1985-06-04

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 2, consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and Motions No. 23 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4358) and No. 24 (Mr. Axworthy) (p. 4358) and No. 25 (Mr. Axworthy) (p. 4358).
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, sometimes one does feel lonely.

Being in the Opposition can be a lonely business. Perhaps some of my colleagues would like to join me-
If 1 am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the report stage of Bill C-15, and more specifically, a number of amendments that require some serious consideration. The Government, of course, is getting impatient and has imposed closure, thereby restricting speaking time for Members. We shall therefore try to make the best possible use of the time at our disposal, and in fact we shall be trying to improve and make substantial amendments to the legislation before the House today. If I am not mistaken, the motion to be debated now is Motion No. 24, and there are a few comments I would like to make.

This important amendment deals with rental property acquisitions by foreign interests. We are concerned that the kind of blanket exemption currently proposed in the Bill makes it difficult to prevent the occurrence of fiascos such as the Seaway Trust and Greymac affair.

There are no rules to prohibit the kind of transaction we saw in Toronto, where a group of numbered companies, largely financed with foreign capital, spread panic among some
13,000	tenants. Mr. Speaker, I believe we all remember this financial disaster, and I have a few questions. What conditions does the Minister, who is of course again absent from the
debate today .. . what proposals or amendments does the Minister intend to introduce to prevent a recurrence? What sanctions are provided when certain conditions are not observed? Will the Minister go on attracting the big multinationals?

These questions should be answered. They lead us to another important issue, rental housing. Indeed, what has the Government done about rental housing, particularly in a city like Ottawa where the vacancy rate is next to zero? What are the Government's plans in this regard? The Budget did not bring any good news. We saw the Budget of CMHC savaged by the Government. The cash flow of some $30 million was removed from CMHC. We saw no new co-op support and no increased financial support for the housing needs of Canadians.
I am quite concerned that the rental housing market is in particular danger of becoming-

-the prey, as they say in French, of investors whose interests do not really lie in helping Canadians get better housing but in making substantial profits, and it worries me that Bill C-15 does not deal at all with this problem, with a situation that can have disastrous consequences, as we all know.

Indeed, what are the Goverment's plans in this area? What happened to the promise by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) during the last election campaign when he said that co-op housing will continue to have a high priority in the Progressive Conservative policy for housing? 1 ask this in light of major cut-backs in co-op housing in Halifax, Vancouver and Toronto.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I hear the Hon. Government House Leader saying "order".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Relevance.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am trying to improve the Bill which you have put on the Order Paper for today. In my view, it is in dire need of improving and if you listen, I am talking about rental properties and how they can be the object of foreign takeovers by foreign capital. Remember the Greymac scandal in Toronto. Hundreds of millions of dollars were artificially inflated in the housing rental market in Toronto, bringing about a catastrophic situation. I take it that the Minister understands what I am talking about now.


Investment Canada Act
I do not know the answers to the questions I have put to the absent Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) regarding rental properties. I hope someone from the Government can give me the answers to those questions because they are important. They must be considered under the purview of this amendment in light of the already stretched housing capacity in our major cities and in light of the blanket exemption currently embodied in the Bill regarding rental property acquisitions. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what the Government intends to do to prevent rental properties from being acquired by foreign owners who have no interest in the housing markets of today. I put the question in a very serious tone because 1 believe this begs a serious answer.
[DOT] (M 10)


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, this starts the final day of clause by clause debate on the Investment Canada Bill. From our point of view, it should not be the final day of clause by clause consideration because there exists within this Bill a great many serious problems and flaws that deserve to be corrected before this Bill goes forward. We had hoped it would have been possible to have sufficient time to talk in detail about each of these particular attempts we have brought forward to improve the character of specific parts of the Bill.
Because we have just this last day been able to consider a whole host of different amendments, for our part we as a Party intend to put up a minimum number of speakers and to try to see to it that it is possible to have at least brief debate on each of the different groupings of amendments before the House for debate.
At the start of today's discussion, I want to point out to Members here in the House and to the public that what we are talking about with this Bill and what we are talking about with the crucial issues of foreign investment is the question of Canadianization of our economy.
We know from public opinion polling that has taken place across the nation that a vast majority, 85 per cent, of Canadians believe in increased Canadianization of our economy. That polling indicates a significant increase in the commitment to Canadianization. The polls in June 1983 indicated only 75 per cent of Canadians at that time felt a strong commitment to Canadianization whereas the most recent polls indicate 85 per cent. This legislation and the attempt we are trying to put forward to improve the Bill focuses on this question of Canadianization.
Are we as a country going to get a greater capacity to put the key parts of our economy into the control of Canadians through the Canadian private sector? Are we going to be able to use the public sector and its regulations to achieve greater Canadian control? Are we going to be able to claim a country for ourselves, for our people and our children in the future that will give the jobs and the economic security so important for all of us?
As this debate goes forward point by point today, I will not be discussing this grand theme of Canadianization, but 1 hope
Members in the House and the people will realize the thrust of the amendments we are bringing forward is to attempt, despite a Bill which has some fatal flaws, some real problems that we cannot correct, to bring forward some positive suggestions for improving the Canadianization of our economy insofar as this Bill can be made to contribute to that goal.
The amendment before us at the moment, Motion No. 23, was moved by myself. Motion No. 23 deals with Part II of the Bill. Within the Bill there is quite a long section which exempts certain important categories of enterprise from review, despite the fact that the Bill provides for some review. As Hon. Members know, it provides for the review of acquisitions of companies which have over $5 million in assets, are Canadian controlled and are taken over by foreign companies. Within the attempt to maintain at least some kind of review process, certain exemptions are set out, some of which frankly make sense, but a number of which do not make sense.
[DOT] (MI5)
For the benefit of Hon. Members, I point to the specific clause to which Motion No. 23 applies, subclause (c) on page 6 which indicates that the acquisition of control of a Canadian business is exempt from review in connection with the realization of security granted for a loan or other financial assistance.
Quite recently there was a case in Smiths Falls, Ontario, concerning a small company called R-J Stamping which employed a significant number of people. That company was forced into bankruptcy and as a result, its physical assets were sold off to a foreign purchaser. The jobs which existed within that community, and of course the potential for future jobs, disappeared as the physical assets were literally shipped out of the country. In that particular case, the local provincial Member, who happens to be a Conservative, raised serious questions about it with the Premier of Ontario, the Hon. Frank Miller. Mr. Miller took this case very seriously, if not others, perhaps because it was the middle of an election campaign. He probed the case of this particular company and indicated that it should not be possible for its physical assets simply to be sold out of the country without any review process. Mr. Miller, as Premier of Ontario, said: "Let's get the Foreign Investment Review Agency to look at this case".


Mr. Boudria:: Frank Miller said that!


Steven W. Langdon: He said that, believe it or not.


Don Boudria: Unbelievable.


Steven W. Langdon: Unfortunately Mr. Miller did not realize that F1RA, as it had been put in place, had as one of its weaknesses the fact that it did not cover such cases as this, where a company went bankrupt and its assets were then sold off to foreigners.
Being a loyal citizen of Ontario, and seeing that the Premier of my province wanted action taken on this particular gap in our capacity to review foreign takeovers, I moved this motion. Unfortunately it was voted down, unbelievably, in committee by members of the Conservative Party, the very Party which


Frank Miller represents. Once more 1 bring this case before the House of Commons in the hope that common sense will somehow prevail, in the hope that government Members sitting here today will recognize that this amendment is not meant to be frustrating to this Bill. It is not meant to be somehow destructive, but rather is an amendment which aims simply to fill a gap which exists in the legislation. It is a gap which we have discovered also existed in the previous legislation and, frankly, deserves to be corrected. I strongly urge government Members to support Motion No. 23 because it will have the effect of filling a gap which even the Premier of Ontario has recognized needs to be filled.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to address Bill C-15 with respect to Investment Canada today. Recognizing that what is being proposed here is that increased capital and technology will benefit Canada and that the purpose of the Bill is to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians, I rise to support such an activity, and I do so with pride.
If Bill C-15 achieves the two fundamental objectives of more economic growth and more employment opportunities, we will have to recognize the problems that existed with FIR A. I have taken the opportunity to ask my constituents how they feel about foreign investment in Canada and if they feel that it helps create jobs.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are presently dealing with Motions Nos. 23, 24 and 25. I think the Hon. Member should address the subject matter of those particular amendments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) is correct. I am sure the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) will act accordingly.


Felix Holtmann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will get to that, as the Hon. Member will see if he has any patience. The Hon. Member who spoke previously referred to polls which indicate what he felt the people of the country wanted. The results of a recent poll just came out. I found it interesting to note that that poll indicated that only a bare minimum of New Democrat voters wanted foreign investment in Canada. That is all part of this Bill. Let me address that very phrase.
There is an NDP Government in Manitoba right now. Although Members of the NDP state philosophically that they are not in favour of any foreign investment in Canada and that businesses in Canada must be totally Canadian owned, the NDP Government in Manitoba will put its arms around foreign companies, give them a kiss, make love to them and then, when they make a profit, call them corporate welfare bums. That is the attitude of the NDP Government.
The Hon. Member proposes changes, but they are not changes that will benefit this Bill. In fact, the changes go to the very heart of what they feel, which is that foreign investment in any form is not the greatest and is not highly
Investment Canada Act
desirable. He is never happy with that. When we encourage investment being brought into the country, that stops us from importing goods. It stops us from importing goods which could be manufactured here in Canada. That will certainly help our entire situation. In effect, we would be using our natural resources right here. We would be using Canadian labour and gain from the resources and technologies brought in by foreign companies. Surely the Hon. Member cannot be opposed to that.
The Hon. Member mentioned that some 80 per cent of the population was in favour of Canadianization. If a product is manufactured here in Canada, then is that not Canadianization of that product? Is that not better than importing goods made completely in some other country? The Hon. Member suggests we wait until a Canadian can put a company in place which can perform the research and development with regard to the production of a product. He would allow a limited amount of foreign investment while Canadianizing the other part. I am sorry to say we probably would not have 90 per cent of the products we have here in Canada if we had to wait for them to be developed in this country. As a matter of fact, the country is comprised of people who come from many countries and who brought with them their ideas and technology.
If the Hon. Member wishes to point out the results of a recent poll in support of his point of view, then I suggest we must look to all areas of investment. We must consider foreign capital which comes into the country. We must take into consideration FIRA. Those in favour of FIRA claim a success rate in that regard. However, if you were to talk to international people from places such as New York and Tokyo, you would find they did not want to come here because they did not want to deal with FIRA. They did not want to deal with the types of laws which were in place.
There are no simple solutions. However, some of the amendments have to be addressed. I must ask whether or not they have been well thought out. Are those who propose the amendments aware of the ramifications? Is it just a matter of these people sitting back and dreaming? All too often Oppostion Members dream these amendments up because they hate the fact we have changed something which they put in place. Why do they not stand up and admit that? That would give some honesty to the system.
The Hon. Member recommends a change to a specific clause. That is not the total solution. The change has not been well thought out. We must take into consideration the manufacture of Canadian products with Canadian raw materials through the use of foreign research and development. That is the idea here.
In my riding alone, as a result of FIRA, three large investment groups were turned away because there was too much negativism involved in the whole system. There was just too much red tape to go through. Those three groups would have been in place in my riding had it not been for FIRA. There


Investment Canada Act
could be an additional 700 jobs in my riding now had Investment Canada been in place then as it has been proposed today.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Would it be possible for the Hon. Member to use the last minute of his 10 to deal with the subject of debate?


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Since the Hon. Member opposite raises the point, I would like to say the matter goes both ways. It is fine to have debate within the confines of the motion, but Hon. Members opposite will have to adhere to the same rules. If they want to play the game in that way, then I would point out that we have been here longer and we can do it better.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The Government has brought in closure on the report stage of this Bill. The Government is imposing a restriction on the time we are allowed to debate the amendments before us. There are some 94 amendments. We are only at the point of dealing with 23, 24 and 25. I would like the Hon. Member to address those matters. The amendment being discussed deals with rental property and insurance. It would be best if the Hon. Member were to address these concepts with some relevancy in mind in consideration of our time and his.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The comments of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) are taken very well by the Chair. Members should be aware, especially at report stage, that comments must be strictly relevant to the motions which are before the House. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) has the floor for one more minute.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how excited Opposition Members get. They have introduced all of these motions to change the Bill and make it better. It flabbergasts me, but I do understand. When they use tactics such as this, it is no wonder we have to invoke closure. They would go on forever bringing in all sorts of ridiculous motions to change the Bill back to FIRA.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Felix Holtmann: If there were substance to the motions, I would address them.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor on a point of order.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it should be drawn to the attention of the previous speaker that, in fact, it is not possible, once motions have been tabled for debate, to bring forward additional motions. The motions which are presently before the House are the only motions which can be debated. Other motions cannot be brought forward-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that that is not a point of order. Resuming debate. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as you said, the remarks which were made by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) did not constitute a point of order, but he did make a very interesting point. Perhaps Tory Members who failed to speak on the main motion could remember that. Perhaps Tory Members should read the motions which the House is debating before making speeches. I am sure it would be most constructive if you brought that to their attention, Mr. Speaker.
1 found it interesting that the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) challenged Parliament's right to amend Government legislation. That shows the respect for democracy which Tories have. They are challenging the fundamental right of Parliament to amend Government legislation. I see an Hon. Member opposite who is laughing. Some day in the future when factories close down in his riding because of this legislation and his voters knock on his door to ask him why he failed to amend and improve the legislation, they will know what he did.
We are discussing Motions Nos. 23, 24 and 25. With respect to Motion No. 25, we are proposing an improvement in the Bill which is a form of preventive medicine. We want to ensure that insurance companies are included in the notification and possibly in the review process of foreign acquisitions. We know that increasingly the ownership questions related to large pools of capital are accumulated by major financial institutions. In that case, there appears to be a loophole for foreign insurance companies. I had hoped that the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake would have referred to that. Perhaps he is not concerned about that issue. He is only concerned about challenging Parliament's right to amend Government Bills.
It should be remembered that opposition Members have never stated they were against foreign investment. The Opposition wants what is best for Canadians. The Tories have no right to stop us from presenting motions which will improve the legislation. Ronnie and his nephew, Brian, had a little duet in Quebec City.


Mr. Blenkarn:: What is the amendment?


Don Boudria: When the Government and its Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) failed to put a stop on countervail duties in the United States, where were Tory Members? Why were they not acting in the best interests of Canadians? Why did they not bring forward amendments such as Motion No. 25 in order to ensure that the Bill would be better for all Canadians?
I notice an Hon. Member opposite who was once a Liberal. He too lost his way. Perhaps, he could find the energy to speak on the Bill. Perhaps he could tell the Prime Minister not to make the statements which were reported in Fortune magazine when he spoke against Canadians and the workers of the country. In the article 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." 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?
Those are the comments of the Conservative Prime Minister. 1 wish some of his back-benchers would stand and speak in favour of the positive amendments which are being presented today in order to ensure that we will have a fair share of Canadianization, and that the Bill and the amendments which have been proposed will ensure that in the future we will not see large foreign takeovers. Obviously, that will happen if the Bill is passed without amendments. All Conservative members opposite and the book-ends and surfers on this side of the House should remember that and stop thinking that they are only here for a short time. They are making the best of it. They are not here for a long time, they are here for a short time, but a good time. Nevertheless, they should stand in the House and speak on behalf of their voters. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais) should state clearly that he is against the countervail duties of the United States. He should take the opportunity to speak about Canadianization.
[ Translation]


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member for Glen-garry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) is saying is entirely irrelevant.


Mr. St. Julien:: It is not the first time, either.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, we have been very patient, but I think he should be called to order, as you did earlier on the point of order of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). I think he should limit his remarks to the motion before the House at this time.


Guy St-Julien: Right on, it is about time he learned how to behave.


Pierre Blais: This is not the appropriate time to discuss other matters that concern to the House and the standing committees, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member could come to the Standing Committee, but we never see him when these questions are on the agenda.


Guy St-Julien: He never came!


Pierre Blais: He comes here and talks about agriculture, and when it is time to talk about it he doesn't show up.


Guy St-Julien: That is true!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does not totally agree with the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary that the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is not speaking on the motion. However, the last part of the remarks of the Hon. Member for
Investment Canada Act
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) may not have been on the motion, so I would ask him to be more relevant.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your usual excellent ruling and for bringing the Parliamentary Secretary into line. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, of course, that he badly needs it. He does get that way whenever he feels threatened. It's not his fault. If I were a Tory, I would be embarrassed right now as well. Thank God, that will never happen because happiness is never having to say you're Tory, and I will never have to say that, hopefully.
We were discussing Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25 to this Bill, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gormley:: Why don't you discuss them?


Don Boudria: I've been discussing them all along, Mr. Speaker, and I challenge the Hon. Member to say, for instance, whether he is in favour of the very excellent real estate amendments under Motion No. 23 and whether he thinks, as we do, that Motion No. 25 would indeed act as preventative medicine in ensuring that insurance companies be included in the notification process? I would like the Hon. Member to stand in his place when 1 complete my remarks and tell us what his views are on this issue because myself and the other Hon. Members of the Opposition have been speaking to those amendments. Perhaps we should speak a little more slowly so that the Conservatives could understand. 1 will try to do that in future just to ensure that they keep up to our train of thought.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Motion No. 25 should be adopted by this House because it would vastly improve the proposed legislation. Actually, the only way to amend this Bill would be for the Government to abandon it forthwith. However, if the Government does not give up its proposed legislation in favour of what we had before, the second best option is for the Government to adopt the amendments proposed by the Opposition.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 intend to speak to these amendments and I invite all Hon. Members of the Conservative Party to do so, particularly those representing urban ridings, such as the City of Toronto-and it is unfortunate that there are a number of Hon. Members from Toronto who are not here-and the Cities of Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, Edmonton, Calgary and all of those areas where tenants rely on the protection of government to ensure that their particular stability is not threatened.
Some Hon. Members may not remember that I was in the Ontario Legislature at the time of the famous "flip" deal when more than 10,000 apartment units in the City of Toronto changed hands. Their rental value would have doubled, tripled and, in some cases, quadrupled, as a direct result of a transaction which would have been, under the current law, deemed to


Investment Canada Act
be illegal. Without these amendments, the Government is saying that any real estate sale to a foreign company will not be subject to review by Investment Canada. Those 20,000 tenants who live at the corner of Yonge and Eglinton in the City of Toronto, who received protection from the Government at the time of that flip-flop deal-and people like Howard Brown were involved with the tenants' organizations in their fight against those particular increases-will now have no protection. This Government has failed to protect tenants by omitting to include the amendments which have been proposed by both Opposition Parties.
I would like to ask those Hon. Members from the urban centres, and particularly those from the City of Toronto, to talk about how they are going to fight for tenants' rights. They have a chance with this amendment to put their money where their mouths are. Any Hon. Member who supports this government's move to remove this real estate protection from consideration has, in fact, abdicated his or her responsibility to the tenants in his or her riding. I ask all Hon. Members of the Government to take a look at the amendment to see what is involved because this particular amendment will ensure that foreign investment in Canadian real estate is subject to review by Investment Canada.
Not only has this Government said that all investment under $5 million will no longer be subject to review, but that any investment in Canadian real estate over $5 million, will not be subject to review. The particular amendment which we are proposing would in fact ensure that at the very least the rather flimsy review provisions of Investment Canada of transactions over $5 million would include the real estate market.
We are not talking simply about company transactions as has happened recently with the Nabisco deal. What we are talking about is the kind of direct cause and effect relationship which a purchase of Canadian real estate can have not only on the Canadian stock market and the Canadian investment community, but on Canadian tenants. I remind those Hon. Members from the City of Toronto who have failed to speak up on this very important issue of a real estate deal which turned sour. It was a trust fiasco, according to the Financial Times of Canada, dating back to January 31, 1983. Right from the start it was a deal of daunting complexity punctuated with pure theatre of the absurd. Witness, for example, the closing on the sale of 10,931 Toronto apartment units which formed the core of the most celebrated real estate deal in Canadian history. The apartments were to be flipped through several hands from Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited to a series of numbered companies later said to be controlled by Saudi-Arabian investors. That particular celebrated flip of more than 10,000 apartment units would have obviously impacted directly on the lives of the people in the City of Toronto.
It was as a result of the combined efforts of the Foreign Investment Review Agency and provincial government legislation that we were able to ensure that the cost pass through, which was to have been passed on to tenants and which would have resulted in increases of 300 per cent, 400 per cent, 500
per cent and 600 per cent in direct rental charges, was disallowed. Those tenants were saved from having to pay for the flip-flop deal which was the most celebrated deal in Canadian real estate history.
I hope that those Hon. Members who are seeking re-election in the City of Toronto, in the City of Vancouver, which has one of the lowest vacancy rates in Canada, and in the City of Halifax where the rental housing situation has reached crisis proportions, will realize that in defeating this amendment they will be placing themselves in the position of having to go to their constituents in the next election campaign and saying to them, "We had a chance to protect you or to even offer the minimal $5 million protection under Investment Canada, but we turned our backs because we are not interested in protecting tenants". Instead the Conservatives have said, "Come and invest in Canada. You can buy up millions upon millions of dollars worth of Canadian real estate without being subject to any kind of notification analysis or review by the Government of Canada". The particular decision by this Government to wash its hands of concern for tenants, as it has so clearly indicated by exempting real estate specifically from the provisions for the $5 million review, is just another indication of how this Government is prepared to let those people who are in the least position to protect themselves hang out to dry.
We heard the Government promise to protect the housing situation in Canada. We heard the government promises to senior citizens. Of the tens of thousands of apartment dwellers in the City of Toronto and the thousands in the City of Hamilton a great proportion are senior citizens. Those are the same people from whom the Government is taking $30 a month and calling it chicken feed. The Government says that it can take $30 a month from the senior citizens because they do not care.


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Perhaps the Member does not see the relevance.
I am talking about a government exemption of real estate purchases by foreign companies which will directly impact upon the cost of rental for people living in highly populated urban areas, the majority of whom are single and living alone, many elderly widows, who are extremely concerned about the negative impact of the Government's initiatives on senior citizens' pensions. Those same people will now be faced with a further potential rent increase as a direct result of the Government's failure to approve the amendment that we have suggested with respect to real estate.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Nonsense.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) says "nonsense". I urge the Member for Mississauga South to speak on this issue because Mississauga happens to be one of the largest growing tenant areas in Canada. If the Member were truly representing his constituents, he would say that real estate, as any other investment, is an investment in


Canada and subject to review under the Canada Investment Act or by the Canadian Government. In fact, if the Member for Mississauga South had read the amendment, he would have been aware that we are attempting to allow the Government the same possibility of review that it had on the Player's flip-flop apartment takeover. Conservatives in the City of Toronto were scurrying on side on that issue. They realized that rental increases of 100 per cent, 200 per cent, 300 per cent, and 400 per cent for senior citizens in those areas was unconscionable.
The Government is going to wash its hands of the whole issue by telling the world that Canada is open for business, to come in and buy up our apartment blocks by the hundreds and thousands and the purchases will not even be subject to notification, let alone review. The cost pass through of the flip of 10,000 apartments in the City of Toronto was prevented because of Liberal legislation in the Federal Investment Review Agency. Such cost pass throughs will be paid directly on the backs of tenants.
I am sorry if the Member for Mississauga South does not want to speak for his constituents. I am sorry that Government Members have not taken the time to read this amendment. If they had done so, they would not be so quick to tell their constituents that they are fighting on behalf of poor people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais).


Pierre Blais: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
Earlier, Mr. Speaker, I was attacked most unfairly and very deeply hurt. I was called a former Liberal, and I feel that my parliamentary privilege has been grievously infringed upon as a result of this allegation that I was a former Liberal... The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) ... I would ask that those words be withdrawn. It is absolutely false, Mr. Speaker, and my privileges as a Member of this House have been most adversely affected.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think it is a question of privilege.


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


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


Carlo Rossi: The same strategy... I can see the Hon. Member smiling, Mr. Speaker, because it is all part of a strategy to cut down on the time allowed the Hon. Member and keep her from saying what she wants to say. It is obvious from the Hon. Member's snarky smile that this is a delaying tactic, and I demand that the Hon. Member's time be compensated, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time allowed the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) had expired.
Investment Canada Act


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if the yahoos on the other side of the House would have stopped screaming and yelling at us during our discourse-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -it might have been possible for me to say what I had wanted to within my time limit. I would call upon the Speaker to enforce order in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) may have a point about order and decorum in the House. I appeal to all Members to show courtesy to the Members who are speaking. Resuming debate, the Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley).


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some comments to the amendments to Bill C-15. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) mentioned that these were good and fair amendments and asked whether a Conservative would rise to speak on these good and fair amendments. If these were in fact good and fair amendments, a Conservative could stand and support them. However, they are neither good nor fair.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They are not very intelligent either.


John Kenneth Gormley: The Hon. Member notes that neither are they very intelligent. I am pleased to endorse that sentiment with regard to these amendments.
The exemption in Bill C-15, which is addressed in Motion No. 23, relates to security granted for a loan. Members have not yet spoken about this. It would be instructive for Canadians to learn more about what the unholiest alliance in Canadian history, the Liberals and New Democrats, is purporting that the Government should consider.
The motion deals with the deletion of certain lines and clauses in the Bill to the effect that the exemption for acquisitions resulting from the realization of security granted for a loan would not be dealt with. The intent of Bill C-15 is that non Canadians should be able to enforce the security provisions of a loan agreement and acquire control of a Canadian business without being subject to the notification provisions if a Canadian business has sought a loan from a non-Canadian Financial institution and signed a loan agreement such as a Canadian would sign with a local bank. The Liberals and New Democrats are saying that they want the access to capital by small, medium, and large Canadian companies limited. This motion would restrict the security of the person or institution lending the money. Who would willingly lend money without a guarantee of security? This motion makes that subject to notification and frightens lenders about doing business in Canada.


Investment Canada Act
Bill C-15 is trying to address the problem of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Investment Canada is trying to deal with that problem by restoring confidence. Such motions as these moved by the New Democratic Party take away confidence. They tell non-Canadian lenders that they will be subject to all sorts of notification in order to enforce a security agreement in a loan. That does not inspire confidence.
Earlier some of my colleagues were citing statistics and figures. The poll published in the media yesterday shows very clearly that the average Canadian supports the initiatives of the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Most important when we look at the motions, the average Canadian recognizes that when we do not accept those motions and the frivolous measures being brought in by the Opposition, they can have confidence in us. It is investment confidence that Canadians see in the Government, Members of the Cabinet and the overwhelming number of Conservative Members of Parliament who outnumber the dwindling numbers in the Opposition ranks every day.
Motion No. 23 shows what the unholy NDP-Liberal alliance is doing once again to small, medium and large Canadian businesses that simply want to turn to a non-Canadian lender for some capital so that they may create jobs and create confidence in our economy.


Carlo Rossi: Talk about senior citizens.


John Kenneth Gormley: Let me make some remarks about the senior citizens and rental housing. In Saskatchewan, the NDP goes to nursing homes and tells senior citizens that someone will take away their medicare. It is a shameful act. It is no surprise that the Liberals, supported by the NDP, would single out a provision of the Bill, saying that it will affect and frighten senior citizens. That is no responsible way to conduct oneself in the House of Commons.
If one looks at Motion No. 24 and the movement of real estate as it affects condominiums, apartments and public housing, one can see that the provincial legislation, residential tenancy acts and others deal with the security and safety of those affected. However, the Liberals talk about senior citizens without putting forward any facts about an increase in the cost of rental. They simply say that senior citizens will be affected.
I suggest that is the most irresponsible use of the valuable time of the House. They have taken up 70 hours of valuable time by frightening elderly Canadians.
Let us consider Motion No. 24 that would remove the rental real estate exemption. We can agree that rental real estate is, by its nature, a passive transaction-


Mr. Axworthy:: God, you're dumb!


John Kenneth Gormley: -and the sort of transaction that within the integrity of Bill C-15 makes Motion No. 24 unnecessary. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), the former Minister who knows a lot about scaring and frightening people, is using the word "dumb" I believe.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes.


John Kenneth Gormley: Two-thirds of Canadians agree with the thrust of this Bill and I would not call two-thirds of Canadians dumb, although that Liberal Minister obviously did.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He did not say that.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 was just referring to the Member who is speaking.


John Kenneth Gormley: That is why he is in the opposition ranks and may he languish there for many years. He believes that the Canadian people are dumb because they support Bill C-15.


Lloyd Axworthy: No, you are. You are certainly not part of the Canadian people.


John Kenneth Gormley: Again, I think that is indicative of what the Liberal Party is trying to do, and for that reason those who regard this Bill with seriousness and integrity can see that Motions Nos. 23, 24 and 25 dealing with foreign capital are not, in fact, entitled to scrutiny.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that the Hon. Member who spoke is used to yelling in a rain barrel. However, I do not believe it is a custom in the House for him to simply reflect himself in his own mirrors to the judgment of other people. Clearly I did not call the Canadian people dumb. I called the Hon. Member dumb, and his speech certainly reflects that. I think the record should state that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order. I am not dumb and I do not believe that the people of my riding, including those from North Battleford where the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was born, would send someone dumb to Ottawa. If there was any reflection on lack of intelligence, I would say again that it was perhaps an aspersion on Canadian people, because I meant no aspersion by it.
[ Translation]


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, we have been listening to the Liberal and NDP members for a long time. I see the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is leaving the House. He should stay, what we have to say might interest him.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 have to make a phone call.


François Gérin: He is going to make a phone call, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps he should have done that earlier. Not so long ago, last May 25, he said, as reported in Hansard:
I do not have to worry, I have a comfortable majority. What I am telling you is that you do not have that kind of majority from Canadians.


Obviously he has not heard the latest news.
Call an election tomorrow on this issue, show that you have guts. But no, they would not do that.
He was then talking about the Bill now under consideration. Now then-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against the Hon. Member reading what 1 said in the House, that is fair enough. However, perhaps I might ask him to deal with the matter under consideration, namely Motions Nos. 23, 24 and 25. If he wants to read my speeches, he ought to do that on his own time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) was about to speak to the motions.


François Gérin: Surely, Mr. Speaker, we have to take measures which people can readily understand. I fail to see why the Liberals-turfed right out as they were last September- cannot understand that Canadians want to be open to the rest of the world. As evidenced by the poll published yesterday in newspapers across the land, Canadians do welcome foreign investment here. That is quite apparent among people who generally support the Conservative Party, as it is among others who generally favour the Liberals or the NDP. Perhaps I ought to say who used to favour the Liberals or the NDP because there has been a radical change in voters' preferences.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on a point of order.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 can understand why the Hon. Member would be impressed by public opinion polls, but I suggest he has yet to deal with Motions Nos. 23, 24 and 25.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That has nothing to do with the amendment.


François Gérin: As 1 was saying, Mr. Speaker, Canadians do welcome foreign investment in this country. The Gallup poll showed that 62 per cent-


Sheila Maureen Copps: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, 1 think we have risen three or four times to ask those who want to take part in the debate to speak about investment, and foreign investment in real estate as well. Those who refer to Conservative Party polls are not speaking
Investment Canada Act
to the amendments under study. Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to ask those Hon. Members who do not understand what this Bill contains to speak to Motions Nos. 23, 24 and 25, or else remain silent.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I suggest that noting the fact that 62 per cent of Canadians want more foreign investment in real estate is speaking to the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair understands that Members may want to make preambles when talking on specific motions. In the past, the Chair has allowed short preambles at report stage. However, I would ask Members not to use the 10 minutes they are given on a specific motion to speak to the Bill in general terms. Members know that they must speak to the motion specifically, be it Motion No. 23, No. 24 or No. 25. The Chair would ask Members to make an effort to speak directly to the motion.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, it is absolutely vital that Canadians realize the Government is taking a new and open attitude toward foreign investment, an attitude that can be felt among all Government Members here in the House and across the country. In fact, according to the polls, 62 per cent of Canadians are urging the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) to go on attracting foreign investment. Only 19 per cent are against foreign investment. If we were to add respondents who said they did not know or did not want to give their opinion, we would have 70 per cent in favour of the position taken by the Progressive Conservative Government, by the Minister and the Prime Minister. In this perspective, 1 think it is a brilliant idea of the Liberals to create committees and travel across the country to find out what people think and to get together to change their campaign program, because they have none now. They seem to be completely at sea.
I listened to the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St-Julien) make a remarkable speech in the House quite recently. My colleague the Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) made an equally remarkable speech. These are speeches that have made a positive contribution, to this country.


An Hon. Member:: That is constructive.


François Gérin: Yes, constructive speeches and not speeches like the Hon. Member . . . Listen to her shout, Mr. Speaker ... Is that a way to act? Listen to her shouting. I realize she is the only Liberal Member in the House right now, but that is no reason to shout like that and interrupt my speech.
Mr. Speaker, I saw an article in Le Devoir yesterday, an analysis that said protectionism as an alternative was obsolete. Word for word, the article said: "Protectionism no longer


Investment Canada Act
constitutes a realistic option". Crystal clear, I would say. "In fact, among the seven major OECD countries, Canada is, with Germany, the country most oriented towards foreign markets. In 1980, Canada's exports of goods and services represented 29.3 per cent of the Gross National Product, while the average was 18.7 per cent for all seven countries." This means what? It means that we cannot close our doors. We must accept foreign investment. "Considering its very substantial dependence on foreign trade, it is inconceivable that Canada should adopt a strategy of self-centered development, protected by tariff barriers and quotas. External constraints are now a major given of our economic policy."
So this new approach is going to neutralize the effects of 20 years of Liberal mismanagement during which the country was saddled with debts so that today, we have a total debt of $200 billion which must be dealt with through the Budget by making cutbacks that are not always pleasant, in order to pay the staggering bill left us by the Liberals who preferred to ignore foreign investment and thought the economy could continue to function with that kind of spending, while they did not even have the guts to raise taxes and bring down the deficit


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is not true-


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member could stop interrupting me. It must be the sixth time since I started speaking. 1 think it is time she stopped doing that.
All I am saying is that it is no longer possible to reduce the industrial policy debate to such simple terms as protectionism. We must now extend our vision to include the other countries and offer them opportunities to invest in Canada. In my judgment, that is the way to bolster our economy.
1 suggest that everybody should read over again the speech delivered in the House by Mr. Stevens on December 11 last. The Liberals have wasted the time of the House for six months now and it would be in their own best interest to go over the principles advocated at the time. "It is a debate on getting Canadians to be more confident, more willing to invest their huge savings in productive investments." Between now and 1991 Canada needs $100 billion in new investments.
The new agency described in Bill C-15, on which we are now commencing second reading debate, 1 would suggest will, in concert with the private sector, provincial Governments and our trade services, work with Canadian investors and nonCanadian investors to ensure that there are productive jobs created for Canadians between now and the 1990s.
Indeed, you should have been listening! We have wasted God knows how much time in the House. As a newly elected Member I think that what the Liberals have done is terrible. In addition to driving the country into debt you make us waste our time here.


An Hon. Member:: What a shame!


François Gérin: A survey made by the European Management Forum ranked Canada last among 22 countries when it comes to our approach and receptivity concerning foreign investments. Do they realize that 21 countries like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Greece are ahead of Canada? Does that make any sense? I do not know whether the Liberals agree with that, nor do 1 know whether they understand that our pitiful performance is the outcome of their policy. Have faith, we have a new policy!
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I know you share my views on this.
We have not been in office for very long, yet interest rates have dropped, unemployment has gone down, the economy is gaining strength and, if the Liberals were out of the picture, things would be even better!


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few comments to this debate on Motion No. 24. It deals with the whole question of notification relating to rental accommodation. Several Members have mentioned the kind of takeover we have seen by groups such as the Seaway Greymac incident which could have had a very devastating effect on the price of rental accommodation for senior citizens. I want to call on members of the Government to take a very close look at this.
If we look at the recent Budget, the cutbacks in old age pensions will be devastating. If we have rental accommodation going up dramatically, how will senior citizens be able to find accommodation? Practically every senior citizen has to look at the prospect of $200 less in purchasing power next year. If they are receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, that will be reduced as well. These people are living at or below the poverty line.
I think Government Members would be sympathetic to anything that would benefit our senior citizens. In the projection of the cut-backs in old age pensions over four or five years, we are talking of some $1,500 according to a recent study done by the Canadian Press. We have to be concerned about our senior citizens.
When a deal like the Seaway Trust Greymac flip goes bad, it not only affects housing accommodation, but it affects all kinds of other businesses and properties throughout the country that are held by the institutions as well as the individuals involved. In my own constituency, there is a very important recreational area, a ski hill development, which was thrown into turmoil and still has difficulties because of that takeover problem. I think Motion No. 24 would be very acceptable to Government Members who would be concerned about those kinds of takeovers. There are many actions in the Budget which relate in a similar way. I see the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) has left. He is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. That committee conducted an excellent study of the farm debt crisis facing some 40,000 young farmers across the country. That committee made an excellent report.


calling upon the Government to establish a rescheduling of farm debt and to institute a program of medium term loans at 8 per cent interest up to $300,000 which it was estimated would benefit some 14,000 of the 40,000 farmers facing serious financial difficulties this coming year.
Although the committee made those recommendations to the Government and to the House in its report, when the Budget came down, lo and behold, there was no decision by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to do anything about them. This is viewed by the agricultural community as a total abandonment of the Government's responsibility in this regard. In southwestern Ontario, as Canadian farmers go out of business, face foreclosure or go into bankruptcy, farm after farm is being bought up by foreign interests from Europe. If those interests settled down and lived on the land, that would be one thing, but often the houses and barns are simply razed and the land is put up for rental. The whole community life is destroyed by such action.
We see a Government hell bent on foreign investment at any price, regardless of whether there are any benefits for Canada. At the same time, it exacerbates this by completely abandoning its traditional role in agricultural financing. We really have a double whammy in that regard.
When we look at the Western Accord and at the budget Bills which were introduced relating to foreign investment, we see that multinational oil companies-and this is according to an estimate by Informetrica-over the next five years will actually be given $10.9 billion. I suppose the sad part is that it does not come from someone strange; it comes from Caandian taxpayers-little pensioners who are having trouble financing their rental accommodations will each have to give up $100 per year, the average family of four will have to pay some $400 extra per year, and people who have to commute in northern areas will have to pay an extra two cents per litre or nine cents per gallon starting in early September. What is this all for?
1 read a report this week which indicated that Trilogy Resource Corporation of Calgary, a junior Canadian company producing only 800 barrels per day, was concerned about all the riches which were showered on large multinationals like Imperial and so on, and that there would be massive takeovers as a result of the budget Bills and the Western Accord. Let us look at the financial picture of Imperial. Its 1984 profits over 1983 were $533 million. I speak about this because of the whole attitude of the Government in this Bill, in the amendments, and in the discussions on the amendments, that all foreign takeovers and all foreign investment are good, without regard to Canadian ownership. I would think the Government would want to strengthen its position.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) said in a speech in Inuvik that the policy of the Tory Government of Canada was greater Canadian ownership. How do we square that with this Bill which just leaves everything wide open for foreign takeovers below $5 million? We are
Investment Canada Act
dealing with a Government which seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth. Supposedly it wants greater benefits for Canada, but as far as screening companies and investment groups from West Germany, Austria and Europe in general coming in to take over farms-and they are taking over dozens of them in southwestern Ontario-no questions are asked, regardless of whether they raze the buildings, rent out the land and completely destroy community life. As long as the cash is there, it does not seem to matter. That is the same with the Western Accord. Small Canadian oil companies are being led to the slaughter and will be taken over by large multinationals which will pick up $800 million in existing oil reserves.
We should be instituting some of the amendments such as Motions Nos. 23, 24 and 25, which 1 think can be very beneficial to Canadian ownership in the country. The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) talked about the confidence of the country in the Government. If the Hon. Member is so confident, why is the President of the Conservative Party of Canada, the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga), sending out a letter in desperation asking: "Please help the Prime Minister. He is in terrible shape. Send your money. We have to advertise. We have to save the Government because people are rallying against the cut-backs in the old age pensions and the raising of taxes for ordinary Canadians". The confidence in this Government is badly shaken, not only by the Budget but by the Bill which we are debating today.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 23, Mr. Langdon, seconded by Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques), moves that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 6 to 10 at page 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 79, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Investment Canada Act
On Motion No. 24, Mr. Axworthy moved that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 43 to 48 at page 6.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On Motion 25. Mr. Axworthy, seconded by Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques), moved that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When you asked if it was the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, I said, "No."


Sheila Maureen Copps: No, you did not.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is my understanding that we are in debate on it.


An Hon. Member:: It is a new motion, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I said, "No" very distinctly.


Mr. Fulton:: You are reflecting on the Speaker's judgment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We are now on to Motion No. 25.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the Hon. Member completed his point of order?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Even if that were the case, in my opinion the yeas had it. The motion is carried.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis).


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in that case, the record should show that you definitely said, "In my opinion the yeas have it."


An Hon. Member:: He did!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: If I may, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to my point of order, may I make it very clear that what we have tried to do to assist the Opposition-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) will verify this. There were a number of speakers today who discussed at length the three motions. There has been input from both sides.


James Ross Fulton: Is this a point of order?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes, it is. The Hon. Member for Bourassa came over and asked how many speakers we had left on those motions. In a spirit of co-operation, we said, "Fine. If you have exhausted your speakers, we will sit down and let the vote proceed on Motions Nos. 23, 24 and 25." We did that, Sir. We then proceeded to the next motion. It was our understanding that the Members of the Opposition would proceed to debate that motion-


Some Hon. Members:: No!


James Ross Fulton: We just finished debating it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -or, speak to it. Thus, they were grouped. Do we not now proceed to the next motion? We have proceeded to the next motion for debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, you are all wet. I regret to say it, but you are all wet.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That could be. On occasion, I have been all wet. If that is not the case, then I would ask the Chair to explain the situation to the House because we intend to defeat every motion of the Opposition. We intend to be given the opportunity to stand and vote, if it is necessary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions numbered 23, 24 and 25 have been grouped for debate by the Speaker and are presently being voted on separately. The Chair must presume that all Members are aware of that. We have now taken votes on Motions Nos. 23 and 24. The Chair is now proceeding to take a vote on Motion No. 25. On Motion No. 25. Mr. Axworthy, seconded by Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques), moved that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 49 and 50 at page 6 and lines 1 to 43 at page 7.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) on a point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, just so I have it clear. There have been occasions when matters have moved a little more quickly than 1 might have liked. Does this mean that the amendment on Motion No. 24 has been approved by the House, in the Chair's opinion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Then, with all deference, 1 must tell the Chair that 1 intend to proceed from this Chamber to view the videotape to see exactly what happened.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 24 has been voted on and approved.


An Hon. Member:: It has not been voted on.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, it has been. You guys just do not know the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There was a voice vote. The Chair said, "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?" and the answer was, "Yes."
[ Translation]


François Gérin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I think that no one is better placed than me, after you-and I am quite close to you-to have followed exactly what was going on. In fact, one only has to see the Liberals laughing to realize that they are attempting some procedural hocus-pocus which has nothing to do with logic. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the vote was taken on Motions No. 23. We are now voting on Motion No. 24. The Members started to shout. We then shouted also to show our disagreement. It was left at that. I feel we are entitled to have a vote, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to tell the Hon. Member that he should be in his place when things are happening in the House.
First, Motion No. 23 was put by the Speaker and the vote was deferred. Then, Motion No. 24 was put by the Speaker. Since there was no sound at all from the Government side, the Speaker was quite right in saying that the motion was agreed to.
Mr. Speaker, I support you in this matter. What the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead is saying is sheer nonsense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: He was asleep, Mr. Speaker. It is not your fault!
Investment Canada Act


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, speaking of being asleep, you beat the record. You have had plenty of experience, you were asleep for a long time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, all I want to say is, to come back to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vani-er, I was in my place as soon as a vote was called. You rose to put the question to the Members in this House on Motions Nos. 23, 24 and 25. I voted on Motion No. 23, 1 was here to vote on Motion 24 but we have not yet voted. I voted on Motion 25, to reject all those points.
Therefore, I am asking that it be clearly set in the record that contrary to the misstatements made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, I was in my place.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to remind the House of a very fundamental rule, that is, the Speaker's ruling has been made. The fact that many Conservative Members were not aware of what they were doing, through their lack of adminis-terial responsibility, is not our responsibility. The House has decided. Members opposite are now taking up the time of the House which should be properly devoted to the next round of amendments. I think we should move on.


Mr. Nystrom:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say a very similar thing to that which has just been said. A long-time rule of the House is that an Hon. Member cannot reflect on a ruling of the Speaker. That is a rule, like it or not. It may have been a proper ruling, or it may not have been; but there was a ruling by the Speaker. We are not allowed to reflect on that ruling whatsoever. Therefore, I think these comments are out of order and we should proceed.


Mr. Merrithew:: Mr. Speaker, I was present throughout the debate. I listened very carefully. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you one thing, I am not sure that the motion was actually put. In this case, I would suggest very strongly that you defer the decision-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: -and view the tape.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is intimidation!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will have the last word on this matter. If some Hon. Members feel that they voted no, then what they had to do was stand. If five Members had risen, then that would have been the case.
The next three motions will be grouped for debate and voted on separately: Motion Nos. 27, 30 and 67.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 27


Investment Canada Act
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 11 by striking out line 11 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canadian business unless it is reviewable under Part IV; and".


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 30
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 19 to 21 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"an making the investment shall, at least forty-five days prior to the anticipated implementation of the investment or, if this is not possible and the Agency has been notified that it is not possible, at least one day prior to implementation, except as provided elsewhere in this Act, in the".
Motion No. 67
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 22 by striking out line 40 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"thirty days from the date, or in the case of investments enumerated under Section 15, forty-five days from the date of the sending of'.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I must begin by congratulating the Conservative Members who have finally, after much urging on our part, taken a non-partisan and careful approach to each of these amendments. I congratulate them for doing so and I hope that this approach will continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture rising on a point of order?


Pierre Blais: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) clearly is trying to make fun of us here. He is referring to something that has already been dealt with in your opinion, and I think this is totally irrelevant-
On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know whether the rules have been changed so that there is no more voluntary call for yeas and nays on motions. I would like to know, because we would have to inform Hon. Members in this House, both on this side and on the opposition side, that changes have suddenly been made to the rules. I would like to know it since 1 am a new Member here, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to take part in the debate, and I would like to know when I can vote, whether I can vote or not, and if there have been changes to those rules. I would like to know.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would simply ask the Hon. Member to read Section 12 of our Standing Orders.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I shall avoid paying further compliments to Conservative Members as they do not seem to be in the mood to accept them this morning.
We have before us a group of amendments that attempt to improve in this case in relatively minor ways the Investment Canada Bill. 1 shall speak specifically with respect to Motion No. 27. The clause that we are suggesting should be amended is one which deals with the question of notification.
For Hon. Members who have not followed this debate in detail, I would make the introductory point to Hon. Members who are present that this Bill identifies within it three categories of enterprises. The first category of enterprises comprises take-overs by foreign companies of Canadian companies with assets of at least $5 million. For that particular category of enterprises, there must be notification and there must be review of that take-over.
There is a second category of enterprises which is composed of foreign companies entering this country to establish new businesses. Under the present Bill, each new business established through this kind of foreign entry must notify Investment Canada that a new business has been established. However, there is a third category of enterprises within this Bill comprising the set of enterprises which are subject to special consideration because they have an impact on the cultural heritage and national identity of Canada.
With respect to the third category of enterprises, it is possible, if the Minister wishes to do so and subject to certain regulations that are set out by the Governor in Council, for a firm to be subject to review despite the fact that that firm may have assets of less than $5 million being taken over and despite the fact that it might be a new business which is being established. In short, this is a category of enterprises for which it may very well be possible for a review to take place as well as for a notification to be required.
The way this particular part of the Bill is set up suggests that certain enterprises are subject only to notification. According to this part of the Bill, if a firm is subject to notification, it is not subject to review as these are two different categories of firms.
Our amendment makes it clear that there is the possibility that an investment that is being made to establish a new Canadian business may be subject to review even though it is included in the category of businesses subject to notification. The reason for that is the existence of that special clause which deals with cultural heritage and national identity. In a very real sense, we are talking about a technical amendment that would make the Bill itself consistent.
1 would refer Hon. Members to Clause 11, Subclause (b) of Bill C-15. Clause 11 presently reads:
The following investments by non-Canadians are subject to notification under this Part:
(b) an investment to acquire control of a Canadian business in any manner
described in subsection 28(1), unless the investment is reviewable pursuant to
section 14.
If the business is reviewable, it will then be subject to review and not notification. However, Subclause (a) of Clause 11 suggests that a business subject only to notification is:
(a) an investment to establish a new Canadian business;-
As I have indicated, it is possible under this Bill for a new Canadian business being established by a foreign firm to be subject as well to review. That is why we have moved an amendment in Motion No. 27 that will simply change Subclause (a) so that it will read:


(a) an investment to establish a new Canadian business unless it is reviewable under Part IV;-
This Motion simply clears up what could be a potential conflict that could emerge when the Bill becomes an Act.
Our amendment simply provides that when there are cases in which the Government wishes to use its cultural heritage and national identity clause, it will be possible to use that clause with respect to new investments in Canada by nonCanadian firms. That is the technicality of the amendment. The substance that lies beneath the technicality is that the operative part of this Bill which is very important to the future is the clause that permits review to take place in cases where we have a potential threat to the cultural heritage or national identity of Canada. It is a part of the Bill which Conservative Ministers have been quite anxious to highlight in the public debates which have taken place.
In order for that particular clause to be operative, I would argue that an amendment must be accepted with respect to the clause which permits exceptions to exist, in which new businesses coming in from the outside will be subject to review, not just to notification. If that is not included, then there is a potential conflict between this clause and the clause in the Bill which permits the Government to designate, for review, cases in which cultural heritage and national identity considerations are concerned.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, now that Parliament is once again working as it should and we are into a period of constructive examination of a number of important amendments-and perhaps the new atmosphere is a direct result of not having the esteemed Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) with us-I hope that the new aura of an open-minded and constructive approach will continue on the part of the Government. The amendments which we have introduced are an attempt to improve the legislation and not in any way to interrupt or disagree with the principles of it. Again, the amendments are based upon the proposals and representations which were made at committee hearings.
Motion No. 30 is a very important amendment. It deals with a problem which we detected in the legislation, whereby the proposed foreign investor has the right not to provide notification until 30 days after the fact. In the amendment, we are saying that there should be a requirement of notification before implementation of a particular investment, so that the Government would not be put in a position of having to review an investment-and at times be forced to disagree with it and reject it-and force a major divestiture on the part of the investor.
Under the present legislation, investors can indicate their acquisitions or takeovers, acquire the properties and notify after the fact.
As the Chamber of Commerce pointed out, that would
result in a forced fire sale of a number of acquisitions if the
Investment Canada Act
Government were to decide that the investments should not be approved. Therefore, a number of companies would be faced with a degree of uncertainty. In the amendment, we are attempting to deal with what was probably an oversight, lack of experience, judgment or analysis on the part of the persons who drafted the legislation or the Minister. For the sake of the business community, according to all the proposals and presentations which have been made by the Government, it wants to provide more flexibility and an easier sense of procedure. This particular clause forces the business community to face the potential awkwardness of having to divest itself of a holding after that holding has already been acquired. Therefore, Motion No. 30 seeks the requirement that notification be given up to one day before implementation, so that the agency would have the right to provide a signal to the company and not have to wait for a post hoc situation to occur.
Government Members who are concerned and interested in ensuring that the legislation is simplified should carefully examine the amendment and realize that it meets one of the major objections which was brought before the committee by members of the business community. I do not know why the Minister ignored that representation. He has said that he believes in consultation. However, in this particular case he ignored it. We are proposing the amendment to respond to what we believe is the general interest which has been put forward by the Government. It will provide a review procedure which is simple and easy to understand. It will not carry with it any awkwardness or the potential problems of post hoc decisions which would force major fire sale investitures.
Motion No. 67 refers to a matter which is important to the legislation. The Government has indicated very clearly that there should be a special set-aside provision for cultural industries. It recognizes that those industries are a part of the area of foreign investment which have particular sensitivities and require special examination. If that is the case, then sufficient time should be given to fully examine the full range of potential problems. Therefore, in the amendment we have proposed that an extra 15 days be allotted for the review of areas dealing with the cultural or national identity parts of foreign investment takeovers or acquisitions. The reason for the extended time, and it is not a great amount of time, is to take note of the requirement that, in complicated areas such as book publishing, there should be sufficient time for the necessary consultation, and particularly in areas where there could be potential Canadian buyers.
We introduced an earlier amendment which was rejected by the Government. It proposed that the Minister be responsible, in cases concerning cultural industries, to seek out alternative Canadian buyers for industries such as book publishing, records and electronics. The Government rejected that amendment. However, it would seem that the purpose of Investment Canada is to secure Canadian investment. That should be its primary objective. Therefore, that amendment would only seem reasonable when there is a proposed takeover by a foreign company.


There are a number of such takeovers presently on the books. For example, the Minister has taken over six months to examine the Prentice-Hall takeover. However, under this legislation, he said that it would be done within 30 days. Well, if he cannot conclude his examination of Prentice-Hall within six months, surely some extra time should be allowed.
I do not want to prejudge the motivation of the Minister. Perhaps taking six months is a good thing. If I were the Minister, I would have decided within 30 days that the Prentice-Hall takeover made absolutely no sense, because Gulf and Western already have a substantial number of publishing holdings in Canada. However, it is already taking an exorbitant amount of time for key acquisitions which are on the table. Therefore, it would seem only logical that the same kind of consideration be accorded to this amendment which would allow additional time for consideration of investments by foreigners in the cultural area. It is a part of our society which we cannot afford to deal with in an offhand manner.
I have heard the Minister say that FIRA applications should be passed without much review or examination. Certainly, we have seen in the months since the Government has come to power that there has not been one rejection of a FIRA application. Surely if the legislation denotes a consideration for cultural industries, then sufficient time should be allocated to ensure that all the questions pertaining to the acquisition are properly examined, and, most important, that the Minister has sufficient time to make arrangements for alternative buyers in the Canadian market-place.
That is the primary purpose of the amendment. We hope, as we saw in the last round of considerations, that government Members will again show good judgment and agree to what is obviously a very helpful amendment to their cause.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that the Government is drawing up a partial amnesty plan for refugee status applicants. People from some countries are automatically amnestied. The nationals of other countries
from which a certain number of frivolous and baseless applications are supposed to have originated will have to go through the whole process to obtain the refugee status. Obviously, despite appearances of fairness, there is discrimination and racism.
Humanitarian organizations and lawyers involved in that field disagree on the 65 per cent figure of baseless applications. Moreover, if a number of applications are effectively baseless, it is mainly due to the fact that the system is unfair and entails undue delays.
Mr. Speaker, officials of the Department of Employment and Immigration do think very highly of Bangladesh since they do not believe the refugees from that country, which is under military rule with its constitution and legislature suspended. I think that it is time that the Department take into account the political conditions of the countries when dealing with refugees. It is not only a humanitarian issue but also a matter of common sense.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, the greatest hallmark of the recent Budget is fairness. While tackling the stark reality of the massive public debt and encouraging economic growth the Budget also protects those most in need. The alarm which is being sounded by the New Democrat-Liberal coalition is a false alarm.
The Budget does not reduce pensions for seniors, Mr. Speaker. In fact old age security benefits will increase if inflation exceeds 3 per cent. The universality of the old age security is not affected. Benefits will continue to be available to all. Low-income seniors will still receive GIS payments, which are fully indexed to inflation, and the benefit levels will be reviewed on an ongoing basis.
The seniors of this country will not be fooled by the permanent alliance of the negative alarmists opposite. This Government is committed to fairness and compassion. Our senior citizens will always receive the kind of assistance they deserve. Our social benefits system remains unchanged. Modified indexing does not mean that senior citizens will suffer.
The fear and misinformation which are being spread by the new Democrat-Liberal coalition are irresponsible, and are a direct attack on the intelligence of our respected senior citizens. Let the truth be told.


[ Translation]



BY-ELECTIONS-VICTORY FOR ROBERT BOURASSA

Mr. Jean-Claude Malt-part (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Liberal Party won all 4 provincial byelections which took place yesterday in the Province of Quebec.
These by-elections marked the return to the National Assembly of Mr. Robert Bourassa, with whom 1 had the honour to work at the time 1 was a Quebec MNA. 1 am very pleased when I see Quebec men and women show again their confidence in this man who has done so much for our province. It is under his leadership that Quebec experienced the extraordinary development of social programs which characterized the '70s. It is also under his leadership that Quebec pushed back its modern frontier, thanks to the faith Mr. Bourassa had placed in the development of the James Bay hydro-electric power project. Moreover, Mr. Bourassa has always shown his concern for people at the lower end of the economic scale by giving them an opportunity to protect themselves against the problems of today's living.
I want to congratulate Mr. Bourassa on his election as member for the Bertrand riding, as well as the three other Liberal members who will join the Quebec National Assembly before the end of the month.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) and Monte Hummel, President of the World Wildlife Fund, jointly announced the establishment of a million-dollar wildlife toxicology fund for 1985.

As this Environment Week, such an announcement could not be more welcome.

This fund, Mr. Speaker, besides showing the high priority the Minister attaches to wildlife toxicology, also reflects, by its mechanism, the Government's approach in co-operation with the non-governmental and private sector. This fund is supplementary to existing government programs. It will be administered by the World Wildlife Fund of Canada at no cost to the taxpayer. Noranda Incorporated has made a $50,000 grant to the wildlife fund to cover the administrative costs.
The wildlife toxicology research fund will be a matching fund, providing up to 50 per cent of the cost of approved research. Applicants will be expected to find the balance of this funding from non-governmental sources.
This is an example of what co-operation is all about. As a western Canadian I take special pride in supporting this announcement, particularly in view of the strong public concern about toxic chemicals in our environment. Canadians are showing their concern, ready to participate in the improvement of our environment. This week's theme is indeed appropriate; environment is a shared responsibility.



CLOSING OF CAPE BRETON HEAVY WATER PLANTS

Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the recent "Wilson wallop" was particularly devastating to the people of Cape Breton Island. With no prior notice the Government shut down the heavy water plants at Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury. The workers were left hung out to dry by an uncaring, heartless, and cruel Government.
The Government trumpeted its promise of generous severance benefits to those laid-off workers. But, as a result of the November economic statement, these severance benefits will not be as generous as the Government claims. Under the new Unemployment Insurance Commission rules the Government requires laid-off workers to exhaust their severance benefits before they can qualify for unemployment insurance. Laid-off Cape Bretoners will not be able to use their severance pay to learn new job skills or to move to other job centres. The least the Government should do is scrap this unfair severance rule which robs workers in Cape Breton, who are laid off by the federal Government, of their eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, as evidenced by last night's vote, approval in principle of the budget was a simple matter of routine. How could we not vote for such a good package?
However, I could not but notice the absence of the Opposition financial critics. Should we conclude that this budget, which was widely welcomed and so positively received by businessmen, was also welcomed by the Opposition? Were those Liberals, by failing to take a position, indicating that they would have voted for the budget?
Let us recall the economic situation and the deficit inherited from the previous Government: during the 100 years ending in 1967, an accumulated $18 billion; after only 18 years of Liberal administration, a total of $190 billion in accumulated indebtedness. By reducing its expenditures and increasing taxes, the Government will collect extra revenues. But the


budget cannot be broken into separate parts because it is a whole, an indivisible entity.
Have those Opposition Members resigned themselves to accepting this as the only way to reduce the deficit and control the growth of our national debt? How are we to explain their many absences during the vote on the approval in principle of the budget? This in unheard of, Mr. Speaker!

{English]



PENSIONS


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, during the week of May 13 to May 17 the organization of the Saskatchewan senior citizens was lobbying in this city for things of importance to them. Yet its representatives were snubbed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who would not meet with them. They were snubbed by two Cabinet Ministers from Saskatchewan, including the Government House Leader, who would not meet with them. They were snubbed by all of the Saskatchewan Conservative Members of Parliament.
In the House yesterday the Minister of Finance said he would not meet with those senior citizens because he was in the final throes of preparing his Budget and it was not possible to meet with people. Yet right before his Budget the Minister of Finance flew to Toronto and met with some very exclusive and wealthy senior business executives. He had time to meet with these people in secret. He had time for the privileged Canadians, but not time for ordinary Canadians.
The Minister of Finance said yesterday that he could not go to the Saskatchewan senior citizens' meeting in Moose Jaw because he is too busy. Yet this morning where was he? He took the Prime Minister's place at a meeting in the Harbour Castle Hilton Hotel in Toronto, where he spoke to the Canadian Pension Conference. The fees for that conference, Mr. Speaker, were $350 for members, and $420 for non-members. The Minister of Finance meets with the privileged people. He speaks with people who can pay $400 to go to this meeting, but he will not meet with the Saskatchewan senior citizens in Moose Jaw.
It is about time the Government across the way started listening to ordinary Canadians. The Minister of Finance is as bad as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who went to Toronto last Friday and met with senior business executives, and on Thursday in Montreal he met with the Chamber-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his
90 seconds have expired.



THE BUDGET


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, finally the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) recognizes in a concrete way people who give their time and effort to improve and increase our collective welfare.
Not only did the recent Budget recognize donations to organizations, but it has dealt in a more enlightened way with one of the most active segments of our society. Indeed, for a long time our taxation system has been recognizing those who make monetary contributions to charities, but never until how has any Government thought of recognizing the voluntary sector as a social and economic factor. We are often too prone to forget that this type of community work, namely the voluntary sector, allows our Governments to save millions of dollars which they would have to pay out if our Canadian citizens did not contribute their own time.
I hope the recognition granted by the Wilson Budget to the voluntary sector will be extended over the next few years, because this would be of benefit to all taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, in these difficult times for our economy, the voluntary sector must be increasingly protected against the discouraging effect of the economic recession that is starting to be seriously felt, especially within the non-profit groups.



VISIBLE MINORITIES


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, this morning in Ottawa members of the Japanese Canadian community once again urged the Government to deal immediately with the issue of redress. One of the underlying messages was clearly of sadness and frustration with a Government that has failed to act in a decisive manner, with a Government that has failed to match the high expectations it created for an immediate and fair solution, with a Government that promised compensation and then offered a watered down version instead, with a Government that promised negotiations for a settlement and then retracted and hid behind the word "consultation", with a Government that promised progress and process and then met officially only twice with the Japanese Canadian community, with a Government that promised openness and accessibility only to find a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who continues to refuse even to meet with representatives of the Japanese Canadian community.
The Government has lacked decisive leadership and genuine
compassion in addressing this most serious and sensitive issue.


The unfortunate reality is that the Issei population, that is, first generation Japanese Canadians, who wish so much for this matter to be resolved are, one by one, passing away without having lived to see that day. Mr. Speaker, the community has had to endure enough suffering. The time for consensus, the time for action, the time to end that suffering is now.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, in my speech on the Budget last Friday, I blamed once again the previous Liberal government for the mismanagement and waste of public funds. I give as example the storing of school equipment on the lot of P.A.K. Inc. of Laprairie which is to be shipped to Bolivia under a CIDA program. Such equipment, Mr. Speaker, includes two trucks and 38 containers worth $3 million which have been standing there since January 1982 at a monthly rent of $4,000. This is shameful, and it is the result of mismanagement. Why have those goods not been delivered? What happened?
I ask my Government, especially the Minister responsible for CIDA to take action in order to avoid paying thousands of dollars waste fully and see that the goods are properly delivered.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition parties are constantly criticizing and misrepresenting the facts but they forget that the former Liberal government was a first-rate waster of public funds and accumulated an unequalled deficit. The Tory government was elected on September 4 last to put some order in public affairs and it is merely sticking to its promise even if the Grits are not happy about it.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian shipbuilding and repair industry feels more and more betrayed by the Conservative Government. Last August the Atlantic caucus of the PC Party declared the creation of a more viable and prosperous shipbuilding industry to be a priority for a PC Government. Increased activity in our shipyards would be an important element of a "jobs, jobs, jobs" program. The harsh reality now is "cuts, cuts, cuts", and that in spite of valiant efforts by the industry through both corporate and labour activity, and by private Members of the House.
The Budget Papers tabled on May 23 stated that "production subsidies under the Shipbuilding Industry Assistance Pro-
Oral Questions
gram are currently being phased out", but noted continuing activity under the Productivity Improvement Grant arrangements. The very next day, however, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) announced action to end the earning of Performance Improvement Grant credits after June 30 of this year.
Like many of its Depression predecessors, the Government is determined only to achieve greater fiscal responsibility, and reveals no appreciation of the importance of public investment. The time has come to rename the Minister's Department "The Department of Regional Industrial Stagnation", unless election promises are kept before it is too late for both labour and capital in our shipyards.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, having gotten the facts yesterday from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. We heard all kinds of defences yesterday for the granting of an award for legal services by the Minister of Justice to his two sons. We heard about merit and frugality. We heard that the amount of the awards was small potatoes. We heard that it was firms rather than the boys themselves who got the awards.
None of those defences touch the conflict of interest guidelines. None of them respond to the clear requirements which my Leader read yesterday, and which the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed were in effect, which indicate that the Minister of Justice has taken a public trust and betrayed it to benefit his two sons.
1 ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who is responsible for the organization of the Cabinet, whether clear grounds have not been demonstrated for having the resignation of the Minister of Justice.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in my 20 years in politics I have been subjected to some low blows and low attacks. However, never in my life, when I was absent, did anyone ever attack my family, my sons, or my children in a cowardly-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: For the first time a personal attack was made on the professional reputation and competence of my son, while I was absent from the House. It was a cowardly, despicable, dastardly act of a cowardly, despicable, dastardly Member of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Resign.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 must ask the Hon. Minister to withdraw the words. No Hon. Member of Parliament can have those words used about him without those words being withdrawn.


John Carnell Crosbie: In accordance with your injunction, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw those words. I will deal with the hon. gentleman outside.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Let's have a 30 second recess.


John Carnell Crosbie: I assure Members of the House that there is no conflict of interest, and no violation of any conflict of interest rules in this situation. There are 23 firms appointed as legal agents in Newfoundland. The firm of Chalker, Green & Rowe is one of those firms. My son works for that firm for a salary, and is not a partner. It is an outstanding firm in Newfoundland. My son is not a partner of the second firm, Kendell and Crosbie, either. There is no conflict of interest whatsoever.
However, as a result of the malicious and cowardly attack yesterday of the former Solicitor General, my sons and these firms have requested that I withdraw their names as legal agents as they do not wish to be legal agents of the Government of Canada and be exposed to the calumny of the cowardly and vicious attacks such as that of the hon. gentleman opposite, who maligned their professional integrity without any cause or reason. Reluctantly, and against my own better nature, I have agreed to withdraw them as legal agents of the Department of Justice, because of your scurvy behaviour.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have no criticism of the Minister's sons. They are not bound by the conflict of interest guidelines; the Minister is. He is the one who brought his sons into public life by giving them the public trust in their firms by having these awards.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am not satisfied that what the Minister has done, although it corrects matters for the future, deals with what is a blatant conflict of his responsibility-not his sons- but his responsibility. That is why I asked the Deputy Prime Minister, and why I am asking him again what action the Government will take to inform the country, and to inform the Ministers, that these conflict of interest guidelines are in effect and that they mean something.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will answer for myself.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You obviously can't.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is no conflict of interest in this case. What the hon. gentleman is stating is that the son, daughter, or relative of a Minister can no longer work for anyone because, if they work for anyone, that firm can do no business at all with the Government. That is the position that the hon. gentleman is putting forward.
What the hon. gentleman did yesterday was impugn my son's competence by saying that if we use that firm, and he acted, we would be defended by a young man who failed two years in law school-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: -a deliberate attempt to damage his professional reputation-a boy who is a Rhodes Scholar, and who is a university medalist in political science at Queen's University.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Apologize.


John Carnell Crosbie: So this is not a question of conflict of interest; this is a question of honour and integrity, and whether you can be in public life without having scum splattering you with mud whenever you do anything.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POLICY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Perhaps the Canadian public would have been more tolerant of these appointments if the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party had not been so sanctimonious during the election campaign, and so categorical that they would bring in changes with respect to appointments, if elected. However, what do we see? We see a blatant disregard of those commitments. We see cynicism and hypocrisy.
John Carnell Crosbie: Look in the mirror.


Mr. Allmand:: Does the Deputy Prime Minister really believe in the type of appointments made recently and, if so, why does he not come clean with the Canadian public, say that is the policy in which he believes, and not pretend to stand for something new and different?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the greatest of integrity has been used in connection with the appointment of legal agents in the Department of Justice. It is a shining star compared to what it was a year or two ago.
When the hon. gentleman asked a question yesterday-and I hope he will apologize to the House-he tried to intimate that 1 had my campaign manager appointed to be prosecutor in all drug cases and that he had received $200,000, one Robert Pittman. He never did a day's work for me in my life, never one jot, one tittle, never worked on a campaign for me.


He never acted for me, and he is not my political manager. You are a scandal monger, that is what you are. There is absolutely not a word of truth in what the hon. gentleman said yesterday, and you ask us about integrity? Look at your own integrity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Justice will know that to call another Hon. Member a scandal monger is equally unparliamentary, and he will withdraw it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the term scandal monger and say monger of scurrilousness.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Minister is correct and the statement I made yesterday is incorrect, I will apologize to the House. However, that is not the information I had.
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: I have a long way to go to duplicate some of the things that he said in opposition.
My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The conflict of interest guidelines clearly state that "A Minister shall not accord preferential treatment in relation to any official matter to relatives or friends or to organizations in which relatives or friends have an interest". There is no exception for sons and daughters, no matter how brilliant. Either the guidelines apply or they do not apply.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister's interpretation of the guidelines permit the type of appointment that we have referred to yesterday and today? You are not the Acting Prime Minister, but the Minister of Justice.


John Carnell Crosbie: You want to impugn my integrity and you try to question someone else? Here I am, brother, come and get me! I am the one.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Is there a doctor in the House?


John Carnell Crosbie: Just quieten down, baby.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: In other words, cop out. The short answer to the question-


Mr. Nunziata:: Sexist.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: There was no preferential treatment because the Minister of Justice-


Lloyd Axworthy: You are a disgrace.


John V. Nunziata: Shame on you.


John Carnell Crosbie: You bunch of poltroons can shout all you like.


John V. Nunziata: Shame on you.


John Carnell Crosbie: The rat pack can quieten down. The titmice can quieten down. When I am defending myself and my family I am not afraid of anybody in this hall. I'll tell you that!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Sheila will get you outside.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Don't talk to us about families.


An Hon. Member:: Sheila wants you outside, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: Loudmouth punks.


An Hon. Member:: Don't like the truth, John?


John Carnell Crosbie: We are done with the rabble; now on with the other guys. What do you have to say over there, Robinson?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby.


APPOINTMENT OF LEGAL AGENTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, former Liberal Cabinet Ministers are the last people on the face of this earth who should complain about porkbarrelling and patronage.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: Talk about sanctimonious.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental issue at stake here with respect to the hiring or the awarding of contracts to members of Ministers' families which are not done on the basis of merit.
Will the Minister of Justice confirm that it was Conservative Members of Parliament and defeated Conservative candidates who were consulted with respect to appointments of federal agents for the Department of Justice? In light of that, does he not recognize that he has breached not only the conflict of interest guidelines but has betrayed the trust of the people of Canada? In those circumstances will he not do the honourable thing, recognize that he has breached those guidelines and betrayed the trust of the people of this country through this kind of blatant porkbarrelling, and submit his resignation as did his colleague, the former Minister of National Defence?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman


Oral Questions
has a serious question that is not put in a scurrilous manner. My answer to him is no. 1 would certainly resign if I thought in any way, shape, or form that I was not complying with the conflict of interest rules and regulations.
I have resigned from Governments before. 1 am my own man. 1 have never done anything but act in accordance with my own conscience. If 1 thought for a minute that there was a conflict of interest here, or any impropriety, I would be gone like the birds-and I would miss the hon. gentleman.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: In deciding who should be legal agents for the Government of Canada, the first consideration is competence, as it must be. The second consideration is whether or not you know the people. The third consideration might well be whether or not, in a political sense, they are known to the Government. Therefore one knows whether they can be trusted. There are all kinds of considerations that enter into this practice. It has been the practice in Canada for 120 years. It is the practice in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan when there was an NDP Government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order-


John Carnell Crosbie: I think we are acting no differently from that.


Mr. Speaker:: -I think that answer is long enough.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, now we get to the root of the matter. The Minister is saying it is a matter of political trust. You do not appoint legal agents on the basis of their political stripe, Mr. Speaker, you appoint them on the basis of their merit and their competence. That is what this Minister has not done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: My supplementary question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. The guidelines with respect to conflict of interest are very clear in these circumstances. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not recognize that the Minister of Justice has flagrantly breached these particular guidelines and, if they mean anything at all, will he not suggest politely to his colleague that he do the honourable thing, step down as Minister of Justice, and recognize the blatant political pork barrelling for what it is?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Deputy Prime Minister-we are heart to heart and soul to soul-for allowing me to reply.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I would not brag about that, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is no violation of conflict of interest
guidelines. There has been no preferential treatment for
anyone. As a matter of fact I feel sorry for the two firms with which these young fellows are associated. They did work amounting to $900 in the case of one firm, and $700 and some odd in the case of the other firm, while other firms in Newfoundland were making many tens of thousands of dollars.
The decision is made by departmental lawyers whom they wish to appoint. In the case of the Income Tax Act, three firms in St. John's and nine firms in Newfoundland can be appointed to do income tax prosecutions. In the case of the Fisheries Act, six firms in Newfoundland can be appointed. The Department decides, not the Minister. There is no preference, Mr. Speaker, for anyone involved in the situation as far as the Minister is concerned. Nine firms in one case, and six in the other.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who, last week in Montreal, said that before the Budget there was an acute shortage of rich in the country. That may be debatable. What is not debatable is that after the Budget we now have a surplus of poor. Was the Minister aware, and 1 suppose more important, does he really care-and these numbers have been confirmed by the Canadian Council on Social Development-that, as a direct result of his Budget, from now until 1990 there will be an additional 750,000 Canadians, three-quarters of a million, thrown below the poverty line?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me say quite clearly to the Hon. Member that, yes, those figures are important to me if in fact they are accurate.
1 have said on a number of occasions here that what we are trying to do is meet in this Budget two major problems, that of unemployment and that of controlling the national debt. If we do not address those two problems in a clear way, and a way that can be successful, then action that is forgone today will force out good programs tomorrow, regardless of what the Hon. Member and I might think. That is why we have to take action today. As I have said before, everybody in Canada has been asked to play a small role.


REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF FULL INDEXATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Where we differ, Mr. Speaker, is that deficit reduction should not be put on the backs of the poor. My question is very simple. Will the Minister of Finance do the only thing that is honourable and morally acceptable, take the right course, and restore full indexation to both the family benefits package and the elderly package?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder where the Hon. Member was in 1982 when the action of the Government at that time reduced the indexation factor from about 11.9 per cent to 6 per cent. I do not recall hearing the Hon. Member speaking out at that time.
What we did in this Budget, and in November, was to bring in a much enhanced spousal allowance. We brought in the new definition of disability which will affect a number of senior citizens. We have left in place the pension fund income deduction, and we have left in place the $1,000 interest deduction of which many retired Canadians were making use. This is a fair Budget, and I think it is widely regarded as such.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He will recall that in January of this year he presented a consultation paper called Child and Elderly Benefits. If I can refer it to him, he said "In the Government's view no change is required in the old age security-guaranteed income supplement payment system."
Given that the Government has now brought forward changes which the Minister indicated to the public of Canada and, in particular, to our seniors would not take place, will the Minister explain to those people how he can stand in his place and defend the government proposals to deindex pensions, given that he made a solemn promise to them that that would not happen?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member takes a look at the words he used, there is full indexing on the guaranteed income supplement.


An Hon. Member:: There is not.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There is partial indexing on the old age security. Let us keep that in mind first. Second, if the Hon. Member takes a look at the comments, the question being debated, and that he and I debated on the floor of the House of Commons, which was the question of universality, and any change with respect to people who were getting old age security on the basis of having reached the age of 65, as a result of the Budget he will very clearly see that the point of universality has been maintained. Everyone who was eligible pre-Budget is also eligible post-Budget.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in the same document the Minister said: "After careful consideration the Government has decided not to put forward a consultation option for the reform of elderly benefits". Why has the
Oral Questions
Minister decided to support what the Government is now doing by way of reform of elderly benefits by way of deindexing the old age security, without the benefit of allowing those citizens most affected to bring to the Government's attention, by way of petition or otherwise, their views about the actions of the Government? I repeat: why has the Minister defended the Government's action when he publicly said that there would be no change to the old age security or the guaranteed income system as a result of the Government's review?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is the same question which the Hon. Member just posed.


Mr. Althouse:: You avoided it the last time.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The same answer is applicable to the second question as to the first.
I also remind the Hon. Member that he has said nothing about changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act. Those changes also were introduced. Those are positive standards, and the Hon. Member has not asked for the same application to be applied to those positive steps as well.
The last point 1 make to the Hon. Member is that he keeps using the word deindexing. I suggest he not use the word because senior citizens' pensions have not been deindexed fully, as he likes to leave the impression. There is full indexation on G1S and partial indexation on OAS.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister stood in his place, and when he travelled across the country trying to defend what the Minister of Finance was attempting to implement, namely, changes to the pension systems of the elderly, prior to Christmas, he said quite clearly that there would be no change to the old age pension system.
1 ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare again how can he stand in his place and defend the changes which the Government has brought forward to the old age pension system after having said to the pensioners that he, the Minister of Health, would defend them against any possible change by the Government that would be detrimental to their pension income? How can the Minister stand up and defend those changes? Has he no shame, Mr. Speaker?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I go back to the first answer I gave the Hon. Member. What he is now trying to say is that the pre-Christmas debate, that the issue at the time of the Christmas debate-


Ian Deans: You focused it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I listened to you. Would you be so kind?


Mr. Benjamin:: Pray.
5378


Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The point made at that time and the charges made as to the points which the Minister of Finance made was that universality would be changed, that this Government was not committed to universality. That was the point.
I would suggest to the Hon. Member when he looks at those comments and the issue he will Find that universality has been maintained in the Budget, as we said was going to be done before Christmas, and that has always been the position of this Party.


FINANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I made a list, in chronological order, of statements made inside and outside the House by the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance, statements in which they were all committed to the premise that changes in social programs would not be used to reduce the deficit. My question to the Minister of Finance is as follows: Could the Minister inform the House why his Government has not met the commitments made in this House, especially in connection with the paper tabled in the House in January by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, which, in referring to the elderly and low-income families, says that any changes made in income programs will improve benefits for those most in need?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have responded in part to the question of the Hon. Member. We have enhanced the spousal allowance for many low income Canadians between the ages of 60 and 64. We have broadened the disability definition which will help 125,000 Canadians, many of whom are senior citizens.
In addition, so that the Hon. Member does not get as aggressive as he likes to get in the House, let me recall to him that during the last 10 years federal government spending on social programs dropped from about 50 per cent to the current level of less than 44 per cent. There is a very good reason for this. It is the same reason which has motivated us in this exercise here. We have the huge problem of the federal government debt. The Hon. Member may not understand it, but senior citizens understand it, and they understand that it is necessary to take action now because, if we do not take action now, we will lose more programs in the future.
[Translation)


PENSIONS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party always manages to get its priorities wrong. They now have a new Robin Hood who steals from the poor to give to the rich.
My supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the Minister inform the House whether he will have the same courage shown by Miss Begin, former Minister of National Health and Welfare, and Mrs. Gold, who is responsible for the Advisory Council on Aging, and go back to Cabinet and demand that his colleague grant full indexation, not only for the supplement but also for the basic Old Age Security pension for the elderly who are most in need?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member of his speech of November 30, 1982, in which he was defending the six and five program, and said that senior citizens understood deindexing, that they understood inflation, and that they understood what inflation did to pensions. I say: read your own words.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Hon. Member's discomfort at having had his words read back to him. My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Despite what he said to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, three facts remain-first, that the Minister made a commitment that there would be no changes in the system; second, that he led Canadian pensioners to believe that changes in the pension system were not even at issue, that it was not something on which they needed to be consulted; and, third, that there is-


Mr. Speaker:: And, third, there is a question, please?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: How much will it take? How many national and regional pensioners' associations, how many petitions, how many Conservative back-benchers, how many individual pensioners telephoning constituency offices across the country? How much will it take before the Minister gets his courage back, goes to Cabinet and says to the Government: "You are going to keep that commitment 1 made to the people of Canada in my consultations with them"?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member, when he talks to his senior citizens, will also explain to them that to maintain pensions and the social programs which we want to maintain, and that Canadians, regardless of political background, want to maintain-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Why didn't you say that in your paper, then?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We have said all along that if we continue with the largest single amount being debt payments, it takes away the flexibility not only of the Government but of our senior citizens. I remind the Hon. Member again that in the Budget it was very clearly pointed out that the matter would be monitored. I said yesterday in the House, as well, that we will continue monitoring. However, 1 say to him that the greatest damage which can be done to Canada's senior citizens is through the inability of the Government to maintain those programs, because they will be drowned in red ink.


CONCEPT OF FAIRNESS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, senior citizens, like everyone else, not only recognize the problem of the national debt but the moral question of fairness. I ask the Minister, on their behalf, what is fair about debt reduction which involves sacrifices on the part of old age pensioners that they were promised by this Government they would not have to make, and involves shelters, loopholes, and profits for the corporate sector and the rich? What is fair about debt reduction in that way? Why should he expect pensioners to accept that kind of debt reduction? They did not vote for that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Hon. Member what is fair about jeopardizing future plans and programs because of debt? What is fair about asking generations yet unborn to pay for a debt which will reduce their opportunities? They will also be the relatives of senior citizens. I say to him that there has to be a balance. We are maintaining the programs, we are maintaining universality, and we have to look at other issues. I hope, when he talks to senior citizens that he looks at those issues as well.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF YUKON GOVERNMENT LEADER, TONY PENIKETT
Mr. Speaker:: May 1 interrupt proceedings to advise Hon. Members of the presence in our gallery today of Tony Peni-kett, the new Government Leader in Yukon, and Dave Porter, Minister of Renewable Resources and Tourism.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of	the	Minister	of National	Revenue I will direct	myquestion	to	his	Parliamentary	Secretqj-y.	I	have	here	an
envelope which took 147 days-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Just the question; no displays.


Bill Attewell: I have seen envelopes, Mr. Speaker, which took 147 days to reach Vancouver, and 145 days to reach Scarborough. Surely we should not be considering a rate increase before we make the Post Office more efficient?


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I can inform him that today, the Minister is in his riding to deal with the problems of his constituents. His question has been noted and will be passed on to the Minister.


TRAINING PROGRAMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. During the election campaign the Conservative Party promised women all sorts of good things, especially jobs and effective measures to help them cope with the technological revolution. Like the President of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, whom you referred to, I would like to know why the Budget does not contain tax benefits or other incentives to encourage companies to invest in training programs designed to meet the needs of women?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am really quite taken aback by that question. Obviously the Hon. Member has not gone through the Budget. I agree with the comments that it is a big Budget. There is a lot in it, including $900 million in a very innovative program for training and development, a large part of which will be directed to the benefit of women, to the benefit of youth, and to the benefit of middle-aged people who lose their jobs. In addition, I am sure she is aware of the spousal allowance which we enhanced last fall, and the very, very far-reaching changes in pension plans, particularly the provision for membership in pension plans for part-time workers, many of whom are women.

[ Translation]


THE BUDGET
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to read what the President of the Canadian Advisory Council
on the Status of Women is asking for. She also states:


Oral Questions
-where are the specific measures forcing companies to use tax benefits in the form of investment in human resources? What measures have been established to make sure that companies offer training programs to meet the needs of various labour market target groups, especially women?
Why does the Budget approach belie the lofty challenges of the employment equality program announced last March 8? Why this sudden reliance on free market forces to given women a decent place on the labour market?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member is speaking for Canadian women across the country. That is certainly not the message which my colleagues and I have been receiving with respect to this matter. In that $900 million fund we have set out an innovative way of providing some degree of direct job creation-not dead-end jobs, as was the case with the previous Government, but jobs that have a degree of career development which women can use, as well as youth, and middle-aged Canadians. That was a positive step forward. However, a far more positive step forward in the Budget is the encouragement of small business. Many women are small business people. They will benefit from these provisions. Many women will be hired as a result of these job creation activities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENSIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare of the third commitment he made in his January paper with respect to applying any savings in program costs to pressing social objectives, as opposed to deficit reduction. How can the Minister now get up in the House and defend the damage done to old age pensioners on the basis that it will reduce the deficit, when he made the commitment in his paper that he would not apply any savings to such deficit reduction?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would take a look at the expenditures with respect to the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the OAS, veterans pensions and the social policy, including the fiscal plan and the increases in that fiscal plan, he will see that there has not been a reduction in that envelope.


AMOUNT OF FUNDING
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 can count better than the Minister. It is clear to me, just as it is clear to old age pensioners, that they will lose up to $1,500 over the next five years. How can the Minister justify that? Is he not aware that, in fact, a few simple increases in tax, such
as putting a minimum tax in place now instead of later, and such as taking interest deductions out of the tax system, would bring in at least as much money to cover deficit costs as the incredible amount he is taking out of the pockets of pensioners?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has changed the premise from the first question he asked, when he went from a global figure to an individual one. If the Hon. Member would take a look at the pension plans, having in mind the principles which the Minister of Finance and myself have stated, he will see that we are preserving pensions. He will see that we want to increase pensions, such as we have done through the spouse's allowance program.
The Hon. Member can look at any example he wants. 1 suggest he take a look at Sweden and consider what is happening there in terms of social policy and marginal tax rates. I say to the Hon. Member that those programs are being retained and enhanced. However, we have to create wealth, which the Budget will do.


PROTECTION OF PENSION FUND INVESTMENTS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the Minister is aware, all Canadians have been waiting for pension reform. That reform will now come about, complete with a wide range of pension plans and a greater use of pension funds. What protection, or insurance, will the Minister give to those employees having an interest in pension funds deriving from the failures or bankruptcies of employer-sponsored plans?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member points out is that there are far-reaching pension reforms contained in the Budget, in terms of the pension benefit standards, the ability of Canadians to save through pensions, and the investment of those pension plans. The Hon. Member raises a good point, which he has raised before. I appreciate his interest in this matter. It is a question for which my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, is responsible. I will certainly discuss the matter with him.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In studying the budget document entitled New Management Initiatives we have found that in the 12 important study teams which have been put in place to review all government programs, appointed by the Minister, male representation is 87 per cent as compared to only 13 per cent for women. If one removes the junior administrative positions from the equation, female par-


ticipation is less than 10 per cent. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the comments of the Minister responsible for the status of women who said in committee last week that this is "totally unacceptable"? How can the Minister justify this totally unacceptable situation? Is this another example of the Government's lack of commitment to equality for women?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no lack of commitment. I agree with the assessment made by the Secretary of State that it is unacceptable that we have such a low number of women participating in this very important work. I can assure the Hon. Member that, as part of the terms of reference which Ministers provided to the private sector advisory committee, that was one of the most important criteria advanced. They, in their search for women, were often disappointed, and were refused for one reason or another by women of great talent and ability, who were asked to serve. However, every effort has been made, and is continuing to be made, to involve women in this important work.
I might use this occasion to tell the Hon. Member that, in a related but separate task which 1 have in reviewing the regulatory agencies of the Government, Ms. Louise Martin of the private sector has agreed to head up that study team, along with her appropriate opposite member from the public sector. 1 am grateful to be able to make this announcement now.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we want to leave the people of Canada with the impression that this matter deals only with private sector appointments. It also includes government support staff and members of the public sector.
I am glad to hear what the Deputy Prime Minister had to say in terms of his commitment. However, last November the Leader of the Opposition asked a question with respect to the concern he had about this very study group. I can say that the Deputy Prime Minister met-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first question was long. Is the Member now ready to come to a question?


Roland de Corneille: Yes, he is, Mr. Speaker.
What type of commitments can the Minister now give to reinforce the promise he made last November 19 to the Leader of the Opposition that the dimensions the Leader of the Opposition mentioned will be eventually included? Is the Minister going to wait until these study committees have completed their tasks?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, not having described the particular dimensions to which the Hon. Member refers, it is difficult to respond in a dimensional way to his question. Assuming that those dimensions were the inclusion of women in our work, we continue to exert every possible effort to involve women in that work, together with other criteria which
Oral Questions
come to bear on the recruiting for that work, including regional representation and the fullest possible cross-section of Canadian participation in the work, business, labour, and so on.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Earlier in the Question Period he said that when it comes to the appointment of legal agents the Department decides, and not the Minister. Why is it that when the question of the appointment of the brother of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as a legal agent in Alberta came up, the Minister said in the House on May 6, and 1 quote: "I can inform the House that I appoint legal agents for the Department of Justice." Surely the Minister did the same thing with respect to his sons and the firms with which they are associated as he did with respect to the brother of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Why isn't the Minister of Justice giving a clear, straight, and consistent answer today along the lines of the answer he gave on May 6?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if 1 am asked a straight and consistent question, then I can give a straight and consistent answer.
The answer to the question is quite simple. The Minister approves certain lists of legal agents. For example, there is a list of legal firms in Newfoundland approved to be used by the Department. There are six firms approved to be used for income tax prosecutions, and I believe nine for prosecutions under the Fisheries Act. Then, when a matter comes up, the Department will decide who on the list it wishes to use or, if it thinks there is no one on the list who is competent, then perhaps it will turn to the Minister to see if "X" will be all right or if he can recommend "Y".
With respect to the Olympic matter referred to by the hon. gentleman, that was one particular matter. That was not a matter of a standing agent. We have been discussing standing agents under Statutes of the Parliament of Canada for criminal prosecutions, not for advice on Olympic matters. Those are two entirely different matters. The hon. gentleman should try to exercise his mind a bit so he would comprehend that difference.


Privilege-Mr. Allmand CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, June 3, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, earlier today in the House I was told by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to "Quiet down, baby". Subsequent to that-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Subsequent to that, the same Minister referred to me and some of my colleagues as titmice. I would like to inform the House and those Conservative Members who find this very humorous that I am a Member of Parliament, I am 32 years old and I was elected to represent the people of Hamilton East. I resent the comments of the Minister who is responsible for the equality of women in this country. I resent the remarks he made in the House when he said, "Quiet down, baby". I am not his baby, and I am no one's baby. I would like him to withdraw those remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member was referring to me, 1 might respond. I certainly would not think of saying,, "Quiet down, baby," to her. I was talking to another opposition Member. Why she should think she was the baby involved is beyond me. However, if it is not the rat pack or the titmice, whoever the shoe fits should wear it. That is all 1 can say, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, 1 perceive that to be an insult not only to me but to the women of Canada. It was a sexist remark directed at me personally and I would ask the Minister to withdraw it.


STATEMENT MADE BY MR. ROBINSON
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question of privilege with respect to a statement made by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) during Question Period. He accused me as a former Liberal Minister of the practice of pork-barrelling.
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: If the shoe fits, wear it.


William Warren Allmand: That is right. I was a Minister of the Crown
for seven years. I would like to assure the House that 1 never
made any appointments that could be considered pork-barrelling. I challenge not only the Hon. Member for Burnaby but any Member of the House to give the House one example of my appointing a member of my family or a friend or of doing anything resembling pork-barrelling. If they can do so, I will resign. I put that challenge to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Speaker:: There is clearly no question of privilege here.


ACID RAIN
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: How many brothers do you have?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: All of you in this House are my brothers.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Are you saying that Pauline is your brother?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I had better not comment on that. You are my brothers and my sisters.
I rise on a point of order with respect to two items of House business on which there have been consultations. At this point in time, I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to ask for unanimous consent to two orders, which 1 would bring forward at this time, you would find that there would be a disposition to pass them by unanimous consent. The first order relates to committee on acid rain and reads as follows:
That a Special Committee consisting of Messrs. Blaikie, Caccia, Darling, Ferland, Gurbin, Schelienberg and St-Julien be appointed to act as a Special Committee on Acid Rain;
That the Committee hold hearings to review all aspects of acid rain;
That the evidence adduced by the Sub-Committee on Acid Rain of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in the First Session of the present Parliament be deemed to have been referred to the Committee;
That the Committee have all the powers provided to standing committees pursuant to Standing Order 69(8);
That the provisions of sections (4) and (9) of Standing Order 69 of the House of Commons should be suspended, unless otherwise agreed to by this Committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there has been a further matter of agreement between the Parties, and it is an order of reference with respect to the Standing Committee on Transport. The order of reference reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Transport be empowered to study and report on federal transportation policies and programs affecting Northern, remote and isolated areas, and in particular,
(1)	the criteria which should be used to define the adequacy of transportation services to a community;
(2)	the manner in which the cost of services should be assessed in terms of cost to the government versus the need to provide a necessary transportation infrastructure; and
(3)	the degree to which the government should participate in the provision of a transportation infrastructure in the North as opposed to the government revising its role in the ownership or regulation of transportation services themselves;
That the Committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada;and
That the Committee have the power to retain expert, professional, technical and clerical staff.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Government House Leader. I am wondering if he would hold this motion in abeyance until tomorrow. I believe the matter needs further consultation, so perhaps he could hold it in abeyance until tomorrow.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if the transport critic for the New Democratic Party requests that I hold it in abeyance until tomorrow, I would be glad to do so. I had understood that there had been a consensus on this motion, but I would be glad to hold it in abeyance for another day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in both official languages. The report deals with the order of reference given to the committee on Thursday, May 2, concerning the registration of amateur sports bodies for the tax relief if they are provincially incorporated.
Order Paper Questions PETITIONS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Norman Warner (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of approximately 250 members and friends of the Finch Women's Institute, I am presenting a petition expressing their concern about murders, particularly of law enforcement officers, and requesting the return of capital punishment.


ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF EARTHQUAKE IN CHILE
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 350 Canadian residents of Chilean origin.
They urge the Canadian Government to help the March 3 Chilean disaster victims, and to broaden the criteria so as to allow the sponsorship of disaster victims by relatives in Canada.


CHANGES TO OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present four petitions containing 116 names from 10 locations in Saskatchewan. The petitioners humbly pray that the House reconsider the reduction in the indexation of old age pensions and therefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House to reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security program in Canada and they are duty bound to ever pray.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have approximately two dozen petitions, with over
1,000	signatures, from all parts of British Columbia, humbly praying and calling upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the old age security program in Canada. In duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 61 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.
1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 61 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Investment Canada Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


STUDIES OF CRIME PREVENTION POLICIES
Mr. Howie: Did the Department of Justice or the Department of the Solicitor General conduct any studies to develop crime prevention policies or programs and are any studies being conducted by persons outside the Departments and, if so, within what time frame and at what cost?
Return tabled.



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 No. 27 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 5367) and Nos. 30 and 67 (Mr. Axworthy) (p. 5368).
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in an effort to be sure that the record of this morning's proceedings will show what actually took place. I would like to ask the House and the Table to take a look at what happened. I am referring to the fact that earlier today, Motions Nos. 23, 24 and 25 were grouped for debate and that debate took place in the House with Members from both sides of the Chamber.
A member of the Official Opposition asked if we had any further speakers on the particular motion and we agreed that in the spirit of co-operation, so that members of the Official Opposition could refresh their list, we would stand our speakers. At that point, I believe the record will show that the Deputy Speaker called for the vote on Motion No. 23.
At the start of the calling for the vote, the Deputy Speaker did not point out-and I am not sure whether he should or should not have, as 1 think it is for the Chair to decide-that the votes on Motions Nos. 23, 24 and 25 would be taken separately. Therefore, I believe the record will show that the Deputy Speaker called the vote on Motion No. 23 and asked: "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?" I believe the record will show that on Motion No. 23 yeas and nays were recorded. The Deputy Speaker then said: "All those in favour of the motion will please say yea." I believe the record will show that there were yeas. The Deputy Speaker then said: "All those opposed will please say nay." I believe the record will show that Hon. Members said nay. It is also my
belief that five members of the Opposition stood when the Deputy Speaker said: "In my opinion, the nays have it." As is their right, members of the Opposition stood to formally request a recorded vote. Then, pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the Deputy Speaker said: "A recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred." I am not sure whether he said "motion" or "motions", but, the point is that when the Deputy Speaker moved to Motion No. 24, 1 believe the record will show that he said: "Mr. Axworthy moved that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 43 to 48 at page 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?" I believe at that point opposition Members said yea, quite naturally. I know, and I can only speak for myself in the House, that I definitely said nay. Sitting in my place, I said nay. I am not sure the record will show that. There are records which the Chair will have the opportunity to examine; there is Hansard and there is the video tape of the proceedings. I am sure that the Chair, in the interest of fairness and in the interest of deciding what actually took place, with precedents in mind, will examine all of those.
Point number one of my point of order is that I believe the video tape records will show, display-in other words, Mr. Speaker, you will hear it-that there were yeas and nays. I realize that is an imperfect way of doing it, but I believe it can be drawn, from what I had an opportunity to hear earlier, that my nay was part of that confusion. 1 must admit that my hearing is biased on that point.
The second point of the point of order is that I believe the record will show that at no time did the Deputy Speaker say, as he did when he was on Motion No. 23; "In my opinion, the yeas have it." I believe, at the point at which the vote is called, that it is up to the Chair to declare the motion won or lost. I believe the record will show that at that point he did not declare the motion to be won or lost, but moved on to Motion No. 25. I submit that the Chair is the person in the House who decides whether motions have been won or lost. The only way in which he can express that opinion is to say it. In other words, I believe if the record is examined it will show that some Members agreed and then it will show that the Deputy Speaker moved on to Motion No. 25, without formally declaring the previous motion won or lost.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that until that declaration is made, the motion is in a hiatus. In other words, it has not been won, it has not been lost, and it is up to the Chair to declare whether it has been won or lost. If the Chair makes that declaration at the time of the vote-and if the Chair declares that the vote was won by the Opposition, then that's fair ball- then we should have the opportunity, as the Government, just as the Opposition did on the first motion, to stand our five Members. Certainly, we had five Members in the House. We should have had the opportunity to stand our five Members and request a recorded division on the vote. That did not happen. I suggest that is the third thing which should have happened. We should have had that opportunity.


In review, there are three things which 1 would ask the Chair to consider: one, whether the yeas and nays were properly heard and recorded; two, whether the Deputy Speaker ever officially declared the motion won or lost, and three, whether Members of the House on all sides had that democratic opportunity to have five Members stand and request an official recorded division of the vote.
1 appreciate that things happen quickly in the House. There have been many, many opportunities when we, as the Government, have given the Opposition the benefit of the doubt in the interest of doing what the majority of Members of the House want done. I suggest that in the future there will be those opportunities. That is what this place is all about. They can argue, "Sorry, Mr. Simcoe North; sorry, Mr. Lewis; sorry. Government, we tricked you because something went by." That is not the point of this place.


Lloyd Axworthy: You fumbled the ball, that's the problem. Why not kick it in the end zone now?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I admit I don't know all the rules. Would the person who knows all the rules please stand-other than yourself, Sir? I would ask the honorary member at the table if he does not agree that what this place is really all about is that what Hon. Members want done, properly gets done in accordance with the rules, and not only the rules of the House but the rules of fair play. I would ask the Chair and the Table Officers to examine whether in fact my three points within the point of order have validity and then I would put it to the test of Hon. Members opposite as to just exactly how they want to play by the rules of fair play.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly on this point of order because I do not want to reflect on the decision of the Chair. However, since the Hon. Member brought that point up, I wish to remind him that on April 23 last you, Mr. Speaker, made it clear in the House that the amendments which were tabled with Bill C-15, for the purposes of debate, were grouped as to certain amendments. For example, it was ruled that Motions Nos. 23, 24 and 25 should be grouped for debate and voted on separately. That takes care of the first point. There was a decision made by the Chair on April 23. We abided by that decision. We debated this Bill for several days, the last being May 2, and on every occasion the Speaker put the motions to the House separately when so required by the ruling made by the Chair on April 23.
I do not really want to comment on the fact that the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) takes exception or umbrage with the hearing or the sight of the Speaker because 1 was here. We on this side of the House were not playing tricks on the Government. We were debating motions put by this Party and by the New Democratic Party. We were under the impression that the Hon. Member knew that we were going to vote on these amendments separately and when Motion No. 23 was called, we did indeed stand, because it is our privilege to call for a recorded vote.
Investment Canada Act
On Motion No. 24, we did not stand. Why we did not do so is not for me to say. 1 really don't know, but I can tell the Hon. Member right now that someone in the Government was asleep at the switch. We knew that, but it is not my job as Party Whip to tell the Hon. Member how to act in his capacity as either Parliamentary Secretary or being in charge of that matter. However, there was no doubt in my mind that someone goofed on that one, but that is not for me to decide one way or the other. The motion was put in due form, it was passed in due form, and as far as I am concerned, it stands in due form.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal which might be said about the argument which has been made by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). However, 1 want to restrict myself to one matter, that is, that it is necessary in order that a point of order be heard that it be raised at the earliest possible moment. 1 watched the proceedings on the television in my office. In fact, the point of order was raised at the earliest possible moment. The point of order was raised with the Deputy Speaker at the time and the Deputy Speaker, having heard the arguments, much of which has been replayed, as it were, by the Hon. Member this afternoon, in fact ruled that he had in fact dealt appropriately with the matter-as was the case. It is an affront, 1 might say, to the Deputy Speaker to now come into the House and attempt to have the Speaker overrule the ruling of his deputy.
1 want to suggest that it is inappropriate behaviour and, with a little time, I could point to other circumstances where Speakers have pointed out to the House that where Deputy Speakers make rulings, those are the rulings, and there is no subsequent appeal to the Speaker of the ruling of a Deputy Speaker.
While the Hon. Member, in an effort to compensate for the inadequacies of himself and his colleagues at the time, may now wish to reconsider his position and have it reconsidered by the House of Commons, he should at least show the Speaker and his entire office, deputies included, the courtesy of accepting that the Deputy Speaker was given the option of considering the point of order, considered it and ruled it out of order. 1 would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you rule that there is no point of order and that the time being taken now is time being wasted.


Lloyd Axworthy: Furthermore, it is a good amendment.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise because of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). 1 want to simply indicate to him that I was able to get a copy of the "blues" after this matter arose. I believe that if the Hon. Member had gotten a copy of the "blues", he would have seen the record, as shown by Hansard, which is the official record of the House. As I understand it, television has not yet taken the place of Hansard as the official record of this House. The written word is still the official record of what has transpired in this House-


Ian Deans: The point of order has already been dealt with.


Investment Canada Act


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think this is germane to the point of order, as the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) has alluded to the record of the House and I am now making specific reference to the "blues" which clearly state what transpired according to the official record. If you look at the "blues", Mr. Speaker, and I have a copy in my hand, you will see that at the time in question it states, "On Motion No. 24, Mr. Axworthy moved that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 43 to 48 at page 6". The Deputy Speaker said, "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?" Some Hon. Members said, "Agreed". The Deputy Speaker, according to Hansard, did not then deal with the motion. He did not then, as he is required to do by Beauchesne, say, "Carried".


Ian Deans: He said, "Adopte".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Oh, I see. So we are hearing things which are not now in the official record.


Ian Deans: The "blues" are not the official record.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The "blues"? Come on.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: So it is not incumbent upon us to take the official record as being the appropriate one? I listened in silence to the Hon. House Leader of the New Democratic Party. I would hope that he would extend the same courtesy to me. I know he is on a very weak point of order in this particular situation, but I am prepared to consider this matter in a serious way.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, simply is that there are three steps normally taken with respect to these matters, as you will know, Mr. Speaker. First, it is asked whether it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion. Then the Speaker, if he is able to discern that there are yeas and nays, would then take the second step. This House operates on the basis of the discretion of the Chair and not on the basis of some lack of acoustical ability to hear whether there are both yeas and nays because there is activity on the floor of the House. At the first possible instant, Mr. Speaker, at least one Hon. Member stood in his place to indicate that he indeed had said "nay" at the appropriate time. It was not a delayed reaction. It was an instant reaction when the Deputy Speaker moved on to the next motion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's not true.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) stood in his place and said, "I said 'nay' ". I know that there are other Hon. Members in this House who are prepared to say that they said "nay". That is the basis on which this House operates. If we are able to accept the words of Hon. Members, then we have the opportunity of having at least the process and procedure dealt with in a reasonable manner. I say to you, Sir, as you will know, Beauchesne's Fifth Edition does put very clearly the procedure of putting a question to the House. Appendix I, Item No. 94, indicates that the occupant of the Chair makes a declaration with respect to whether the
matter is carried or not. I was not here, I grant you that, Mr. Speaker, and I can only go on the basis of the official transcript which is Hansard. If one were to say to me that perhaps the occupant of the Chair did say "Carried" It would indicate to me that the acoustics in the House are not perfect because the Hansard reporter did not hear the Speaker, who had a microphone on. We in the House all understand that the Government was opposed to this motion. That has been indicated in debate. The Speaker is cognizant of what is going on. This is not a technical institution. It is one in which questions should be dealt with on a reasonable basis. If it is going to be said when an Hon. Member stands in his place to say that he said "nay", then I say that we should have the same right to say that the occupant of the Chair did not say "carried". I have proof here that according to the official record the occupant of the Chair did not say "carried".


Lloyd Axworthy: Except the occupant of the Chair said he did. Are you challenging the Deputy Speaker?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I allowed the hon. Opposition spokespersons to deal with this matter. It is not becoming for Hon. Members to shout down a humble servant of the House who wants to make a serious point.


Lloyd Axworthy: Bring the humble servant forward then.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Speaker is sitting in one position in the House and Hon. Members sitting at the other end of the House from time to time indicate the fact that they are in opposition to the motion. Certainly we are not going to make our decisions about votes and change the laws on the basis of whether or not a Member has to be extremely noisy. If they say "nay" and indicate they said "nay" at the first opportunity, it seems that this is a reasonable proposition. We are not asking for any favours of the Chair. It is not undermining a ruling of the Chair. I think there is a prima facie case which can be demonstrated on the official record. We can look to other sources which may indicate that something was said which was picked up on the recording. I simply reiterate my point, Mr. Speaker, that there is a question of an acoustical problem. Members say they said "nay". I believe them and I think we should take account of that and complete the process by calling for the yeas and nays in order to decide whether the yeas or the nays have it. That is only fair. That is democratic and I suggest to you, Sir, that it would be the reasonable way to go.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, could I make a very brief intervention?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the Government House Leader, has based his whole argument on what he says is the official record of the debates of the House. From what he is saying, it appears that all he is talking


about are what are commonly known as the "blues". I submit, Mr. Speaker, and it is very clearly established, that the "blues" are not the official record or report of debates. Citation 155.(1) on page 48 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition reads:
The Official Report of Debates, commonly referred to as Hansard, is the record of speeches made in the House; it also contains answers to written questions on the Order Paper.
1 submit that what the Government House Leader is using as a basis for his argument is not the official report of debates. In fact. Citation 156 at page 49 of Beauchesne's says:
The Debates are printed in bound volumes from time to time during a session.
I realize I wear glasses, Mr. Speaker, but I did not see any bound volume of debates. If my hon. friend is basing his argument on what is commonly known as the "blues", his argument must fail.
I would like to make one other point, Mr. Speaker. It is very clear that when the Deputy Speaker occupies the Chair, he has the full authority to exercise all the same powers with respect to decision making as the Speaker himself. This is confirmed by Beauchesne's citing the Speaker of the House of Commons Act, Section 5. It reads:
Every act done and warrant, order or other document issued or published by the Deputy Speaker in relation to any proceedings of the House of Commons, or which under any statute would be done, shall have the same effect and validity as if the same had been done, issued, signed or published by the Speaker for the time being.
By way of conclusion, I would like to say that at this point there is no way that the representatives of the Government can impugn a decision of the Deputy Speaker by implying that in some way it has less force and effect than a ruling made by yourself. The ruling was made by the Deputy Speaker exercising, quite properly, the full authority of the Speaker. That ruling cannot be impugned by any of the interesting, but I must say with all due respect, ineffectual and weak arguments of the Government House Leader and his colleagues.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. I have heard all the House Leaders and a Whip. At this point I am ready to indicate something to the House. It is very simple. The matter was raised at the time. The Deputy Speaker ruled on the matter at the time. The Deputy Speaker stands in this place as the Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) on debate.


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to contribute to the debate on Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, and Motion Nos. 27, 30 and 67 which are presently before the House. This is my first speech before this Chamber, and I would like to take a moment to offer a few of my personal thoughts on the vitally important issue of investment in Canada.
Investment Canada Act
As a new Member of Parliament from Alberta, 1 came to the House determined to voice the views of my constituents and all the people of Alberta. As a small businessman in Edmonton, I witnessed the devastating and discriminating policies of the previous Government. During my 31 years of small business, I witnessed the province grow into an industrial power. I saw Alberta develop. With that development, I understood and shared the positive entrepreneurial attitude of Albertans.
When, following his return to office, Pierre Trudeau said, "Welcome to the 1980s", Albertans suffered the coldest shower in Canadian economic history in the name of Canadi-anization. To many Albertans, Mr. Trudeau's scheme of Canadianization turned out to be a lesson in isolation. When the Opposition talks about-


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker I have a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Member for Win-nipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) on a point of order.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 respect the fact that this is the first speech of the Hon. Member, but there is a rule of relevance on report stage. We are dealing with an amendment dealing with the extension of time to 45 days from 30 days. It has nothing to do with what Mr. Trudeau said when he came to office in 1980. I would ask that the Hon. Member address himself to the specific amendment before the House at report stage. If he wants to engage in a larger debate on principle, he will have that opportunity at third reading. Since we have only limited time, it is very important that we deal with the amendments on the table at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that he should be relevant to the topic of the motions. I am sure the Member will do that.


William Lesick: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Canadianization is very important. It is a topic which was brought up by the Hon. Member of the Opposition. It is very important that we should understand this aspect. Confidence is very necessary for us, otherwise no one could invest in Canada. 1 suggest that that is the real meaning behind the motions that were presented. The other is a question of nationalism and interventionism in the economic forces which drive the market-place.
The motion was perhaps presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) with good intentions. Canadians recognize that in order to find new markets and create new jobs and a better future for our children, we must seek out capital from all over the world. The Hon. Member's motion dealing with culturally sensitive proposals underestimates the intelligence of the Canadian community. Placing a time delay on investment, as suggested in the amendment, will serve little purpose. We Canadians know the nature of our society. The people of the country, particularly the unemployed, want economic renewal. I believe that we know how to protect and enhance our own Canadian cultural institutions.


Investment Canada Act
What we need are jobs and this legislation will accomplish that goal.
The amendment to extend review of investment in culturally sensitive activities to 45 days from 30 days is not necessary whatsoever. Our Government promises speed of review that is combined with efficiency. Our Government, in the short time we have been in power, has enacted more good and absolutely necessary legislation than has the previous Government. Of course, it did so after consultation with interested and affected parties.
We are prepared to be more effective and progressively decisive. Investors should not be confused. They will have more confidence in the Government.
I believe that the amendments are not necessary. They are not supported by the Government or the people of Canada, and I strongly suggest that the amendments, particularly Motion No. 67, not pass. We cannot survive in isolation. We cannot live in a cocoon, shielded from the rest of the world. We have an obligation to future generations to build on our strengths and this Bill will provide us with that opportunity.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to Motion No. 27 in particular because it concerns new investment in Canada. The proposed amendment would prevent the investment of new funds in new businesses in Canada and it would particularly inhibit the concept of this Bill, which is to develop our nation and to provide work and other opportunities for our children.
Although there is chronic unemployment in our nation, the New Democratic Party has moved an amendment that would require a review of new investment in Canada by some board.


Steven W. Langdon: That is not what it says.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Such an amendment would obstruct new and innovative people from coming to our country to create businesses. It is our responsibility to give what Canadians demanded of us on September 4. We must turn the country around and create the opportunities for men and women to work and build this nation. New investment from whatever source is important to provide the opportunity to create.
The New Democrats believe that bureaucrats in Ottawa should decide what investment is acceptable, what jobs people should have, and who should have them. The concept behind this amendment is based on the concept in every slave state where those in power direct their citizens where to work and what to do. They decide on what investment and what technology can be accepted.
Canada has put up with that kind of control for too long. It was that concept which inspired the Foreign Investment Review Act that is now being changed. It was a concept based on the assumption that the bureaucrats in Ottawa who belonged to socialist-oriented parties knew best how development should take place in Canada and how people should use their talents; what should be created and by whom.
That concept was soundly rejected on September 4. This amendment would prevent investment in Canada unless approved by a board of review. There are many type of investment that come to our country. Recently, a new Canadian in my riding had an opportunity to bring a new plastic-fabricating operation to Canada from the United States. His American contact wanted to own a good part of the business because he was supplying the money and the technology. My constituent was primarily supplying the marketing ability.
The lawyer advised the American contact of the Foreign Investment Review Act. That term alone caused the deal to fall through, until I was able to persuade the American investor that the Act was going to be changed so that new investment would be welcome in Canada.
If this amendment is allowed to pass, we would be indicating that new investment is not welcome unless permitted. In some cases, FIRA required investors to spend up to $30,000 to hire lawyers, accountants and others to process the forms that were required for permission to invest in Canada. We are saying, "Come to Canada and invest. Create jobs and opportunities and let us, together, build this country".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 27 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(1 1), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 30 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 67 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


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


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 31
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 13 by striking out line 21 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"order to complete that notice and that the investment not proceed until the
notice has been completed and a receipt specified under subsection (1) above
has been obtained by the non-Canadians."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of expediting debate and to move the process along, I am prepared to withdraw this amendment because it was contingent upon previous other amendments which were unfortunately defeated. We seem to be back in the old spirit of not looking at things constructively any more. Obviously, because the Minister is back in the House now, things have changed. I will withdraw this amendment because it was a contingent amendment. We can go on to the next round of debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) to withdraw his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 31 withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 34, 35, 36, and 38 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 34
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 36 to 40 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
Investment Canada Act
"(a) an investment to acquire control of a Canadian business in any manner described in paragraph 28 where the value calculated in the manner prescribed of
(i)	the gross assets acquired, in the case where control of a Canadian business is acquired in the manner described in paragraph 28(1 )(c), or
(ii)	the gross assets of the entity carrying on the Canadian business and of any other entity in Canada the control of which is acquired directly or indirectly, in the case where control of a Canadian business is acquired in the manner described in paragraph 28(1 )(a), (b) or (d),
is five million dollars or more;".


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 35
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 36 to 40 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) an investment to acquire control of a Canadian business in a manner described by section 28 except where that business is in the area of cultural heritage or national identity;".


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 36
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 41 and 42 at page 9 and lines 1 to 3 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) an investment to establish a new business where the assets of the new business are five million dollars or more;".


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 38
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 10 to 15 and lines 45 to 47 at page 10 and lines 1 to 5 at page 11.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to make sure that the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) understands that an affirmative vote-and I am reading from your ruling, Sir, of April 23-on Motion No. 34 disposes of Motion No. 35. A negatived vote on Motion No. 34 necessitates that the question be put on Motion No. 35. If that is clear, then we can proceed with debate, but I want the Hon. Member to understand that so he will not say yea when he means nay or nay when he means yea.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, this set of amendments focus on one of the most important clauses in the Bill. It is the area of legislation that describes what form of foreign investment is subject to review. It has been the judgment of the Government obviously that the thresholds should be changed substantially from the way in which they were constructed under the F1RA legislation.
The Government has done this by way of saying, "We want to clarify and simplify matters". At the same time, Mr. Speaker, what the Government has also brought forward by this change in threshold is a major invitation to create a vulnerability for a number of Canadian companies that would be subject, particularly in the case of indirect acquisition, to takeovers that were not constructed with any positive purpose in mind but were done, in large part, because of the manipulation and shenanigans in the New York stock market, the


Investment Canada Act
"team boom pickins" kind of activity that takes place where the stock market becomes a great big game and is simply a matter of rating and pirating various forms of acquisition. In this case, you pick up a lot of Canadian holdings by automatic and inadvertent exercise of that form of high finance pirateer-ing. As a result, Canadian companies that have been well established in Canada that provide useful jobs and economic activity can be wiped out in a flash.
By creating the threshold of indirect acquisitions at the $50 million level a whole range of Canadian subsidiaries now held by parent companies, which includes a very large number of substantially middle-sized companies, will be rolled in as part of the over-all take-up of an indirect acquisition. Canadian communities and workers will be subject to the vagaries and vicissitudes of that activity without having any opportunity for their Government to say whether it is useful, positive and of benefit to Canadians.
We introduced this series of amendments to alter the threshold relationship to make the indirect acquisition threshold the same as the direct acquisition, namely, the $5 million level.
Let me refer to the presentation before the committee of the Science Council, which has a direct mandate to look at how we in Canada can create competitive companies to deal in the international market, particularly in scientific or research related industries. If you look at the testimony of that Council based upon years of researh and years of examination, it shows that the present level of threshold will result in a number of high-tech based companies in Canada being wiped out or taken over without any opportunities for judgment or review by this Government.
Once again we go back to the basic argument we have made. There is nothing wrong with foreign investment as long as foreign investment produces something valuable for Canada, as long as it has the kind of job creation we all want and the kind of investment in new high technology products, with the ability to develop export markets. We have seen time and time again, and the evidence points it out, that many foreign-owned subsidiairies have far less investment in research and development and they prevent Canadian-based subsidiaries from competing with the home corporation in the export market. In other words, they do not provide the kind of performance and behaviour that we need if we are going to build an effective international advantage for Canada.
All we are saying is that companies should at least be required to demonstrate whether they are prepared to make that kind of commitment. We propose that the threshold be brought down so that it can include Canadian subsidiaries acquired in indirect forms. I fail to see why the Government has made such a major discrimination between a direct acquisition and an indirect acquisition. In fact, one could almost argue that it is more important to review indirect acquisitions than direct ones, the reason being that if foreign investors come into Canada to buy Canadian companies and know the performance, attributes and characteristics of those
companies, they are less likely to tamper with or strip them down. However, if they are simply picking up Canadian companies as part of indirect acquisitions as a result of their moving, shaking and manipulating in the financial markets of another company, it does not matter whether the acquisitions are indirect ones. We have seen callousness and indifference toward indirect acquisitions by many of their own companies.
I return to my original point. Perhaps the most flagrant and at times amusing form of financial gymnastics in the United States market is this incredible shotgunning of one company after another. There is a whole new category of stock market sharks who are simply out there to try to boost up stock percentages and dividends in the American market by buying and selling companies at will. Unfortunately, the after effect or side effect is that many Canadian companies are swept up in the rush.
What will happen when the level under this Act is raised to $50 million? Suddenly an investor will look at his sheet of acquisitions and ask how he acquired a company in Pickering, in Moose Jaw or in Corner Brook. What does he know about them? Does he care about Corner Brook or Mississauga? He may say: "Let's get rid of it, sell it off, I don't care". There is no direct involvement on the part of investors in that kind of acquisition.
We have brought forth this set of amendments to ensure that the Government would at least be required to review. This does not mean to say that the Government would be required to stop foreign investment. A fallacy which has been perpetrated time and time again in this debate is that somehow the Foreign Investment Review Act stopped foreign investment. Last year it allowed $4 billion worth of foreign investment into the country, one of the largest allotments of foreign investment in the last 10 years. However, by the review procedure, it required foreign investment coming into the country to demonstrate at least that it had value to Canadians, that it would create jobs and that it would create export markets, not simply be an afterthought or or a side effect.
In coming to grips with these threshold questions, we are really coming to the very heart of our concern that by having the threshold so high, particularly in the area of indirect acquisitions, a number of takeovers will occur which will work to the detriment of many communities, and a number of victims, mainly workers in the companies, will have no recourse. There will be no responsibility or obligation on the part of the Government of Canada to protect their interest.
Those are the reasons that we make the case, once again, that our amendments are designed to improve the Bill and to make it more useful and constructive. They are not in any way designed to detract from the proper procedure or from foreign investment producing something valuable. We believe they will ensure that the review procedure is applied in a way which will make the commitments clear and defined so as to require foreign investment to show the value for Canadians, not simply be allowed to take over companies without demonstrating a major contribution which will be of benefit to Canada.


Whether by inadvertence or not, the Government is at least showing a small flicker of insight and response by allowing certain amendments to take place. Once again, if it were to show another act of inadvertence, this amendment would be the ideal one on which to show it.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, with this particular group of amendments, we come to one of the key differences which, frankly, has divided us in our debates on the Investment Canada Bill since it came before the House, in our discussions in committee, and in our attempts at report stage to dig into the substance of the Bill. We have accepted that the Government believes it is in the best interests of Canada to permit new foreign companies to come into the country, to establish new premises or new enterprises and hopefully, to produce jobs, exports and benefits for Canada. This particular set of amendments does not deal with that point of principle. However, there is a second point of principle which we feel is an important one-should we permit small Canadian enterprises, small businesses which are so important to invidual Canadian communities, to be taken over without the review process being brought to bear?
Many Conservative back-benchers have claimed to believe during the debate on the Budget that the small business sector is crucial to our economic future. I believe that strongly, on the basis of my own constituency wherein small business is a vital, vibrant and growing part of the economy, and on the basis of the small business people we met across the country during our action group tour. A tremendous, exciting dynamism exists among small firms throughout the land.
This is a government Bill, and the Government says with this Bill that it believes large Canadian corporations need the safeguard of a review process if there are takeovers from outside the country of medium-sized and large firms. If it is correct in believing that, and if at the same time it is correct in believing that small businesses are crucial to our economic future, then it is equally correct to say that foreign takeovers of small Canadians firms, which are so crucial to us, also deserve to be reviewed. I am not saying that they need to be rejected, because this is not a Bill which rejects foreign investment. It is a Bill which attempts to review foreign investment to see to it that significant benefits come to the country. If there is any sense of honesty in that purpose, if there is any sense of reality in that commitment, I urge government Members to see to it that the review process applies equally to the takeover of small Canadian firms as it does to the takeover of large Canadian firms.
I want to put before the House some of the evidence which makes it crucial for such provisions to be part of the new Act. For instance, let me present the case of Canadian Porcelain, a small enterprise with assets of just over $1 million, based in Hamilton. In the past that enterprise provided insulation mechanisms which were quite significant within the electrical industry. It was forced into receivership by the predatory dumping of its competitors. However, the affected workers got together with the community of Hamilton and discovered that the community was prepared to back them in an excited and
Investment Canada Act
committed way. They brought forward a proposal to take over this bankrupt company and operate it successfully as a workers' co-operative. However, at the last minute, one of the U.S. competitors which had forced Canadian Porcelain into bankruptcy came in and bought up the plant instead. Fortunately,-and I say fortunately because it is as a result of the delay which we have been able to create with respect to the passage of this Bill-the Foreign Investment Review Agency is still the law of the land. Canadian Porcelain workers will be coming to Ottawa on Thursday to meet with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), and others, to make the case that FIR A should turn down the takeover by Lapp and permit Canadian Porcelain, with its strong base of community support, to keep the industry Canadian.
I would now like to talk about something which is close to the hearts of many of my constituents, that is, the Windsor Spitfires hockey team, which was taken over last year by a Michigan-based enterprise. It is a small operation involving approximately $1 million to $1.5 million in assets, which would not be subject to review under the terms of the Bill before us. Yet the take-over was subject to review by F1RA. That agency saw that the investment was not stopped. Quite frankly, the hockey team needed fresh capital to keep it going. FIR A was able to see to it that a clear commitment was given by the company taking over the team. That commitment involved keeping the team in Windsor and seeing to it that it would continue to employ Canadians, in terms of both its coaching and its support staff. This was something which was absolutely crucial to hockey fans and, indeed, sport fans more widely within my community.
It is possible to go on, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Association for the Advancement of Technology has made the case to the Government that it is the small high-tech firms which will be particularly susceptible to take over if this Bill passes as written. The association has made strong arguments to the Minister. In fact, we heard testimony in committee that the limits in the Bill should be brought down in order that small Canadian high-tech firms could not be taken over without at least a review process taking place. These small high-tech firms are absolutely crucial to our economic future. Bringing down the limits would permit the workers and shareholding partners in some of these firms to have a sense of protection in terms of their interest and their future.
We have also seen what are perhaps the most tragic cases of all in this country. I am speaking of cases where branch plants of U.S. companies are taken over by other huge corporations in the United States, or elsewhere in the world. These large multinational enterprises come to the conclusion, as indeed multinational enterprises must since they are profit-making enterprises, to shut down what now exists as duplicate facilities within their operations. We saw the case in Barrie where the Black & Decker plant was shut down. That shut-down cost 600 workers their jobs. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill before us which will protect Canadian workers employed in small and medium-sized firms which are taken over by the


Investment Canada Act
great conglomerates of the world and which are subject to rationalization and some type of global profit maximization strategy.
I make the case to the House that if we accept the amendment before us, we will bring to bear a review process-not a harsh one but a significant one-to protect the interests of workers in communities with respect to small Canadian branch plants which will be subject, in the future, to the pressures of world capitalism as it rationalizes throughout the world.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, l wish to comment with respect to Motion No. 34. In my view, this motion appears to deal with what I find to be the most despicable portion of the Foreign Investment Review Act. I am speaking of what happened when a Canadian subsidiary of a multinational company was transferred by one multinational to another in a world transaction made outside Canada. What happens is that a multinational may have a Canadian corporation as one of its many companies. The effect of transferring the control of the multinational involves, in effect, the transfer of the control of the Canadian corporation. Under the provisions of the Foreign Investment Review Act, the bureaucrats in Ottawa were expected to make a ruling as to whether or not one multinational company could take over the assets of another involving transactions of many millions of dollars. Indeed, in some cases, billions of dollars have been involved. These transactions took place in world-held corporations because one small entity involved in that conglomerate happened to exist in Canada. In some cases, in order to avoid the question of review, the Canadian subsidiary has been closed down completely. The thinking seemed to be, "Why bother trying to appease these people in Canada who think they know better than anyone else with respect to investment and how to create jobs?"
More important, the whole aspect of the Foreign Investment Review Act, as it operated in this sense, called into question the nature of Canada as a place to invest money and do business. This seriously hampered the investment of funds and the number of job opportunities for Canadians, perhaps in the most gross manner possible. The mover of the amendment which I am now discussing wishes to reinstate this concept if the assets of a company involve more than $5 million. Surely to goodness we are part of an international trading and development system. Some of our multinational companies are the largest multinational companies in the world. In the distilling industry alone, we have the top two distillers in the world, Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Limited and Hiram Walker & Sons Limited, number one and number two respectively. Our multinational corporations are able to deal, grow and do business. That we should say to another country's multinational, which may happen to have a branch operation somewhere in Canada that has nothing to do with the totality of its world-wide organization, that its world-wide activities are to be reviewed simply because of its operation in Canada, then we go a long way toward hurting Canada and the concept of Canada as a place where fair and free trade and open business are conducted.
The philosophy expressed by the Opposition seems to be that somehow the public officials know better than the business community how investment is to take place and how it is made. As a result of the attitudes in the Foreign Investment Review Act which tried to review transactions that did not take place in Canada at all and tried to review transactions for which the essence of the transactions were not Canadian at all, we have called into question the whole nature of investment in Canada. Canada is not deemed to be a fair place to put money because one cannot assign what one owns in Canada to someone else. Those kinds of transactions do not involve further foreign investment in Canada and never involved that at all. They do not involve a new takeover in Canada. They are only a matter of whether or not a multinational corporation with headquarters in Holland would take over the activities of a multinational corporation with headquarters in New York. What difference does that make to us? It is still a foreign-owned corporation. It is still part of a conglomerate.
In the view of this Government, we want to let members of the investment world know that Canada is a place to do business. We want to let them know that if they invest their assets in this country, they can sell them to whomever they wish. There are certain limitations on that and those limitations are spelled out in the Bill. They involve cultural matters and things that go to the essence of Canadianism. However, in terms of ordinary commercial activities, surely to goodness transactions of this nature should not be reviewed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 34. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 34 will dispose of Motion No. 35. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 79, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 36. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 79, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I understood you correctly, a negative vote on Motion No. 34 would then require a vote on Motion No. 35. Is that correct?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is correct. However, we must wait for the vote on that motion to take place tonight in order to decide if we must vote on Motion No. 35.
The question is on Motion 38. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 79, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 38A
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 15 at page 10 the following:
"(e) gross assets shall be determined as at the latest completed fiscal period at
current prices in a manner prescribed by regulations."
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is striking that one of the key considerations within this Bill is the size of a given investment. There are threshold levels which set out trigger points which determine whether or not an investment will be reviewed. Yet we do not at any stage talk about how we will measure those trigger points.
This is partly a technical point and partly a substantive point. In our view, if it is not set out clearly within the Bill the way in which a trigger mechanism will be used, there is a serious danger that we could have a system in place whereby the way in which gross assets are measured for purposes of the
Investment Canada Act
trigger mechanism will grossly undervalue those assets. That of course would mean that takeovers that should be reviewable according to the intent of the legislation would not be reviewable because the way their asset levels are calculated leaves them under the triggering level.
The triggering level itself is $5 million in the case of a direct acquisition and $50 million in the case of an indirect acquisition. As Members of the House who are in business or who have a background in law or economics will know, many different conventions are taken to establish what constitutes the assets of a company. For instance, it is possible to look at the $5 million threshold on the basis of historical costs as depreciated within a company. On that basis, a person might easily have a company which, at fair market value, is worth $20 million, however, on its books, with historical values depreciated, it would be worth approximately $3 million. That would mean that a company which should be reviewed would escape review. Therefore, we have brought before the House a technical amendment which is designed to ensure that the substantive purpose of the Bill is achieved. The amendment states:
-gross assets shall be determined as at the latest completed fiscal period at current prices in a manner prescribed by regulations.
In short, we are attempting to have a value placed on assets which reflect a fair market value of the assets, rather than an artificial level which would arise from bookkeeping conventions and the operation of depreciation over a long period of time.
With respect to family-owned businesses, this is a particularly important amendment. As many Members will be aware, most family-owned businesses do not offer shares on the public stock market. Their books are likely to be calculated on the basis of historical costs and assets, and there is likely to be a depreciation charged against those historical costs in order to reach a nominal book value level. If we do not do something to ensure directly within the legislation that there is a definition of asset value which represents fair market value, then family businesses in particular will likely be taken over without the review process.
I would be particularly interested in hearing comments on this amendment from my Conservative colleagues who have experience in the accounting profession. 1 would like to make the point that this is an attempt to ensure that the stated purpose of the Bill, as brought forward by the Minister-that is to say, that companies with an asset value higher thant $5 million will be reviewed-will in practice be respected.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I was particularly impressed with the fact that the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), in his description of the types of companies which he would want to be scourged by the amendment, would name family businesses. He said it would be those family businesses which do not keep proper records that would have to be inspected and re-audited in order to have some indication of the current value of the assets. His


Investment Canada Act
attitude is that family businesses are the businesses which should be hounded by the amendment which he has proposed. Is that not typical of the New Democratic Party, to ensure that family businesses are the businesses which should have to go to some sort of re-evaluation and produce some sort of a new current eveluation system demanded in the statute with respect to determining whether their gross asset value is within in the purview of the statute?
The present contemplation of the Bill is that what is a gross asset will be defined in the regulations. That is the kind of thing which is normally left to regulations. I do not believe that any of us is really happy about regulations, but it is possible and easy to change regulations with respect to "gross assets", which is a technical term, and do that, if it does not work out, in a way which will be different as time and experience indicate.
He said that the legislation should state: "the latest completed fiscal period". What is the latest completed fiscal period? Presumably, it is the last year end of the company. So if the company is sold ten months after the year end, presumably we would have to go back to the latest fiscal period. The motion also states, "Current prices". When are the prices current? Are they current at the last fiscal period, or are they the current prices when the sale takes place? Is that not a wonderful thing for an accountant or a lawyer to interfere with or to understand? That is the very reason for which these things are done by regulations.
The amendment which was produced by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor is one which does not add much other than complications and problems to the Bill.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to indicate that we support the amendment which was brought forward by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). We believe it to be a very useful clarification of how to compute gross assets. Once again I will turn to the case which we have tried to make time and again in the House, that if the purpose of Investment Canada is to simplify and facilitate the process, that means the business community must have a higher level of certainty about what to expect. If the present Bill is left intact, as it was originally contrived, it could lead to all sorts of what might politely be called creative accounting principles in order that companies could get below the threshold levels. But by establishing clearly in the statute the formula by which those assets would be computed, that uncertainty would be eliminated. It would ensure that there would be no attempt to become manipulative or creative in determining what the assets would be.
I find it exceedingly strange that the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), who has been the great crusader against over-regulation in Government, is now defending it. What a difference several months makes in terms of one's principles. How quickly they change.
The fact of the matter is that it is not a useful idea always to put things in regulation. It is better, if possible, to put them in statutory requirements, which are passed by Parliament, to
have them entrenched in the legislation. That is exactly what this amendment intends to do. It intends to clarify the matter.
We think that the amendment is proper and we will support
it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 38A. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion please
say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


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


Lloyd Axworthy: , seconded by Mr. Gauthier:
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 9 to 13 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) it falls within a prescribed type of business that is related to Canada's cultural heritage or national identity including the publication, distribution or sale of books, magazines, periodicals or newspapers in print or machine-readable form; the production, distribution, sale or exhibition of film or video products; the production, distribution, sale or exhibition of audio or video music recordings; the publication, distribution or sale of music in print or machine-readable form; the production, distribution or sale of educational materials, or other such businesses to be further specified in regulations pursuant to this Act; and".
He said: Mr. Speaker, when debate was introduced in this House on second reading, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) extended an invitation to this House. He said, "We believe there should be full and active review in the area of cultural heritage and national identity". He said, "I want this House to help me find that concept. I want to ensure that those areas which are most vulnerable and sensitive to foreign takeovers would be adequately protected by Parliament".


During committee we spent a great deal of time looking at that concept. We had a number of very useful presentations put before us by book publishers and various different cultural organizations. They came forward with what we believe to be a very useful and important way in which Parliament itself could clearly put its statement on what it believes to be an adequate protection for national identity and cultural heritage. But once again, Mr. Speaker, the Government has changed its mind. Once again the Minister's words are not worth the paper they are written on. We might as well throw Hansard out, because when we come to introducing an amendment which would entrench in the statutes those areas of our cultural heritage and national identity which need protection, the Minister refuses it. He says he will leave it up to regulation, which can be rewritten at a moment's notice by Order in Council. It can be stuck away in the Gazette somewhere, and it means that all those organizations out there which were looking for some degree of guarantee and assurance will be denied that opportunity. That shows the total disdain this Minister has. We have seen it today. He has not been in the House during the report stage, the most important part of the debate on any Minister's Bill. Where is he, Mr. Speaker?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 withdraw the remark, Mr. Speaker. Let's just say-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Without reflecting on the Hon. Member's presence in the House, I draw to his attention that it is not parliamentary to reflect upon the absence of other Hon. Members in the House. I would welcome it if the Hon. Member would return to the address which he was creating in the lobby.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy to continue even though there are certain critical and strategic individuals and personalities who should be here but who are not, but I would not think of naming them.
With respect to this amendment, Mr. Speaker, the point is that this seems to be a right of Parliament. The Minister gave us the invitation which he is now ignoring. He does not want to deal with it. I know the reason why. It is because the Government really has no intention of living up to the protection and guarantee of those crucial industries.
In the last six to seven months there have been a number of important cases dealing with book publishing before the Government, with which it could easily dispense, which would provide a very clear signal to foreign investors that in crucial strategic areas we do not want foreign purchases. Yet because of the lack of attention and decision by the Minister, we now have even further takeovers. A number of new takeovers were announced in April and May by other foreign investors in the book publishing industry. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister is really not vitally interested in having any kind
Investment Canada Act
of control or restriction of foreign investment in the cultural area.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House another important and crucial area. Sometimes we have to laugh at the pretensions of this Government. It says it is the Government of the new social order. It is going to be in the vanguard of change. We had a number of people before the committee who said, "Look. The world is changing and data processing is the one area which it is crucial to protect". It is the 1980s equivalent of book publishing. People now put all kinds of things on computers. There is all kinds of software. What the computer people are saying is that there is an enormous haemorrhage of computer data processing to the United States. Close to $2 billion or $3 billion is lost every year in that industry simply because at this point in time there is no protection. Therefore, we introduced that responsibility in the amendment. We are saying, "Let's incorporate that as part of our cultural heritage and make sure that it is protected by legislation". Is the pioneer of change, the Government which is in the vanguard of the new electronic age, prepared to recognize that? No, it does not even deal with the matter. It will not even consider it. It will not give Parliament the right to make its voice heard by ensuring that it is part of the legislation. What that really adds up to, Mr. Speaker, is a subterfuge, a camouflage. This Government has no intention of providing protection for the cultural industries. It has very little interest in national identity. It does not want to have Parliament speak with a voice which will allow for that protection.
In this last moment before we start the vote, it would seem to me that those Hon. Members who listen to their conscience and feel that it is important that Parliament retain its rightful role to speak for the Canadian people and to protect our Canadian cultural and national identity, would vote for this amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, May 23, 1985, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the Bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 41 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Investment Canada Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53 are to be grouped for debate but voted on separately and a vote on Motion No. 50 will dispose of Motion No. 52.
The question is on Motions Nos. 50 and 52 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and Motion No. 53 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 50
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 14 to 23 at page


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very sorry to interrupt and I do apologize. However, I was meeting with the other House Leaders and we did not realize that the point had been reached where we are required to deal with the outstanding legislation. I would like to ask a question before I make a proposal. I would like to ask whether you are, Mr. Speaker, in fact, at the point of dealing with the motions which have not yet been debated but which must inevitably be put to the House in order to accommodate the necessity for divisions?
I would like, therefore, to ask, with that in mind, if you would seek the unanimous consent of the House to have all the outstanding motions deemed to have been deferred pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 79(11) so that we can now get on with the calling in of Hon. Members and avoid the necessity of the Chair having to read each of the motions which have not yet been debated and the formalities being gone through.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: You have heard the motion of the House Leader for the New Democratic Party. Is there unanimous consent to the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should get this clarified before we have the vote because I think there might be a disposition with respect to the votes, and I want to put the proposition forward on the basis of considerations of the opposition Parties, which I appreciate very much because there are a great number of votes. My understanding is that there may be a disposition that if the question on Motion No. 1 is put to the House, the vote on that motion will also be recorded as applying to Motions Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15,16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 38A, 41,50, 52, 53, 63, 67, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 76A, 77, 77B, 77C, 78, 79, 80, 81 and 89.
The next question to be put to the House will be on Motion No. 27. The vote on this motion will be recorded as applying to Motions Nos. 68, 77A and 85.
The final question to be put to the House will be on the motion for concurrence in the Bill at report stage, and there will be a vote on this motion. I think there is agreement with respect to grouping the votes in this manner.


Mr. Speaker:: Just to clarify, I understand that Motion No. 31 has been withdrawn.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are right.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my ability, using my capacity to remember to its absolute maximum, I think the numbers read out by the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) are correct. I must confess that I had anticipated that this particular procedure would have occurred after the bells rang and after the first vote was taken. If you would allow the bells to ring now, I would have an opportunity to compare my list with the list read out. I think that what has been proposed is ideal and we would, no doubt, agree with it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly disposed to follow through on this particular pattern. I, for one, was quite prepared to stay up the whole evening voting because I do that anyway these days. However, for the sake of other Members of Parliament we would be very happy to follow this procedure. I think it is very important that we do provide for an examination to ensure that the list of motions read by the House Leader concur with our own set. I would advise you that I did withdraw Motion No. 31 during the course of debate today, so it is not included in that list.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that we will, therefore, technically deal with the question of groupings in a little while. The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, you will recall the exchange that took place before the bells rang. It may be appropriate now that my distinguished colleagues in the Opposition have had an opportunity to look at the list for them to respond with respect to the groupings for the purpose of voting.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in the short interval we have had, we have confirmed the number of amendments which the Government House Leader put forward just prior to the ringing of the bells. It conforms with the agreement we have made. We want to say that each amendment is important in its own right but we feel that for the facility of this House we will be able to agree that the vote on Motion No. 1 will follow


through the votes outlined. We will follow with Motion No. 27 for the second round of votes and we will vote accordingly.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the list put on the record by the Government House Leader prior to the ringing of the bells is accurate. I want to add that in all cases the votes should be recorded as if they had been taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, the first question is on Motion No. 1. The vote on this motion will also be recorded as applying to the several motions as outlined in the agreement reached a few minutes ago earlier this day and each vote will be individually recorded.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 1
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."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 30)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	Epp	Lapierre
Alt house	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Malepart	
Angus	Foster	MarchiAxworthy	Frith	MurphyBaker	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Benjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	NunziataBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Nystrom(Brant)	Guilbault	OuelletBlaikie	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryBoudria	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Cassidy	Hopkins	Prud'hommeCopps (Ms.)	Hovdebo	RiisDeans	Jewett (Ms.)	Robinsonde Corneille	Kaplan	Rodriguez-42.de Jong	Langdon	NAYS	Messrs.	Andre	Champagne	DickAttewell	(Champlain)	Dor inBclsher	C ha rest	DuguayBernier	Chartrand	DuplcssisBertrand (Mrs.)	Clark	(Mrs.)Binns	(Brandon-Souris)	EdwardsBlackburn	Clifford	Elzinga(Jonquiere)	Cochrane	EppBlais	Comeau	(Provencher)Blais-Grenier (Mrs.)	Cook	FennellBlenkarn	Cooper	FerlandBouchard	Corbett	FontaineBourgault (Mrs.)	Cossitt (Mrs.)	ForrestallBradley	Crofton	FraserBrightwcll	Crouse	FriesenCadieux	Dantzer	GagnonCaldwell	Darling	GassCarney (Miss)	Daubney	GerinChampagne (Mrs.)	Della Noce	Gormley(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Desjardins	Gottselig
Investment Canada Act
Messrs.
Gravel	Lopez	ReidGray	MacDonald (Miss)	Reimer(Bonaventure-iles-de-	(Kingston and	Romanla-Madeleine)	the Islands)	St. GermainGreenaway	MacDougall	SchellenbergGrise	(Timiskaming)	(Nanaimo-Albcrni)Guilbault	MacKay	Scott(Drummond)	Mailly (Mrs.)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Gurbin	Malone	ScottGustafson	Marin	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Halliday	Martin (Mrs.)	ScowenHardey	Mayer	ShieldsHarvey	Mazankowski	SiddonHawkes	McCain	SparrowHicks	McDermid	(Mrs.)Hnatyshyn	McDougall (Mrs.)	SpeyerHockin	(St. Paul's)	StackhouseHoltmann	McGrath	StevensHorner	Mclnnes	StewartHowie	McKenzie	Tardif (Mrs.)James	McKinnon	(Charlesbourg)Jelinek	McLean	TaylorJepson	McMillan	ToupinJohnson	Merrithcw	Towers(Bonavista-Trinity-	Minaker	TremblayConception)	Mitges	(Quebec-Est)Joncas	Moore	TupperJourdenais	Murta	TurnerKelleher	Nicholson	(Ottawa-Carleton)Kempling	(Niagara Falls)	ValcourtKilgour	Nickerson	VankoughnetKindy	Nielsen	VincentKing	Nowlan	WarnerLandry (Mrs.)	Oberlc	WeinerLanthier	O'Neil	WhiteLa Salle	Oostrom	WilsonLawrence	Peterson	(Swift Current-Layton Leblanc	Pietz Plourde	Maple Creek) WilsonLesick	Price	(Etobicoke Centre)Lewis	Ravis	WinegardRedway	Witer-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: 
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 12 to 15 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"4. The Minister is responsible for the administration of this Act and the provision of policy direction to the Agency established by section 6."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:
(Division No. 32)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	Epp	LapierreAlthousc	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MulcpartAngus	Foster	MarchiAxworthy	Frith	MurphyBaker	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Benjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	NunziataBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Nystrom(Brant)	Guilbault	OuelletBlaikic	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryBoudria	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Cassidy	Hopkins	Prud'hommeCopps (Ms.)	Hovdcbo	RiisDeans	Jewett (Ms.)	Robinsonde Corneille	Kaplan	Rodriguez-42.de Jong	Langdon
NAYS Messrs.	Andre	Gray	McMillanAttewcll	(Bonavcnture-ilcs-de-	MerrithewBclshcr	la-Madeleinc)	MinakerBernier	Greenaway	MitgcsBertrand (Mrs.)	Grise	MooreBinns	Guilbault	MurtaBlackburn	(Drummond)	Nicholson(Jonquiere)	Gurbin	(Niagara Falls)Blais	Gustafson	NickersonBlais-Grenier (Mrs.)	Halliday	NielsenBlenkarn	Hardey	NowlanBouchard	Harvey	ObcrleBourgault (Mrs.)	Hawkes	O'NeilBradley	Hicks	OostromBrightwell	Hnatyshyn	PetersonCadieux	Hockin	PietzCaldwell	Holtmann	PlourdcCarney (Miss)	Horner	PriceChampagne (Mrs.)	Howie	Ravis(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	James	RcdwayChampagne	Jelinek	Reid(Champlain)	Jepson	RcimcrCharest	Johnson	RomanChartrand	(Bonavista-Trinity-	St. GermainClark	Conception)	Schcllcnbcrg(Brandon-Souris)	Joncas	(Nanaimo-AIbcrni)Clifford	Jourdenais	ScottCochrane	Kcllehcr	(Victoria-Haliburlon)Cornea u	Kempling	ScottCook	Kilgour	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cooper	Kindy	ScowenCorbett	King	ShieldsCossitt (Mrs.)	Landry (Mrs.)	SiddonCrofton	Lanthier	SparrowCrouse	La Salle	(Mrs.)Dantzer	Lawrence	SpeyerDarling	Layton	StackhouseDaubney	Leblanc	StevensDella Noce	Lcsick	StewartDesjardins	Lewis	Tardif (Mrs.)Dick	Lopez	(Charlcsbourg)Dorin	MacDonald (Miss)	TaylorDuguay	(Kingston and	ToupinDuplessis	the Islands)	Towers(Mrs.)	MacDougall	TremblayEdwards	(Timiskaming)	(Qucbcc-Esl)Elzinga	MacKay	TupperEpp	Mailly (Mrs.)	Turner(Provencher)	Malone	(Ottawa-Carleton)Fennell	Marin	ValcourtFerland	Martin (Mrs.)	VankoughnctFontaine	Mayer	VincentForrcstall	Mazankowski	WarnerFraser	McCain	WeinerFriesen	McDermid	WhiteGagnon	McDougall (Mrs.)	WilsonGass	(St. Paul's)	(Swift Current-Gerin	McGrath	Maple Creek)Gormlcy	Mcinnes	WilsonGottselig	McKenzie	(Etobicoke Centre)Gravel	McKinnon	WincgardMcLean	Witcr-159.
Investment Canada Act


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 20 to 22 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) assist Canadian businesses to exploit opportunities for investment and technological advancement and find Canadian buyers wherever possible to purchase businesses of value to Canada;"
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 33)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Messrs.
Merrilhcw	Roman	TowersMinaker	St. Germain	TremblayMitges	Schellcnbcrg	(Qucbec-Est)Moore	(Nanaimo-AIbcrni)	TuppcrMurla	Scott	TurnerNicholson	(Victoria-Haliburton)	(Ottawa-Carlcton)(Niagara Fails)	Scott	ValcourtNickerson	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	VankoughnetNielsen	Scowen	VincentNowlan	Shields	WarnerOberle	Siddon	WeinerO'Neil	Sparrow	WhileOostrom	(Mrs.)	WilsonPeterson	Speyer	(Swift Current-Pictz	Stackhouse	Maple Creek)Plourdc	Stevens	WilsonPrice	Stewart	(Etobicoke Centre)Ravis	Tardif (Mrs.)	WincgardRcdway	(Charlesbourg)	Witer-159.Reid	Taylor	Rcimcr	Toupin	Allmand	Epp	LapicrreAllhousc	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MalcpartAngus	Foster	MarchiAxworthy	Frith	MurphyBaker	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Benjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	NunziataBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Nystrom(Brant)	Guilbaull	OuellctBlaikie	(Saint-Jacqucs)	ParryBoudria	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Cassidy	Hopkins	Prud'hommeCopps (Ms.)	Hovdcbo	RiisDeans	Jewett (Ms.)	Robinsondc Corneille	Kaplan	Rodriguez-42.dc Jong	Langdon	NAYS Messrs.	Andre	Duguay	JohnsonAtlewell	Duplessis	(Bonavista-Trinity-Bclsher	(Mrs.)	Conception)Bernier	Edwards	JoncasBertrand (Mrs.)	Elzinga	JourdenaisBinns	Epp	KcllehcrBlackburn	(Provencher)	Kempling(Jonqui&re)	Fennell	KilgourBlais	Ferland	KindyBlais-Grenier (Mrs.)	Fontaine	KingBlenkarn	Forrcstall	Landry (Mrs.)Bouchard	Fraser	LanthicrBourgault (Mrs.)	Friesen	La SalleBradley	Gagnon	LawrenceBrightwell	Gass	LaytonCadieux	Gerin	LeblancCaldwell	Gormley	LesickCarney (Miss)	Gottsclig	LewisChampagne (Mrs.)	Gravel	Lopez(Sa int- H yacinthe- Bagot)	Gray	MacDonald (Miss)Champagne	(Bonavcnture-ilcs-de-	(Kingston and(Champlain)	la-Madeleine)	the Islands)C ha rest	Greenaway	MacDougallChart rand	Grise	(Timiskaming)Clark	Guilbault	MacKay(Brandon-Souris)	(Drummond)	Mailly (Mrs.)Clifford	Gurbin	MaloneCochrane	Gustafson	MarinCornea u	Halliday	Martin (Mrs.)Cook	Hardey	MayerCooper	Harvey	MazankowskiCorbett	Hawkcs	McCainCossitt (Mrs.)	Hicks	McDermidCrofton	Hnatyshyn	McDougall (Mrs.)Crouse	Hockin	(St. Paul's)Dantzcr	Holtmann	McGrathDarling	Horner	MclnnesDaubney	Howie	McKenzieDella Nocc	James	McKinnonDesjardins	Jelinek	McLeanDick Dor in	Jepson	McMillan


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 23 to 25 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) carry out research and analysis relating to domestic and international investment, including research on means to achieve greater autonomy by non-Canadian controlled businesses in Canada to compete for world markets with their parent firms, and table the results in the House of Commons;".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Allmand	(Division No. 34)
 YEAS Messrs. Epp	Lapicrre
Althousc	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MalcpartAngus	Foster	MarchiAxworthy	Frith	MurphyBaker	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Benjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	NunziataBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Nystrom(Brant)	Guilbault	OuelletBlaikie	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryBoudria	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Cassidy	Hopkins	Prud'hommeCopps (Ms.)	Hovdebo	RiisDeans	Jewett (Ms.)	Robinsonde Corneille	Kaplan	Rodriguez-42.de Jong	Langdon	Andre	NAYS Messrs. Brightwell	ComcauAttewcll	Cadieux	CookBelshcr	Caldwell	CooperBernier	Carney (Miss)	CorbettBertrand (Mrs.)	Champagne (Mrs.)	Cossitt (Mrs.)Binns	(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	CroftonBlackburn	Champagne	Crouse(Jonquiere)	(Champlain)	DantzcrBlais	Charest	DarlingBlais-Grenier (Mrs.)	Chartrand	DaubneyBlenkarn	Clark	Della NoccBouchard	(Brandon-Souris)	DesjardinsBourgault (Mrs.)	Clifford	DickBradley	Cochrane	Dorin
Investment Canada Act
Messrs.
Duguay
Duplcssis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provenchcr)
Fennell
Ferland
Foniainc
Forrcsiall
Fraser
Friescn
Gagnon
Gass
Gcrin
Gormley
Gottsclig
Gravel
Gray
(Bonavcnturc-lles-dela-Madelcine)
Greenaway
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardcy
Flarvcy
Hawkcs
Flicks
Hnatyshyn
Flockin
Floltmann
Florner
Flowie
James
Jclinck
Jcpson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conccption)
Joncas
Jourdcnais
Kcllchcr
Kcmpling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthier
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lcsick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly (Mrs.) Malone Marin
Martin (Mrs.) Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's) McGrath Mclnnes McKenzie McKinnon McLean McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Murta Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Obcrle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson
Pictz
Plourdc
Price
Ravis
Red way
Reid
Reimer
Roman
St. Germain
Schcllcnbcrg
(Nanaimo-AIbcrni)
Scott
(Victoria-Flalibunon)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlcsbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnct
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
While
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Wincgard Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 25 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"ment and make public, where not expressly prohibited by federal legislation, the results of this research and analysis;"
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 34 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"ance with this Act;
(g) regularly compile and make public information, where not expressly prohibited by federal legislation, pertaining to the performance of Canadian businesses owned and controlled by non-Canadians;"
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 13 by adding immediately after line 33 at page 9 the following:
"(4) the Agency will:
(a)	make public within a reasonable time period all new businesses and acquisitions under this part; and
(b)	make public within a period not exceeding 14 days after notification is given all proposed investments subject to review under Part IV."
Motion No. 63
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 25 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada, and shall make public his ruling including ail undertakings made in connection with the investment."
Motion No. 69
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 22 by striking out line 4 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"notice to that effect to the applicant and shall make public its decision including all undertakings made by the applicant."
Motion No. 74
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 23 by adding immediately after line 47 at page 15 the following:
"(c) the Governor-in-Council shall make public decisions described in subsection (a) or (6), including in respect to (a) all undertakings made by the applicant and in respect to (b) the reasons for its disallowal."
Motion No. 75
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 25 by striking out lines 9 to 11 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"relating to the investment annually for a period not less than five years in order to permit the Agency to determine, and where lawful, make public, whether the".
The House divided on Motion No. 8 (which applies to Motions Nos. 12, 32, 63, 69, 74, and 75), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 35)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	Epp	LapicrrcAllhousc	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MalepartAngus	Foster	MarchiAxworthy	Frith	MurphyBaker	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Benjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	NunziataBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Nystrom(Brant)	Guilbault	OuellctBlaikie	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryBoudria	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Cassidy	Hopkins	Prud'hommeCopps (Ms.)	Hovdebo	RiisDeans	Jewett (Ms.)	Robinsondc Corneille	Kaplan	Rodriguez-42.dc Jong	Langdon
NAYS Messrs.	Andre	Chartrand	ElzingaAttcwcll	Clark	EppBclshcr	(Brandon-Souris)	(Provenchcr)Bernier	Clifford	FennellBertrand (Mrs.)	Cochrane	FerlandBinns	Comeau	FontaineBlackburn	Cook	Forrcsiall(Jonquierc)	Cooper	FraserBlais	Corbett	FriescnBlais-Grcnicr (Mrs.)	Cossitt (Mrs.)	GagnonBlcnkarn	Crofton	GassBouchard	Crouse	GcrinBourgault (Mrs.)	Dantzcr	GormleyBradley	Darling	GottscligBrightwell	Daubney	GravelCadieux	Della Nocc	GrayCaldwell	Desjardins	(Bonavcnturc-ilcs-Carney (Miss)	Dick	la-Madeleine)Champagne (Mrs.)	Dorin	Greenaway(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Duguay	GriseChampagne	Duplessis	Guilbault(Champlain)	(Mrs.)	(Drummond)Charest	Edwards	Gurbin
Guslafson
Halliday
Hardcy
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnaiyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jclinck
Jcpson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Concepiion)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kcllehcr
Kempling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthicr
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
MacKay
Messrs. Mailly (Mrs.) Malone Marin
Martin (Mrs.) Mayer
Mazankowski McCain MeDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's) McGrath Mclnnes McKenzie McKinnon McLean McMillan Merrithew Minakcr Mitges Moore Murta Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Obcrle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pietz Plourdc Price Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain
Schellcnbcrg
(Nanaimo-Albcrni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlcsbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourl
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 29 to 31 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(e) assist in the development of industrial and economic policies that affect investment in Canada and consult with labour, business and community representatives about the effects of proposals for acquisitions and new business establishments by non-Canadians on regional employment and economic growth, within the limits of confidentiality to protect commercially valuable information disclosed by non-Canadian investors;".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 36)
Investment Canada Act
++NAYS
Andre
Allcwcll
Bclshcr
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquicre)
Blais
Blais-Grenicr (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brightwell Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinlhe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest Chart rand Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Comcau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Croflon
Crouse
Dantzcr
Darling
Daubncy
Della Noce
Desjardins
Dick
Dor in
Duguay
Duplessis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provcncher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrcstall
Fraser
Friescn
Gagnon
Gass
Gcrin
Gormlcy
Gottsclig
Gravel
Messrs.
Gray
(Bonavcnture-lles-de-la-Madeleine) Greenaway Grise Guilbault (Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jclinck
Jcpson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kcllehcr
Kempling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthicr
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly (Mrs.)
Malone
Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain MeDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's) McGrath Mclnnes McKenzie McKinnon McLean
McMillan
Merrithew
Minakcr
Mitges
Moore
Murta
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberlc O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pietz Plourde Price Ravis Rcdway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain Schellcnbcrg
(Nanaimo-Albcrni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlcsbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourl
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witcr-159.
++YEAS
Messrs.	Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Allmand Althouse Angus Axworthy Baker Benjamin Berger Blackburn (Brant) Blaikie Boudria Cassidy Copps (Ms.) Deans
dc Corneille dc Jong
Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Foster Frith Fulton Gauthier Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett (Ms.)
Kaplan
Langdon
Lapierre
Malcpart
Marchi
Murphy
Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity) Nunziata Nystrom Ouellct Parry
Pepin (Mrs.) Prud'homme Riis
Robinson Rodriguez-42.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 29 to 31 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(e) develop medium term and long term public and private industrial sector investment guidelines consistent with an industrial strategy that emphasizes full employment, growth, diversification, autonomy and export competitiveness of the Canadian economy;".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:


Investment Canada Act (Division No. 37)
Allmand Althousc Angus Axworthy Baker Benjamin Berger Blackburn (Brant) Blaikie Boudria Cassidy Copps (Ms.) Deans dc Corneille de Jong
Andre
Attewcll
Belshcr
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blais-Grcnier (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brightwell Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot) Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Comcau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Dantzcr
Darling
Daubney
Della Nocc
Desjardins
Dick
Dorin
Duguay
Duplcssis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provenchcr)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrcstall
Fraser
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gcrin
Gormlcy
Gottsclig
Gravel
++YEAS
Messrs.
Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Foster Frith Fulton Gauthier Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett (Ms.)
Kaplan
Langdon
++NAYS
Messrs.
Gray
(Bonavcnture-iles-de-la-Madelcine) Greenaway Grise Guilbault (Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnalyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jclinek
Jcpson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kcllcher
Kcmpling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthicr
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming)
MacKay Mailly (Mrs.)
Malone
Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain Me Derm id McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's)
McGrath
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McLean
La pierre Malcpart Marchi Murphy
Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity) Nunziata Nystrom Ouellet Parry
Pepin (Mrs.) Prud'homme Riis
Robinson Rodriguez-42.
McMillan
Mcrrithew
Minaker
Mitgcs
Moore
Murta
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pietz Plourdc Price Ravis Rcdway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain Schcllcnberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowcn Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Qucbcc-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnct
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 11
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 32 to 34 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(/) ensure that the notification and review of investments are carried out in accordance with this Act to achieve net additional employment, net technological upgrading, net new export markets, additional domestic competition, and other measurable benefits to Canada;".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 38)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand Althouse Angus Axworthy Baker Benjamin Berger Blackburn (Brant) Blaikie Boudria Cassidy Copps (Ms.) Deans
Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Foster Frith Fulton Gauthier Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett (Ms.)
Lapierrc
Malepart
Marchi
Murphy
Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity) Nunziata Nystrom Ouellet Parry
Pepin (Mrs.) Prud'homme Riis
Robinson
dc Corneille	Kaplan	Rodriguez-42.
de Jong	Langdon	
	NAYS	
	Messrs.	
Andre	Daubney	HicksAttewcll	Della Nocc	HnatyshynBelshcr	Desjardins	HockinBernier	Dick	HoltmannBertrand (Mrs.)	Dorin	HornerBinns	Duguay	HowieBlackburn	Duplessis	James(Jonquiere)	(Mrs.)	JclinekBlais	Edwards	JcpsonBlais-Grenier (Mrs.)	Elzinga	JohnsonBlenkarn	Epp	(Bonavista-Trinity-Bouchard	(Provencher)	Conception)Bourgault (Mrs.)	Fennell	JoncasBradley	Ferland	JourdenaisBrightwell	Fontaine	KcllcherCadieux	Forrestall	KcmplingCaldwell	Fraser	KilgourCarney (Miss)	Friesen	KindyChampagne (Mrs.)	Gagnon	King(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Gass	Landry (Mrs.)Champagne	Gerin	Lanthier(Champlain)	Gormley	La SalleCharest	Gottsclig	LawrenceChartrand	Gravel	LaytonClark	Gray	Leblanc(Brandon-Souris)	(Bonavcnturc-iles-de-	LesickClifford	la-Madeleine)	LewisCochrane	Greenaway	LopezComeau	Grise	MacDonald (Miss)Cook	Guilbault	(Kingston andCooper	(Drummond)	the Islands)Corbett	Gurbin	MacDougallCossitt (Mrs.)	Gustafson	(Timiskaming)Crofton	Halliday	MacKayCrouse	Hardey	Mailly (Mrs.)Dantzcr	Harvey	MaloneDarling	Hawkes	Marin
Martin (Mrs.) Mayer
Mazankowski McCain MeDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's) McGrath Mclnnes McKenzie McKinnon McLean McMillan Merrithew Minakcr Mitges Moore Murta Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) N ickcrson Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Neil
Messrs.
Oostrom Peterson Pietz Plourdc Price Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain Schcllcnbcrg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow (Mrs.)
Speyer
Stackhouse
Stevens
Investment Canada Act
Messrs.
Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charles bourg) Taylor Toupin Towers Tremblay
(Quebec-Est) Tupper Turner
(Ottawa-Carlcton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 34 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"ance with this Act;
(g) encourage and facilitate the acquisition of control of Canadian businesses by Canadians in areas pertaining to cultural heritage and national identity by arranging consortia of Canadian owned businesses, joint venture arrangements and other equity sharing ventures with non-Canadians and with Canadian Crown Corporations and other means as the Governor-inCouncil deems necessary;".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 39)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	Epp	LapierrcAllhouse	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MalepartAngus	Foster	MarchiAxworthy	Frith	MurphyBaker	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Benjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	NunziataBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Nystrom(Brant)	Guilbault	OucllclBlaikie	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryBoudria	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Cassidy	Hopkins	Prud'hommeCopps (Ms.)	Hovdebo	RiisDeans	Jewett (Ms.)	Robinsondc Corneille	Kaplan	Rodriguez-42.dc Jong	Langdon
NAYS Messrs.	Andre	Binns	BlenkarnAitcwcll	Blackburn	BouchardBclshcr	(Jonquierc)	Bourgault (Mrs.)Bernier	Blais	BradleyBertrand (Mrs.)	Blais-Grcnier (Mrs.)	Brightwell
Cudieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthc-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
C ha rest
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Dantzcr
Darling
Daubncy
Della Nocc
Desjardins
Dick
Dorin
Duguay
Duplcssis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provenchcr)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrcstall
Fraser
Friescn
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Gormley
Gousclig
Gravel
Gray
(Bonavcnture-Ilcs-dcla-Madeleinc)
Greenaway
Grisc
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardcy
Harvey
Hawkcs
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jclinck
Jcpson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kcllchcr
Kcmpling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthicr
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lcsick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly (Mrs.) Malone Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain MeDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's) McGrath Mclnnes McKenzie McKinnon McLean McMillan Merrithew Minakcr Mitges Moore
Murta
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pietz Plourdc Price Ravis Rcdway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain Schcllcnbcrg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wcntworlh)
Scowcn
Shields
Siddon
Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carlcton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 16
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 5 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 4 the following:
"(g) advise the Governor in Council of proposed allowance or disallowance of investments in new businesses or acquisitions by non-Canadians in accordance with the provisions set out elsewhere in this Act and seek its approval therefor; and"
and by renumbering the subsequent paragraph.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:


Investment Canada Act (Division No. 40)
Alimand Althousc Angus Axworthy Baker Benjamin Berger Blackburn (Brant) Blaikie Boudria Cassidy Copps (Ms.) Deans
de Corneille
Andre
Atiewcll
Belshcr
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blais-Grcnier (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley
Brightwel!
Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
C ha rest
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Comcau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Daubney
Della Nocc
Desjardins
Dick
Dor in
Duguay
Duplcssis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provcncher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrcstall
Fraser
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Gormley
Gottsclig
Gravel
++YEAS
Messrs.
de Jong Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Foster Frith Fulton Gauthier Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett (Ms.)
Kaplan
++NAYS
Messrs.
Gray
(Bonavcnture-lles-de-la-Madeleine) Greenaway Grisc Guilbault (Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardcy
Harvey
Hawkcs
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kcllcher
Kcmpling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanlhicr
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lcsick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming)
MacKay Mailly (Mrs.)
Malone
Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's)
McGrath
Mclnncs
McKenzie
McKinnon
McLean
Langdon La pierre Malepart Marchi Murphy
Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity) Nunziata Nystrom Oucllct Parry
Pepin (Mrs.) Prud'homme Riis
Robinson Rodriguez-42.
McMillan
Merrithew
Minakcr
Milgcs
Moore
Murta
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls)
N ickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Obcrlc
O'Neil
Oostrom
Peterson
Pietz
Plourdc
Price
Ravis
Redway
Reid
Reimcr
Roman
St. Germain
Schcllcnbcrg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wcntworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Qucbcc-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnct
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Wincgard Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 17
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 3 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"the government of any province or territory or any".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 41)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Alimand	de Jong	LangdonAlthousc	Epp	La pierreAngus	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MalepartAxworthy	Foster	MarchiBaker	Frith	MurphyBenjamin	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Berger	Gauthier	(Trinity)Blackburn	Gray	Nunziata(Brant)	(Windsor West)	NystromBlaikie	Guilbault	OuelletBoudria	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryCassidy	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Copps (Ms.)	Hopkins	Prud'hommcDeans	Hovdebo	Riisde Corneille	Jewett (Ms.)	RobinsonKaplan	Rodriguez-42.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Andre
Atiewcll
Belshcr
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blais-Grenicr (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brightwell Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
C ha rest
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Comcau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Daubney
Della Nocc
Desjardins
Dick
Dorin
Duguay
Duplcssis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provcncher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrcstall
Fraser
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Gormley
Gottsclig
Gravel
Gray
(Bonavcnture-llcs-dc-la-Madeleine) Greenaway Grisc Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkcs
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kcllehcr
Kcmpling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanlhicr
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lcsick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly (Mrs.) Malone Marin
Martin (Mrs.) Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's) McGrath Mclnncs McKenzie McKinnon McLean McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitgcs Moore Murta Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Neil


Messrs.
Oostrom	Scowen	TupperPeterson	Shields	TurnerPiet/.	Siddon	(Ottawa-Carleton)Plourde	Sparrow	ValcourtPrice	(Mrs.)	VankoughnetRavis	Speyer	VincentRedway	Stackhouse	WarnerReid	Stevens	WeinerRcimer	Stewart	WhileRoman	Tardif (Mrs.)	WilsonSt. Germain	(Charlesbourg)	(Swift Current-Schellcnbcrg	Taylor	Maple Creek)(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Toupin	WilsonScott	Towers	(Etobicoke Centre)(Victoria-Haliburton)	Tremblay	WinegardScott	(Quebec-Est)	Witcr-159.(Hamilton-Wentworth)


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 18		
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 6 to 9 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:		
"(c) shall convene industrial sector-based advisory groups consisting of repre-		
sentatives of business,	labour, provincial and local authorities and other	
interested parties, to	make recommendations with regard to private and	
government investment and related policies conjunction with subsection in 5(l)(c)."		and priorities in their sectors in
The House divided on the motion the following division: (Division No.
 YEAS Messrs.		, which was negatived on 42)
Allmand	de Jong	LangdonAlthousc	Epp	LapierreAngus	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Malepart	Axworthy	Foster	MarchiBaker	Frith	MurphyBenjamin	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Berger	Gauthier	(Trinity)Blackburn	Gray	Nunziata(Brant)	(Windsor West)	NystromBlaikie	Guilbault	OuellctBoudria	(Saint-Jacqucs)	ParryCassidy	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Copps (Ms.)	Hopkins	Prud'hommeDeans	Hovdebo	Riisde Corneille	Jewett (Ms.) Kaplan
NAYS Messrs.	Robinson Rodriguez-42.Andre	Champagne	DesjardinsAtlcwell	(Champlain)	DickBclsher	Charcst	Dor inBernier	Chartrand	DuguayBertrand (Mrs.)	Clark	DuplcssisBinns	(Brandon-Souris)	(Mrs.)Blackburn	Clifford	Edwards(Jonquiere)	Cochrane	ElzingaBlais	Comeau	EppBlais-Grcnicr (Mrs.)	Cook	(Provencher)Blenkarn	Cooper	FennellBouchard	Corbett	FerlandBourgault (Mrs.)	Cossitt (Mrs.)	FontaineBradley	Crofton	ForrestallBrightwell	Crouse	FraserCadieux	Dantzcr	FriesenCaldwell	Darling	GagnonCarney (Miss)	Daubncy	GassChampagne (Mrs.)	Della Nocc	Gerin(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	
Investment Canada Act
	Messrs.	
Gormley	Lewis	RedwayGottselig	Lopez	ReidGravel	MacDonald (Miss)	ReimerGray	(Kingston and	Roman(Bonavcnture-ilcs-de-	the Islands)	St. Germainla-Madeleine)	MacDougall	SchellcnbcrgGreenaway	(Timiskaming)	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Grise	MacKay	ScottGuilbault	Mailly (Mrs.)	(Victoria-Haliburton)(Drummond)	Malone	ScottGurbin	Marin	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Gustafson	Martin (Mrs.)	ScowenHalliday	Mayer	ShieldsHardey	Mazankowski	SiddonHarvey	McCain	SparrowHawkcs	McDermid	(Mrs.)Hicks	McDougall (Mrs.)	SpeyerHnatyshyn	(St. Paul's)	StackhouseHockin	McGrath	StevensHoltmann	Mclnncs	StewartHorner	McKenzie	Tardif (Mrs.)Howie	McKinnon	(Charlesbourg)James	McLean	TaylorJclinck	McMillan	ToupinJepson	Merrithew	TowersJohnson	Minakcr	Tremblay(Bonavista-Trinity-	Mitgcs	(Quebcc-Est)Conception)	Moore	TupperJoncas	Murta	TurnerJourdenais	Nicholson	(Ottawa-Carleton)Kclleher	(Niagara Falls)	ValcourtKcmpling	Nickerson	VankoughnetKilgour	Nielsen	VincentKindy	Nowlan	WarnerKing	Oberle	WeinerLandry (Mrs.)	O'Neil	WhiteLanthier	Oostrom	WilsonLa Salle	Peterson	(Swift Current-Lawrence	Pielz	Maple Creek)Layton	Plourde	WilsonLeblanc	Price	(Etobicoke Centre)Lcsick	Ravis	Winegard Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 19
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 12 to 14 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"the Minister in exercising his powers under this Act, to secure notifications and conduct reviews of investments by non-Canadians under this Act, and provide to other relevant federal departments and agencies information about means to stimulate investment by Canadians in Canada."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 43)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	de Jong	LangdonAlthousc	Epp	LapierreAngus	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MalepartAxworthy	Foster	MarchiBaker	Frith	MurphyBenjamin	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Berger	Gauthier	(Trinity)Blackburn	Gray	Nunziata(Brant)	(Windsor West)	NystromBlaikie	Guilbault	OuelletBoudria	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryCassidy	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Copps (Ms.)	Hopkins	Prud'hommeDeans	Hovdebo	Riisde Corneille	Jewett (Ms.)	RobinsonKaplan	Rodriguez-42.
Investment Canada Act
++NAYS
Messrs.
(Division No. 44)
++YEAS
Messrs.
de Jong
Andre
Aitewcll
Bclshcr
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blais-Grenicr (Mrs.) Blcnkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brightwell Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinlhe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Comcau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Danlzcr
Darling
Daubncy
Della Nocc
Desjardins
Dick
Dor in
Duguay
Duplessis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provcnchcr)
Fennell
Fcrland
Fontaine
Forrcstall
Fraser
Friescn
Gagnon
Gass
Gcrin
Gormley
Gottsclig
Gravel
Gray
(Bonavcnture-ilcs-dela-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Grisc
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkcs
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jclinck
Jcpson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdcnais
Kcllchcr
Kcmpling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthicr
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly (Mrs.)
Malone
Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDcrmid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's)
McGrath
Mclnncs
McKenzie
McKinnon
McLean
McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitgcs Moore Murta i Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pietz Plourdc Price Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain Schcllcnbcrg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tuppcr
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnct
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Wincgard Witcr-159.
Allmand Althouse Angus Axworthy Baker Benjamin Berger Blackburn (Brant) Blaikie Boudria Cassidy Copps (Ms.) Deans dc Corneille
Andre
Attcwell
Belshcr
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blais-Grenier (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brightwell Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint- Hyacinthe- Bagot) Champagne
(Champlain)
C ha rest
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Danlzcr
Darling
Daubney
Della Nocc
Desjardins
Dick
Dor in
Duguay
Duplessis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Fcrland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraser
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gcrin
Gormley
Gottsclig
Gravel
Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Foster Frith Fulton Gauthier Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)
Heap Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett (Ms.)
Kaplan
++NAYS
Messrs.
Gray
(Bonavcnture-iles-de-la-Madcleinc) Greenaway Grisc Guilbault (Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkcs
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
Jcpson
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity-Conception)
Joncas
Jourdcnais
Kcllcher
Kcmpling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthier
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming)
MacKay Mailly (Mrs.)
Malone
Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's)
McGrath
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McLean
Langdon
Lapierre
Malcpart
Marchi
Murphy
Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity) Nunziata Nystrom Ouellet Parry
Pepin (Mrs.) Prud'homme Riis
Robinson Rodriguez-42.
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Murta
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pietz Plourdc Price Ravis Rcdwav Reid '
Reimer Roman St. Germain Schcllcnbcrg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Qucbcc-Est)
Tuppcr
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnct
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Wincgard Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 20
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 14 at page 5 the following:
"(2) The Agency shall have the power to ask for policy directives from the Governor-in-Council as it deems necessary."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:


Investment Canada Act
Messrs.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 23
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 6 to 10 at page
6.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 45)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	Epp	LapierrcAlthouse	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MalcpartAngus	Foster	MarchiAxworthy	Frith	MurphyBaker	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Benjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	NunziataBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Nystrom(Brant)	Guilbault	OuelletBlaikic	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryBoudria	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Cassidy	Hopkins	Prud'hommeCopps (Ms.)	Hovdcbo	RiisDeans	Jewett (Ms.)	Robinsonde Corneille de Jong	Kaplan Langdon
NAYS Messrs.	Rodriguez-42.Andre	Duguay	JohnsonAttewcll	Duplessis	(Bonavista-Trinity-Belsher	(Mrs.)	Conccption)Bernier	Edwards	JoncasBertrand (Mrs.)	Elzinga	JourdenaisBinns	Epp	KclleherBlackburn	(Provcncher)	Kcmpling(Jonquicre)	Fennell	KilgourBlais	Ferland	KindyBlais-Grcnicr (Mrs.)	Fontaine	KingBlenkarn	Forrcstall	Landry (Mrs.)Bouchard	Fraser	LanthicrBourgault (Mrs.)	Friesen	La SalleBradley	Gagnon	LawrenceBrightwell	Gass	LaytonCadicux	Gerin	LeblancCaldwell	Gormlcy	LcsickCarney (Miss)	Gottsclig	LewisChampagne (Mrs.)	Gravel	Lopez(Saint-Hyacinthc-Bagot)	Gray	MacDonald (Miss)Champagne	(Bonavcnture-lles-de-	(Kingston and(Champlain)	la-Madeleine)	the Islands)Charest	Greenaway	MacDougallChart rand	Grisc	(Timiskaming)Clark	Guilbault	MacKay(Brandon-Souris)	(Drummond)	Mailly (Mrs.)Clifford	Gurbin	MaloneCochrane	Gustafson	MarinCornea u	Halliday	Martin (Mrs.)Cook	Hardey	MayerCooper	Harvey	MazankowskiCorbett	Hawkcs	McCainCossitt (Mrs.)	Hicks	McDermidCrofton	Hnatyshyn	McDougall (Mrs.)Crouse	Hockin	(St. Paul's)Dantzcr	Holtmann	McGrathDarling	Horner	MclnncsDaubncy	Howie	McKenzieDella Nocc	James	McKinnonDesjardins	Jelinek	McLeanDick	Jepson	McMillanDor in	MerrithewMinakcr	Roman	ToupinMitgcs	St. Germain	TowersMoore	Schellcnbcrg	TremblayMurta	(Nanaimo-AIbcrni)	(Qucbec-Est)Nicholson	Scott	Tupper(Niagara Falls)	(Victoria-Haliburton)	TurnerNickerson	Scott	(Ottawa-Carlcton)N ielscn	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	ValcourtNowlan	Scowcn	VankoughnctObcrle	Shields	VincentO'Neil	Siddon	WarnerOostrom	Sparrow	WeinerPeterson	(Mrs.)	WhitePictz	Speyer	WilsonPlourde	Stackhouse	(Swift Current-Price	Stevens	Maple Creek)Ravis	Stewart	WilsonRcdway	Tardif (Mrs.)	(Etobicoke Centre)Reid	(Charlesbourg)	WincgardRcimcr	Taylor	Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 25
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 49 and 50 at page 6 and lines 1 to 43 at page 7.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 46)
Allmand	YEAS Messrs. Epp	LapierrcAlthouse	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MalcpartAngus	Foster	MarchiAxworthy	Frith	MurphyBaker	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Benjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	NunziataBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Nystrom(Brant)	Guilbault	OuelletBlaikie	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryBoudria	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Cassidy	Hopkins	Prud'hommeCopps (Ms.)	Hovdcbo	RiisDeans	Jewett (Ms.)	Robinsonde Corneille	Kaplan	Rodriguez-42.de Jong	Langdon	Andre	NAYS Messrs. Champagne	DickAttcwell	(Champlain)	Dor inBelsher	Charcst	DuguayBernier	Chartrand	DuplessisBertrand (Mrs.)	Clark	(Mrs.)Binns	(Brandon-Souris)	EdwardsBlackburn	Clifford	Elzinga(Jonquicre)	Cochrane	EppBlais	Comcau	(Provcncher)Blais-Grenier (Mrs.)	Cook	FennellBlenkarn	Cooper	FerlandBouchard	Corbett	FontaineBourgault (Mrs.)	Cossitt (Mrs.)	ForrcstallBradley	Crofton	FraserBrightwell	Crouse	FriesenCadieux	Dantzcr	GagnonCaldwell	Darling	GassCarney (Miss)	Daubncy	GerinChampagne (Mrs.)	Della Nocc	Gormlcy(Saint-Hyacinlhe-Bagot)	Desjardins	Gottsclig
Investment Canada Act
Messrs.
Gravel
Gray
(Bonavcnture-ilcs-dela-Madeleinc)
Greenaway
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Holliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkcs
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdcnais
Kcllcher
Kcmpling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthicr
La Salic
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lcsick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly (Mrs.) Malone Marin
Martin (Mrs.) Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's) McGrath Mclnncs McKenzie McKinnon McLean McMillan Merrithcw Minakcr Mitgcs Moore Murta Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Obcrlc O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pietz Plourdc Price Ravis Rcdway
Reid Rcimcr Roman St. Germain Schellcnbcrg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Qucbec-Est)
Tuppcr
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnct
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 30
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 19 to 21 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"an making the investment shall, at least forty-five days prior to the anticipated implementation of the investment or, if this is not possible and the Agency has been notified that it is not possible, at least one day prior to implementation, except as provided elsewhere in this Act, in the".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 48)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	Epp	LapierreAlthouse	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MalcpartAngus	Foster	MarchiAxworthy	Frith	MurphyBaker	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Benjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	NunziataBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Nystrom(Brant)	Guilbault	OuellctBlaikic	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryBoudria	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Cassidy	Hopkins	Prud'hommeCopps (Ms.)	Hovdebo	RiisDeans	Jewett (Ms.)	Robinsonde Corneille	Kaplan	Rodriguez-42.de Jong	Langdon	
++NAYS
Messrs.
Andre	Gray	McMillanAttcwcll	(Bona venture-ilcs-de-	MerrithcwBclshcr	la-Madeleine)	MinakerBernier	Greenaway	MitgcsBertrand (Mrs.)	Grise	MooreBinns	Guilbault	MurtaBlackburn	(Drummond)	Nicholson(Jonqui&re)	Gurbin	(Niagara Falls)Blais	Gustafson	N ickersonBlais-Grenicr (Mrs.)	Halliday	NielsenBlenkarn	Hardey	NowlanBouchard	Harvey	OberleBourgault (Mrs.)	Hawkes	O'NeilBradley	Hicks	OostromBrightwell	Hnatyshyn	PetersonCadieux	Hockin	PietzCaldwell	Holtmann	PlourdcCarney (Miss)	Horner	PriceChampagne (Mrs.)	Howie	Ravis(Saint-Hyacint he- Bagot)	James	RcdwayChampagne	Jelinek	Reid(Champlain)	Jepson	RcimerC ha rest	Johnson	RomanChartrand	(Bonavista-Trinity-	St. GermainClark	Conception)	Schcllcnberg(Brandon-Souris)	Joncas	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Clifford	Jourdcnais	ScottCochrane	Kellchcr	(Victoria-Haliburton)Comeau	Kcmpling	ScottCook	Kilgour	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cooper	Kindy	ScowenCorbett	King	ShieldsCossitt (Mrs.)	Landry (Mrs.)	SiddonCrofton	Lanthicr	SparrowCrouse	La Salle	(Mrs.)Dantzcr	Lawrence	SpeyerDarling	Layton	StackhouseDaubncy	Leblanc	StevensDella Nocc	Lesick	StewartDesjardins	Lewis	Tardif (Mrs.)Dick	Lopez	(Charlesbourg)Dorin	MacDonald (Miss)	TaylorDuguay	(Kingston and	ToupinDuplessis	the Islands)	Towers(Mrs.)	MacDougall	TremblayEdwards	(Timiskaming)	(Qucbec-Est)Elzinga	MacKay	TupperEpp	Mailly (Mrs.)	Turner(Provencher)	Malone	(Ottawa-Carleton)Fennell	Marin	ValcourtFcrland	Martin (Mrs.)	VankoughnctFontaine	Mayer	VincentForrcstall	Mazankowski	WarnerFraser	McCain	WeinerFriesen	McDermid	WhiteGagnon	McDougall (Mrs.)	WilsonGass	(St. Paul's)	(Swift Current-Gerin	McGrath	Maple Creek)Gormlcy	Mclnnes	WilsonGottselig	McKenzie	(Etobicoke Centre)Gravel	McKinnon	WinegardMcLean	Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 34
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 36 to 40 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) an investment to acquire control of a Canadian business in any manner described in paragraph 28 where the value calculated in the manner prescribed of
(i)	the gross assets acquired, in the case where control of a Canadian business is acquired in the manner described in paragraph 28( I )(c), or
(ii)	the gross assets of the entity carrying on the Canadian business and of any other entity in Canada the control of which is acquired directly or


indirectly, in the case where control of a Canadian business is acquired in the manner described in paragraph 28( I )(a). (b) or (d), is five million dollars or more;".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 49)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Investment Canada Act
Messrs.
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carlcton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnct
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Lapicrre
Malcpart
Marchi
Murphy
Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity) Nunziata Nystrom Oucllel Parry
Pepin (Mrs.) Prud'homme Riis
Robinson Rodriguez-42.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 35
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 36 to 40 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) an investment to acquire control of a Canadian business in a manner described by section 28 except where that business is in the area of cultural heritage or national identity;".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 50)
Allmand Ailhousc Angus Axworthy Baker Benjamin Berger Blackburn (Brant) Blaikic Boudria Cassidy Copps (Ms.) Deans
dc Corneille dc Jong
Andre
Attcwcll
Bclsher
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blais-Grcnicr (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brightwcll Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthc-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest Chart rand Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Cornea u Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Daubncy
Della Nocc
Desjardins
Dick
Dorin
Duguay
Duplcssis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Fcrland
Fontaine
++YEAS
Messrs.
Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Foster Frith Fulton Gauthier Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap Hopkins Hovdcbo Jewett (Ms.)
Kaplan
Langdon
++NAYS
Messrs.
Forrcstall
Fraser
Friescn
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Gormlcy
Gottsclig
Gravel
Gray
(Bonavcnture-ilcs-dela-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jclinck
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conccption)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kellehcr
Kempling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthicr
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lcsick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
MacKay Mailly (Mrs.)
Malone
Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's)
McGrath
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McLean
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Murta
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pictz Plourdc Price Ravis Rcdway Reid Rcimer Roman St. Germain Schcllcnbcrg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wcntworth) Scowcn Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Allmand Ailhousc Angus Axworthy Baker Benjamin Berger Blackburn (Brant) Blaikie Boudria Cassidy Copps (Ms.) Deans
dc Corneille dc Jong
Andre
Attcwcll
Belshcr
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonqui&re)
Blais
Blais-Grenicr (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brighlwell Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
C ha rest
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Foster Frith Fulton Gauthier Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett (Ms.)
Kaplan
Langdon
++NAYS
Messrs.
Clifford
Cochrane
Cornea u
Cook
Cooper
Corbett
Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Daubncy
Della Noce
Desjardins
Dick
Dorin
Duguay
Duplessis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Lapicrre
Malcpart
Marchi
Murphy
Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity) Nunziata Nystrom Oucllct Parry
Pepin (Mrs.) Prud'homme Riis
Robinson Rodriguez-42.
Forrestall
Fraser
Fricsen
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Gormley
Gottsclig
Gravel
Gray
(Bonavcnturc-iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greenaway Grise Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
5410


Investment Canada Act
Messrs.
Horner	Mazankowski	ScottHowie	McCain	(Victoria-Haliburton)James	McDermid	ScottJelinek	McDougall (Mrs.)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Jepson	(St. Paul's)	ScowenJohnson	McGrath	Shields(Bonavista-Trinity-	Mclnnes	SiddonConception)	McKenzie	SparrowJoncas	McKinnon	(Mrs.)Jourdenais	McLean	SpeyerKelleher	McMillan	StackhouseKcmpling	Merrithew	StevensKilgour	Minaker	StewartKindy	Mitges	Tardif (Mrs.)King	Moore	(Charlesbourg)Landry (Mrs.)	Murta	TaylorLanthier	Nicholson	ToupinLa Salle	(Niagara Falls)	TowersLawrence	Nickerson	TremblayLayton	Nielsen	(Quebec-Est)Leblanc	Nowlan	TupperLesick	Oberle	TurnerLewis	O'Neil	(Ottawa-Carleton)Lopez	Oostrom	ValcourtMacDonald (Miss)	Peterson	Vankoughnet(Kingston and	Pictz	Vincentthe Islands)	Plourdc	WarnerMacDougall	Price	Weiner(Timiskaming)	Ravis	WhiteMacKay	Redway	WilsonMailly (Mrs.)	Reid	(Swift Current-Malone	Reimer	Maple Creek)Marin	Roman	WilsonMarlin (Mrs.)	St. Germain	(Etobicoke Centre)Mayer	Schellcnberg	Winegard(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Witer-159.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 36
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 41 and 42 at page 9 and lines 1 to 3 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) an investment to establish a new business where the assets of the new business are five million dollars or more;".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 51)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Champagne (Mrs.)	Hnatyshyn	Nickerson(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Hockin	NielsenChampagne	Holtmann	Nowlan(Champlain)	Horner	OberleC ha rest	Howie	O'NeilChartrand	James	OostromClark	Jelinek	Peterson(Brandon-Souris)	Jepson	PictzClifford	Johnson	PlourdeCochrane	(Bonavista-Trinity-	PriceComeau	Conception)	RavisCook	Joncas	RedwayCooper	Jourdenais	ReidCorbett	Kelleher	ReimerCossitt (Mrs.)	Kempling	RomanCrofton	Kilgour	St. GermainCrouse	Kindy	SchcllenbcrgDantzer	King	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Darling	Landry (Mrs.)	ScottDaubney	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Della Noce	La Salle	ScottDesjardins	Lawrence	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Dick	Layton	ScowenDor in	Leblanc	ShieldsDuguay	Lesick	SiddonDuplessis	Lewis	Sparrow(Mrs.)	Lopez	(Mrs.)Edwards	MacDonald (Miss)	SpeyerElzinga	(Kingston and	StackhouseEpp	the Islands)	Stevens(Provencher)	MacDougall	StewartFennell	(Timiskaming)	Tardif (Mrs.)Ferland	MacKay	(Charlesbourg)Fontaine	Mailly (Mrs.)	TaylorForrestall	Malone	ToupinFraser	Marin	TowersFriesen	Martin (Mrs.)	TremblayGagnon	Mayer	(Quebec-Est)Gass	Mazankowski	TupperGcrin	McCain	TurnerGormley	McDermid	(Ottawa-Carleton)Gottselig	McDougall (Mrs.)	ValcourtGravel	(St. Paul's)	VankoughnetGray	McGrath	Vincent(Bona vent u re-iles-de-	Mclnnes	Warnerla-Madcleine)	McKenzie	WeinerGreenaway	McKinnon	WhiteGrise	McLean	WilsonGuilbault	McMillan	(Swift Current-(Drummond)	Merrithew	Maple Creek)Gurbin	Minaker	WilsonGustafson	Mitges	(Etobicoke Centre)Halliday	Moore	WinegardHardey	Murta	Witer-159.Harvey	Nicholson	Hawkes	(Niagara Falls)	
Hicks
Allmand Althousc Angus Axworthy Baker Benjamin Berger Blackburn (Brant) Blaikie Boudria Cassidy Copps (Ms.) Deans
de Corneille de Jong
Messrs.
Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Foster Frith Fulton Gauthier Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett (Ms.)
Kaplan
Langdon
Lapierre
Malepart
Marchi
Murphy
Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity) Nunziata Nystrom Ouellet Parry
Pepin (Mrs.) Prud'homme Riis
Robinson Rodriguez-42.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 38
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out lines 10 to 15 and lines 45 to 47 at page 10 and lines 1 to 5 at page 11.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 52)
	NAYS	
	Messrs.	
Andre	Blackburn	Bourgault (Mrs.)Attcwell	(Jonquiere)	BradleyBelsher	Blais	BrightwellBernier	Blais-Grcnier (Mrs.)	CadieuxBertrand (Mrs.)	Blenkarn	CaldwellBinns	Bouchard	Carney (Miss)Allmand	YEAS Messrs. Blackburn	de CorneilleAlthousc	(Brant)	de JongAngus	Blaikie	EppAxworthy	Boudria	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)Baker	Cassidy	FosterBenjamin	Copps (Ms.)	FrithBerger	Deans	Fulton
Investment Canada Act
Messrs.
Gauthier	Kaplan	NunziataGray	Langdon	Nystrom(Windsor West)	La pierre	OuelictGuilbault	Malepart	Parry(Saint-Jacques)	Marchi	Pepin (Mrs.)Heap	Murphy	Prud'hommeHopkins	Nicholson (Miss)	RiisHovdcbo	(Trinity)	RobinsonJewett (Ms.)	NAYS Messrs.	Rodriguez-42.Andre	Gray	McMillanAttewcll	(Bona vent u re-1 les-de-	MerrilhewBelshcr	la-Madeleine)	MinakerBernier	Greenaway	MitgesBertrand (Mrs.)	Grise	MooreBinns	Guilbault	MurtaBlackburn	(Drummond)	Nicholson(Jonquierc)	Gurbin	(Niagara Falls)Blais	Gustafson	NickersonBlais-Grenicr (Mrs.)	Halliday	NielsenBlenkarn	Hardcy	NowlanBouchard	Harvey	ObcrlcBourgault (Mrs.)	Hawkcs	O'NeilBradley	Hicks	OostromBrightwell	Hnatyshyn	PetersonCadieux	Hockin	PictzCaldwell	Holtmann	PlourdcCarney (Miss)	Horner	PriceChampagne (Mrs.)	Howie	Ravis(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot) James	RedwayChampagne	Jelinek	Reid(Champlain)	Jcpson	ReimcrCharest	Johnson	RomanChart rand	(Bonavista-T rinity-	St. GermainClark	Conception)	Schellcnbcrg(Brandon-Sour is)	Joncas	(Nanaimo-Albcrni)Clifford	Jourdenais	ScottCochrane	Kellehcr	(Victoria-Haliburton)Comcau	Kcmpling	ScottCook	Kilgour	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cooper	Kindy	ScowenCorbett	King	ShieldsCossitt (Mrs.)	Landry (Mrs.)	SiddonCrofton	Lanthier	SparrowCrouse	La Salle	(Mrs.)Dantzcr	Lawrence	SpeyerDarling	Layton	StackhouseDuubncy	Leblanc	StevensDella Noce	Lesick	StewartDesjardins	Lewis	Tardif (Mrs.)Dick	Lopez	(Charlesbourg)Dorin	MacDonald (Miss)	TaylorDuguay	(Kingston and	ToupinDuplessis	the Islands)	Towers(Mrs.)	MacDougall	TremblayEdwards	(Timiskaming)	(Quebec-Est)Elzinga	MacKay	TupperEpp	Mailly (Mrs.)	Turner(Provenchcr)	Malone	(Otlawa-Carleton)Fennell	Marin	ValcourtFerland	Martin (Mrs.)	VankoughnctFontaine	Mayer	VincentForrestall	Mazankowski	WarnerFraser	McCain	WeinerFriescn	McDcrmid	WhiteGagnon	McDougall (Mrs.)	WilsonGass	(St. Paul's)	(Swift Current-Gerin	McGrath	Maple Creek)Gormlcy	Mclnncs	WilsonGollsclig	McKenzie	(Etobicoke Centre)Gravel	McKinnon	WinegardMcLean	Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 38A
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 15 at page 10 the following:
"(e) gross assets shall be determined as at the latest completed fiscal period at current prices in a manner prescribed by regulations."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Allmand	(Division No. 53)
 YEAS Messrs. de Jong	Langdon
Althouse	Epp	LapierreAngus	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MalepartAxworthy	Foster	MarchiBaker	Frith	MurphyBenjamin	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Berger	Gauthier	(Trinity)Blackburn	Gray	Nunziata(Brant)	(Windsor West)	NystromBlaikie	Guilbault	OuelletBoudria	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryCassidy	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Copps (Ms.)	Hopkins	Prud'hommeDeans	Hovdcbo	Riisde Corneille	Jewett (Ms.)	RobinsonKaplan	Rodriguez-42.Andre	NAYS Messrs. Fontaine	LopezAttewcll	Forrestall	MacDonald (Miss)Belsher	Fraser	(Kingston andBernier	Friesen	the Islands)Bertrand (Mrs.)	Gagnon	MacDougallBinns	Gass	(Timiskaming)Blackburn	Gerin	MacKay(Jonquicre)	Gormley	Mailly (Mrs.)Blais	Gottselig	MaloneBlais-Grenier (Mrs.)	Gravel	MarinBlenkarn	Gray	Martin (Mrs.)Bouchard	(Bonavcnture-iles-de-	MayerBourgault (Mrs.)	la-Madeleine)	MazankowskiBradley	Greenaway	McCainBrightwell	Grise	McDcrmidCadieux	Guilbault	McDougall (Mrs.)Caldwell	(Drummond)	(St. Paul's)Carney (Miss)	Gurbin	McGrathChampagne (Mrs.)	Gustafson	Mclnnes(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot) Halliday	McKenzieChampagne	Hardey	McKinnon(Champlain)	Harvey	McLeanCharest	Hawkes	McMillanChartrand	Hicks	MerrilhewClark	Hnatyshyn	Minaker(Brandon-Souris)	Hockin	MitgesClifford	Holtmann	MooreCochrane	Horner	MurtaComeau	Howie	NicholsonCook	James	(Niagara Falls)Cooper	Jelinek	NickersonCorbett	Jepson	NielsenCossitt (Mrs.)	Johnson	NowlanCrofton	(Bonavista-Trinity-	OberleCrouse	Conception)	O'NeilDantzer	Joncas	OostromDarling	Jourdenais	PetersonDaubney	Kelleher	PietzDella Noce	Kempling	PlourdeDesjardins	Kilgour	PriceDick	Kindy	RavisDorin	King	RedwayDuguay	Landry (Mrs.)	ReidDuplessis	Lanthier	Reimer(Mrs.)	La Salle	RomanEdwards	Lawrence	St. GermainElzinga	Layton	SchellcnbcrgEpp	Leblanc	(Nanaimo-Alberi(Provenchcr)	Lesick	ScottFennell	Lewis	(Vicloria-Halibimon)
Fcrland


Investment Canada Act
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer
Stackhouse
Stevens
Stewart
Messrs. Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnct
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
While
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 41
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 9 to 13 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) it falls within a prescribed type of business that is related to Canada's cultural heritage or national identity including the publication, distribution or sale of books, magazines, periodicals or newspapers in print or machine-readable form; the production, distribution, sale or exhibition of film or video products; the production, distribution, sale or exhibition of audio or video music recordings; the publication, distribution or sale of music in print or machine-readable form; the production, distribution or sale of educational materials, or other such businesses to be further specified in regulations pursuant to this Act; and".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 54)
++YEAS
Gerin
Gormlcy
Gottselig
Gravel
Gray
(Bonavcnture-lles-de-la-Madeleine) Greenaway Grise Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conccption)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kclleher
Kempling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthier
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Messrs.
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly (Mrs.) Malone Marin
Martin (Mrs.) Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's) McGrath Mclnnes McKenzie McKinnon McLean McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitgcs Moore Murta Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pietz Plourde Price Ravis Rcdway
Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain Schellcnberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-159.
Messrs.
Allmand	de Jong	LangdonAlthousc	Epp	LapierreAngus	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MalepartAxworthy	Foster	MarchiBaker	Frith	MurphyBenjamin	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Berger	Gauthier	(Trinity)Blackburn	Gray	Nunziata(Brant)	(Windsor West)	NystromBlaikie	Guilbault	OucllctBoudria	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryCassidy	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Copps (Ms.)	Hopkins	Prud'hommeDeans	Hovdebo	Riisdc Corneille	Jewett (Ms.)	RobinsonKaplan
NAYS Messrs.	Rodriguez-42.Andre	Champagne (Mrs.)	Della NoceAttewcll	(Saint-Hyacinthc-Bagot)	DesjardinsBclsher	Champagne	DickBernier	(Champlain)	Dor inBertrand (Mrs.)	Charest	DuguayBinns	Chartrand	DuplessisBlackburn	Clark	(Mrs.)(Jonquiere)	(Brandon-Souris)	EdwardsBlais	Clifford	ElzingaBlais-Grenier (Mrs.)	Cochrane	EppBlenkarn	Comeau	(Provencher)Bouchard	Cook	FennellBourgault (Mrs.)	Cooper	FerlandBradley	Corbett	FontaineBrightwell	Cossitt (Mrs.)	ForrestallCadieux	Crofton	FraserCaldwell	Crouse	FriesenCarney (Miss)	Dantzer	GagnonDarling Daubney	Gass


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 50
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 14 to 23 at page
11.
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 17 by striking out lines 20 to 23 at page
12.
The House divided on Motion No. 50 (which applies to Motion No. 52), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 55)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	de Jong	LangdonAlthouse	Epp	LapierreAngus	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MalepartAxworthy	Foster	MarchiBaker	Frith	MurphyBenjamin	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Berger	Gauthier	(Trinity)Blackburn	Gray	Nunziata(Brant)	(Windsor West)	NystromBlaikie	Guilbault	OuelletBoudria	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryCassidy	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Copps (Ms.)	Hopkins	Prud'hommeDeans	Hovdebo	Riisde Corneille	Jewett (Ms.)	RobinsonKaplan	Rodriguez-42.
Investment Canada Act
++NAYS
Messrs.
Andre
Atiewell
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blais-Grenier (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brightwell Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot) Champagne
(Champlain)
C ha rest
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Dantzcr
Darling
Daubney
Della Nocc
Desjardins
Dick
Dorin
Duguay
Duplessis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraser
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Gormley
Gottselig
Gravel
Gray
(Bonaventure-llcs-de-la-Madeleine) Greenaway Grisc Guilbault (Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkcs
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kcllcher
Kcmpling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthicr
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lcsick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly (Mrs.)
Malone
Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's)
McGrath
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McLean
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Murta
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pietz Plourde Price Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain Schellcnberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scowen
Shields
Siddon
Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 53
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 8 to 26 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"19. (1) The agency shall make a written submission of its recommendations to the Governor-in-Council regarding the investment application under this Part which documents the reasons for the recommendation and other interventions which the Agency has received in connection with this application.
(2) The Agency will accept and solicit interventions from parties affected or potentially affected, by the application, including interventions from provinces, territories, municipalities, workers, suppliers, customers or other affected parties."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 56)
++YEAS
Ailmand Althouse Angus Axworthy Baker Benjamin Berger Blackburn (Brant) Blaikie Boudria Cassidy Copps (Ms.) Deans
de Corneille
Andre
Attewell
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonqui&re)
Blais
Blais-Grenier (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brightwell Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Daubney
Della Noce
Desjardins
Dick
Dorin
Duguay
Duplessis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Messrs.
dc Jong Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Foster Frith Fulton Gauthier Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett (Ms.)
Kaplan
++NAYS
Messrs.
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraser
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Gormley
Gottselig
Gravel
Gray
(Bonavcnlure-ilcs-de-la-Madeleine) Greenaway Grise Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kelleher
Kcmpling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthier
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Langdon
Lapierrc
Malepart
Marchi
Murphy
Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity) Nunziata Nystrom Ouellct Parry
Pepin (Mrs.) Prud'homme Riis
Robinson Rodriguez-42.
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall
(Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly (Mrs.)
Malone
Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's)
McGrath
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McLean
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Murta
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pietz Plourde Price Ravis Rcdway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)


Investment Canada Act
Messrs.
Messrs.
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer
Stackhouse
Stevens
Stewart
Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlcsbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Qucbec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughncl
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 67
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 22 by striking out line 40 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"thirty days from the date, or in the case of investments enumerated under Section 15, forty-five days from the date of the sending of'.
The House divided on Motion No. 67, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 57)
++YEAS
Jourdcnais
Kelleher
Kempling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthier
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly (Mrs.) Malone Marin
Martin (Mrs.) Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's) McGrath
Mcinnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McLean
McMillan
Mcrrithew
M maker
Milges
Moore
Murta
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pictz Plourde Price Ravis Rcdway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlcsbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec- Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnct
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witcr-159.
Messrs.
Allmand	de Jong	LangdonAlthousc	Epp	LapierreAngus	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MalepartAxworthy	Foster	MarchiBaker	Frith	MurphyBenjamin	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Berger	Gauthier	(Trinity)Blackburn	Gray	Nunziata(Brant)	(Windsor West)	NystromBlaikie	Guilbault	OuelletBoudria	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryCassidy	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Copps (Ms.)	Hopkins	Prud'hommeDeans	Hovdebo	Riisde Corneille	Jewett (Ms.)	RobinsonKaplan	Rodriguez-42.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 70
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 22 by striking out line 11 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"to the applicant confirming that the investment may proceed."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 59)
++NAYS
++YEAS
Messrs.
Andre	Cook	Gormley	Attewell	Cooper	Gottsclig	AllmandBelsher	Corbett	Gravel	AlthouseBernier	Cossitt (Mrs.)	Gray	AngusBertrand (Mrs.)	Crofton	(Bonavcnture-Iles-de-	AxworthyBinns	Crouse	la-Madeleine)	BakerBlackburn	Dantzer	Greenaway	Benjamin(Jonquicre)	Darling	Grisc	BergerBlais	Daubney	Guilbault	BlackburnBlais-Grenicr (Mrs.)	Della Noce	(Drummond)	(Brant)Blenkarn	Desjardins	Gurbin	BlaikieBouchard	Dick	Gustafson	BoudriaBourgault (Mrs.)	Dor in	Halliday	CassidyBradley	Duguay	Hardey	Copps (Ms.)Brightwell	Duplessis	Harvey	DeansCadieux	(Mrs.)	Hawkes	de CorneilleCaldwell	Edwards	Hicks	Carney (Miss)	Elzinga	Hnatyshyn	Champagne (Mrs.)	Epp	Hockin	(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	(Provencher)	Holtmann	Champagne	Fennell	Horner	(Champlain)	Ferland	Howie	AndreCharest	Fontaine	James	AttewellChartrand	Forrestall	Jelinek	BelsherClark	Fraser	Jepson	Bernier(Brandon-Souris)	Friescn	Johnson	Bertrand (Mrs.Clifford	Gagnon	(Bonavista-Trinity-	BinnsCochrane	Gass	Conception)	BlackburnComeau	Gcrin	Joncas	(Jonquitre)
Messrs.
de Jong Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Foster Frith Fulton Gauthier Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)
Heap Hopkins Hovdcbo Jewett (Ms.)
Kaplan
++NAYS
Messrs.
Blais
Blais-Grenicr (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley
Brightwell
Langdon
Lapierre
Malepart
Marchi
Murphy
Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity) Nunziata Nystrom Ouellet Parry
Pepin (Mrs.) Prud'homme Riis
Robinson Rodriguez-42.
Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest


Chartrand	Messrs. Holtmann	NickersonClark	Horner	Nielsen(Brandon-Souris)	Howie	NowlanClifford	James	OberleCochrane	Jelinek	O'NeilComeau	Jepson	OostromCook	Johnson	PetersonCooper	(Bonavista-Trinity-	PietzCorbett	Conception)	PlourdeCossitt (Mrs.)	Joncas	PriceCrofton	Jourdenais	RavisCrouse	Kelleher	RedwayDantzer	Kempling	ReidDarling	Kilgour	ReimerDaubney	Kindy	RomanDella Noce	King	St. GermainDesjardins	Landry (Mrs.)	SchellenbergDick	Lanthier	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Dorin	La Salle	ScottDuguay	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)Duplessis	Layton	Scott(Mrs.)	Leblanc	(Hamilton-Wcntworth)Edwards	Lesick	ScowcnElzinga	Lewis	ShieldsEpp	Lopez	Siddon(Provencher)	MacDonald (Miss)	SparrowFennell	(Kingston and	(Mrs.)Ferland	the Islands)	SpeyerFontaine	MacDougall	StackhouseForrestall	(Timiskaming)	StevensFraser	MacKay	StewartFriesen	Mailly (Mrs.)	Tardif (Mrs.)Gagnon	Malone	(Charlesbourg)Gass	Marin	TaylorGerin	Martin (Mrs.)	ToupinGormley	Mayer	TowersGottselig	Mazankowski	TremblayGravel	McCain	(Quebec-Est)Gray	McDermid	Tupper(Bonaventure-llcs-de-	McDougall (Mrs.)	Turnerla-Madeleine)	(St. Paul's)	(Ottawa-Carleton)Greenaway	McGrath	ValcourtGrise	Mclnnes	VankoughnetGuilbault	McKenzie	Vincent(Drummond)	McKinnon	WarnerGurbin	McLean	WeinerGustafson	McMillan	WhiteHalliday	Merrithew	WilsonHardey	Minaker	(Swift Current-Harvey	Mitges	Maple Creek)Hawkes	Moore	WilsonHicks	Murta	(Etobicoke Centre)Hnatyshyn	Nicholson	WinegardHockin	(Niagara Falls)	Witer-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 72 That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 23 by striking out line 18 at page		
and substituting the following therefor:		
"notice to that effect to the applicant containing reasons why a net benefit 1		
not been achieved by the proposal to the applicant, and advising".		
The House divided on the motion,		which was negatived
the following division:		
	(Division No. 60)	
Allmand	YEAS Messrs. Blackburn	de CorneilleAlthouse	(Brant)	de JongAngus	Biaikie	EppAxworthy	Boudria	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)Baker	Cassidy	FosterBenjamin	Copps (Ms.)	FrithBerger	Deans	Fulton
Investment Canada Act
Messrs.
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) Heap Hopkins Hovdebo
Andre
Attewell
Bclsher
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiire)
Blais
Blais-Grenier (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brightwell Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest Chart rand Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Daubncy
Della Nocc
Desjardins
Dick
Dorin
Duguay
Duplessis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provcncher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraser
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Gormley
Gottselig
Gravel
Jewett (Ms.)
Kaplan
Langdon
Lapierre
Malepart
Marchi
Murphy
Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Gray
(Bonavcnture-lles-dcla-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kelleher
Kempling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthier
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly (Mrs.)
Malone
Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's)
McGrath
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McLean
Nunziata
Nystrom
Ouellet
Parry
Pepin (Mrs.) Prud'homme Riis
Robinson Rodriguez-42.
McMillan
Merrithcw
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Murta
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberlc O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pietz Plourde Price Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witcr-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 76
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 25 by adding immediately after line 15 at page 16 the following:


Investment Canada Act
"(2) Notwithstanding the above, the Agency may, pursuant to a representation from a party which claims to be adversely affected by a breach of undertakings, or for other reasons as the Agency deems necessary, require information immediately to determine whether the investment is being carried out in accordance with the application filed under section 17, and thereby to determine the validity of the affected party's claim."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 61)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	Epp	LapicrrcAllhouse	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	Male partAngus	Foster	MarchiAxworthy	Frith	MurphyBaker	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Benjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	NunziataBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Nystrom(Brant)	Guilbault	OuclletBlaikie	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryBoudria	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Cassidy	Hopkins	Prud'hommeCopps (Ms.)	Hovdebo	RiisDeans	Jewett (Ms.)	Robinsonde Corneille	Kaplan	Rodriguez-42.de Jong	Langdon	
++NAYS
Messrs.
Andre	Elzinga	KingAltewcll	Epp	Landry (Mrs.)Belsher	(Provencher)	LanthierBernier	Fennell	La SalleBertrand (Mrs.)	Fcrland	LawrenceBinns	Fontaine	LaytonBlackburn	Forrestall	Leblanc(Jonquiere)	Fraser	LcsickBlais	Friesen	LewisBlais-Grcnicr (Mrs.)	Gagnon	LopezBlenkarn	Gass	MacDonald (Miss)Bouchard	Gerin	(Kingston andBourgault (Mrs.)	Gormley	the Islands)Bradley	Gottselig	MacDougallBrightwell	Gravel	(Timiskaming)Cadieux	Gray	Mac KayCaldwell	(Bonavcnture-llcs-de-	Mailly (Mrs.)Carney (Miss)	la-Madeleine)	MaloneChampagne (Mrs.)	Greenaway	Marin(Sainl-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Grise	Martin (Mrs.)Champagne	Guilbault	Mayer(Champlain)	(Drummond)	MazankowskiCharest	Gurbin	McCainChartrand	Gustafson	McDermidClark	Halliday	McDougall (Mrs.)(Brandon-Souris)	Hardey	(St. Paul's)Clifford	Harvey	McGrathCochrane	Hawkes	MclnnesComcau	Hicks	McKenzieCook	Hnatyshyn	McKinnonCooper	Hockin	McLeanCorbett	Holtmann	McMillanCossitt (Mrs.)	Horner	MerrithcwCrofton	Howie	MinakcrCrouse	James	MitgesDantzcr	Jelinek	MooreDarling	Jcpson	MurtaDaubncy	Johnson	NicholsonDella Nocc	(Bonavista-Trinity-	(Niagara Falls)Desjardins	Conception)	NickersonDick	Joncas	NielsenDor in	Jourdcnais	NowlanDuguay	Kcllchcr	ObcrleDuplessis	Kcmpling	O'Neil(Mrs.)	Kilgour	OostromEdwards	Kindy	Peterson
Messrs.
Pictz	Shields	TurnerPlourde	Siddon	(Ottawa-Carleton)Price	Sparrow	ValcourtRavis	(Mrs.)	VankoughnetRedway	Speyer	VincentReid	Stackhouse	WarnerRcimcr	Stevens	WeinerRoman	Stewart	WhiteSt. Germain	Tardif (Mrs.)	WilsonSchellenbcrg	(Charlesbourg)	(Swift Current-(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Taylor	Maple Creek)Scott	Toupin	Wilson(Victoria-Haliburton)	T owers	(Etobicoke Centre)Scott	Tremblay	Winegard(Hamilton-Wentworth)	(Qucbcc-Est)	Witer-159.Scowen	Tuppcr


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: 
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 77
That Bill C-l 5, be amended in Clause 26 by striking out lines 28 to 39 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
''(f) where a corporation incorporated in Canada or elsewhere that is controlled in any manner that results in control in fact whether directly through the ownership of shares or indirectly through a trust, a contract, the ownership of shares of any other corporation, it is not a Canadian-controlled entity; and".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 63)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	Berger	Copps(Ms.)Althousc	Blackburn	DeansAngus	(Brant)	de CorneilleAxworthy	Blaikie	de JongBaker	Boudria	EppBenjamin	Cassidy	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)Desjardins	LewisDick	LopezDorin	MacDonald (Miss)Duguay	(Kingston andDuplessis	the Islands)(Mrs.)	MacDougallEdwards	(Timiskaming)Elzinga	MacKayEpp	Mailly(Mrs.)(Provencher)	MaloneFennell	MarinFerland	Martin (Mrs.)Fontaine	MayerForrestall	MazankowskiFraser	McCainFriesen	McDermidGagnon	McDougall (Mrs.)Gass	(St. Paul's)Gerin	McGrathGormlcy	MclnnesGottselig	McKenzieGravel	McKinnon
McLean


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 77B
That Bill C-l5, be amended in Clause 26 by striking out lines 31 and 32 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) four-fifths of its voting shares are owned by Canadians and it can be established that no non-Canadian exercises control through its voting shares or
Is)
Ibcrni)
liburton)
Wentworth)
larau tivirs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Oltawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnct
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-159.


Investment Canada Act
indirectly through a trust or a contract, or by virtue of its relationship as a creditor, a supplier or a buyer,".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 65)

Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Messrs.
Tremblay
(Qucbec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carlcton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-159.
Alima nd Althouse Angus Axworthy Baker Benjamin Berger Blackburn (Brant) Blaikie Boudria Cassidy Copps (Ms.) Deans de Corneille dc Jong
Andre
Attewcll
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonqui&re)
Blais
Blais-Grenicr (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brightwell Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest Chart rand Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Daubney
Della Nocc
Desjardins
Dick
Dor in
Duguay
Duplessis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Messrs.
Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Foster Frith Fulton Gauthier Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett (Ms.)
Kaplan
Langdon
++NAYS
Messrs.
Fraser
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Gormley
Gottselig
Gravel
Gray
(Bonavcnture-Ilcs-dela-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conccption)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kclleher
Kcmpling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthier
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
Lapierre
Malepart
Marchi
Murphy
Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity) Nunziata Nystrom Ouellet Parry
Pepin (Mrs.) Prud'homme Riis
Robinson Rodriguez-42.
MacDougall
(Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly (Mrs.)
Malone
Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's)
McGrath
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McLean
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Murta
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pietz Plourde Price Ravis Rcdway Reid Reimcr Roman St. Germain Schellenbcrg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 77C
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 28
(a) by striking out line 44 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor: "Canadian business, or that is carrying on a branch business in Canada, where".
(4) by striking out line 4 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor: "Canadian business, or that is carrying on a branch business in Canada, or".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 66)
Allmand Althouse Angus Axworthy Baker Benjamin Berger Blackburn (Brant) Blaikie Boudria Cassidy Copps (Ms.) Deans de Corneille de Jong
Andre
Attewell
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blais-Grenier (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brightwell Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest Chart rand Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Foster Frith Fulton Gauthier Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett (Ms.)
Kaplan
Langdon
++NAYS
Messrs.
Clifford
Cochrane
Comeau
Cook
Cooper
Corbett
Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Daubney
Della Noce
Desjardins
Dick
Dorin
Duguay
Duplessis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Lapierre
Malepart
Marchi
Murphy
Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity) Nunziata Nystrom Ouellet Parry
Pepin (Mrs.) Prud'homme Riis
Robinson Rodriguez-42.
Forrestall Fraser Friesen Gagnon Gass Gerin Gormley Gottselig Gravel Gray
(Bonavcnture-lles-de-la-Madeleine) Greenaway Grise Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin Gustafson Halliday Hardey Harvey Hawkes Hicks Hnatyshyn Hockin Holtmann


Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kcllchcr
Kempling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthier
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly (Mrs.) Malone Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mayer
Messrs.
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's)
McGrath Mclnnes McKenzie McKinnon McLean McMillan Merrithew Minakcr Mitges Moore Murta Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pielz Plourde Price Ravis Redway Reid Reimcr Roman St. Germain Schellcnberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scowen
Shields
Siddon
Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Oltawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-159.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: 
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 80
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 35 by striking out lines 9 to 19 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Any regulations prescribed by the Governor-in-Council as described in subsection (I), shall be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first five days on which that House is sitting after they are made and shall not come into force before sixty days after they are made."


Investment Canada Act
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:	vaicourt
Vankoughnet
Vincent
(Division No. 68)	Warner
Weiner
++YEAS
Messrs.
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke-Centre) Winegard Witer-159.
Allmand Althousc Angus Axworthy Baker Benjamin Berger Blackburn (Brant) Blaikic Boudria Cassidy Copps (Ms.) Deans
de Corneille de Jong
Andre
Attewell
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonqui&re)
Blais
Blais-Grenier (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brightwell Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthc-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest Chart rand Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Daubncy
Della Noce
Desjardins
Dick
Dor in
Duguay
Duplessis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Fcrland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraser
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Messrs.
Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Foster Frith Fulton Gauthier Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)
Fleap Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett (Ms.)
Kaplan
Langdon
++NAYS
Messrs.
Gcrin
Gormlcy
Gottsclig
Gravel
Gray
(Bonavcnturc- lles-dc-la-Madeleinc) Greenaway Grise Guilbault (Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardcy
Harvey
Hawkcs
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kelleher
Kempling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mme)
Lanthier
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (M,,e) (Kingston et les lies)
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
MacKay Mailly (Mme)
Malone
Marin
Martin (Mme)
Mayer
Mazankowski
Lapierrc Male part Marchi Murphy
Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity) Nunziata Ny strom Ouellcl Parry
Pepin (Mrs.) Prud'homme Riis
Robinson Rodriguez-42.
McCain McDermid McDougall (Mme)
(St. Paul's)
McGrath Mclnnes McKenzie McKinnon McLean McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Murta Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pietz Plourde Price Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow (Mme)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mmc) (Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 81
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 35 by striking out lines 11 to 15 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"an business shall be laid before each House of'.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 69)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	Epp	LapierrcAlthousc	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MalepartAngus	Foster	MarchiAxworthy	Frith	MurphyBaker	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Benjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	NunziataBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Nystrom(Brant)	Guilbault	OuellclBlaikie	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryBoudria	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Cassidy	Hopkins	Prud'hommeCopps (Ms.)	Hovdebo	RiisDeans	Jewett (Ms.)	Robinsonde Corneille	Kaplan	Rodriguez-42.de Jong	Langdon
NAYS Messrs.	Andre	Darling	HarveyAttewell	Daubncy	HawkesBelsher	Della Noce	HicksBernier	Desjardins	HnatyshynBertrand (Mrs.)	Dick	HockinBinns	Dorin	HoltmannBlackburn	Duguay	Horner(Jonquiere)	Duplessis	HowieBlais	(Mrs.)	JamesBlais-Grenier (Mrs.)	Edwards	JelinekBlenkarn	Elzinga	JepsonBouchard	Epp	JohnsonBourgault (Mrs.)	(Provencher)	(Bonavista-Trinity-Bradley	Fennell	Conception)Brightwell	Fcrland	JoncasCadieux	Fontaine	JourdenaisCaldwell	Forrestall	KelleherCarney (Miss)	Fraser	KemplingChampagne (Mrs.)	Friesen	Kilgour(Saini-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Gagnon	KindyChampagne	Gass	King(Champlain)	Gerin	Landry (Mrs.)Charest	Gormlcy	LanthierChart rand	Gottsclig	La SalleClark	Gravel	Lawrence(Brandon-Souris)	Gray	LaytonClifford	(Bonavcnture-Iles-de-	LeblancCochrane	la-Madeleinc)	LesickComeau	Greenaway	LewisCook	Grisc	LopezCooper	Guilbault	MacDonald (Miss)Corbett	(Drummond)	(Kingston andCossitt (Mrs.)	Gurbin	the Islands)Crofton	Gustafson	MacDougallCrouse	Halliday	(Timiskaming)Dantzer	Hardey	MacKay
Mailly (Mrs.)
Malone
Marin
Martin (Mrs.) Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's) McGrath Mclnncs McKenzie McKinnon McLean McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitgcs Moore Murta Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan
Messrs.
Oberle
O'Neil
Oostrom
Peterson
Pietz
Plourdc
Price
Ravis
Rcdway
Reid
Rcimcr
Roman
St. Germain
Schellcnbcrg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow (Mrs.)
Speyer
Stackhouse
Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Qucbec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnct
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
While
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-159.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 89
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 36 by striking out lines 13 and 14 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"where it has been satisfactorily demonstrated to the presiding judge that the
com-".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 71)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraser
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Gormley
Gottselig
Gravel
Gray
(Bonavcnture-ilcs-de-la-Madeleine) Greenaway Grise Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkcs
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kcllchcr
Kempling
Kilgour
Kindy
++YEAS
Investment Canada Act
Messrs.
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanlhier
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly (Mrs.) Malone Marin
Martin (Mrs.) Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's) McGrath Mclnncs McKenzie McKinnon McLean McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Murta Nicholson (Niagara Falls) N ickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Pietz
Plourdc
Price
Ravis
Redway
Reid
Rcimcr
Roman
St. Germain
Schellcnbcrg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowcn Shields Siddon Sparrow (Mrs.)
Speyer
Stackhouse
Stevens
Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Qucbec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnct
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-159.
Messrs.
Allmand	Epp	LapierreAlthousc	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	MalepartAngus	Foster	MarchiAxworthy	Frith	MurphyBaker	Fulton	Nicholson (Miss)Benjamin	Gauthier	(Trinity)Berger	Gray	NunziataBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Nystrom(Brant)	Guilbault	OuelletBlaikie	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryBoudria	Heap	Pepin (Mrs.)Cassidy	Hopkins	Prud'hommeCopps (Ms.)	Hovdebo	RiisDeans	Jewett (Ms.)	Robinsonde Corneille	Kaplan	Rodriguez-42.de Jong	Langdon
NAYS Messrs.	Andre	Cadieux	CooperAttewcll	Caldwell	CorbettBelshcr	Carney (Miss)	Cossitt (Mrs.)Bernier	Champagne (Mrs.)	CroftonBertrand (Mrs.)	(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	CrouseBinns	Champagne	DantzcrBlackburn	(Champlain)	Darling(Jonquiere)	Charest	DaubncyBlais	Chartrand	Della NoceBlais-Grenier (Mrs.)	Clark	DesjardinsBlenkarn	(Brandon-Souris)	DickBouchard	Clifford	Dor inBourgault (Mrs.)	Cochrane	DuguayBradley	Comeau	DuplessisBrightwell	Cook	(Mrs.)


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 27. The vote on this motion will be recorded as applying to Motions Nos. 68, 77A and 85.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 27
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 11 by striking out line 11 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canadian business unless it is reviewable under Part IV; and".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 47)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	de Jong	McCurdyAngus	Epp	MurphyBenjamin	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	NystromBlackburn	Fulton	Parry(Brant)	Heap	RiisBlaikie	Hovdebo	RobinsonCassidy	Jewett (Ms.)	Rodriguez-21Deans	Langdon	
Investment Canada Act
(Division No. 58)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand
Andre
Attewell
Axworthy
Baker
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquierc)
Blais
Blais-Grenier (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Boudria
Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brightwell Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
C ha rest
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Daubney
dc Corneille
Della Noce
Desjardins
Dick
Dorin
Duguay
Duplessis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Foster
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Frith
Gagnon
Gass
Gauthier
Gerin
Gormley
Gottselig
Gravel
++NAYS
Messrs.
Gray
(Bonaventure-lles-dela-Madeleine)
Gray
(Windsor West) Greenaway Grise Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) Guilbault (Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Flardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Hopkins
Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bona vista-T rinily-Conccption)
Joncas
Jourdcnais
Kaplan
Kelleher
Kempling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthier
Lapierre
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly (Mrs.)
Malepart
Malone
Marchi
Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's)
McGrath
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McLean
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Murta
Nicholson (Miss)
(Trinity)
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Nunziata Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Ouellet Pepin (Mrs.)
Peterson
Pietz
Plourde
Price
Prud'homme
Ravis
Redway
Reid
Reimer
Roman
St. Germain
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charles bourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tuppcr
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-180.
Althouse
Angus
Benjamin
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikic
Cassidy
Allmand
Andre
Attewell
Axworthy
Baker
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blais-Grenier (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Boudria
Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brightwell Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Daubney
dc Corneille
Della Noce
Desjardins
Dick
Dorin
Duguay
Duplessis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Foster
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Frith
Gagnon
Gass
Gauthier
Gerin
Gormley
Gottselig
Gravel
Deans de Jong Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Fulton Heap Hovdcbo Jewett (Ms.)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Gray
(Bona venture-ilcs-dc-la- Madeleine)
Gray
(Windsor West) Greenaway Grise Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Hopkins
Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdcnais
Kaplan
Kelleher
Kempling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthier
Lapierre
La Salle
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
MacKay Mailly (Mrs.)
Malepart
Malone
Marchi
Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDougall (Mrs.)
(St. Paul's)
McGrath
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
Langdon
McCurdy
Murphy
Ny strom
Parry
Riis
Robinson Rodriguez-21.
McLean
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Murta
Nicholson (Miss)
(Trinity)
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Nunziata Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Ouellet Pepin (Mrs.)
Peterson
Pietz
Plourde
Price
Prud'homme
Ravis
Redway
Reid
Reimer
Roman
St. Germain
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charles bourg)
Taylor
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Witer-180.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 68
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 22 by striking out lines 42 to 44 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"deemed necessary by the Governor-in-Council."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division.


Investment Canada Act


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 77A
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 26
(a)	by striking out line 29 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor: "the open market, the Agency as satisfied".
(b)	by striking out line 11 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor: "and the Agency shall so notify the".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division.
	(Division No. 64)	
	YEAS	
	Messrs.	
Althouse	de Jong	McCurdyAngus	Epp	MurphyBenjamin	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	NystromBlackburn	Fulton	Parry(Brant)	Heap	RiisBlaikie	Hovdebo	RobinsonCassidy	Jewett (Ms.)	Rodriguez-21Deans	Langdon	
++NAYS
Messrs.
Leblanc	Murta	ShieldsLesick	Nicholson (Miss)	SiddonLewis	(Trinity)	SparrowLopez	Nicholson	(Mrs.)MacDonald (Miss)	(Niagara Falls)	Speyer(Kingston and	Nickerson	Stackhousethe Islands)	Nielsen	StevensMacDougall	Nowlan	Stewart(Timiskaming)	Nunziata	Tardif (Mrs.)MacKay	Oberle	(Charles bourg)Mailly (Mrs.)	O'Neil	TaylorMalepart	Oostrom	ToupinMalone	Ouellet	TowersMarchi	Pepin (Mrs.)	TremblayMarin	Peterson	(Quebec-Est)Martin (Mrs.)	Pietz	TupperMayer	Plourde	TurnerMazankowski	Price	(Ottawa-Carlcton)McCain	Prud'homme	ValcourtMcDermid	Ravis	VankoughnetMcDougall (Mrs.)	Redway	Vincent(St. Paul's)	Reid	WarnerMcGrath	Reimer	WeinerMclnnes	Roman	WhiteMcKenzie	St. Germain	WilsonMcKinnon	Schellenberg	(Swift Current-McLean	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Maple Creek)McMillan	Scott	WilsonMerrithew	(Victoria-Haliburton)	(Etobicoke Centre)Minaker	Scott	WinegardMilges	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Witer-180.Moore	Scowen


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 85
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 36
(o) by striking out line 5 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor: "(5) A Minister of the Crown and an
(6) by striking out lines 11 to 20 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
Allmand
Andre
Attewell
Axworthy
Baker
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blais-Grenier (Mrs.) Blenkarn Bouchard Boudria
Bourgault (Mrs.)
Bradley Brightwell Cadieux Caldwell Carney (Miss)
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthc-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
C ha rest
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crofton
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Daubney
de Corneille
Della Noce
Desjardins
Dick
Dorin
Duguay
Duplessis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Elzinga
Epp
(Provencher) Fennell Ferland Fontaine Forrestall
Grise
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Hopkins
Horner
Howie
James
Jelinek
information received in connection with the administration of this Act."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 70)
Althouse
Angus
Benjamin
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Cassidy
Deans
++YEAS
Messrs.
de Jong Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Fulton Heap Hovdebo Jewett (Ms.)
Langdon
McCurdy
Murphy
Nystrom
Parry
Riis
Robinson Rodriguez-21.
Foster	Jepson			
Fraser	Johnson		NAYS	
Fretz	(Bonavista-Trinity-			
Friesen	Conception)	Messrs.	Frith	Joncas	Allmand	Bouchard	ClarkGagnon	Jourdenais	Andre	Boudria	(Brandon-Souris)Gass	Kaplan	Attewell	Bourgault (Mrs.)	CliffordGauthier	Kelleher	Axworthy	Bradley	CochraneGerin	Kempling	Baker	Brightwel!	ComeauGormley	Kilgour	Belsher	Cadieux	CookGottselig	Kindy	Bernier	Caldwell	CooperGravel	King	Bertrand (Mrs.)	Carney (Miss)	CorbettGray	Landry (Mrs.)	Binns	Champagne (Mrs.)	Cossitt (Mrs.)(Bonaventure-iles-de-	Lanthier	Blackburn	(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Croftonla-Madeleine)	Lapierre	(Jonquiere)	Champagne	CrouseGray	La Salle	Blais	(Champlain)	Dantzer(Windsor West)	Lawrence	Blais-Grenier (Mrs.)	Charest	DarlingGreenaway	Layton	Blenkarn	Chartrand	Daubney
Investment Canada Act
Messrs.
de Corneille	Johnson	NowlanDella Noce	(Bonavista-Trinity-	NunziataDesjardins	Conception)	OberleDick	Joncas	O'NeilDor in	Jourdenais	OostromDuguay	Kaplan	OuelletDuplcssis	Kelleher	Pepin (Mrs.)(Mrs.)	Kempling	PetersonEdwards	Kilgour	PietzElzinga	Kindy	PlourdeEpp	King	Price(Provencher)	Landry (Mrs.)	Prud'hommePennell	Lanthier	RavisFerland	Lapierre	RedwayFontaine	La Salle	ReidForrestall	Lawrence	ReimerFoster	Layton	RomanFraser	Leblanc	St. GermainFretz	Lesick	SchellcnbergFriesen	Lewis	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Frith	Lopez	ScottGagnon	MacDonald (Miss)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Gass	(Kingston and	ScottGauthier	the Islands)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Gerin	MacDougall	ScowenGormley	(Timiskaming)	ShieldsGottselig	MacKay	SiddonGravel	Mailly (Mrs.)	SparrowGray	Malepart	(Mrs.)(Bonaventurc-iles-dc-	Malone	Speyerla-Madelcine)	Marchi	StackhouseGray	Marin	Stevens(Windsor West)	Martin (Mrs.)	StewartGreenaway	Mayer	Tardif (Mrs.)Grise	Mazankowski	(Charles bourg)Guilbault	McCain	Taylor(Saint-Jacques)	McDermid	ToupinGuilbault	McDougall (Mrs.)	Towers(Drummond)	(St. Paul's)	TremblayGurbin	McGrath	(Quebec-Est)Gustafson	Mclnnes	TupperHalliday	McKenzie	TurnerHardey	McKinnon	(Ottawa-Carleton)Harvey	McLean	ValcourtHawkes	McMillan	VankoughnetHicks	Merrithew	VincentHnatyshyn	Minaker	WarnerHockin	Mitges	WeinerHoltmann	Moore	WhiteHopkins	Murta	WilsonHorner	Nicholson (Miss)	(Swift Current-Howie	(Trinity)	Maple Creek)James	Nicholson	WilsonJelinek	(Niagara Falls)	(Etobicoke Centre)Jepson	Nickerson	WinegardNielsen	Witer-180.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on the motion for concurrence.
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion) moves that the Bill be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
(.Division No. 72)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Andre	Gray	McMillanAttewell	(Bonaventurc-iles-de-	MerrithewBclsher	la-Madeleinc)	MinakerBernier	Greenaway	MitgesBertrand (Mrs.)	Grise	MooreBinns	Guilbault	MurtaBlackburn	(Drummond)	Nicholson(Jonquiere)	Gurbin	(Niagara Falls)Blais	Gustafson	NickersonBlais-Grenier (Mrs.)	Halliday	NielsenBlenkarn	Hardey	NowlanBouchard	Harvey	OberleBourgault (Mrs.)	Hawkes	O'NeilBradley	Hicks	OostromBrightwell	Hnatyshyn	PetersonCadieux	Hockin	PietzCaldwell	Holtmann	PlourdeCarney (Miss)	Horner	PriceChampagne (Mrs.)	Howie	Ravis(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	James	RedwayChampagne	Jelinek	Reid(Champlain)	Jepson	ReimerCharest	Johnson	RomanChartrand	(Bonavista-Trinity-	St. GermainClark	Conception)	Schellcnberg(Brandon-Souris)	Joncas	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Clifford	Jourdenais	ScottCochrane	Kelleher	(Victoria-Haliburton)Comeau	Kempling	ScottCook	Kilgour	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cooper	Kindy	ScowenCorbett	King	ShieldsCossitt (Mrs.)	Landry (Mrs.)	SiddonCrofton	Lanthier	SparrowCrouse	La Salle	(Mrs.)Dantzer	Lawrence	SpeyerDarling	Layton	StackhouseDaubney	Leblanc	StevensDella Noce	Lesick	StewartDesjardins	Lewis	Tardif (Mrs.)Dick	Lopez	(Charlesbourg)Dorin	MacDonald (Miss)	TaylorDuguay	(Kingston and	ToupinDuplessis	the Islands)	Towers(Mrs.)	MacDougall	TremblayEdwards	(Timiskaming)	(Quebec-Est)Elzinga	MacKay	TupperEpp	Mailly (Mrs.)	Turner(Provencher)	Malone	(Ottawa-Carleton)Fennell	Marin	ValcourtFerland	Martin (Mrs.)	VankoughnetFontaine	Mayer	VincentForrestall	Mazankowski	WarnerFraser	McCain	WeinerFretz	McDermid	WhiteFriesen	McDougall (Mrs.)	WilsonGagnon	(St. Paul's)	(Swift Current-Gass	McGrath	Maple Creek)Gerin	Mclnnes	WilsonGormley	McKenzie	(Etobicoke Centre)Gottselig	McKinnon	WinegardGravel	McLean	Witer-160.
++NAYS
Ailmand	Foster	MalepartAlthouse	Frith	MarchiAngus	Fulton	McCurdyAxworthy	Gauthier	MurphyBaker	Gray	Nicholson (Miss)Berger	(Windsor West)	(Trinity)Blackburn	Guilbault	Nunziata(Brant)	(Saint-Jacques)	Ny stromBlaikie	Heap	OuelletBoudria	Hopkins	ParryCassidy	Hovdebo	Pepin (Mrs.)Deans	Jewett (Ms.)	Prud'hommcde Corneille	Kaplan	Riisde Jong	Langdon	RobinsonEpp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	Lapierre	Rodriguez-41.
Investment Canada Act Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Is there a disposition with regard to calling it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I take it, therefore, there is unanimous consent that I now call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.38 p.m. the House adjourned.

Wednesday, June 5, 1985