actions in Canada?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I made a decision. I said yesterday and I repeat today that anyone anxious to demonstrate in any way may do so in the appropriate manner. And, as usual, Mr. Speaker, there is no place to sleep on Parliament Hill.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a final question to the Prime Minister relating to the Minister of Finance. What we are really trying to get at here, of course, is the question of a Minister's judgment. The Prime Minister has been referring to some brand new guidelines which he is going to introduce. Will he admit that the guidelines which 1 cited earlier this afternoon were in force throughout the entire relevant period relating to the facts surrounding the situation of the Minister of Finance? Were these guidelines not in force at all relevant times affecting the situation surrounding the Minister of Finance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, those guidelines were in force, but they were not breached.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns his recent trip to the Soviet Union. Could he indicate to the House whether he discussed the reunification of families with Soviet authorities?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I discussed specifically with Soviet authorities the reunification of families and the very profound concern in Canada about questions of human rights in the Soviet Union. I also took the opportunity to indicate to Soviet authorities the view of the Government of Canada that there would be a much greater willingness on the part of the public of Canada to accept more extensive relations between our two countries if there were a change in the attitude by Soviet authorities toward questions of family reunification and human rights.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) on Monday, April 22, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no ruling to make today, but 1 do want to make one small comment to the House. I might remind Hon. Members that our practice is to ask questions and answer questions through the Chair. We are beginning to develop the habit of referring across the floor to "you". I simply wish to remind Hon. Members that that is not appropriate.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PROSTITUTION AND PORNOGRAPHY
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lay upon the Table of the House two copies in both official languages of the Report of the Special Committee on Prostitution and Pornography, also known as the Fraser Committee.


PETITIONS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from many Canadians across this country who are opposed to the change in the UIC Act which allows severance pay to be used in calculating unemployment insurance. I have the honour to present these petitions to the House of Commons.
April 23, 1985


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 239 will be answered today.


Mr. Howie: From January 1, 1984 to date, were studies regarding child abuse and neglect done for the Department of National Health and Welfare by (a) departmental personnel (b) outside consultants and, if so, what are the names and publication dates of these studies?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: (a) No studies regarding child abuse and neglect have been initiated or conducted by departmental personnel from January 1, 1984 to date.
(b) From January 1, 1984, to date, no studies regarding child abuse and neglect have been initiated from the department by outside consultants, however, the two following studies have been completed:
(1)	The Directory of Child Abuse Prevention Programs in Canada initiated in September, 1983, and financed by the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence, designed to help professionals and community groups become more aware of local and regional child abuse programs across the country. The Directory, with over 200 entries listed, was published in August, 1984.
(2)	A three-year study funded by the Departments of Justice and National Health and Welfare on sexual offences against children and youth, (Committee chaired by Dr. Robin Badgley), was carried out from 1981 to 1984. The report of this study, entitled Sexual Offences Against Children, was published in August, 1984. A summary of this report was published by the Department of National Health and Welfare and was also released in August, 1984.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I suggest that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Investment Canada Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and Motions Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper), I would like to take this opportunity to make a few minor corrections to the preliminary statement that 1 made this morning concerning motions that appear on the Order Paper. This is purely correcting errors of numbers.
In paragraph 33 of the statement circulated to Hon. Members, I referred to Motion No. 62 as having been grouped with Motion No. 8 and others. This, of course, should have read Motion No. 63. Motion No. 62 was grouped with Motion No. 33 and others in paragraph 22 of the statement. Paragraph 41 should have read as follows: "Motions Nos. 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75 were dealt with earlier by the Chair". Finally, paragraph 35 is missing simply because it was not included. There is no change in the text as a consequence.
I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre in order to continue debate.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to resume debate on the Foreign Investment Review Act. As I said before lunch-hour, what we are now dealing with is the statement of purpose for this legislation. I read the statement before lunch. It indicates that this legislation is meant to open the door to foreign investment without review. It takes away the watchman from the door as we allow foreign investment to come into Canada. We in this Party find that to be unacceptable. We want to amend this clause of the Bill to say that technology in Canada will be allowed into Canada under appropriate terms and conditions established by the Government, conditions which will benefit Canada.
It is the view of those in this Party that while it is useful to have foreign capital come into Canada, that capital must come here under our conditions. Capital must respect the values of the community. It is the community through its elected representatives that will determine the priorities that capital will serve. This morning I gave the example of Toro Industries which established a plant in Manitoba. As a condition of establishing that plant, it accepted that it would have an affirmative action program. In order to come into Manitoba, this industry accepted as a condition that it would have an affirmative action program.
This is what we mean when we say that we want capital to come into this country under appropriate conditions and for the benefit of Canada. I might elaborate. Affirmative action will mean that companies in the private sector will have

April 23, 1985
Investment Canada Act
programs that promote the employment of minority groups and other disadvantaged people, women, natives, the handicapped, visible minorities. This is important because our society is built upon the notion of equal opportunity and equality of the human condition. We cannot have equality unless we take positive steps in that direction. If the marketplace is allowed to operate free of any restraint whatsoever, it will not produce equality. It will produce inequality.
It is necessary to have positive measures in place which assure equality. Affirmative action is one way of doing that. It is important that we can say to private sector companies that affirmative action is something the Government feels is important because it promotes greater equality among the groups in this country.
It is not enough simply to have legislation that is meant to attract capital. It is not enough to have legislation that is simply a neon sign saying "Canada for sale". It is not enough to tell foreign bankers that their money is welcome in this country. They must know that we are not going to give them a free hand, that they will have to live by Canadian standards if they are going to operate in this country. If capital operates in Canada, it has to operate according to Canadian laws and standards and serve the Canadian community. I gave the example of Toro Industries to indicate that this idea is practical, workable, has been done and that there is no reason why it should not be done today for all of Canadian through the legislation before the House. It is crucial that foreign capital serve Canadian interests, particularly since such a large percentage of Canadian industry is foreign owned. The behaviour of foreign capital in the Canadian economy is crucial to the over-all quality of life in Canada.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I have a couple of minutes left so I will wind down. My essential point is that this legislation is not good enough. It is not good enough just to open the door to foreign capital. We must set standards for the behaviour of foreign capital in this country. We need legislation which clearly indicates that when foreign bankers invest in Canada, they must invest for the benefit of Canadians. They will have to negotiate the conditions under which that investment takes place so that we, the elected representatives of the people, can be assured that that capital will serve the interest of the people. It must promote benefits such as greater equality, employment and development in underdeveloped regions of our country. It is crucial that we accept the amendment before the House today to amend the purpose of the Bill to the effect that capital is welcome here under appropriate terms and conditions that will benefit Canadians.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of the amendment because I have been hearing from Canadians from coast to coast who are extremely concerned about the Government's move to gut, abolish and abort the Foreign Investment Review Agency. It has reached the point at which some major investors in Canada, including the Bronfman family, have recognized the folly of this particular
piece of legislation. This legislation contains no such guarantees as those provided by this amendment. There is no guarantee that this legislation will ensure Canadian jobs for Canadians.
It is a sorry situation when the President of the Steel Company of Canada is forced to make a public statement on the Government's lack of guts on the steel issue. Members of this House should be well aware that the steel industry in Canada has been competitive on a world-wide basis. Unfortunately, because of the lack of political will, the lack of backbone and in fact the position taken by the Government that it is prepared not only to open our doors for business but to put us up for sale, we find ourselves in the position of having to oppose this Bill.
I as a Canadian am frightened when I am told that we have to sell off our water if we are going to be able to save our economy. That is the kind of mentality the Government has instituted. The business section of today's Toronto Star indicates that the Bronfman family is extremely concerned. Stephen Jarislowsky, speaking on behalf of the Bronfman family, states that the gutting of Ottawa's Foreign Investment Review Agency has made the Montreal-based Seagram Company a take-over target for U.S. companies. I want to know whether or not those U.S. companies will guarantee Canadian jobs for Canada.
We can hearken back to the difficult economic times of 1982 when parent companies started to go under and to look to develop in other places. Did Consolidated-Bathurst of the City of Hamilton guarantee jobs for Canadians? No. As a matter of fact, at the first inkling of any kind of economic difficulty, that company pulled up stakes and left Hamilton just as Allen Industries pulled up stakes and left our community. Inglis, after the infusion of millions of federal dollars, also pulled up stakes and left the City of Hamilton. How can this Government which was elected on a massive mandate of jobs, jobs and more jobs now come to the Canadian people and ask us to support a piece of legislation which would mean further U.S. take-overs, further foreign take-overs and no job guarantees for Canadian workers?
The workers at the Steel Company of Canada and Dofasco are concerned about keeping Canadian jobs in Canada. The workers at the Steel Company of Canada and Dofasco want the Government to put some teeth into its anti-dumping legislation. The workers in the City of Hamilton want the Government to start taking a positive attitude toward Canadian investment instead of blocking people like Ernie Kablau who is trying to put almost $1 million in the way of tourism into our community. What kind of response has he gotten from Conservatives at both the provincial and federal levels? The Deputy Minister of Tourism told Mr. Kablau that the Government will give him money if he moves his boat to St. Catharines because Hamilton is not a tourism priority. When the Conservatives in Toronto developed a tourism map, they left Hamilton completely off the map. That has been the attitude of this Government and the attitude of the provincial Government.
April 23, 1985

Certainly the people of Hamilton and the people of Canada, when they awarded a massive majority to the Conservative Government of Canada, expected a little more. They expected some job guarantees. They expected the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to deliver on his promises. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that if he did deliver on a promise, it would be a first for this Prime Minister. The people expected him to deliver on his promise to create tens of thousands of jobs the moment he was elected. Instead of creating jobs, his Government has actually put at peril thousands of jobs not only in the City of Hamilton but across this great country.
The other morning I had an opportunity to speak to the workers at Susan Shoe Industries Ltd. in the great riding of Hamilton East. Those workers are concerned and frightened. They stand to lose up to 400 jobs because of the Government's refusal to provide the kind of job guarantees of which the Prime Minister spoke so eloquently during the dark days of July and August. Those dark days have clearly shown the Canadian people that the Tories are not interested in helping Hamilton. The Tories are not interested in job creation whether it be at the federal or provincial level. The Tories are only interested in awarding jobs to friends, family members and brothers-in-law.
The feeling on the streets about this Government is not a very good one. People from Hamilton, Toronto and northern Ontario are asking questions. They are asking why the Government will not live up to the kind of expectations it instilled in the Canadian people and why it has determined that its first act as a Government will be to gut the very instrument of job creation that was instituted under the former Liberal Government, the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
Canadians realize that in return for investment, we must have a guarantee of Canadian jobs. The labour movement speaks very eloquently to the issue of job security at this point in time. We are no longer talking dollar increases. We are talking about the 60-plus per cent of Canadians who fear for their jobs or the jobs of family members. Canadians from coast to coast are calling on the Government to provide those kinds of guarantees rather than to introduce legislation which will gut any guarantees we had previously instituted in the form of the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
I doubt we will hear very much from government Members. They have been exceedingly silent on this issue. I hope Hon. Members from Quebec will take heed of what the Bronfman brothers had to say on this particular issue. I do not think the Bronfman brothers are crying in the dark when blaming the Government for the potential loss of thousands of jobs in the distilling industry if there is an American take-over. I do not think they are speaking lightly. I think they are speaking on behalf of all Canadians who are beginning to recognize that the cosy relationship, the open-door policy and the up-for-sale attitude of the Prime Minister is not reflected by the Canadian people. In fact, quite the contrary.
The Canadian people are prepared to compete. In the steel industry, we have competed with the best. We have shown the world how to create the best product possible. What has been
Investment Canada Act
the response? The response has been U.S. protectionism. The Government of Canada cannot convince the U.S. Congress to lift the provisions that were instituted under the labelling provisions passed by the U.S. Congress recently. The Prime Minister made a promise. He wrote a letter to the people of the riding of Hamilton East indicating that once he was elected Prime Minister, he would immediately solve the steel labelling problem. Yet we have seen that the Prime Minister has not delivered on this promise, as he has not delivered on hundreds of other promises.
There is an issue of credibility at stake. We cannot look at the credibility of the federal Government without looking at the credibility of the Ontario Government. It is very hard to ascertain the credibility of the Premier of Ontario because he cannot get out of the Prime Minister's lap long enough to make a statement or engage in a debate. This issue goes beyond Party boundaries. It is an issue of job security which touches every Canadian.
I would encourage every Hon. Member of this House to speak out in support of the amendment of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) which will in fact ensure that the kind of provisions which were instituted under the Foreign Investment Review Agency, through the leadership of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) under the former Liberal Government, are not "gutted", in the words of the Bronfman spokesman, because of actions of this Government not only to open the doors but to put Canada up for sale. I don't think Canadians want to sell our water, Mr. Speaker, but this Government is selling us out.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have another opportunity to speak against this Investment Canada Bill. I think the most dangerous thing about this Government is that it refuses to recognize what is becoming very obvious, that is, that this Bill not only will have no beneficial impact on the economy of this country, but it will be a deterrent to investment. I find completely repugnant the attitude of this Government that there is something wrong about giving an incentive, an edge, to Canadians to invest and share in the benefits of their own country. We should not have to apologize to the rest of the world for wanting to put Canadian interests first and foremost in our own economy. It is becoming more and more evident that we are slipping more and more into the hands of foreign economic interests. The most important aspects of our economy are not going to be safeguarded. To the contrary, the safeguards which we have are going to disappear.
This Government has indicated that it wants foreign investment. There is nothing wrong with foreign investment. But to open the doors completely with absolutely no check on foreign investment is going to be the ruination of our economy and the principles which we want to follow in this country.
The Government says that foreign investment will create regional development, that we will develop in the areas which are undergoing regional disparity. Nothing could be further

April 23, 1985
Investment Canada Act
from the truth. In fact, it has been proven that if we encourage foreign investment in a country, that foreign investment will go to the areas which are the most successful and not to areas which need economic assistance.
This Government has no concept of regional development whatsoever. In my own area of Cape Breton Island the unemployment rate is 29.5 per cent. It is the highest by far that it has ever been. This is an unemployment rate which this Government and Employment Canada acknowledges. The actual rate is well over 40 per cent. Yet when this Government came into power it cancelled projects which were going to create jobs. It cancelled these projects in accordance with its policy of political attrition, nothing more. And it has not only not replaced those jobs which were cancelled but it has not replaced the ideas which were in existence for creating jobs. This Government has not come forward with one idea. To make it more dangerous, the man who is in charge of regional development is also the Cabinet Minister in charge of the cabinet committee which approves funds for regional development and economic expenditures.
It is absolutely frightening, Mr. Speaker, that this Government not only has no conception of regional development but has no concern for people. We have in this Investment Canada Act a lot of verbiage which is not in the interests of Canada but is in the interests of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). He has managed somehow with his own limited horizons to convince his cabinet colleagues that this legislation is going to be in the best interests of this country. Foreign expenditure in this country is not going to be investment, it is going to be a buy-all. This is what we are going to see from foreign capital. It is the only thing we are going to see, and this Government will be responsible. Why does the Government not give incentives to encourage small business and Canadians to invest in their own country? It is not doing this. It is taking away the icentives which were there before.
With respect to the Small Businesses Loans Act, it has taken away what incentive there was-and there wasn't very much-for the banks to put small business loans funding into areas where the funding was needed. Since the Small Businesses Loans Act came into being, in my area with an official unemployment rate of 29.5 per cent, the chartered banks have not allocated $1 under the Small Businesses Loans Act. What is the purpose of this Act? It was had then, but now the Government is only guaranteeing 90 per cent of the bank's investment under this Act. It is requesting a 1 per cent initiation fee, as I would call it, to take on a loan under this Act and to get the security. The Government is completely ruining any incentive in this country.
The Federal Business Development Bank requires criteria which are more stringent than that of the chartered banks, if that is possible. That is exactly what it is doing. In areas of this country where investment is needed, and where the Government is saying the private sector is the area which has to redevelop the economy of this country, one cannot get a commercial mortgage because the financial institutions are not
prepared to take the chance. Rather than helping Canadians to invest and to make an income in their own country, this Government has completely abandoned its responsibility. The Government is saying, in effect: "To heck with that; we can't be bothered. There is too much detail. They are only little people anyway and it's going to take too many of them to bail us out of the hole we are putting ourselves in, so let's throw open the doors to the multi-nationals and the big foreign companies and hope that they will invest in our country and bail us out."
The only thing that these companies are going to do, Mr. Speaker, is buy up our profitable companies which are short of capital-and there are a lot of good, solid companies which are short of capital. If the foreign companies wave enough dollars in front of these people, they are not going to continue to accept the insults of this Government, the requirements of this Government. They are going to take the easy way out. They are going to sell for the price which is being offered by these multi-nationals and foreign companies, and we are going to lose Canadian content and this country is going to be the worse for it. We will become merely an extension of the head offices of the foreign companies. Canadians are not going to have the advantage of having successful businesses in their own country.
What will be the result of this, Mr. Speaker? We are not going to have a Canadian content. If we hit a downturn, these branch plants are going to be the first to lay off workers. We are seeing that now. The foreign companies are consolidating, particularly in the energy field. The multi-national oil companies are getting rid of their diversifications. They are consolidating their operations and pruning in areas which require more attention than the money which is generated would warrant. This is happening in all sectors of the economy, world-wide. Who is suffering? It is the branch plants of these foreign companies, and a lot of them are closing. We are going to lose a lot of jobs as a result of that. The employment we want to achieve for the people is not going to be there. In the manufacturing sector we are losing jobs to the parent companies. We are encouraging these companies to be more productive and competitive and as a result they are mechanizing, increasing their technical capabilities and laying off people.
Where are the jobs we need coming from? They are not coming from Canadian investment, because Canadian investment is not going to be given the incentive it needs. They are not coming from the multinationals and foreign companies because they do not want to invest. They want to use their capital to buy what already exists. They will then reduce the number of jobs because what they buy will be a duplication of other operations they have.
This Bill is wrong. There is nothing wrong with foreign investment, as I have said, and nothing wrong with the Foreign Investment Review Act as it was. It encouraged foreign investment but looked after the rights of Canadians and Canadian companies.
April 23, 1985


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that it is really a pleasure to rise to speak on the matter of Investment Canada. It is a Bill which should not be before this House unless it were to strengthen the review process to ensure that investment in Canada benefits Canadians. What we have before us is an amendment which would correct an omission in the statement of purpose. The Bill states:
Recognizing that increased capital and technology would benefit Canada-
The resolution would rephrase that to state:
Recognizing that increased capital and technology under appropriate terms and conditions established by government would benefit Canada-
This seeks to correct an omission which could be a deliberate act. It could be the result of naivety, or the appropriate phraseology as suggested could have been omitted by oversight. I do not really believe that even this Government believes that increased capital and increased technology would of themselves benefit Canadians. To believe that would require us to ignore the experience of the Third World, South America and Africa, the expected beneficiaries of capital and technology from the western nations, particularly the U.S., but which have suffered to a tremendous extent as a result, and even now experience the effects of their attempts to establish at long last that foreign capital and foreign technology must benefit their countries and allow what it has in the past prevented, self-determination.
We could reduce the statement to the absurd or we could suggest that perhaps we are talking about the introduction of capital, as in Columbia, to grow marijuana and cocaine, or the introduction of weapons technology in peaceful nations, as has happened all over the world. We will not indulge in that exercise because I do not think even Conservatives would construe that as a benefit to this country,.
This could, however, be a deliberate act of omission because there are many within the Government Party who have rather strong allegiances to the international financial community, the multinationals, and could care less whether capital or technology introduced in Canada benefits Canadians so long as it benefits those who are already doing very well as a result of international investments which have only one end, that of pocketing huge profits to maintain a level of indulgence which benefits no one except those who are making huge profits.
I suppose there is some benefit from that approach because capital invested in Canada and reaping profits elsewhere will at least leave some small change for the rest of us. Fortunately, this is an attitude which is not perceived very happily by the Canadian people. They are not happy with this thrust to obsequious dependency on other nations in order to establish our future. They are not happy with the idea that we seek our economic future in investment and technology elsewhere when this has the effect of leaving too many Canadians unemployed, and provides no basis on which future economic developments and secondary industry will take place and thus create jobs. They do not want to see any future in which technology is allowed us only to the extent that it benefits people elsewhere.
Investment Canada Act
If the omission is merely that of an oversight, then of course the amendment introduced is, I am sure, well received by those Members who noticed the accident. On that basis we might expect some support. But, really, we have a Bill which is for the sole purpose of producing some kind of a review process.
Surely it must be a trivial observation that if we are going to seek benefits from technology and capital, then we ought to define those benefits and assert the criteria which will be administered to ensure that those benefits will be forthcoming. For example, in Ontario over the last decade we have had numerous instances of plant closures. The fact of the matter is that 60 per cent of those plant closures have resulted from the closing of American subsidiaries. It seems to me that one of the conditions that Government would contemplate would be to ensure that subsidiaries are given sufficient market access in the export trade, that they have some research and development capacity, that some guarantee of the maintenance of jobs will be secured when examining investment in Canada on the part of American investors.
Having raised the issue of jobs, one thing is clear, as was determined by the Senate Committee in the U.S. and by the Harvard Business School. Most investment in Canada has produced far more jobs in the U.S. than it has produced in Canada. We cannot afford capital coming in and benefiting Canadians unless we assert that there are certain conditions which have to be met and which will benefit Canadians. Clearly this amendment should be supported by all sides of the House. It is helpful and will ensure that the intent indicated in the statement of purpose will be met.
In Windsor we have had the experience of American corporations where there could be no certainty, in the absence of Government demands for certainty, that Canadians would have jobs and continue to have jobs. I submitted in a previous speech an example of four companies there which, through closure, lost some 2,000 jobs in Windsor alone. That has to be looked after.
No other country would send its Prime Minister to New York to suggest that, "hey, fellows, we'd sure like to have you up there because really, after all, if you really think about us very seriously, we are so much like you that we are only the 51st state and on that basis we are very happy to have you determine where we will go on so many aspects of our society and economy and our politics." It is increasingly clear that the Americans, in their pursuit of armaments and defence spending, have established an economy which has distorted the economy of the entire world. Now they would fight back by demanding of others that they make concessions to this American aberration at the expense of those countries involved. That should be a lesson to us. The Americans have only one goal in mind, the American national interest. Canadians should have only one goal, Canadian national interest. Those national interests should not be established elsewhere. We should establish criteria to ensure that they are not.

April 23, 1985
Investment Canada Act


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. You will recall that when we discussed this Bill earlier in this session in the House of Commons Opposition Members objected quite strongly to the present state of the Investment Canada Bill which does away with many of the valuable protections that we had in the Foreign Investment Review Agency legislation.
I am sure you will know that we in our Party, and all Canadians, want investment. We all know that. No one is against having people come here to invest their money. That is not what we are discussing today. In our Party we want significant economic benefit for Canadians. That is the part of the equation which seems to entirely escape the Government. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and other Members on the Government side should take some time to consider this legislation. They should consider the fact that we need protection to ensure that investments made protect Canadian businesses. I cannot help but wonder why the Government does not seem to be aware of the fact that, although investment is needed, it must be done in such a way as to protect the interests of all Canadian citizens.
I would like to give a few examples of things that are happening right now between Canada and the United States. We must wonder what we are getting in return from the United States for relaxing the FIRA legislation. One could say that we are going to get more investment. Perhaps we will, but perhaps not. The Government made its intentions known some months ago. I have not seen hoardes of new people coming into the country to invest. We know that 97 per cent of applications were approved by the previous agency known as the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
In the last few months some things have happened which are worrying members of the Liberal Party. For instance, we now have a U.S. imposed tariff on saltfish for the first time in the history of the country. That is very important for many people in the Maritime provinces. It has very great effects on them.
The Commerce Department of the United States has also imposed a tariff on Canadian hogs exported to the United States. I happen to represent an area that has many hog producers. We are told that this fee is only in place for an interim period. We are told that the funds will be put aside and if the decision is overturned the money will be returned. Perhaps that is so, but nevertheless it has had a devastating effect on hog prices in the country. Prior to this initiative by the United States Government hog prices were at 69 to 70 cents a pound. The price has now gone down to 57 or 58 cents a pound. At that price the farmers of my riding cannot subsist; they cannot make ends meet.
I cannot help but wonder if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) is not really telling Canadians that he wants Americans to have the bigger share of the economic pie because he does not trust Canadian entrepreneurs. Perhaps the Prime Minister has the same attitude toward Canadian entrepreneurs as he has toward Canadian workers. You will remember what the
Prime Minister said as reported in an article in Fortune magazine of March 4, 1985. On the charge by political opponents that Mulroney "has put Canada up for sale" he said:
Who wants to buy it? What is there so compellingly attractive about Canada that causes us to think that anybody is going to rush in simply because somebody says, "I'd like to do business with you."
Those are the words of the leader of the Government. He continued:
We do not have a very good track record. Our products have not been of the highest quality. Our deliveries have been lacking in reliability. Our expertise has been in large measure borrowed. Our technology has been purchased. What the hell makes us so special? If somebody wants to buy some oil, somebody wants to buy some wheat, hell, we're in the business. That's what it's all about.
That is the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada toward the workers of the country and presumably toward the small businessmen and enterpreneurs of Canada. With that kind of attitude it is small wonder that the Prime Minister of the country is willing to give away the store. He has displayed an attitude of contempt toward the people of Canada by making those statements. By making such statements the Prime Minister has told the people of Canada that it does not really matter whether we sell everything or, more particularly, give everything to the Americans because, according to him, what we have is not worth having anyway. He should be ashamed.
The Conservative backbenchers must have a talk with the Prime Minister about statements like that which he has made. I am sure that sometime, somewhere behind the curtains of the House, when they muster up this courage, which Tories are known to do sometimes, albeit not too often, they will tell the Prime Minister that they do not want him to speak like that about Canadian entrepreneurs and workers.
When the Prime Minister was elected he talked about a new era of optimism. He talked about tens upon tens of thousands of new jobs overnight, or as quickly as the Government could be sworn into office. Where are those jobs? Where is that new optimism that the Prime Minister professed he would have and would instil into everyone else in the country? The Prime Minister obviously gave us empty words last summer. We see that in this Bill. We saw that when he referred to the Canadian workers in Fortune magazine and we are also seeing it now through the issue of patronage. The words of the Prime Minister are not to be believed by the Canadian people. He made 338 promises. He promised the people of the country everything they wanted to hear and the people believed him. However, they are sorry now.
In a little more than a week from now the people of Ontario will be sending the Prime Minister a message via his provincial counterpart and close friend, the Ronald Reagan of the north, Frank Miller. They will be telling Frank Miller that they have had enough of Tories and that empty platitudinal promises are not to be believed by the people of Canada. Next week the people of Canada will tell the Prime Minister that they have had enough of the attitude and contempt he has displayed toward them by giving away the store in terms of foreign investment legislation, and the attitude he has displayed toward workers. They have had enough of the attitude he has
April 23, 1985

displayed in his so called solemn commitments to the Canadian people.
When discussing this Bill last fall, 1 recall that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion gave examples to Hon. Members of the kinds of activities that the Foreign Investment Review Agency was reviewing. He said that FIRA should not interfere with someone who attempts to set up a hotdog stand or small restaurant. At that time, I reminded the Minister that the largest restaurant chain in this country, and indeed in the world, is a chain of hamburger and hotdog restaurants. It is one of the most lucrative and profitable enterprises in the world. Our Party supports foreign investment but we want significant economic benefits for all Canadians.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. The purpose of the amendment put forward by my colleague is to allow the Government to maintain authority over the Canadian economy. The absence of such authority will be detrimental to our economy and not help the creation of jobs or the protection of existing employment.
This Bill is somewhat of a slight to Canadians because it is essentially suggesting that the Government does not have faith in Canadians to create the jobs and wealth that will improve our lot. The Government is suggesting that it is necessary to go beyond our borders in order to get that enthusiasm and willingness to expand.
This is similar to an attitude sometimes found in smaller communities where we tend to think it is necessary to bring in outsiders as consultants in order to build local roads or plan our cities. We sometimes believe that our local medical practitioners are not as good as those somewhere else. It is similar to the analogy that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
The purpose of our amendment is to show that the grass is greener on our side of the fence. We have the necessary human skills, intelligence and willingness to do those things which the Government would have us believe Investment Canada would do for us.
In fairness to the Government, its actions are consistent with the views of individual Conservative Members. During the committee last week, we had a discussion concerning the meaning of an entrepreneur. Very clearly, those members of the Conservative caucus who were present believed that an entrepreneur is someone who has dollars to invest. 1 believe that it is someone with a balance between having the financial wherewithal and the ability, energy and enthusiasm to create a worth-while endeavour. This means having the ability to combine one's knowledge with one's own capital or borrowed capital to develop an industry or business.
I am concerned that the defeat of this amendment will mean the loss of control over our economy as well as Parliament's ability to provide leadership. In some areas there is a real
Investment Canada Act
danger that we will not only lose control of the economy but jobs as well.
For example, a debate is taking place on both sides of our border with regard to the softwood lumber market. American legislators are trying to impose quotas on Canadian softwood going to their country because we have been able to compete successfully with their producers. If they fail in their attempt to block our wood going south, this Bill will provide an option to invest in places like Thunder Bay, British Columbia and Atlantic Canada to buy out the producers of softwood lumber, reduce their production or close them down while retaining the rights to the wood supplies. This will allow the parent companies in the United States to expand the market and create employment for Americans. This Bill could conceivably have such an effect on a pulp and paper industry which at times is very competitive with the Americans.
We have been accused of subsidizing our pulp and paper operations through grants and fees that are higher than those charged in the United States. This is another reason Americans may use the provisions of this Bill to acquire our assets and reduce operations at the cost of our communities and people. Many of these pulp and paper facilities are in one industry communities. I suggest that the direction this Bill would have us take is based on a blind belief in a system that no longer exists. While there is such a thing as private enterprise, corporate enterprise and public enterprise, the free enterprise system has not existed for many years.
I hope the amendments put forward by my colleague will be accepted so that the present mechanism may remain intact to at least allow Cabinet and the Government to review and set rules over and above those contained in the Act. If the Government does not accept this amendment, it is handing foreigners not only the keys to our cities, but the keys to our businesses, our jobs and our basic livelihood.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to once again participate in this debate on Investment Canada. Before Christmas, the Minister responsible for this legislation explained in quite bold terms that Canada is once again open for business and investment. Perhaps that is a key phrase that introduces a number of fallacies which this Government is trying to perpetuate from one coast to another.
The first fallacy is that somehow FIRA was anti-foreign investment and that the Liberal Party was anti-foreign investment. The second fallacy is that all of a sudden through Investment Canada the doors will be wide open for investment and that investment will flow in rapidly overnight creating the thousands upon thousands of jobs the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said would be created and would be required for Canada.
It should be pointed out in quite strong terms that those fallacies are just that. They are incorrect and unbased in fact. FIRA was not anti-foreign investment. It was a protective mechanism to deal with foreign investment. This Party as the

April 23, 1985
Investment Canada Act
architect of that was pro-foreign investment as long as that foreign investment was pro-Canada. There is nothing wrong with that kind of attitude. There is nothing wrong with suggesting that when we look at foreign investment we need to look at it through the eyes of Canadians and Canada first, that we place our country before the interests of the board rooms of New York. We should be recognizing that that kind of attitude and philosophy is one that is suddenly in practice and in vogue with other countries throughout the international scene. When this Government begins to say we have to know how to compete with other countries, be competitive with other countries and be competitive in terms of our products and marketing them, then I think Investment Canada does not speak to that competitiveness. Investment Canada does not suggest that the Government knows the game and the rules to the game.
In addition to perpetrating a number of incorrect fallacies about foreign investment in Canada as it relates to FIRA and our Party, I think the Government has a block in terms of the Tory mind-set, Mr. Speaker. FIRA was a part of building this country. It was, is, or should be part of the building block toward building an independent, strong, and mature Canada. It was the same Party to which we can draw analogies to FIRA that blocked other initiatives that were worthy and contributed tremendously to the evolution and economic growth of Canada. It was the same Party that was against having our own independent flag. It was the same Party that was against having our own independent national anthem. It was the same Party that was against having our own constitution. FIRA was in the same category. FIRA was up there with the flag, with the anthem, and with the Constitution that suggested this country is old enough, mature enough, independent enough and has vision enough to suggest ways of building Canada on our own terms for our own people and for our own future. There is nothing wrong with having that kind of attitude. There is nothing wrong with trying to have a vision of that kind of future.
Unfortunately we see once again that the same opposition which handicapped this Government in the flag debate, in the anthem debate, and in the constitution debate is again handicapping the Government when it comes to economic growth.


Mr. Brisco:: That is hogwash.


Sergio Marchi: The Tories have no sense of nation building. They have no sense of putting Canada first. They have no sense of being pro-Canadian.


Robert Hylton Brisco: You brought on the national energy problems.


Mr. Taylor:: Who sold out western Canada? It was the Liberals.


Sergio Marchi: The Tories are basically saying Canada is up for sale. Come in and get it. We cannot afford that. We could not have afforded that kind of opinion when we were discussing the flag, when we were discussing the anthem and discussing the Constitution and we cannot afford that sense of debate
and priorities in this debate in 1985 with respect to Investment Canada.
It is that same mind-set and regressive unCanadian policy that we also see permeating the evolution of the Tories' immigration policy.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Explain that.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Explain that.


Sergio Marchi: It certainly ties in to the whole sense of the foreign investment debate right now. I hear Members saying "explain". If they would be patient and listen, that is exactly what I am going to do in the next four minutes that are allotted to me.
At the beginning of this month Members of the Conservative Party, of that Government, on the Labour, Employment and Immigration Committee suggested that increases in immigration for the next year and for several years should primarily consist of entrepreneurs. Essentially this means in ordinary English for Members across the aisle that only wealthy entrepreneurs need apply.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Hogwash.


Sergio Marchi: That is the same philosophy we see permeating this Investment Canada Bill. The Tories' mind-set is blinding them because they cannot see, recognize or admit that thousands of average Canadians of different persuasion came to this country without the millions of dollars that the Tories are suggesting. These people made a life for themselves. They became success stories in Canadian terms. Thousands of average and poor immigrants came to this country and worked at jobs other Canadians did not want to do. All immigrants also brought with them trades and skills without the benefit of having the millions of dollars being suggested by this group of right-wing Tory members. All immigrants, regardless of economic status, and regardless of the fact they do not have the prerequisite of the chairman of the committee, who suggested that the ideal immigrant would be an individual who can start up his own business and have $500,000, or an immigrant who can come to this country and add to the economic growth, are first consumers, and second, they are willing to work. To suggest that economic growth cannot be contributed to by these people is a disgrace, first to the people who came here to work, and second, to other potential Canadians who wish to learn and live that same kind of life.
There is a tremendous resemblance between the philosophy which is dictating the immigration policy and the philosophy we see permeating this Investment Canada Bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a regressive philosophy. It is a philosophy that this Government will regret one day, because Canadians will suggest that we should be searching for foreign investment and we should be getting entrepreneurs to add to our economic growth, but we should not be doing it to the detriment of Canadians.
We should not be putting the United States first. We should learn that other countries are protecting their turfs. We should
April 23, 1985

deal with the realities of the international community and deal and respect those entrepreneurs here in Canada. They are Canadians who give of themselves. This Government is missing an opportunity to build on a nation. It is missing the opportunity to take that building stone and to work from it. The Tories should be learning that we need legislation to put guarantees in place that will see this country and its people put first.
It is not surprising they have not done that because the Tories have missed those opportunities in the past. They have missed them yet they are the same people who cheer our flag today, they are the same people who cheer our anthem today and they are the same people who cheered the Charter of Rights last week when it came into being. Where were they, Mr. Speaker, when the debate that was going to dictate the future course of those Canadian entities was in progress? That is the essential question. To bring it into real terms today, in 1985, where is the Government on Investment Canada vis-avis foreign investment? This Government is on the wrong side. Canadians recognize that and they will deal with it eventually.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The people kicked you out and put us in.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Pornography-Fraser Commission Report; the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson)-Trust companies (a) Western Capital Trust, (b) Minister's Statement; the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell)-Charter of Rights (a) Women's equality- Abella report, (b) Affirmative action.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development, and Motions Nos. 1 and 2.
Investment Canada Act
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-15 respecting Investment Canada, as the Government likes to call it. Investment Canada is the present Government's attempt to get away from the Foreign Investment Review Agency which was brought in by the previous Government.
There were many problems with FIRA but there were no problems with respect to the intention of the previous Government in terms of that legislative measure. In fact, in many cases the problems were probably as a result of the bureaucracy being involved in speeding up decisions. There is absolutely no question in my mind that FIRA did the job it was supposed to do. The previous Government was forced to take some action in terms of reviewing the foreign investment in this country when there was a minority Government. My Party pressured that Government to bring in a measure which at least filled a gap but with which we were not at all satisfied.
Investment Canada which is being proposed by the present Government will not do the job in terms of protecting Canadian jobs, Canadian industry and Canadian interests. This particular Bill, like the one of the previous Government, does nothing to strengthen the inherent weaknesses in the Canadian economy and in our industrial structures. It is safe to say that Canada is probably the only country in the western world which is presently going through a process of de-industrialization. Nearly every other western country is industrializing. Every sector of our economy, especially in the area of secondary manufacturing, is in a period of decline, whether it be rubber, electronics, electrical manufacturing or even the automobile industry which used to be the mainstay of our economy. Every one of them is in a period of decline.
One of the reasons for this is the large degree of uncontrolled foreign investment coming into Canada. If one wants to use an expression which was used in the early 1970s, it is the branch plant economy of the country. We were invited, by Liberal government policy, to open the doors willy-nilly to foreign investment without any real control on how that foreign investment would be applied in Canada. Surely as Canadians we have a responsibility, not only to ourselves but to future generations of Canadians, to tell foreign investors that we appreciate their investment in Canada and to encourage them not only in terms of providing jobs for people but in terms of developing this country as a first-class industrialized nation. We also have a responsibility to ensure that their investment is in the best interests of Canada and of Canadians, if we are to allow them to come into our country, to exploit our market-place and workforce in the sense of people working for wages and profits. It is not good enough to say that Canada is now open for business and that we want any kind of investment as long as it is investment. That would take us back to the Liberal policies of 1949 when that kind of encouragement first gave rise to the very serious structural problems with which Canada is faced today. As I said before, we are interested in investment, but it must be the kind of investment which is good for Canada and good for Canadians, and the kind of

April 23, 1985
Investment Canada Act
investment which will be continued in Canada to develop us as an industrialized nation.
Several reports have been presented by well recognized groups. They are not necessarily groups with which I would agree, but they are certainly respected organizations. Recently they have released studies which clearly indicate that large foreign investment in Canada does not necessarily produce the kind of jobs about which this Government is talking. Much of the future investment being talked about at the present time will probably go into capital-intensive industries, such as exploration for oil, minerals, et cetera. That is capital-intensive investment, not necessarily labour-intensive. Just because huge chunks and dollops of capital investment come into Canada does not necessarily mean job creation. It could very well mean capital and profit creation, but not necessarily job creation.
If the Government were really serious about attacking the economic problems of our country, perhaps it should take a look at using some of the traditional approaches which we know work. For example, why does the Government not get into the housing market in a very serious way if it is interested in creating jobs? The figures are apparent and real to anyone who cares to look at them. For every one job created in building and constructing housing, another three to four jobs are created in spin-off industries. In most urban centres in the country there is a vacancy rate in adequate housing of less than 1 per cent. My office, like that of most other Hon. Members, in the last year or so has been inundated by people complaining that they do not have access to affordable housing. I am certainly not an old person, but when I was married and purchased a house it was a feasible thing to do. People still expect to be able to purchase their own homes. One cannot do that today unless one is in a high income bracket, or both partners are working, the husband and the wife. For most young couples getting married today the possibility of ever owning a home is minimal. There are more and more young married couples today who find that they have to move into their parents' homes in order to find accommodation because there is simply no available accommodation elsewhere. If the Government were serious about filling that obvious social need and creating jobs at the same time, perhaps it should get into the housing market in the way the private investor is not willing to do at the present time.
There is also another approach; that is, putting much more money into the pocket of taxpayers. Why does the Government not take a real look at correcting some of the injustices with which many senior citizens are faced simply because they do not have enough spending power? Why does the Government not take a look at putting more money into the hands of senior citizens so that they can live out the remainder of their lives in some dignity? At the same time this would put money back into the economy, and they would be making another contribution in addition to the one they have already made to Canada during their lifetime.
In the Investment Canada Bill the Government has hinted that it wants to increase investment in areas of technological change and technological development. I have not seen anywhere in the Bill, and I have not heard in the discussions by anyone on the government side, any reference to the effects of technological change on Canada's workforce. Very little is being done at the present time to train young people between the ages of 15 and 24 for skills which will be required for that big explosion, if it ever happens, in technological change or technological development. Young people, not only in my own riding but elsewhere, have written to me to indicate that they have gone through government programs to upgrade their skills for technological development only to find that they cannot obtain jobs because the Government has not placed any emphasis on creating employment opportunities in the fields for which it is training young people. TThat is very short-sighted, in my view.
I do not think we can say to young people in a very sexy way that we will open the doors to foreign investment in the country, that the doors are open to business, that all kinds of money will be attracted to the country and that jobs will be created. It is fooling no one. It sure is not fooling the people who are listening to this debate. It is certainly not fooling the young people of this country who are beginning to develop a very cynical attitude, not only toward Governments but politicians at every level when they start talking about job creation. They know what Governments and politicians are doing. They are putting up screens of public relations gestures, without any real meat in the proposals. If this Government had any sense at all, and the integrity it talks about, that is the kind of approach it would develop.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this House today to speak on Bill C-15, Investment Canada, and the motions.
It is the commitment of this Government to adopt an approach of consultation rather than confrontation in our attempts to develop a shared view of our economic strategy and to adopt policies that will allow the private sector to sustain growth. Bill C-15 is one of the examples of this approach of consultation. Judging by the number of witnesses who appeared before the standing committee and the debate which resulted during clause-by-clause deliberations, Bill C-15 is noted to be an important Bill.
We can no longer take wealth creation for granted. Rather, we must vigorously pursue and encourage that which can provide us with wealth creation. I believe we are beginning to look realistically at our problems. Bill C-15 is one of the first steps toward a resolution of these problems.
After a decade of hostility toward foreign investment, Canada is now ready and willing to welcome foreign investment. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has stated that the Government of Canada is there to assist and not harass the private sector in creating the new wealth and new jobs that Canada needs. This new attitude is the beginning of instilling a confidence in all sectors of our country.
I do not want to take a lot of time because I am somewhat concerned, as are the people of Canada. We have had 16 or 17
April 23, 1985

speakers today in five hours of debate. They tend to be saying the same thing over and over. At second reading stage, we had 16.5 hours of speaking. In the standing committee, of which I am a member, we had over 40 hours of talking, debating and listening to important associations and witnesses.
1 believe the people of this country concurred with the Conservative Government during the campaign with regard to changing things around and attracting foreign investment to this country. The people of this country have asked us to carry on and get on with making these kinds of changes. That is what we are all about. That is what we are attempting to do.
I wish to speak briefly on motion No. 1. It attempts to turn around the whole intention of the Bill. I want to mention first that it makes the review function the most important element in the legislation, giving the positive function of encouraging and stimulating investment a purely secondary or, one might almost say, inconsequential role. Second, it confines that small positive role solely to the encouragement of investment by Canadians.
That motion is entirely opposed to the spirit and philosophy of the Bill. In effect, it reintroduces the Foreign Investment Review Act that has been shown to discourage investment in this country. One needs only compare the purpose of the Foreign Investment Review Act with the purpose stated in Bill C-15 to see the difference in outlook. The Foreign Investment Review Act found foreign control a matter of national concern and saw to it that no investments could be made by non-Canadians unless they demonstrated significant benefit. The aim of the new Bill is to signal that this Government welcomes foreign investment because it recognizes that it is generally of benefit to Canada. For this reason it would encourage investment by non-Canadians as well as Canadians.
Since that is the main purpose of the Bill, it is described at the outset. It also provided for a review of significant investments by non-Canadians in order to ensure that the benefits are realized. Only by putting things in that perspective and that order can the preamble, as mentioned by a previous speaker, "recognizing that increased capital and technology would benefit Canada", have any meaning at all.
It is important to emphasize the difference between the philosophy of the Bill and that of the motion because the kind of thinking that wants to recreate FIRA, even making it a bit stronger, which is what they are attempting to do, is behind nearly every motion presented by the Opposition Parties. That kind of thinking made investors look on Canada as a very poor investment prospect.
From my experience in my riding, foreign investment has had a very positive impact on our community. I receive nothing but encouragement from my constituents. An American company is looking to settle in our community. They have brought to my attention that their most serious concern would be any sort of discouragement. They felt the FIRA Act had been just that. They were very concerned about it. They called me the other day to ask me to continue speaking in support of Investment Canada and this new Act.
Investment Canada Act


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as one who looks at foreign investment from the perspective of acid rain, I want to bring to your attention an interesting number, namely, that there are 94 motions that were not accepted in committee and which have emerged here at report stage. Any seasoned parliamentarian, and I see many in the House today, knows that when a Bill generates that many motions at report stage there is a very profound difference of opinion. We have here a clash of views that evidently was not accommodated by the Government Party in committee. This is rather odd considering the fact that since the election, the Progressive Conservative Party has presented itself as the practitioner of consensus building, the practitioner of arriving at compromise resulting from consultations. If that is the way the Progressive Conservative Party manages the evolution of Bill C-15, then we are in serious trouble.
Evidently there is a profound difference of direction. It is embodied perhaps best of all in the difference of approaches. If you compare Clause 2 of the Bill with what is being proposed by our Party, you will notice that the purpose of the Act as proposed in the Bill is to encourage investment. It is as short as that. However, if you compare that with the alternative proposed by our speakers in committee and in the House today on the Official Opposition side, you will see the alternative approach which reads "to provide for the notification and review of proposed investments in Canada". There is a big difference between the Government approach to encourage versus the Fiberal approach to provide for the notification. Why do we say that? Because to provide is to take an approach that implies careful analysis of the proposal itself.
In putting forward the amendment under Motion No. 1, our Party bases its thinking upon the experience it has had over the last decade. This experience has shown that a well managed foreign investment policy that takes into account the long-term benefit of Canadians is much better than one that simply encourages investment. We have seen to many plant closures in the past. We have seen too many losses in potential research and development opportunities because of foreign investment. We have seen losses in the movement of profits back to the investing countries. We have learned from these experiences.
What is so sad about the Government's approach, and I suppose this is also why we have put 94 motions differing from the Government's approach, is that the Government does not seem to want to take into account the lessons learned so far. It wants to begin from year zero as if nothing had happened to Canada, and as if we could not learn from past experience.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Oh, oh!


Mr. Caccia:: If the Hon. Member sitting behind the curtains has something substantial to say, why does he not resume his seat and have the courage to rise rather than making silly and indistinguishable noises that remind me of the caveman he usually is?

April 23, 1985
Investment Canada Act


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Don't ever worry about me and courage.


Charles L. Caccia: When we put stress on the importance of providing for notification of review, we do so because we have learned some good lessons from that in the past and we see that the necessity to review exists in the national interest. What is wrong with doing this in a more thoughtful manner, in a way that takes care of the long term rather than simply opening the doors?
The Bill as it is now proposed by the Government indicates that it will only provide for a review when dealing with significant investments. The definition of significant investment is unclear, but why should we leave open to review only significant investments? Surely there is a necessity in the Canadian interest for a thoughtful review, no matter the size of the investment.
When it comes to high technology, the technology of the future, investments from abroad are sometimes not significant. However, over a period of time these investments permit foreign industrial products to develop a base in Canada which would then permit the establishment of much larger foreign investment once the market has been exploited. This then permits the evolution of a real industry as a second step following what was not necessarily a significant investment.
In my recollection, this was the experience in the 1950s with electronics products. At that time we did see the first phase of investments by way of agencies that traded only in foreign-made products. These then became well established, and the industries then decided to take the next step of establishing industrial foreign investment at the expense of the opportunities for Canadians to secure those markets at home. We live in a very competitive world. Therefore, we must adopt the measures that are adopted by many other jurisdictions for screening investments, to find out whether or not they are in the interests of our own people and our own jobs.
When I see this Bill, I get extremely unhappy, to say the least. I recognize here a pattern which has already emerged with the dismantling of the National Energy Program. It makes me sick to think about what the so-called Progressive Conservative Government has done to the National Energy Program of which we were proud. We were looking forward to the results of the measures instituted in 1980-1981. They were a way of ensuring our destiny and of ensuring Canadian ownership over our own natural resources.
The Bill respecting investment in Canada also reminds me in a negative way of the evolution in Canada-U.S. relations since the Progressive Conservative Government took power. I make these statements in the presence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who is not very comfortable himself with the way things are going. Ottawa is being put in a position of imploring Washington to do the things that need to be done rather than being proud of asking that those things be done. We should be frank about asking our neighbour for the things for which we must fight, be they related to acid rain or trade interest. We have nothing to gain from creeping on our knees, imploring consideration from Washington. But that is what the Government has been doing for the last six months. I submit that that is the wrong approach.
The approach developed by Bill C-15 is the wrong approach. Dismantling the National Energy Program is the wrong approach. Future generations of Canadians will reject the tack that is being taken by the Government of Canada on this international front of great importance, because they will know that the rest of the world wants to invest in Canada. They will know, as do those of us who want to know, that Canada is one of the most desired places in which to invest in the entire world.
People are knocking at Canada's door to be admitted as immigrants. People are knocking at Canada's door to make investments because Canada is a rich and promising country. Therefore, everything is in our favour. We are in a strong bargaining position when it comes to directing and managing foreign investment. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we should take the route that gives up the store. That is not the route to take in the 1980s.
Canada is a sleeping giant. It has a financial potential which will always attract capital, today, tomorrow and 10 years from now. The sound approach, the approach that is in the interests of the Canadian public, would be to screen, as we have skilfully done over the years, and not to give up and let investment in without any conditions attached. That is not the way we should handle this very important policy.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this oportunity to comment on the amendment that I understand to be before the House, an amemdment which would change the purpose of Bill C-15 from recognizing that increased capital and technology would benefit Canada to recognizing that increased capital and technology under the appropriate terms and conditions established by the Government would benefit Canada. We are talking about the element of discretion that we think is absolutely essential to maintaining any semblance of Canadian national integrity when it comes to the question of foreign investment.
I see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is here. I think that is appropriate because I believe he is one who was once reputed to be a red Tory. There is another reputed red Tory in the chamber, the Hon. Member for Waterloo, the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean). This must be a particularly difficult moment for them when they see a Bill making it to report stage in the House of Commons which could have as its title the title of a book once written by another famous Tory, George Grant. This Bill should be called "Lament for a Nation". We are talking about the end of the vision which many Tories, as well as New Democrats and Liberals, have held over the years for Canada, of an independent, economically sovereign country on the northern half of the northern hemisphere.
But what we have here are Hon. Members of the Conservative Party, under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney),
April 23, 1985

who have become absolutely raving continentalists, both with respect to economic policy and to bilateral relations with the United States. I believe it is a very sad day, not just for the country but for the Progressive Conservative Party, that this element within its tradition seems to have completely disappeared. There seems to be no one on the government side with any appreciation of that tradition who has any fight left in him at all. All those Hon. Members have been overawed, I suppose, by the mandate given the Prime Minister, and by the fascination with power. They have simply just shut up and become silent about whatever remnant there might be of that tradition.
I have to assume more and more that to speak of a "remnant" is perhaps exaggerating the case, because in all aspects of this government's policy we see no sign whatsoever with respect to Central America, disarmament, foreign investment or other questions as they pertain to the need for Canada to have an independent position in the world. We see no sign whatsoever of that element surviving on the government side. This kind of mindless statement which we find in the purpose of this Bill is unbelievable. It is unbelievable that we would make a statement that any capital, any technology, would benefit Canada, that we would want to be as a country that simple minded in our approach, or that we would not want to at least hint that we thought there was investment and technologies which might be harmful to Canada. This should come as a great surprise not just to Canadians who have thought about this at all, but to countries all over the world who know that in many instances capital investment and technologies from countries other than their own which have been introduced into their countries have been very harmful indeed. Yet in 1985, after all the evidence-not just Canadian evidence but the evidence of Third World countries and countries all around the world-indicating that we have to be discerning, make judgments and show discretion when it comes to what kind of technologies are employed where and for whose benefit, we haven't learned that we have to show that same kind of discernment, discretion and judgment when it comes to what kinds of investments we allow in our country.
We have the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, in its incarnation as the federal Government, dragging us back to a time in which no mature country in the world would even conceive of being at this moment, that is, simply throwing the gates open in some sort of 19th century laissez-faire way to any kind of investment whatsoever. That is exactly the purpose of the Bill.
1 would imagine that the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who on occasion has demonstrated some skepticism about the money lenders, the banks and some of the other financial institutions in our country and around the world, would be shocked that in this Bill we would have this kind of carte blanche statement which indicates that any kind of capital investment is to be regarded as a benefit, without condition. That is what is in the Bill as it is now. All we are saying is, for heaven's sake, let's at least indicate we have some critical faculties as a country.
Investment Canada Act
The least the Progressive Conservative Government could do is indicate that it has some residual skepticism about the intentions of all foreign investors. Because if this Bill as it now reads was to be read by the international investment community, it would give the impression that we have a sign on our forehead which says, "Sucker". That's what it amounts to. The Bill is saying we now have a Government in Canada composed of 211 suckers. This Government is saying, We trust you, international investment community; we trust you banks; we know that you guys don't have anything but the national interest at heart so we are not even going to put in our Bill on foreign investment so much as an inkling that you guys have anything but our interests at heart. We are going to turn a blind eye to the fact that you operate according to profit strategies in that you are into the business of maximizing your profits. We don't believe all that stuff about you. That is just NDP rhetoric. We know that you guys are not really like that. We don't really have to put any kinds of conditions in our Bill having to do with foreign investment. That is the kind of simplistic, naive and innocent attitude that we are seeing in our Government.
But is it, Mr. Speaker, so simplistic, naive and innocent? 1 wonder. 1 would like to think, because there are a lot of fine human beings on the other side, that they are just sort of in the dark and have not grokked onto what's happening. I think that is true of most of those Hon. Members. But 1 also think that there are people calling the shots somewhere in this Government, and outside the Government, some very powerful people who want to see Canada returned to the colonial mentality which has so often characterized it over the years. If there ever was a sign of the return of the colonial mentality, it is in this particular Bill, which has all the potential to turn Canada into the late 20th century and early 21st century form of a banana republic.
We are talking about the future of our country and we are talking about Canada being now unwilling to do the very things which so many countries around the world now realize they have to do if they want to preserve their own national and economic integrity. That is, they must have some direct say and control over the kinds of investments which are made in their country.
But that is not where the Progressive Conservative Party is taking us. No, Sir. It is trying to recapture that golden age somewhere around 1955, I suppose, when we were part and parcel of the American economic empire. Everything was going smoothly. The Third World had not developed yet. There were no complications. The world was going along just fine. The Conservatives have got themselves convinced that all of the very deep economic problems which we are up against happened only because we had a Liberal Government for 16 years.
The Liberals caused a lot of problems, Mr. Speaker. We would all agree to that. But they did not cause everything. There are a lot of things which happened because of changes in the global economy and in the Canadian and North American economy that this Government is unwilling to face up to.

April 23, 1985
Investment Canada Act
The Liberals were not willing to face up to it either, but they liked to pretend from time to time that they were. They knew that foreign investment was a problem so they created a Foreign Investment Review Agency and pretended to do something about it. They tried to have it both ways.
I will say one thing for the Conservatives, however, they do with enthusiasm what the Liberals used to do shamefully. When it came down to the crunch, the Liberals always did what the Americans wanted them to do but they used to have the decency to be ashamed of it, or to give some other reason. Not the Conservatives, though. They are honest in their stupidity. If the Americans don't want them to do it, they don't come up with another reason; they say, no, we are not doing it because the Americans don't want us to do it. You have to hand it to the Conservatives on that score. That's the kind of honesty one admires, I suppose, of persons who are not really in control of the world in which they live, and don't want to be in control. But that is what we are getting from the Government. That is what this Bill is a sign of. That is regrettable in the extreme.


Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi);: Mr. Speaker, I cannot miss such a good opportunity to express my views about a Bill which reflects the basic ideological difference between the Party in power and the Official Opposition. Of course, Bill C-15 reflects the fact that our country must become increasingly open to the rest of the world. In the last few hours, the Official Opposition has found the answer to all the problems facing this country, especially job creation and investment. Members opposite have even mentioned economic sovereignty, saying that it should be preserved. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves what this economic sovereignty has cost our country in the last 12 years. The economic sovereignty mentioned by our Liberal colleagues has cost us nearly $200 billion in about ten years. Just ask the unemployed what it has cost, Mr. Speaker, between 1.5 and 2 million jobless. It is therefore important that our Government stick to its guns as far as this Bill and many other initiatives are concerned. What is involved here, Mr. Speaker, is part of the national rebuilding process initiated by our Government. Naturally, the Opposition parties are now powerless because they have been overtaken by the new national political reality which reflects our efforts to promote national reconciliation, as well as international reconciliation with our economic partners.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there have never been so many major agreements signed in this country as in the last few months. You just have to think of the oil agreement and of the national energy policy review. There has also been for the Quebec Government and Quebecers the general agreement of $1.6 billion which will be signed within a few days and is designed to deal with major problems in the areas of tourism, small business and forestry.
Faced with Bill C-15, which will show the whole world that Canada is now open to foreign investment, without any needless or artificial constraints, it is obviously easy for the Official Opposition to harp on about "jobs, jobs, jobs". Mr. Speaker, I remember that for four weeks, starting November 9, we were accused of victimizing the students, but nevertheless, our Government persisted and came out with the most progressive summer employment program ever, namely Challenge '85.
On that issue, the Liberal Opposition has been dismantled. For helping the aged, for the spouse allowance, $350 million. Although no government ever made such a significant effort, the Official Opposition never stops saying the Government is not doing enough. In spite of all that, 1 think it is important that this Government should proceed with Bill C-15 now before us and indicate to all Canadians that it knows where it is going in many sectors of Canadian activities, including foreign investment.
Mr. Speaker, our record concerning foreign investment is impressive. According to reports from experts, Canada ranks 24th on a list of 24 nations. There is room for improvement as far as attractiveness is concerned, that is our country's attractiveness to foreign investment.
Witnesses have appeared before the Committee, which sat many hours. The Opposition is demanding immediate jobs, but witnesses themselves have told the Committee that it is not possible to repair in three, four, five or six months the damage done by the Liberal administration. It cannot be repaired in less than two or three years. Two million unemployed cannot find jobs overnight. An international reputation is not rehabilitated overnight, Mr. Speaker. It is a slow, assiduous, persever-ant process, and this legislation goes to show that our Government will give back confidence to Canadians and foreigners.
In an effort to ridicule every effort made by the Prime Minister, both on the international and national scenes, with all the goodwill we all are aware of, my colleague a few minutes ago asked the following question: "Who wants to buy Canada?"
Mr. Speaker, may I submit that at this moment, in the situation it was left in by the Liberals, nobody wants to buy Canada.
It is therefore important that the national reconstruction go on, despite the endless hours of debate on legislation. Currently, the Liberals are developing new roles. A few hours ago, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) became the environment guru. He was ready to allocate all the funds needed to the environment. But he is the very man who fathered the series of federal deficits which started some ten years ago. He fathered the first $500 million federal deficit. He also fathered the second $1.5 billion federal deficit, and today's $36 billion deficit.
Mr. Speaker, national reconstruction calls for realism, and this Government will go on proving it. It must also be pointed
April 23, 1985

out that this nation needs both local and foreign investors. Do they know how much money debt servicing is costing? How much money the upcoming budget will have to provide for interest to repay for the Liberal damage? Seventy million dollars a day.
It is therefore obvious, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot accept amendments that would take us back to the former federal legislation on the screening of foreign investments. This Government wants to move forward, because over these past seven months we have shown that we were willing and able to sign significant agreements with provincial Governments. And this is obvious, Mr. Speaker .. . How could we fail to stress all the importance we see in our American friends in all our negotiations?
Perhaps some Hon. Members would prefer to have us negotiate with nations of the Warsaw Pact. Unfortunately, such is not our direction. Clearly this Government wants to move forward with this legislation which certainly is an important new departure on the international level bound to increasingly improve the management of this country's public affairs.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['Mr. Speaker, after the very splendid address we just heard, I would like to enlarge on one or two points.\nI believe our immigration system must be very fair. It has to be fair to Canadians who are living here now, and many Canadians who are jobless feel that the immigration laws are too lax. However, the laws must be fair to those in other countries who are trying to come to this country and who are doing so legally. I think we must emphasize that particular point.\nThere is a growing feeling in Canada that too many people are coming to our nation. I do not think anyone objects to people coming to our country because of terrible conditions in their own lands, but those who come here in a purposely illegal', 'April 23, 1985\nImmigration Act, 1976\nfashion should not be considered. I cannot follow the fact that some of them are waiting here for six and eight years.\nOne of my constituents contacted me when one of his relatives came to Canada from Yugoslavia. This man had applied twice to come to Canada and had been rejected. However, he came anyway. He got on a plane and simply came to Canada irrespective of the law. 1 do not think that is fair to those who make applications and wait for approval in their own countries. This man had a hearing in Toronto within two weeks of his arrival. My constituent contacted me and said that the man was here. He told me how he got here. I said I would get the hearing set as quickly as possible. I contacted officials and the hearing was held within two weeks. That man was sent back to his country. He claimed that he could not go back because he would be killed. That was nonsense and his relatives told us that. We were told that that was simply an excuse to leave his own country. Later on we found out that he wanted to leave his wife and three kids. That is like a Canadian who gets married in Alberta, gets divorced and leaves his wife on welfare rather than pay maintenance orders. These Canadians end up in Prince Edward Island, or any other province, with a common-law wife and more youngsters, following which he heads for British Columbia in order to avoid another maintenance order. That kind of person is no good to any country.\nI believe we have to be absolutely fair to those wonderful citizens of other countries who want to enter Canada, and want to do so legally. I have no sympathy for those who come here illegally. I do not think they should be kept here for six, seven or eight years. If they come to Canada illegally they should be sent back immediately. They should not be kept here month after month when they have no right to be here at all. If an immigrant enters Canada and is classified as a refugee, he should not have special privileges over those who are entering Canada legally from China, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Japan, Korea or any other country. He should not have special privileges simply because he did something under the table. Let us give those who want to come to Canada legally the first opportunities. Let us not cry crocodile tears for those who come here illegally. Let us not try to keep them in the country month after month.\nAn Hon. Member mentioned that people were paying $1,500 to come here. The Hon. Member should let us have the names of those people, because I am sure the Minister would prosecute them. We do not want people to buy their way into Canada. We want them to come in legally. Those who come in legally are the kind of people who will make good citizens.']
Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 21?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina) moved: that Bill C-232, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 (determination of refugee status), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak again on this subject. This subject has troubled many people and the Government of the country for some years. I hope we are closer now to resolving it than we seemed to be before. This matter concerns how we treat people who are in Canada, having claimed that they are refugees from persecution in another country and should therefore be allowed
Immigration Act, 1976
to remain in Canada as refugees, and in most cases to be landed.
There is procedure in the Immigration Act which has turned out to be disastrously unworkable. That was pointed out several years ago. When I came to this place in 1981 it was pointed out, on the basis of experience, that it was not working right. In 1984 I spoke on a private Members' Bill with the same substance as this Bill. It was talked out at that time by Liberal Government members. Perhaps this Bill will be talked out today by Conservative Government members. I regret that year by year the problem grows worse. The commission does nothing about it and Governments, one after another, do nothing about it.
In this case the crisis has increased because on April 4 of this year the Supreme Court ordered that all these people are entitled to a hearing of their cases. The significance of that is that all but a very few of them were previously denied a hearing. Those 6,000 or 7,000 people whose cases had been decided have not had the opportunity to be heard directly by the decision makers. The other 13,000 people and their families who are waiting also do not have that opportunity. That has resulted in extreme unfairness in our procedure, as the Supreme Court has now acknowledged. This was pointed out many years ago by those dealing with refugee problems. Governments have been urged to rectify that. At least three years ago representatives of the Department of Immigration said it would cost too much money. At that time there may have been a backlog of 2,000 or 3,000 people. There is now a backlog of 20,000 people. We did not save money by putting this off and hiding our heads in the sand.
Last May a case was brought to the Supreme Court on which it made a decision after 11 months of deliberation. The commission could have guessed there was a possibility that the Supreme Court would decide in favour of the refugee claimants and order hearings. However, it appears that the commission is caught completely unprepared and has no advice for the Minister as to how this matter will be dealt with. It should be dealt with urgently, not only to save money for the Government, but more importantly, on basic principle. Some of these people have waited as long as eight years for decisions in their cases. If 20,000 cases are to be heard under the present procedures, many of them will have to wait years more.
It is not really necessary to carry on in this thick-headed fashion. It is possible, not only to save money and time, but to save human anguish by instituting these hearings. It is possible that we will not need to have nearly as many as 20,000 hearings in order to comply with the Supreme Court's decision. The senior staff of the commission has handled this in such a manner as to make the problem far more difficult than it need be. They have insisted, year after year, that oral hearings, such as have now been ordered by the court, were impossible because they would cost too much money.
Yet, after strong public pressure, a pilot project was begun two years ago. This pilot project has now handled approximately 3,000 cases. It has been found that, instead of two or three years, it takes an average of two or three months to

April 23, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
resolve a case. In other words, the argument that we did not have enough money in Canada to have oral hearings was proven wrong through the experiment. Those few who were allowed to go through this pilot project moved through about seven or eight times more quickly than the average. The executive director of the Department of Immigration knows that, yet they continue to stonewall any efforts to establish the right of a hearing as a right in principle. The result has been a great deal of unnecessary hardship to claimants.
For example, there have been people claiming refugee status who should not have been. They were not trying to deceive us, but belonged in another program. These people should have been brought in on humanitarian grounds, which is provided for in our legislation, or under special programs, which again are provided for in our legislation. A number of groups who could have been brought in under those programs were instead shut out by officials who interpretated their cases negatively without due grounds, leaving them with no rescourse but to seek refugee status since their hardship case was a real one and in many cases was closely related to a refugee claim, as the special program concept shows. Instead of being dealt with immediately, to their benefit, and to save money and staff time, they have been added to the backlog of which is now 20,000. This is bad for every genuine refugee claimant, the staff, and taxpayers.
I would like to give an example that was brought to our attention by a witness before the committee last week. It was pointed out by the witness that our procedures are inefficient as well as inhumane. According to the transcript, a woman from Chile said she had been raped about four times by the military before she left the country. That woman broke down throught out her entire hearing, and the lawyer also said she broke down because it was so hard for her. None of that came out in the transcript. All that one could see written in the transcript was "recess". In other words, the denial of that woman being able to speak directly to those who made the decision made it impossible for people making the decision to properly evaluate her case.
Another case involves a family that has been here for eight years. It is an extreme case, but it happened. They have been here eight years waiting to find out if they will be accepted as refugees. That case could be determined much more quickly if the commission did not put up roadblocks.
There is a further example to which I wish to refer in the testimony before the committee. It is a case of a mother from Uruguay. As the witness said, that country had a reputation for human rights abuses until there were some changes in the Government recently. Her daughter and her son are Canadian citizens. They sponsored her to Canada but she was refused because the youngest child was mentally retarded.
The father of that family of seven children was in gaol for five years, and two of the children had been in gaol, one for six years and another 13-year old for three years. Of her other five children, two or more had been in detention for periods of
time. Those submissions were put to the immigration commission, explaining what this woman had been through. She has two children here who are prepared to assist her in settling in Canada. She needs to get out of Uruguay, but was refused admission on the basis of humanitarian grounds. The case went to the Immigration Appeal Board. The Immigration Appeal Board asked why she did not make a refugee claim. She made a refugee claim and was accepted as a refugee but that was three years later. That woman is a basket case from the tension that she has had to undergo in waiting for that decision. Had she been allowed admission on humanitarian or compassionate grounds in the first instance, she would not have been waiting with uncertain status, not knowing if she was going to be sent back to Uruguay where she had already been through hell.
I have heard it claimed by a number of others, not only by lawyers but by church people who have been dealing with refugee matters, that there has recently been a change in interpretation of humanitarian and compassionate guidelines by the commission. An experienced Immigration lawyer states:
So now we find persons who should come under special programs arc not considered under special programs and they are put into the refugee stream because they feel they have no other option. Persons where there is humanitarian and compassionate grounds, because they also have refugee grounds they end up in the refugee stream because they do not want to return to their country of origin for fear of persecution. That is one way of increasing the statistics of the number of claimants. And I think it is being done deliberately by the commission in order to keep their statistics up.
There are ways to deal with this backlog. Whatever will be the legislative result of the intention of the Supreme Court decision, we can deal with the backlog immediately, as several people have noticed. While the legislation is being considered for amendment, perhaps there are administrative decisions that could be taken to ease the backlog considerably. While it would not be eliminated, it would be reduced to a much more manageable proportion.
For example, on the basis of transcripts, there are people who have very strong and credible claims to have been persecuted back home. They not only have reason to fear persecution but in fact have experienced that persecution. Those people could be landed now, without a hearing, without further delay.
Second, there are those such as the mother from Uruguay I have mentioned, who have strong humanitarian claims under our legislation, strong grounds on a humanitarian basis for being admitted and landed in Canada. Those could be taken out of the 20.000 landed who are in the backlog.
There are young children, some preschool children who under our law-which Charles Dickens described as an ass, speaking of the law generally-are required to go independently to a refugee examination to be examined under oath. That child is then dealt with separately from the parents. They are not allowed to have their cases handled together as a group. Those children could be taken out of the stream and dealt with separately once their parents' cases have been dealt with.
There are also those who are from war zones. For those, there should be special programs of the sort we have already
April 23, 1985

had for people from Poland and El Salvador. Those should be taken out of the refugee stream and landed under whatever conditions are appropriate in that special program. At least they should be protected from being sent back to the war zone while it is a war zone.
There are others who could be classified under special programs and they all should be landed. For example, when the Iranians arrived at the Toronto Airport it eventually became obvious, after their hunger strike protest, that they would not be returned to Iran because it has already been our policy for several years not forceably to remove people to Iran. In that case, why were they being kept in detention for months on end at the detention centre near the Pearson International Airport? We knew that they would not be moved to Iran and there was nowhere else to move them. In fact, most of them have been given refugee status. If they had not made their point with a hunger strike, they might still be sitting in detention at the Pearson Airport.
There are those who should qualify as long-term residents simply because they have been here. They are like other people who are not in the refugee stream and have the same qualifications as those who have been found acceptable under our present laws. They have been living satisfactory lives in Canada, paying their way and breaking no laws, other than the immigration law they broke at the beginning. They have been paying their taxes and contributing as useful members of Canada. Many of these people have been landed.
Many of the people in this 20,000 refugee backlog would fit that classification and should be landed now. If that were done, and if we could land those who could be landed under our other programs, it would greatly reduce the 20,000 people whose cases the Supreme Court has directed shall be heard. A decision like that would not be in conflict with the Supreme Court decision because the Supreme Court declares that they have the right to be heard. If they are asking to be landed and they are landed, they will not quibble about the right to delay that landing in order to be heard.
Therefore I would ask that the substance of this Bill I have proposed be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. I ask that the Committee be urged to act quickly, in consultation with the Minister, for the reduction of this backlog of 20,000 potential oral hearings, and for the fashioning of improved legislation so that a backlog like this will never build up again.
[ Translation]


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-232, and I am sure this will come as no surprise to the Hon. Member sponsoring the Bill.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) made a very interesting and thought-provoking speech in which he described some of the problems that immigration authorities must face daily when deciding whether or not to grant refugee status. Later on in my speech, 1 will try to put
Immigration Act, 1976
these problems into context for the benefit of the Bill's sponsor and the other Members of this House.
First of all, the problems described by the Hon. Member are certainly not new, either to the Minister or her staff. A comprehensive study of the subject will soon be released when Rabbi Gunther Plaut submits his report on the subject to the Minister in a few weeks. Our policy is in fact under permanent review, and it is no coincidence that this review process has led to a program for refugees that is very highly esteemed at the international level. However, there is no easy solution-


Miss Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has been traditional that replies are given by the Parliamentary Secretary.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think it is fair to say that this is Private Members' Hour and every Member in whatever his or her capacity is entitled to address the debate, and that is what is happening.


Aideen Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was my misunderstanding.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well. The Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais).


Fernand Jourdenais: As I was saying: . . . with regard to a refugee program that is very highly esteemed at the international level. However, there is no quick and easy answer to what in recent years has become a very complex immigration problem.
I am sure that all parties concerned . . . Opposition Members want a realistic and humanitarian policy that will help those who are really in need. This means that we must implement a program that makes a distinction between individuals who are likely to abuse the system and those who really need a fair system for the recognition of refugee status.
It is a fact that we are experiencing a number of problems with our system for the recognition of refugees status, even if it is much admired by representatives from the United Nations and other countries. The fact that it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish quickly between bona fide refugees and individuals who are only trying to take advantage of the system for personal reasons has become a very big and complex problem. We must find answers that are not too simplistic, that will not aggravate the present situation and will not make the difficult task of helping bona fide refugees even more difficult.
The Convention of Geneva on the Status of Refugees defines a refugee as a person who, owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing

April 23, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Since Canada is not geographically located near a country from which we can expect to receive a large number of refugees, the experts, and I am referring to members of the Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate and members of Cabinet, have decided that our main role in refugee programs would consist in admitting individuals who have already been accepted as refugees in other countries. Thus, Canada is playing a fundamental part in helping first-entry countries to be more generous to people leaving their country for valid reasons. While we were expecting only a small number of people to come to Canada when we implemented our determination of refugee status system, this belief has proved to be unfounded.
Under the system provided in the Immigration Act of 1976, any person liable to be expelled from Canada can claim refugee status. This provision does not cover only those who wish to enter Canada but also those who have been residing in this country for some time as visitors or immigrants. The 1976 amendments also provided that the Refugee Status Advisory Committee would be created and make recommendations to the Minister about the validity of these applications. Under these amendments, the Minister decides whether the claims are valid, and those he turns down can then be referred to the Immigration Appeal Board.
It is at the second stage of review that the Supreme Court has ruled that a hearing is compulsory. This has allowed the claimants legal access to a standard consistent with the rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights. However, this is not the last step in the process. Those who claim refugee status can dispute before the courts the legality of the process by which their claim was examined. They have a right to appeal under the provisions of Section 28 of the Federal Court Act, and the rulings of this court can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the meantime, before their status is definitely established, the claimants may remain in Canada. Canada does not expel or deport those who are waiting for a ruling on their refugee status.
What has happened in fact is that the majority of claims have not been found valid by the Minister. It would be impossible to determine whether the new system allowing each claimant to be heard will produce substantially different results, even though an international survey reveals that the results of the former system were not excessive. However, it has been impossible at the administrative level to process claims rapidly, even in cases which are obviously not legitimate. The defence groups which maintain that the review process is not fair enough have encouraged the claimants to exhaust all possible legal channels. The already long delays in processing refugee claims have therefore become even longer.
As the delays have become longer, systematic attempts have been made to abuse the determination of refugee status
system. Temporary Canadian residents quickly learned that in order to remain and work in Canada, they only had to claim refugee status. It was obvious that even the weaker claims would require nearly as much time as the most complex ones. The two or three countries responsible for the greatest number of refugee status claims in Canada are in fact parliamentary democracies where the rule of law prevails and where persecution under the terms of the Convention is nearly unknown. Nearly all claims were unjustified, but they caused a complete breakdown of the review system. The waiting periods grew longer, especially since certain people understood how to exploit the system by applying for refugee status, thus avoiding being quickly expelled from Canada.
Other countries have also found themselves with an increasing number of people claiming refugee status while their country of origin was going through an economic crisis. In fact, these people wanted to leave their country of residence for purely economic reasons. Host countries, such as Germany, Sweden and Switzerland, reacted by tightening the requirements for being granted refugee status, while Canada was relaxing its own criteria.
The substantial increase in the number of people who, in the last two years, have come to Canada by requesting refugee status has put a much heavier burden on those who must rule on the legitimacy of these claims, but those who suffer the most because of this are the genuine refugees. They must often wait a long time before knowing what will happen to them, and the immigration services have no control procedure because they cannot expel from Canada those whose request has been turned down. Bona fide claimants can no longer be granted refugee status quickly.
The Advisory Committee on the Refugee Status has a huge backlog. For example, during the 18-month period from October 1983 to this day, the number of applications and appeals has gone from 9,100 to 13,500, which does not include another 600 cases always on hold for want of staff to undertake the first inquiry. The acceptance rate has dropped from 38 percent in 1981 to 33 percent recently. In addition, an increasing number of people are systematically swindling.
The Advisory Committee on Refugee Status has tried to make the system as fair and flexible as possible. The output of the Committee has been increased through the appointment of new private members and an increased administrative support. A program of personal interviews was launched in June 1983 to identify as soon as possible the true refugees. In spite of those changes, there are 3,500 cases on hold. The settlement of some matters has been sped up, but the delays continue to pile up.
The Immigration Appeal Board has known similar problems. Only the obviously deserving cases are formally heard before the Board. A year in average elapses before that hearing. In the Federal Court, the average delay for a hearing is six months at present.
April 23, 1985

Since it takes sometimes three to four years to settle certain matters, an important immigration movement has developed which the government cannot manage or control. Therefore, we must conclude that the bill does not go far enough. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) suggests that hearings be held before the Advisory Committee on Refugee Status. By doing so, there would be one more step in the process for the determination of the refugee status which already provides for a hearing. What is the purpose of this proposal? Is the present system unfair? No. Are refugees sent back home? No. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is due to increased delays and the bill of my hon. friend will in no way settle it. Therefore, I object to his proposal.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill C-232 concerning the determination of refugee status.
As the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) pointed out, the refugee status determination process should have been reviewed long ago. Unfortunately, changes do not come easily because of the complexity of the administrative structure involved. Still, the Liberal Government had sponsored a pilot project in 1983 with a view to experimenting with a new procedure to determine refugee status. Applicants were interviewed personally by a member of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee. Instead of waiting for 18 months for a decision, it often took only two months.
In my opinion, it is an excellent idea to force the Advisory Committee to hear in person the applicants for refugee status. Committee members would then be able to pass judgment more rapidly and more efficiently, and that would cut down the painful waiting period which is the lot of too many applicants. Notwithstanding what some Progessive Conservative Members may think, that would not necessarily increase the costs to be paid by Canadian taxpayers for future refugees. Efficiency does save money.
Indeed, Canadian taxpayers do not save any money when people are kept waiting for one or two years, and even four years in some cases. Refugee status applicants have a hard time earning a living and they are worried. Some of them actually become a burden to their family and friends.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-232 opens up a new vista in light of the decision of the Supreme Court to force the Immigration Appeal Board to hold personal hearings for applicants who challenge the first ruling. Is there anything more logical than hearing the personal representations of people who are concerned about their survival? The way things are now, the Committee makes a decision after considering the transcript of interviews between immigration officials and the applicant as he or she enters Canada. The parliamentary committee has heard much evidence to the effect that applicants cannot adequately express their fears and anxieties. I think that giving refugee status applicants an opportunity to present their case personally is a more compassionate way to deal with future refugees. But as I said, Mr. Speaker, humanitarian considerations aside, 1 also want to lay emphasis on the huge savings
Immigration Act, 1976
which would result from a more equitable, more effective and more humane refugee status determination process.
First of all, the costs resulting from the slowness of the bureaucratic process would be eliminated. When a case takes two or three years to move from the Refugee Status Advisory Committee to the Immigration Appeal Board, to the Federal Court, and finally to the Supreme Court, a lot of energy and hence money is wasted.
Secondly, I should like to emphasize a most interesting aspect of the 1983 pilot project. In committee, many witnesses have stated that those who are not really refugees do not like to appear personally before committee members, and that, on the contrary, the persons who are real refugees are anxious to be heard by them.
Considering that about one third of the people seeking refugee status are real refugees and that the others are caught in the process for lack of another way to come to Canada, Mr. Speaker, you will agree that such a hearing would contribute to a more equitable process for the determination of the refugee status.
There are now people who have no right to come to Canada under the Immigration Act and who are using the loopholes of the Act to do so. There is an easy scheme for those who do not fit in any of the immigrant classes. They come to a Canadian port of entry and claim refugee status as defined by the United Nations Convention. If the determination process was fair and quick, the persons wrongly seeking refugee status could be expelled in a matter of weeks. Whoever is not truly a refugee would not spend money to come to Canada and risk being deported two months later. That is a matter of common sense, is it not?
Mr. Speaker, the people who are not really refugees know that it can take as much as five years for their case to move from the first level of decision making to the last. They find it worthwhile to borrow money and take the complicated steps required in order to find a haven for five years.
Those are facts which are common knowledge abroad among the people living in communities with a large number of potential emigrants. They are also common knowledge in Canada among the ethnic groups where people want to help a distant relative or friend to come to Canada. This works against real refugees who need immediate assistance and whose lives may be in danger in their countries of origin, and it works also against Canadian taxpayers.
It would be easy indeed to blame the current problems on the Liberal Party. But it is not so simple. I mentioned earlier a pilot project introduced by the Liberal government in 1983. The responsibilities of those in power cannot be underestimated or excused on another political group. Any government can always act to solve the problems Canadians have to face.
It can be said that the Conservative government has acted quickly to change a number of administrative practices in the area of immigration. Last fall, the Minister ordered immigration officers not to provide prospective immigrants, including refugees, with any legal aid during the hearings they have with

April 23, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
them. As 1 indicated earlier, the Advisory Committee on refugee status decides whether the applicant will be admitted or not on the basis of these interviews. Now, these interviews are very intimidating for those people who do not know our laws or customs and who know that a wrong answer can send them right back to their country to live in difficult conditions.
Another example of the will of the Conservative Party to change our immigration policy is the over emphasis put on the entrepreneurs' program. Conservative members of the Parliamentary Committee are more concerned with the need to give a first-rate treatment to investors immigrants than with the need to deal with social problems resulting from the present situation.
Whereas Conservative members of the Committee want to increase the number of immigrants from 85,000 this year to 200,000 in 1986, they are not as willing to grant them the minimum services for an adequate integration.
We know that the lack of services which I would call essential, is sometimes rather serious. The Conservative Party thinks it will save money by cutting into services to immigrants whereas the social effects resulting from this lack of services are more costly than those services themselves.
The refusal to provide a language training course to all those who need it will eventually lead to immigrants being combined in ghettos and in low-paid and tedious jobs. If, later on, immigrants have to apply for unemploymnt or welfare benefits, that will foster racism. People will say that they are taking advantage of the work of Canadians.
Now, Mr. Speaker, many people who have to work with immigrants will tell you that those people are eager to work, to earn their living and support their families and to contribute to the economic development of Canada. However, in order for them to do so, they must have available to them the tools that will enable them to get integrated in a normal way into the Canadian society. They must have available to them services paid for by Canadians who will get largely repaid for them. This is what is important to understand when speaking of services provided to immigrants.
Bill C-232 giving claimants to refugee status the right to be heard in person by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee is a step toward a process of determination of the refugee status more equitable for everybody; perhaps in this way we will see an end to the many and unspeakable abuses of which the prospective refugees are the victims.
Those abuses are terrible, Mr. Speaker, and are not a great credit to Canada. Some journalists from The Globe and Mail asked a few prospective immigrants to go to some consultants or lawyers specialized in immigration matters. Those prospective immigrants had fictitious backgrounds totally unacceptable under the Immigration Act. Yet those people were told by almost every consultant and lawyer consulted that they could get admitted for a fee of $500 in one case, $1,500 in another case and $4,000 in a third case. It would therefore be necessary to regulate the immigration consultants since those consultants deal with those who are totally unaware of the
Canadian laws and standards. As for lawyers specialized in immigration matters, the Bar takes upon itself to penalize them. It remains however that few immigrants will have the courage to question the fees or the quality of services offered by the lawyers because this requires knowledge in the field.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe Bill C-232 is a step in the right direction. I am sure that a more equitable process of determination of the refugee status will allow savings for Canadian taxpayers, and will be more humanitarian for prospective immigrants.
This will be a more efficient way for us to fulfill our international duty of welcoming refugees. Finally, since the Supreme Court recently ruled in a similar way regarding the Immigration Appeal Board, the process of determination of the refugee status will also be more logical.


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to participate in the debate on Bill C-232 on the subject of refugees, introduced by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).
The Hon. Member for Spadina called this Government thick-headed and accused it of stonewalling on various issues. 1 would rather commend it and say that Canada's efforts in formulating and administering the refugee policy is one 1 believe we can look at with pride. After all, Canada has accommodated more refugees per capita than virtually any other country in the world. We have only to remind the House of the 50,000 Vietnamese refugees we took in. In addition to those from Vietnam, people came from Iran, South America and many other countries, especially eastern Europe.
Canadians have shown the capacity to care, that often neglected quality of reaching out to those who are suffering persecution for reasons of race, religion or politics, of giving comfort to the homeless and the stateless. We have also shown a concern to ensure that our institutions and our administrative practices reflect those humanitarian ideals that we have set for ourselves.
What we are concerned with here today is the maintenance of a realistic balance. The hard truth is that we must weigh our humanitarian instincts and goals against the obligation that every sovereign state has of maintaining the integrity of its borders. In other words, our international commitment to refugees must be fulfilled in tandem with immigration control factors and the protection of the interests of Canada.
Unlike other countries, Canada has not until recently faced the phenomenon of large numbers of people claiming refugee status suddenly appearing at our doorsteps. In the past, geography has acted as a buffer, if you will, providing a degree of isolation from turbulence in other lands that gave rise to large numbers of refugees. In many respects, this is a shrinking world. The movement of people either as tourists or immigrants has increased. Canada welcomes many visitors and newcomers each year to her shores. In fact, we have benefited
April 23, 1985

from the dramatic increase of world travel because of the tourist trade. By the same token, we are no longer isolated from other countries where strife and civil unrest are not uncommon.
According to reliable estimates, there are some 70 million to 80 million people in the world today who have been permanently displaced from their homes. They move because of war, revolution, poverty, or simply in the hope of creating a better future for themselves and their children. Some of these people are refugees, others are not. The challenge is to distinguish between the two in a way that is fair and practical.
A procedure was established after we signed the Geneva Convention in 1969 whereby an individual could claim recognition as a convention refugee, either upon arriving in Canada or after admission to Canada if that person faced removal from Canada. Later, in 1978, the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, separate from the established program on immigration in the Immigration Department, was set up for the sole purpose of advising the Minister on refugee claims. The Minister was given the power to appoint committee members, but it was given little in the way of additional guidelines.
The creation of the advisory committee was a bold step in the evolution of a refugee policy, but there was some criticism. Some critics felt that the committee's recommendations were too harsh or arbitrary, that the United Nation's definition of a refugee was unduly restrictive and that the system did not provide adequate guarantees or fairness to all claimants.
in February of 1982, the Government acted to move the entire system in the direction of increased fairness and openness. The new reforms clearly separated the refugee determination process from immigration procedures to ensure that refugee cases are assessed on the basis of human rights considerations alone. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court concluded that the system designed in the late 1970s does not meet the standard of justice required under the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and has indicated that all claimants must be heard orally by the Immigration Appeal Board.
While our refugee determination system has been undergoing a process of reform and liberalization, more and more of the world's people have become refugees as a result of war, persecution and minority-majority conflict. Inevitably, the people displaced by these factors look toward the industrialized nations for help. The channel of last resort is that provided by the refugee asylum structures in developed countries like Canada. Even though these channels do not provide guarantees of long-term help for these people, these structures provide access to work and social benefits, at least on a temporary basis.
As more people use these systems, the greater the backlog and the longer the delays, even for those whose claims on the refugee determination system are tenuous at best. Thus the potential for abuse is great indeed. Since 1980, we have witnessed a manifold increase in the number of refugee ciaim-
Immigration Act, 1976
ants. This places an enormous strain on our resettlement resources.
Recent refugee claimant arrivals have averaged about 600 a month. About 13,500 cases are now under review, as the Hon. Member for Spadina said earlier, and more are under judicial appeal. Yet, only about one-third of those who claim refugee status have their claims upheld. Many of the claimants have been using the refugee system to get around our immigration laws. Not only is this unfair to those who are legitimately following the procedures, but it jeopardizes the entire immigration system.
I believe we would be faced with a serious dilemma if we were to endorse the proposed Bill. After all, claimants already have a right to an oral hearing at the Immigration Appeal Board. I doubt their protections will be enhanced by two oral hearings. We would, as I have stated earlier, appear to be improving the determination process, while in fact we would be undermining the claims process through further delay. By lengthening the period of time that individuals would be able to remain in Canada, more people will be drawn into the process, because being in it gives them access to working in Canada, living here, and in some cases drawing social benefits normally reserved for permanent residents.
Our Immigration Act recognizes in law our humanitarian concerns, and through the refugee determination system that exists today we are able to ensure that no one is sent from this country until he or she has received a full assessment of his or her refugee claim. One of the lawyers dealing with these cases, Patricia Ann Ritter, referred to me the case of Mr. Simon Bancroft Hall. His detention was reviewed on a weekly basis, pursuant to statute, and on April 9, the first working day for the commission after the Supreme Court of Canada decision, at a review of Mr. Hall's detention, the senior immigration officer submitted that it was the position that in light of the decision Mr. Hall would be heard as he had been denied an oral hearing previously. Something is being done.
This is not to say that the system is without problems, but to deal with these problems on a piecemeal basis is not really the answer. Therefore, we on this side of the House can only conclude that the Bill would do nothing to enhance the fairness and openness of the refugee determination system.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, after the very splendid address we just heard, I would like to enlarge on one or two points.
I believe our immigration system must be very fair. It has to be fair to Canadians who are living here now, and many Canadians who are jobless feel that the immigration laws are too lax. However, the laws must be fair to those in other countries who are trying to come to this country and who are doing so legally. I think we must emphasize that particular point.
There is a growing feeling in Canada that too many people are coming to our nation. I do not think anyone objects to people coming to our country because of terrible conditions in their own lands, but those who come here in a purposely illegal

April 23, 1985
Immigration Act, 1976
fashion should not be considered. I cannot follow the fact that some of them are waiting here for six and eight years.
One of my constituents contacted me when one of his relatives came to Canada from Yugoslavia. This man had applied twice to come to Canada and had been rejected. However, he came anyway. He got on a plane and simply came to Canada irrespective of the law. 1 do not think that is fair to those who make applications and wait for approval in their own countries. This man had a hearing in Toronto within two weeks of his arrival. My constituent contacted me and said that the man was here. He told me how he got here. I said I would get the hearing set as quickly as possible. I contacted officials and the hearing was held within two weeks. That man was sent back to his country. He claimed that he could not go back because he would be killed. That was nonsense and his relatives told us that. We were told that that was simply an excuse to leave his own country. Later on we found out that he wanted to leave his wife and three kids. That is like a Canadian who gets married in Alberta, gets divorced and leaves his wife on welfare rather than pay maintenance orders. These Canadians end up in Prince Edward Island, or any other province, with a common-law wife and more youngsters, following which he heads for British Columbia in order to avoid another maintenance order. That kind of person is no good to any country.
I believe we have to be absolutely fair to those wonderful citizens of other countries who want to enter Canada, and want to do so legally. I have no sympathy for those who come here illegally. I do not think they should be kept here for six, seven or eight years. If they come to Canada illegally they should be sent back immediately. They should not be kept here month after month when they have no right to be here at all. If an immigrant enters Canada and is classified as a refugee, he should not have special privileges over those who are entering Canada legally from China, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Japan, Korea or any other country. He should not have special privileges simply because he did something under the table. Let us give those who want to come to Canada legally the first opportunities. Let us not cry crocodile tears for those who come here illegally. Let us not try to keep them in the country month after month.
An Hon. Member mentioned that people were paying $1,500 to come here. The Hon. Member should let us have the names of those people, because I am sure the Minister would prosecute them. We do not want people to buy their way into Canada. We want them to come in legally. Those who come in legally are the kind of people who will make good citizens.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, on March 22 1 asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) when we could expect to have the Fraser Committee Report dealing with pornography, and when we would be in a position to start to deal with that subject and tighten up the laws, rules and regulations of this country with respect to pornography. The Minister at that time advised me that the report was coming shortly. I am pleased to say that by some interesting coincidence the report of many, many pages dealing with the subject of pornography was released today. I know that the people of this country are very pleased that it is out so that we can start to deal with this subject.
Pornography is something which I suppose has been around as long as history itself. The fact that it has been around, however, does not deter from the fact that at this time it poses a very serious problem in this country. In recent years we have seen a great increase in the volume of pornorgraphy over that of a few years ago. Pornography is also of a much more explicit and violent variety. In fact, I venture to say that most of the things which we see on our television screens, in print and in theatres today are things which would not have been tolerated just a few years ago.
Pornography now is seen and observed by the public not only in books, the theatre and on the movie screens, but of course daily on television and also now on video casettes. Everyone is concerned about this subject but we have not been able to come to grips with it. There are a variety of reasons for that, but it is basically that there is a great difference of opinion and variance in attitude towards the entire subject of pornography. Many people share my view and my concern that not only is it something which offends taste but it is also something which is inherently harmful to society and does have the potential for breeding violence against other people, either of a sexual or otherwise criminal nature.
There is a concern as well on the part of many of us that there is a softening up process going on. We are being bombarded constantly with this sort of material and that has a tendency to soften everyone to the whole concept. Over time, people start to feel that there is nothing wrong with this sort of material. On the other hand, there are many people in the country, Mr. Speaker, who feel that to restrict and limit pornography is in fact some sort of infringement on basic human rights and an infringement on freedom of speech. It is because of that sort of feeling that we have this great conflict and are unable to come to grips with the whole subject.
April 23, 1985

I firmly believe, however, that even those who feel there is a restriction on freedom of speech in doing something to restrict pornography believe as well as the rest of us that child pornography is a real problem and of concern, is something which should be restricted and dealt with. I am pleased to see that the Fraser Commission Report does deal with the very subject of child pornography. It suggests that it should be an offence when it involves those under the age of 18. That deals very clearly with the concern that while adults perhaps can consent and understand what all of this is about, children cannot. Clearly it should be an offence and I am very pleased to see that covered in the Fraser Report. I would hope that the Government will deal quickly with that aspect of the report.
The other aspect, of course, is that which deals with pornography generally and the question of whether there should be some other restrictions on pornography, apart from child pornography. The Fraser Committee has again outlined recommendations dealing with that.
The Fraser Committee is not the first forum which has made some recommendations regarding this kind of pornography. I understand this Flouse dealt with the subject in a previous Bill. There have been recommendations from feminist groups and from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Many of their concerns focus on two points. First of all, the question of whether pornography should be defined according to a public standard or whether there should be some objective test to deal with pornography, and secondly, whether it is only sexual acts which should be considered as pornography, or that violence should be considered separately. The Fraser Committee has recommended that there should be two separate offenses there, and also that we have an objective test.
It remains to be seen how quickly the Government will act on this matter, but I hope that the consultations have now come to an end. We have studied this subject long enough, and I hope the Government will now act very quickly. I am looking forward to hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary on the Government's response, and how soon it will act.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern about this very serious problem. As he said, the report of the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution was tabled by the Minister today. The Committee benefited from the submissions and briefs which were received in the public hearings and from research done by the Department of Justice. There are upwards of 100 recommendations contained in the report which will require consideration by the Government.
The Government especially wants to consult with the provincial Attorneys General in order to deal with the people who are on the, shall we say, practice end of any laws we pass-the people who have to prosecute. Naturally we want to see that the laws suggested in this House by this Government are capable of being put into practice at the working level by the
Adjournment Debate
people who handle them. In addition, there will be public interest groups which will want to be heard on the direction these amendments should take.
I can tell the Hon. Member that the Minister is especially concerned about the dramatic increase in sexually explicit material which has become more widespread and more readily available throughout Canada. I can assure him that the Minister will carefully consider the Fraser Committee's recommendations before proceeding to draft and introduce legislative proposals in respect of pornography and prostitution, and that such proposals will not be introduced prior to consultation with the Attorneys General. The legislation that we hope will result from this process will be developed only after careful study and consideration, and we welcome the Hon. Member's participation in that process just as we welcome that of any Member of Parliament.


TRUST COMPANIES-WESTERN CAPITAL TRUST. (B) MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on April 3 I raised with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) the matter of a discrepancy between an event occuring on March 29 and a statement made by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) in the House on the same day. The event was the failure of Western Capital Trust in British Columbia barely one week after the Government announced its plan to bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank.
On March 29, during the debate on the Government's Bill to bail out that bank, the Minister described that situation as an isolated incident.
The Minister said:
There are no other financial institutions in the country at the moment that arc appearing to be insolvent in any way.
On April 3 I asked why the Minister of State for Finance would have said that to the House when she surely must have known that Western Capital Trust was in serious difficulty and was closing its doors as she spoke. The Minister of Finance replied that the remark of the Minister of State for Finance arose from her hope of success in the company's merger negotiations and that departmental officials had been meeting with Western Capital Trust over the winter on this matter.
That response makes no sense at all. The Minister of State for Finance said that no institution other than the Canadian Commercial Bank was in difficulty on the very day that Western Capital Trust announced that it was obliged to wind up its operations. Naturally, I take it for granted that the Minister would not intentionally mislead the House. The only remaining explanation is that she did not know what was going on. Why did she not know? Did her officials fail to brief her? Did the Minister of Finance fail to inform her?
4048

April 23, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Let us look at the chronology again so that this will be quite clear. On February 12 the Minister of State for Finance, responding to a question about another trust company, said:
I would like to reassure the House with respect to other western trust companies, that I'm not aware of any which are on the brink of collapse.
On March 29 the Minister also said that no institution, other than the Canadian Commercial Bank, was in any difficulty. On March 29 Western Capital Trust closed its doors. On April 2 the Minister of State for Finance then said that officials in the Department of Finance had met continually over the winter months with officials from Western Capital Trust. On April 3 the Minister of Finance said:
Mr. Speaker, for some months now the Government has been working with Western Capital Trust to try to assist it in merging with another, stronger trust company. At the time the Minister made that statement it was expected that those merger negotiations would be completed successfully. That is the basis for her comments.
Again, that simply does not make sense since the company in question, Western Capital Trust, was closing its doors even as the Minister spoke.
The issue of confidence in our financial institution is, of course, very important. The whole system depends on confidence. It is the cornerstone of our financial system. Members of the Opposition who ask questions in the House do not do so out of a desire to undermine confidence in the system. In this case, all the questions that I asked came long after the events had been made public. When Ministers make statements which appear to be contradicted by fact, and do not explain the discrepancy, it does not inspire confidence. I hope that, given the opportunity now, the Government will give the House a clear statement.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to elaborate on the situation for the benefit of the Member, who obviously has put a lot of thought into her comments.
Western Capital Trust had been monitored by officials of the department of Insurance for some time. In that regard, the examiners of the Department of Insurance, following an inspection of the books and records of the company in late 1984, concluded that the company had some $3 million worth of capital, but that additional capital was required to fully comply with the borrowing provisions of the Trust Companies Act. The company's annual financial statement was filed with the Department on February 28, 1985, indicating that the company had $3 million of capital at December 31, 1984. In an accompanying letter the company's auditors indicated that the financial position of the company was fairly presented in the annual statement.
During 1984, several different plans had been put forward to enable the company to fully comply with the borrowing provisions of the Trust Companies Act. The company sold large blocks of mortgages for cash to reduce borrowing, and it tried to arrange for private placement of preference shares. But none of these courses of action were successful so a formal
report on the company's overborrowed situation was submitted by the Superintendent to the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall).
That report recommended that limitations be placed on the company's licence so as to reduce its borrowings and thereby bring the company into compliance with the Act. A copy of the report was provided to the President of the company and he was given an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Minister. The Minister was up to date and current on everything that was going on, and was being briefed by her officials.
The President of the company chose to revive negotiations to merge Western Capital Trust Company and another corporation. Further meetings were held with the Superintendent of Insurance and the Department's examiners began a review of the assets of the other corporation early in March. The Minister and her officials were entitled to believe that everything was proceeding to merge the company. However, the Minister received a telex on March 29, 1985, from the company's directors requesting that the company be wound up.
I think it should be brought to the Hon. Member's attention that on February 28, 1985, the company filed the financial statement with the Department of Insurance, and it clearly showed that the company had a capital and surplus position of $3.1 million. The certificate bore the certification of the company's auditors. Under these circumstances, with an annual statement showing that the company was solvent and with the question of a possible amalgamation still under active consideration, it was unreasonable to characterize this particular company as being on the brink of collapse at the time the Minister made her statement.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS-WOMEN'S EQUALITY-ABELLA REPORT. (B) AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, on February 1, I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to take positive action on the question of equality. Specifically, I asked him to act on the Abella Commission recommendations to legislate mandatory affirmative action and contract compliance before April 17, when the Charter of Rights would come into force. We have now received the Government report on employment equity which was tabled by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss Macdonald) a number of weeks ago.
Critics from my Party felt that the Government proposals were weak. We expressed our concern that there was no enforcement mechanism for contract compliance and companies which have contracts with the Government were left to establish their own targets for employment equity. As with the Liberals before, Tories seem to be reluctant to enforce mandatory affirmative action.
I also asked that funding for the Human Rights Commission be increased so that adequate staff may be hired to deal with the many additional complaints which will result from the Government's equity program. For several years we have had federal legislation which requires equal pay for work of equal
April 23, 1985

value so that women will be paid at the same rate as men in similar job responsibilities. Despite this legislation, there has not been systematic change even within areas of federal jurisdiction. 1 have urged the Government to enforce equal value pay in every department and Crown corporation so that women will no longer have to appeal individually on a case by case basis to the Human Rights Commission.
*20)
On April 17 we celebrated the Charter of Rights and the coming into being of the equality clause. Having equality rights on paper, however, does not mean that people will be treated equally. Unfortunately, the Conservative Government delayed changes to legislation, and also to regulations which are clearly discriminatory and do not conform to the Charter. For example, the discrimination under the Unemployment Insurance Act is evident because it unfairly restricts benefits for unemployed women on maternity leave. They are eligible for fewer benefits because they happen to be pregnant. Another example concerns maternity leave in the military. We support the position of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women on this very important issue.
Another example of unfairness is the fact that while the Government has given lip-service to equality compliance in Crown corporations, Air Canada is establishing a very negative precedent by trying to bargain away women's rights to full-time jobs that are decently paid.
The Government by its inaction now has forced women to fight legal and very expensive battles to achieve their rights under the New Charter of Rights. A legal assistance fund is necessary to undertake test cases before the courts. Such a fund should be independent of government and political bias. I asked the Minister of Justice recently to celebrate equality on April 17 by generously contributing to the legal education assistance fund which has been established as an endowment for legal challenges by women related to equality under the Charter. Once again the Minister of Justice refused to act. This Government's inaction was a disappointment on this memorable and historic day.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for closely following the issue of equality in employment, which became even more important with the proclamation, on April 17 last, of the relevant provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Hon. Member knows, since she has just mentioned that fact, that women and minorities are the people who celebrated last week the historical proclamation of the provisions on equality which our Government acted to amend in the context of the debate on equality in employment.
Adjournment Debate
The Hon. Member will also remember that on March 8, in this House, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) announced the implementation of measures for employment equity, the very words used by Judge Abella which singularly expresses the goals we are pursuing in order that women, natives, handicapped people and visible minorities may prove their worth in the workplace.
It was announced then, Mr. Speaker, that following study, debate and consultation, we would be introducing measures of unprecedented scope, the effects of which will be as far-reaching as the Hon. Member and myself might wish them to be.
In short, our action with respect to employment equity will consist of the adoption, by the federal Government, of decisive measures in employment sectors coming under its control and its jurisdiction. In the process, Mr. Speaker, we are encouraging provincial Governments and municipalities in implementing positive action programs.
Before the end of this session, Mr. Speaker, we will table in this House a legislation that will seek to make it mandatory for companies subject to federal regulations and having less than one hundred employees to take action to achieve employment equity and report each year to this House on their efforts in that area. Such legislation is presently in preparation and, as announced by the Hon. Minister on March 8 last, we are consulting with the representatives of the industry, the unions and the target groups on the way to present those reports. Furthermore, we are formulating directives in this regard.
We have also asked Crown corporations to implement equity measures in the area of employment, and to take the steps needed to be able to present to Parliament annual reports on their performance through the ministers responsible for those corporations.
Mr. Speaker, we are developing a program of contracts related to the implementation of equity measures in the area of employment. Under this program, businesses which have contracts exceeding $200,000 and have at least 100 employees will also have to implement equity measures in the area of employment, and we will control their implementation.
In all those areas, our action is based to a large extent on the conclusions and recommendations of the Abella report.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the Hon. Member, like women and minorities all over the country, will realize that we are taking strong and responsible steps to promote equity in the area of employment, and we hope we can count on her support when the legislation is tabled in this House.

April 23, 1985
Adjournment Debate


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 24, 1985