1985-04-29

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 25, consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and Motions No. 1 (Mr. Axworthy) and No. 2 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4001).
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with the debate, I had hoped to be in a position to make a ruling today on all the motions, but 1 will not be able to complete the ruling today. Since there is a chance or it is possible that we might finish the first matters today-I make no judgment as to whether that is likely, just that it is possible-could I therefore indicate to the House what I suggest it do if that should happen.
I have indicated some concerns with Motion No. 3 and I therefore suggest that it cannot be debated. There is in the next grouping one concern raised by the Government House Leader with regard to Motion No. 14. I am not yet in a position to make any comment on Motion No. 14, but I suggest that the House proceed to the grouping which was suggested, that is, Motions Nos. 4 through a series of motions including Motion No. 14, on the understanding that it will be before the House for debate at that time subject to a request for a ruling which 1 have yet to make. I put it to the House that that is the best way it can continue to debate the matter at the time.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, just for the purposes of clarification, I take it that the next grouping will be Motions Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9, and Your Honour included Motions Nos. 14 and 16.


Mr. Speaker:: I included Motions No. 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 as per the grouping I originally indicated to the House, with the caveat that I have been asked to make a ruling on Motion No. 14 and I am not yet in a position to make that ruling. Therefore, 1 suggest the matter be put to the House on the understanding that, as I am coming forward to make a series of rulings on all the requests I have received, I will be making a ruling at that time and that it be before the House on the
understanding that a ruling is coming as to its admissibility in that group. Is that clear and understood?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate another opportunity to speak on Bill C-15. Of course, the particular motion before the House now is the one regarding the purpose of the Bill. Our Party has an amendment to that motion, which is presently the subject of this debate.
It is particularly important that we make a strong point on this motion in that we have a number of concerns about the position taken by the Government regarding investment in Canada by offshore organizations. I wish to speak about those concerns this morning.
I suppose I could list a number of decisions which the Government has taken in cosying up to the United States and indicating to that country that Canada is open for sale. That basic relationship, which is being established quickly across the country and around the world by the Government, is being brought to focus in this particular Bill that asks for the opening up of investment in Canada without any rules or regulations, particularly investment in Canada by foreign corporations without any stringent oversight by anyone in Government.
I know that government Members will say that they are changing it slightly but that they will look at the control of investment in Canada. However, that is not the impression they are leaving across the country. It is not the impression government Leaders are leaving with businessmen in other parts of the world or with leaders of other countries. The image they are leaving is that Canada is open for business, that we will allow any kind of investment in Canada from any group or company regardless of whether or not there are benefits to Canada. That is why it is very important that we look at every clause and attempt to ensure that the position in which this Bill puts us with regard to investment in Canada gives us some authority to say, "No, that is not in the interest of Canada and therefore we will turn it down".
MO)
The idea that a foreign investor is good under any circumstances, that the U.S. can do no wrong in its relationship with Canada is something that we cannot accept. The idea that foreign control of the economy is not good for Canada should be established in this Bill and should be part of the clause stating its purpose. For example, this Party spent many years questioning the desire of the previous Government to do something about foreign investment because a large portion of
April 29, 1985

Investment Canada Act
the requests for investment were passed without question. Despite FIRA approval being required, over the past two years between 95 per cent and 98 per cent of all requests for foreign take-overs were approved.
In the last year, I assume that approximately 100 per cent of requests were approved and only very few constrictions were put upon those companies when they entered Canada. Most did not require any promise of jobs or new investment. Many of the approvals were of take-overs only and had no real impact upon the number of jobs available or any impact on the growth of industry in Canada. That was under the old FIRA Bill. The situation has changed very little in the last few years. This Bill does not require any assurance that there will be new investment and new jobs created.
Compared to the rest of the world, we have a very high percentage of foreign ownership, ranging as high as the eighties and nineties in the chemical and petroleum industries and around 30 to 50 in the manufacturing industry, depending on how you designate the categories. Foreign ownership in one of the more highly industrialized countries of the world, namely Sweden, went up from just over 7 per cent to almost 7.5 per cent. That increase from just over 7 per cent to a little more than 7.5 per cent was of such great concern in Sweden that the Swedish House considered, discussed and debated the possibility of putting restrictions on foreign investment in Sweden. That was because the foreign ownership in Sweden was getting to be so high, over 7.5 per cent. Compare that with the average amount of foreign investment in Canada, which is probably near 50 per cent. We in Canada recognize that foreign ownership is not good for the country. Therefore, we should be taking some action and we should not be asking for further foreign investment in and control over our economy and our resources.
Many of the countries of the world have spent a great deal of time moving away from what we considered to be political colonialism or control of one country by a foreign country on a political level. It has been a major concern of many of the world's countries, not only Third World countries but countries like ours, to establish ourselves as politically separate from other countries. We have rid ourselves of political colonialism but we have established a new kind of colonialism, which is possibly more devastating than political colonialism. I am speaking of economic colonialism.
If a country gets to the point, as we have in Canada, at which a major portion of the economy is controlled by offshore organizations, then that country must be concerned about becoming colonialized to an unacceptable extent. Therefore, I think it is very important that one of the amendments that should be accepted by Parliament is a change in the definition of the purpose of the Bill.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I note that Clause 2 on page 1 of Bill C-15 provides 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 it encourages beneficial investment in Canada by Canadians. The concern of our Party is that the investment which comes to Canada from offshore or from the United States will be beneficial to our country, whether it is investment in the high-technology sectors or other sectors of our economy.
We all know of investment that has come to our country from the United States, and I do not think that this investment has been inhibited in any way during the last three or four years by the fact that there has been a review process. For example, in the pulp and paper industry in northern Ontario, we have been able to encourage foreign companies to come to Canada to adopt new product lines which have benefited our communities. In Sault Ste. Marie, the St. Mary's Paper Company took over from Abitibi a little over a year ago. That company has made a very substantial investment in Canada and has adopted new product lines. This has been very beneficial to the 400 or 500 employees of the plant as well as to those who work in its bush operations.
Certainly the least of the problems associated with that takeover was the review by the Foreign Investment Review Agency. The main problem was getting financial assistance from the two senior levels of Government, and in the end assistance was provided in order to see that the plant was modernized, upgraded and overhauled. I do not know what the value is of removing that screening. Although it does not inhibit companies from investing in Canada, certainly we all know of large U.S. companies which have taken over our manufacturing facilities, operated them for a period of six months or a year and then suddenly shut them down. The sales workforce is kept, but the manufacturing is done in the United States. In order to protect Canada, we must maintain a screening mechanism. This Bill does not provide a great incentive for Canadians to invest in their own country. We believe that there should be a provision in the general outline of the benefits and the direction of the Bill to encourage beneficial investment in Canada by Canadians.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) does a great job when it comes to public relations and talks glowingly about our relationship with the United States. Only a few weeks ago we saw the song and dance routine which was carried out in Quebec City. As that time the Prime Minister and President Reagan met to talk about relations between Canada and the United States. I am sure that all Canadians want to have a very helpful, constructive and positive relationship with the United States. However, immediately after that conference, the President returned to the United States and imposed a countervailing duty of 5.3 cents a pound on Canadian pork, pork products and hogs going into the United States. That immediately reduced the price of hogs going into the United States by about $12. That is having a devastating impact on that sector of the agricultural industry.
No sector has suffered more than the red meat industry, both in beef and pork. The Prime Minister gives us great
April 29, 1985

platitudes in his marvellous television extravaganzas, whether they take place in Ottawa, Regina or Quebec City. He is also trying to hold one in London during the next few days, unfortunately the Queen and the British Government are objecting to it. However, if the conferences and the television extravaganzas which are orchestrated do not have any practical value and do not deal with the practical problems which exist between our nations, then of what value are they? We can watch television shows from Las Vegas, Hollywood and so on, but what we need is a Prime Minister who, when he sits down with the President of the United States, can solve the practical problems of Canadian workers, farmers and investors.
That is what concerns us with this Bill. The Prime Minister can have as many song and dance routines as he wants and talk about wonderful relationships, but if they do not address the problems at a practical level and have an impact on the U.S. Congress or the U.S. Trade Commission in the way in which they deal with day-to-day trade relations, then they do not have much value for Canadians generally. And it is not just the fact that this is happening in one commodity. If we look at a whole raft of commodities and at international relations, we see very serious problems. It is not just the countervailing duty which the United States has imposed on our pork, which is having a devastating impact not only on pork sold to the United States but an equally depressing effect on our beef production. I think that Canadians are a little concerned when they see the three teams of inspectors rifling through the books of federal stabilization programs in the various provinces and deciding whether or not subsidization of the pork industry has been taking place in our country. That will be followed up by further investigations.
Regardless of how the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) portrays the relationship between our two countries, many serious problems exist, and certainly things have deteriorated for many of our producers. It is the same with respect to lumber. Hearings have been started as a result of a Bill brought forward by the United States Congress to reduce our exports of lumber to the United States by some 25 per cent. That will have a devastating impact on Canadian sales to the United States if it is adopted.
So I would support the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). It proposes to strengthen the Canadian position with regard to foreign investment in our country, as well as to encourage beneficial investment in Canada by Canadians.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be able to speak in support of Motion No. 2, moved by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), in which he asks that this House should amend the purpose of the Bill by referring to technology under the appropriate terms and conditions established by the Government. One of the important discoveries of the jobs action task force, which was co-chaired, incidentally, by the Hon.
Investment Canada Act
Member for Essex-Windsor, are rediscoveries or reaffirmations of something most of us have known all along. But perhaps some Hon. Members opposite need to be reminded.
One of the important points which was emphasized time after time in the travels of the job action task force is that the Canadian people want to have control over their own lives, their own economies and their communities. One of the basic tasks of Government is to help people have control over their own lives and their own economies. It is not good enough for the Government simply to abdicate that responsibility saying that major decisions are going to be made in the market-place, implying that somehow the market-place is free and neutral and that the decisions which are made there will somehow be ultimately beneficial for everyone concerned. The reality in today's world, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no free, independent or neutral market-place. The market-place is controlled and dominated by a few large corporations. More and more we see that these few large corporations are headquartered in places other than Canada. So it is very important that we hear what the Canadian people are saying about wanting to have control over their own economy. Government should take action to try to make that possible rather than simply abdicate.
One of the things we want to see incorporated in the purpose of this Bill is that technology should be subject to the appropriate terms and conditions established by Government. That is a basic purpose of Government. I want to say a word or two about technology and how important it is. Technology is not neutral; it has a profound effect on the way we live our lives. Let us just think for a moment about why people used to grow beards, for example. It was because shaving was a very painful process. In some early societies it was customary for beards to be plucked hair by hair. Then they invented the straight razor and people generally went to a barber to be shaved. Very few people were actually clean-shaven until World War I when Gillette invented the safety razor. Then, all of a sudden, it became the fashion for everyone to be clean-shaven. Some people are rather slow in catching up with a fashion, and other people believe it is important to be in the forefront of fashion at all times. But the important thing is-and this is a very superficial example-that a very small change in technology such as going from the straight razor to the safety razor can have some fairly major consequences. Technology, then, is never neutral and the control of technology in many cases is equivalent to the control of society.
When European colonists first came to North America, technology in Europe was just beginning to explode in a great many ways. At that time there was a kind of rough equivalence between some of the technology used by the indigenous people here and that which the Europeans brought over. Some of this indigenous technology was essential to the survival of the European colonists. However, gradually, the explosion of technology taking place in Europe at that time completely swamped the native technology. The European colonists made a point of keeping control of that technology and, in certain places in northern Canada today, the Indian people will show

April 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
you the elongated guns they had to buy from the Hudson's Bay Company, which sold the guns in return for a number of furs piled up to the height of the gun barrel. That is the kind of price Indian people had to pay to gain access to technology. The European trading companies recognized very clearly that the control of technology was equivalent to control of the economy and, indeed, of society as a whole.
We now face a similar explosion of technology, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that there is not a single Member of this House or any legislature in the world with a complete understanding of the implications of all the technological changes taking place in our world today. Things are happening at a very rapid rate and we have trouble just keeping up. The use of new technology in our offices, for example, can help us in many ways, but we have to be trained to use it and it is again a question of who controls technology. Indeed, there are implications in these developments which even the people doing the developing do not understand.
On that basis I think it is very important that this House recognize that Canada should have some control over the way in which new technology is introduced. We should be asking questions when it is brought in. What are the implications for jobs? What are the implications for the environment? All last week and the week before we were very concerned about the question of the PCB spill. This resulted from a technology introduced some years ago, before we had any real understanding of what its implications were. Then, when we began to understand the implications, PCBs came under stricter control. But we still do not have the technology to dispose of them in a way that is satisfactory to everyone.
To conclude, the Canadian people want control over their economy and over their lives. Therefore, it is important for the federal Government to establish basic ground rules for the introduction of new technology, and that is what we seek to do with this amendment.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak again on this Bill in support of the amendment we have put forward. As I said before in addressing this same Bill, it is basically a public relations Bill. It reminds me of the preacher who wrote in the margin of his sermon: "Argument weak, pound the pulpit". The Government is pounding the pulpit, but there is not much in the Bill in terms of effective policy.
The Bill assumes that you need to encourage U.S. investment and that investment was not being made here before. That is not the case. If you have read The Globe and Mail for the last six or seven years, you will see that 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the applications to FIRA were approved. The United States was investing here. I want to say, though, that not all of that investment was to our advantage. For example, we have the case of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, a large multi-national based in the U.S. which had invested in Canada to develop iron ore for shipment to a number of countries but primarily to the U.S. But when times got tough, those operations were closed down. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has personal knowledge of that from what happened in Schefferville, and I have personal knowledge resulting from the 50 per cent reduction of the labour force in Labrador City. I know the pain which resulted for people who thought their jobs were secure, people with homes and cars and so on, but then suddenly the axe fell. That is the down side of American investment.
The point I am making is that we have to be very careful about simply saying willy-nilly that all American investment, or, indeed, investment from any other country, is good for Canada. In my own province, we had investment from Britain in Corner Brook. But when times got tough, Corner Brook was at the end of the Bowater chain; this mill, which they had not bothered to maintain or modernize, was the one that was cut. Again we saw the pain created as a result of foreign investors failing to maintain their investment and failing to modernize. So you have to be very careful of foreign investment; it is not enough simply to change the name of a Canadian administrative body and then assume that all will be well. What protection will be built in for Canadians and Canadian companies? What would happen to small fish companies in Newfoundland if we had American investment such as we had in Labrador City, or if we had British investment such as we had in Corner Brook? What would happen if we had that kind of investment in small Newfoundland fish companies which have been struggling during the period of recession but keeping their heads above the water and doing well when larger companies have been going bankrupt? What protection do those companies have if they are open to investment by American companies? The Government must spell out very clearly what protection there will be for Canadian companies.
The other thing which bothers me about this particular measure is that it does not indicate how the Government will address investment in various regions of Canada. Canada is a country of different parts, not all of which are the same. Some areas of Canada need help a lot more than others. I happen to represent an area which I believe needs financial support at the present time as do all of the Atlantic provinces. There are other areas of Canada which require that particular support as well. There is nothing to say that investment which comes into Canada will be directed to a certain area of the country which needs it more than other areas. There is no policy to set out how foreign companies will be encouraged to invest in certain areas of Canada. I think the Government should address such a policy.
Even in the United States there is difficulty at the present time in encouraging investment in certain parts of the country. It is well known that there are certain areas in the U.S., such as the north-east, which are having great difficulties at the present time. Other areas, such as the south-west, are lucrative boom areas which are enticing investment. In Canada too there are areas with greater needs than others. I would like the Government to indicate how foreign and Canadian investment will be targeted to the areas of the country which need it most.
April 29, 1985

We are talking basically about job creation. A rule of thumb for judging any measure that the Government puts forward is its effect on job creation in the country. That is the bottom line. What is the measure which is presently before us going to do to create more jobs in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan? What will the outcome of this be? 1 do not see any indication that there will be more jobs created as a result of the implementation of this measure.
If the Government was really serious about job creation, it would not have been as extreme as it was in the cut-backs that it made. Indeed, many of those have been reversed already, such as the cut-backs in environmental funding. If the policy of the Government was job creation, it would not have embarked willy-nilly across the country with an uneven hand in the cut-backs that it made. That sort of thing affects the areas of the country which are most dependent on government support through programs and policies.
Instead of bringing forward a measure such as this, the Government should not have made the cut-backs. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will take cognizance of that in the upcoming Budget, rather than treating Atlantic Canada to the same kind of disastrous economic measures that we had in the last Budget. The bottom line is job creation, particularly jobs for Canadians by Canadian firms.
That is why I take a great deal of pleasure in supporting the amendment which we have put forward. The amendment says in effect that the present Bill contains no specific means for the Minister to encourage Canadian investment at all. It merely contains generalities. The only specifics are with regard to review and notification. That is a truth which the Government does not want to recognize. We believe that there must be more provision and encouragement for investment by Canadian firms and more protection of existing Canadian firms which are having a difficult time. That is why I take great pleasure in supporting the amendment to this particular Bill that my Party has put before the House.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
Investment Canada Act


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
I believe Mr. Speaker mentioned this morning that there was a point of order regarding Motion No. 14. He has taken cognizance of it and has reserved his decision on Motion No. 14.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry) moved:: 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."
[ Translation]


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;"


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:

April 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
"(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;"


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:
"(c) 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;"


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) moved:: 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:
"(c) 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;"


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;".


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 14
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) ensure that all Canadian business enterprises owned and controlled by non-Canadians respect the rights of workers including the right to collective bargaining;"


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;"


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.


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".


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 representatives of business, labour, provincial and local authorities and other interested parties, to make recommendations with regard to private and government investment and related policies and priorities in their sectors in conjunction with subsection in 5(1)(?)."


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the amendments we have before us are obviously of such quality and weight that 1 am afraid ten minutes of debate will not give full justice to the matters raised. I will attempt to give a small overview, and I know my colleagues will be more than anxious to follow and to deal with specific parts of the motions.
Let me say in general terms that the primary purpose of the amendments that we have introduced is, first, to try to clarify in parliamentary terms the clear responsibility of the Minister to take action to benefit Canadian industry, particularly investment in Canadian industry. The present Bill is very vague, general and meaningless when it comes specifically to establishing what the tax roles and functions of a Minister must be in securing a more active set of benefits for Canada by Canadians.
We have been told by many speakers on the government side that this is one of the major ambitions of the Bill. Therefore, it comes as some surprise why government Members opposed amendments in committee that are clearly designed to enhance the ability of the Government to promote those very same objectives, namely to ensure that there are opportunities for Canadians to invest in their own industry. Again, we have to question the motivation and the seriousness with which the Government has adopted the notion of Canadian investment because of its unwillingness to support amendments which are clearly designed to expand that role.
Second, we feel it is very important that the Minister responsible for the operation of Investment Canada be accountable for his or her actions, particularly in cases where

April 29, 1985

there is a wide level of sensitivity toward regional development, where there is a level of sensitivity to the performance and behaviour of foreign investment in this country, and, perhaps most seriously, on the question of who gets approval and who does not.
This Bill as it is presently constructed contains perhaps the most wide-ranging powers ever given to a Minister to make decisions dealing with billions of dollars worth of investment without being accountable to anyone, not to his own Cabinet, not to Parliament. In fact, the Minister is not accountable to anyone. This naturally leads to the suspicion of or concern about favouritism. Who gets the approval? There is no way of determining some other form of judgment, of determining the legitimacy, accuracy or relevancy of that decision, because there is no way of finding out. The Minister does not report back to Parliament. He does not report back to his own Cabinet. He does not report to anybody, and all he consults is his own peculiar and convoluted set of judgments.
Surely we have seen evidence in the past month or two of how dangerous a trend that could be, even for Members on the Government side. May I remind Hon. Members of the problem of Domtar. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) made a decision relating to total cancellation of any support for the Domtar proposal in the Province of Quebec, which affected hundreds of jobs in a very depressed area of the province. It was only through the incredible weight of opposition brought after the fact by local people, by members of this Opposition Party and by others that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who is well known for his sensitivity to heat-in other words, he cannot take it-


Mrs. Mailly:: Nonsense.


Lloyd Axworthy: -immediately turned to his Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and told him to change his mind.
What we are facing under this kind of Bill is a constant sort of post ad hoc set of responses and reactions against a Minister who has shown he has no sensitivity to regional development. No one has any confidence in his ability to make judgments that will result in effective distribution of economic benefits in different parts of Canada.
The gentleman who was responsible for that wonderful failure of the institution called the Bank of Western Canada- we in the West remember the now Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion's record in western Canada-we know how sensitive to western Canada he was in his previous incarnation. We are giving him incredible powers to make decisions, yet he reports to no one.
The intent of our amendments is clear. We believe the Bill should include a provision in no uncertain terms indicating that the Minister is responsible for seeking out Canadian investors when businesses are up for sale or acquisitions are under way. I point to the example of the major take-over by Chevron, a United States oil and gas company, of Gulf
Investment Canada Act
Canada, a $2 billion deal. Under FIRA there was a clear undertaking that that company had to try to sell off Gulf Canada to ensure the Canadianization of the oil and gas industry. The Minister responsible has taken no role whatsoever. He has simply washed his hands of it. We are within two days of meeting the deadline, and there is no Canadian buyer and there seems to be no action on behalf of the Government. Therefore, there seems to be no accountability under that Act on the part of the Minister.
One of our amendments clearly sets out that it is the responsibility of the Minister to seek out Canadian investors for those businesses so that Parliament can judge him by those actions. There is nothing in the Bill which requires him to do that. Although he can say that he will do it, it must be within the legislation. I do not think anyone here can take ministerial statements on faith in that in the short life of this Government we have already seen that it does not live up to its commitments. Such statements are not realizable unless there is clear responsibility within the legislation.
Equally we felt that part of the purpose of this amendment was to ensure that the Minister responsible would consult, when there is a take-over or acquisition bid, with the communities and regions affected by it, to ensure that a foreign buyer will not come into a one-industry town, buy up the industry and strip it of its employment. My colleague from Newfoundland spoke about the danger this morning of having many factories, mines or enterprises closed down and the employees and communities being left holding the bag. Our amendment tries to put forward a clear responsibility and accountability for the Minister to consult with them and to meet regional responsibilities.
Our Government established the Industrial Labour Adjustment Program, which was an attempt to recognize that in the event of industrial change, lay-offs, or change in technology, the federal Government in partnership with local businesses and local communities would negotiate, consult and work out a plan of action to meet the problem. We have no commitment from the Government in this regard. In fact, it is closing down I LAP. It has no interest in or response to the problem of industrial change. When representatives of the Economic Conference Board appeared before the committee, they recognized that one of the major consequences of foreign investment was job loss, job reduction, job change. However, there is nothing in the Bill to provide assurance to the communities affected by the changes that their interests will be taken into account. When it comes time for Parliament to judge the actions of the Minister, he can say that under the Investment Canada Act it was not his responsibility. This is why we feel it is very important to have written into the legislation clear and undeniable responsibility on the part of the Minister to meet regional needs, to consult with the regions and to be responsive to any job change or industrial change encountered as a result of a foreign take-over, so that when it comes time for Parliament to hold up the Minister's record of stewardship we will have a clear basis for judgment.

April 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
The amendments we are proposing should also require the Government to provide far more research and analysis of the behaviour and performance of foreign-owned companies. One of the most important findings which emerged from the committee hearings was that there were substantial differences in the behaviour of Canadian-owned and foreign-owned companies. Foreign-owned companies imported much more from abroad. They did not believe in using Canadian products. They conducted far less research and development. They gave far less export opportunities to their subsidiaries. That is a very important matter which should be tested. We need the proper information to ensure that foreign-owned companies perform as well as their Canadian counterparts.
These are the reasons we introduced these amendments. My colleagues in this caucus will be speaking individually to a number of the items. Elowever, I believe they are all put forward in the spirit of making this Bill a better one. I hope the Government will respond in like kind.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this is an historic debate because two different approaches to reviving our economy confront each other here in the House of Commons. I see an approach reflected strongly in the Bill to leave the future, the dynamism and the sense of momentum which we desperately need in our economy to others. It is an approach to economic revival by the Government which says that it is not here in Canada from Canadians that the excitement, enthusiasm and investment will come to get our economy moving again. Instead, it is an approach which says that we look to other countries for investment, to the United States, to western Europe and to Japan. The Government thinks that that is where the investment will come from to get us back on our feet. It is taking the same approach to free trade. The Government is looking for answers outside the country. It looks for solutions which lie in the hands of other people.
We say that the solution to our problems is in our hands; it lies in the hands of Canadian entrepreneurs, Canadian communities and Canadian people across the land. That clear direction or solution is there for us to take, and it is something which should be reflected in this Bill. After all, this Bill looks to encourage Canadian investment, or so it says in the clause on its purpose. However, in practice it is a Bill which in its details looks only at encouraging foreign investment. It looks at taking away the strength of the review mechanism and substituting therefor a pious hope, a sense of sitting back and praying for foreign investment to come in and save us. That is simply not good enough. It is not economic leadership. It is not the kind of confidence in our country and in our people that the Government was elected in September to demonstrate.
We have moved a set of amendments which have three basic purposes. Those amendments show in direction what we should be doing to try to encourage and promote Canadian investment, investment by Canadian-controlled firms to produce the jobs which we so desperately need in this country. Also, our set of amendments tell the Government that the Minister who administers this Bill has a responsibility to Canadianize our economy in the area of cultural heritage and national identity.
It is not good enough, as the present Bill does, simply to set out that the Government has a special concern for those companies that are somehow in the category affecting our cultural heritage and national identity. There has to be a clear commitment that a big part of the Minister's responsibility is to see to it that in those crucial sectors, Canadianization takes place through joint ventures and leadership on the part of the Government. It should see to it that our public broadcasting, magazines and books remain controlled by Canadian companies serving the Canadian community.
We have moved an amendment which points out the special responsibility which we as a Party feel any Government has to take to ensure that companies which come into Canada from outside recognize the tradition of labour relations harmony and labour relations peace that we would like to establish in this country.
I want to deal specifically with the question of improving Canadian investment here. That is the challenge. The challenge is not to hope and to pray that the Japanese, Americans, Germans and French will somehow fill the leadership gap that this Government is creating and which was created by the previous Government. This gap has left us with 1.5 million people out of work across this country. It has left our communities with a sense of panic about the future. That sense of panic should not be experienced when people have ideas, proposals and hopes that they could put into effect if Government provided leadershp to them.
We suggest that leadership can be provided by setting forth some investment-guidelines, some suggestions of the key sectors of the economy where we need to have more growth and investment and an expansion of jobs. That leadership can be provided by trying to pull together on a sector by sector basis the kinds of advisory groups that will look at the problems of those particular sectors and give signals to the rest of the country of what is required to improve the Canadian role within those sectors.
That is not some kind of socialist pie in the sky. It is a fact, something which Governments in this country have found make sense. We have had the automobiles task force and the petrochemicals task force. Each made a solid, exciting contribution, setting forth clearly what could be done to put those important sectors of our economy back where they are making a full contribution to this country. In the case of the automobile sector, there was a recommendation for Canadian content laws. There was a recommendation in the petrochemical sector that we change some of the pricing structures so that petrochemical firms are able once more to create the jobs that are so desperately needed in this country.
There should be a recognition in this Bill that part of the Minister's responsibility in trying to promote Canadian investment is to do precisely this, to set up the sector-based advisory groups, to give us guidelines, to exercise the kind of responsibility and leadership that any Government, particularly this Government, has. This Government received a massive vote of confidence from the Canadian people in the 211 Members of
April 29, 1985

Parliament representing that Party. There is a tremendous responsibility which comes with that power. We feel that this Bill is the place to flash some signals across the country that that responsibility will be picked up, that in fact this Government will take the direction that people have asked it to take to encourage Canadian investment, to give them a sense of confidence about their future with a commitment to Canadianization.
We strongly urge the House to accept the amendment that we have moved. It will take us to the commitments for the future that will give us the jobs which we so desperately need.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on Bill C-15, and especially to speak to the amendments before the House today, which you so graciously read from the Chair.
At this time, one of the points that concerns us particularly about Bill C-15 is how the review agency will be managed and directed under the new legislation, and especially the relationships between the public servants that belong to the agency and the Minister and the Minister's office.
First of all, I would like to explain our basic position, which is that we think the Minister should have the responsibility, and be free, to issue guidelines regarding the agency's policy. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will find this position surprising, coming from us. Although we do not always agree with the positions taken by the Minister in this area, we realize that the Minister must be responsible for issuing guidelines on the review agency's major policies. That responsibility is incumbent on all Members of Cabinet, who were elected to provide policy direction to the Government's various agencies.
However, we believe that the Minister should moderate his involvement in day-to-day administration and the various decisions that will be taken by his officials. In other words, we consider that the political role and the administrative role should be kept separate. Unfortunately, the amendment that specifically concerns Clause 4 was voted down in committee by Progressive Conservative Members on the committee. We do not know why, and we find it rather surprising. Are Progressive Conservative Members opposed to the Minister providing policy direction? That would hardly make sense. But then, why did the Progressive Conservative members object? What bothers us, and that is perhaps why the Conservative Members objected to this amendment, is that we feel the Minister should not be involved in the decision-making for each specific case. In other words, the Foreign Investment Review Agency should not be an extension of the Minister's Office and his staff. We would like individual decisions on applications for foreign investment in Canada to be based on objective criteria, on criteria we would like to know and see tabled before the House or before a committee of the House, for consideration by Hon. Members.
Investment Canada Act
We would like to see decisions on each application for foreign investment based on criteria that, first of all, would indicate which areas of Canada's economy should be protected. We are thinking of areas such as culture and the financial sector, where the Government should think twice before letting foreign investors purchase Canadian companies or create new ones in this country with funds brought in from outside.
We would like to see objective criteria describing the areas in which investment should be encouraged, for instance, investments that would directly create jobs. Perhaps such criteria should also include encouraging investment that is likely to create jobs indirectly through spinoffs, and through other industries that would be providing services or raw materials, for instance, to a company that itself will be creating jobs as a result of foreign investment.
We believe that those criteria must attest to the importance of scientific research in Canada and that we must stand squarely behind companies which will be created here through foreign investments and which will be primarily research-oriented. We also want a series of objective criteria based on factors such as those I am referring to. For instance, will a new business set up by foreign investors promote the development of new technologies in Canada?
Those are, in fact, the basic points to be considered with respect to the objective criteria which public servants will be expected to apply without ministerial intervention in every case, for we want public servants to be able to work without unending political interference in each case. We fully agree that the review agency should be given general guidelines by Cabinet and the Minister responsible-how else could it work?-but we do not want each decision to be subject to political input.
What guidelines have been given so far to the screening agency by the Minister? We simply have no idea at all. Not a word has been said about it in the House of Commons, perhaps excepting the only general Canada-is-open-for-busi-ness directive to encourage foreign investment. To this day, we still have no idea what course the Government will want the review agency to steer.
Such are the questions we are directing to the Department and, hopefully, the answers will be somewhat more enlightening than what we heard so far. As a matter of fact, the series of amendments under consideration will provide the Cabinet spokesman with an opportunity to come up with the answers to some of our questions.
In addition, I would urge the Government to be more specific and to elaborate on the general guidelines to be given the agency, and to tell us the nature of the objective criteria which agency officials will use in their day-to-day decisions on approval of foreign investments proposed by others.

April 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Well, Mr. Speaker, those are the questions I have in mind, and I hope they will be answered before the conclusion of this debate.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to take part in this debate which is about some of the most important aspects of the Canadian economy. This is a debate about jobs, expansion, our own self-image as a nation, our self-image as Canadian investors and, ultimately, our confidence.
We think that the Government is making a grave error in terms of creating jobs in this country. It is making an error in terms of attempting to expand Canadian business and it is making an error which will result in less rather than more confidence in the Canadian business sector.
We are debating 10 amendments, all of which propose to correct the errors contained within the Bill before us. These motions were moved in an attempt to improve Canadian ownership of Canadian industry so that Canadian jobs and technology will be expanded and given a future.
In the course of my remarks, I would like to deal with three or four points and then deal with the actual amendments that are before us today. First, I would like to point out why it is that we need national legislation to Canadianize Canadian industry and what are the advantages to legislation that will encourage Canadian investment in Canada. I would like to spend a few moments pointing out a few areas in which I think FIR A did succeed in doing its job of increasing Canadian ownership and expanding Canadian economic activity. Last, I have an example or two to give the House showing what happens when we do not have legislation which gives a slight preference to Canadian investment over foreign investment.
It is interesting to go through the record that was produced during the course of the hearings on this Bill. Sometimes this kind of record gets ignored. A second-reading debate deals with the principle of a Bill, and the Government takes its stand at that time. Then the matter ostensibly goes to committee so Members may hear what Canadians have to say about a particular Bill. In this case, Canadians had quite a bit to say about this Bill, and not very much of it was good. What they said seems to have been thoroughly ignored and the Government is continuing with the almost pigheaded approach it showed at second-reading stage. The Government is going ahead with the Bill in spite of what witnesses said in committee and in spite of the consultations that were held.
One of the most succinct reasons for legislation like the Foreign Investment Review Agency that will now be put out of business was presented by Bob Blair, a fairly well-known Canadian businessman and President of NOVA Corporation. He said that we need such investment legislation for Canadians because:
-surely part of this story is that every national government takes steps to look after its own domestic companies, under some chosen circumstances, to ensure that business is played fairly and that proper industrial benefits do indeed occur or are retained-led in this respect, if you like, by the Congress of the United States of America and the Government of Japan respectively.
As a businessman and an objective analyst, it is quite clear to Mr. Blair that the reason Canada needed FIRA-type legislation that made certain our investments and investors were given some priority is simply that other countries are doing it to the extent that Canadian investors have a very poor chance of investing in those two countries he listed. As an example, the Americans have the Jones Act which provides that any goods moved from one port to another within the United States must occur in U.S. bottoms. We do not have any laws that restrictive in Canada but such laws do exist in the United States. A Canadian ship could not find a job moving goods from one U.S. port to another.
The Japanese as well are very selective and careful about what investments they will allow into their country, and indeed they are even careful about what goods and services from outside may enter that country. Those are examples of two very successful countries that have quite restrictive legislation regarding foreign investment, legislation which is much more restrictive than were our feeble efforts under the old Foreign Investment Review Agency.
When pressed, Mr. Blair, the President of NOVA Corporation, went on to explain some of the advantages to Canada from Canadianization. The following is part of what he had to say in committee:
For all of their often fine endeavour to be good corporate citizens in Canada, the foreign-controlled companies, first of all, do have other influences on them; they have political influences, legal influences, attitude influences that originate somewhere else. These influences dictate how they behave everywhere, including how they shall behave in Canada. That naturally has to diminish, to some degree, their ability to respond fully and completely to Canadian influences.
He went on to say:
-Canadian-owned firms had done more to see the business they could afford was developed with Canadian engineering firms, professional firms, small business. Canadian suppliers of goods and services, Canadian employment, than the non-Canadian owned firms. I think this is exactly what a reasonable man would expect.
The witnesses who appeared before the committee pointed out quite clearly that there are definite advantages to the Canadian economy when Canadians invest in Canada. However, the testimonies of those witnesses seem to have been totally ignored by the Government. There has been no attempt to make amendments which would take into account the testimonies of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. The amendments which we have moved attempt to correct and improve the proposed legislation in accordance with those testimonies.
There is no point in having witnesses appear before a committee and in having consultation if no attention will be paid to them. In his testimony, when asked about some of the successes of the Foreign Investment Review Agency for Canadian business, Mr. Blair cited, as one example, his company's acquisition of Husky Oil. He said:
There was a moment a few years ago where in NOVA we obtained ourselves the ownership of an oil company in Canada called Husky, which we subsequently made into one of the most active oil companies in Canada, one of the most active in the frontiers in heavy oil and in other places, and which has been one of
April 29, 1985

the leaders of new investment in Canada. As it happened, but for FIR A, we would not have had that opportunity. But for FIRA, the persons who controlled Husky were in the process of turning over the ownership control by private agreement to an American oil company that would have assumed that control before we had a chance to do anything about it. The FIRA process did give NOVA a few days' time to get talking to our bankers and get in there and compete. And in the competition we beat the American company and won.
1 believe it is very useful to remember that, especially in the case of Canadian Porcelain which was forced into receivership by Lapp Industries because of its dumping into the Canadian market. I say "dumping", because Lapp Industries was convicted on January 9 of this year of dumping procelain into Canada at an unfair price. The employees of Lapp Industries have put together a co-operative approach and have raised $1.3 million as a bid on the company, which has been presented to the trustee, Peat Marwick. Lo and behold, on the same day that the $1.3 million bid was made, the United States company bid for less money.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on debate.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I am pleased to speak on this Bill in support of the Government's position. However, before I speak on the specific clauses which we are debating, I would like to comment on what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) said about the Domtar situation. I would like to correct the record. A subsidy was not cancelled. A subsidy was requested by the company which was not granted. There is quite a difference between a request for a subsidy which is not granted and one which is cancelled. The Hon. Member may know something about promises which were made by the previous Government, however, we are not aware of them. The subsidy was not cancelled. It was suggested that if any moneys were requested which were essential to expand or modernize the mill in Windsor, the money would come out of the agreement which was signed by the federal Government and the Government of Quebec. That was the regional expansion agreement which totalled approximately two-thirds of a billion dollars. That agreement works on a fifty-fifty basis. It was signed in December, 1984, after a delay of almost a year during which the previous administration was not able to come to an understanding with the Government of Quebec. But within a few short months, this Government signed the agreement with Quebec. When the subsidy request was received, it was suggested that any money which the Government of Quebec wanted to spend on Domtar could be taken from that fund.


Mr. Lapierre:: That's nonsense.


Claudy Mailly: That is exactly what happened. The funds which were allocated, on a fifty-fifty basis, only cover the payment of interest on the moneys which were borrowed to perform the modernization. So the subsidy was not cancelled; it was not accepted. If it had been accepted, it would have been unfair to other Canadian paper companies as we could not have accepted their requests for subsidies. We could not
Investment Canada Act
play favourites, which is something which the previous Government seemed to do with impunity.

I would also like to comment on some of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Alt-house). According to him, the Government gave short shrift to the representations made by Canadians who appeared before the standing committee that considered the Bill. Well, should he care to study the amendments, he will find out that the Government has proposed quite a few amendments in direct response to suggestions made by Canadian citizens who gave evidence before the standing committee. These are important amendments. Besides, the Bill itself goes a long way towards implementing the recommendations we heard from Canadians while we were in Opposition and since the Bill was under consideration before its introduction in the House.
For example, a number of people expressed concern about the tedious process under the old Foreign Investment Review Act. It took so much time that they often missed out on opportunities to buy a company, or even to keep up with technological progress. As you know, Mr. Speaker, anyone anxious to set up new facilities in high technology industry cannot stand still for very long. The best example of that kind of situation is the case of a company in the town of Buckingham in my riding. It only had a few weeks to act on its option on a high technology patent and it had to move very rapidly to be able to buy some facilities, but it finally got discouraged and decided that perhaps it should start from scratch-in the United States instead of Quebec. We did manage to convince management to be patient and that eventually the climate would be more conducive to that type of investment. 1 am glad to say today that the company came back, an outstanding corporate citizen who had already invested in Canada and who now has the green light to go ahead with the new plant which will create jobs in a region where unemployment is rampant.
Both the NDP and the Liberal Party have a very negative approach, convinced as they seem to be that no foreign corporate citizen can possibly have the same dedication, the same decorum and the same generosity which are supposed to be the hallmark of Canadian corporate citizens. In my view, it amounts to a kind of discrimination that is repugnant to any civilized person, to think that foreign investors will be reluctant to make a going concern of their businesses. The impression is given that foreign investors are not good managers. If a person invests his money in this country, I imagine he would want his business to be viable and make a profit and give him a return on his investment. If this foreign investor were such a poor manager that he should want to penalize his employees and the community where he has his business and penalize this country by preventing it from opening up markets abroad, in no time at all he would have to close down, and he would have lost his initial investment. It is useless to try to camouflage what is, in effect, an ideology and almost a phobia of foreign

April 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
investment by wrapping it up in a defence of the rights of employees and the rights of regions, and so forth.
Mr. Speaker, speaking directly to the motion and the clauses of the Bill concerned, for instance, Motion No. 4 asks that the Bill provide policy direction to the agency established by Section 6; but the Minister's duties already include responsibility for providing policy direction. The purpose of this motion is to make a distinction between administration and management. We found it was very difficult to decide what activities come under management and what activities come under administration, so we felt this amendment did not contribute anything. In fact, it could lead to a very complicated process that would only delay decision-making. Since one of the principal objectives of Bill C-15 is to speed up the review process so that we can take advantage of foreign investment and create jobs as quickly as possible, the proposed amendment would have the opposite effect. That is why we rejected it.
We examined each of these amendments in committee. They were debated, and we explained to Opposition Members why we were rejecting these amendments. They cannot say they did not have a chance to discuss these points. We had very serious reasons for rejecting the amendments. For instance, Mr. Speaker, I am thinking of Clause 5 which is very important and goes to the very core of this legislation, and the amendment in which we are asked to ensure that businesses controlled by non-Canadians respect the rights of workers. As Hon. Members are aware, we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which does that equally well, we have the Labour Code, and we have a number of federal-provincial laws that protect the rights of employees. We fail to see why this kind of amendment should be included in legislation that controls investment.
Mr. Speaker, my point is that we did consider the principles the Opposition had in mind in proposing these amendments, and that we concluded that this legislation provides protection, for instance for culture in Canada, our cultural industries and the interests of Canadians while at the same time promoting investment, the investment we need to create jobs and reduce unemployment which is far too high here in Canada.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part once more in the very important debate on a piece of legislation which will certainly have a major impact on the future of Canada. After learning from the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) to what extent she took the views of Opposition Members into account before deciding how to vote in committee, I must tell her that we were not born yesterday. I know quite well that the Hon. Member for Gatineau and the Parliamentary Secretary were simply following the instructions of the minister. The Parliamentary Secretary had his marching orders. In fact, because of the contributions made by Members opposite, we are back in this House today to address not only the few committee members who are under the Minister's orders, but also the rest of the Members opposite, like the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) and his colleagues who might be able to bring pressure to bear on the Minister to make sure that the principles advocated by the Official Opposition and the NDP will be included in this Bill before it is passed by the House.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I was interested in bearing the interpretation of the Member for Gatineau about the Domtar issue. Mr. Speaker, I know that you yourself are not indifferent to this matter, and if the Hon. Member for Gatineau can say that it was all quite simple and that the Regional Economic Development Agreement between Canada and Quebec will take care of everything, it just goes to show that she did not follow that case as closely as you did, Mr. Speaker, since she would have us believe that it will automatically be included in the Quebec Economic Development Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member for Gatineau is quite wrong regarding both the facts and her version of them. In fact, what happened-


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


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


Claudy Mailly: I believe it is against the rules to involve the Speaker in a debate which would jeopardize his neutrality.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, if one cannot address the Chair, I wonder whom one can address!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: To put an end to this debate, I shall simply remind the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) and also the deputy whip that the motions now under consideration still deal with the Investment Canada Bill and the amendments moved by your colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) among others, and that the relation between that matter and your present comments is rather tenuous.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you appreciate my dealing with investment in Canada, the Bill now before us being the Investment Canada Act. Certainly the Domtar issue has to do with investment, and I would like especially to commend the part you took in that issue. Certainly it is not by letting things go, as the Hon. Member for Gatineau is trying to do, that this problem has been solved. It has been solved because there has been efficient and powerful action by the community, and in that sense it is my hope that the Canadian business community also will get in the act and will try to limit the damage now being done by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) to Canadian business own-
April 29, 1985

ership, the very balance of Canadian investment, and it is along those lines that we are debating that very delicate issue.
Mr. Speaker, concerning labour rights, again the Hon. Member for Gatineau has said: "Don't you worry, they are protected by the Charter of Rights. Well, I would urge her to read the Charter once again and see exactly where labour rights are protected in the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. I appreciate that she was not yet on the political scene, though unwittingly when the Charter of Rights was adopted, but I would remind her that the Labour Code has nothing to do with constitutional law.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) raised some very important points concerning the Minister's role. I think it is important that all of us should know what will be the responsibility of the Minister in charge of the agency. Will he assign political guidelines to the agency, or is the latter some kind of a beast that will be wandering about at the discretion of its officials? The impression now is that the Minister wants to be in charge but he is quite intent not to say so in the Act, and this will prevent the House of Commons from assessing the Minister's performance in the administration of the Act.
1 think it is important for us to know what criteria the Minister will use, because we realize-especially considering the Minister responsible for the legislation today-that these criteria are not always necessarily objective, and that is why we want to give him some parameters. We want to give him parameters so that the Minister will not strictly act according to his own discretion, as he is doing in a number of cases that are of concern to us here.
1 hope the Minister will be given some parameters, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with a case that is not directly concerned with foreign investment, but 1 am sure the Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) would do well to prepare some parameters for him when he starts dealing with Petromont, for instance. I really think she should, because, Mr. Speaker, although the Minister is probably acting in good faith, we have noticed that Regional Economic Development, and especially the development of the most disadvantaged regions, is not necessarily a matter on which he is staking his reputation as a politician. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that as far as the Investment Canada Bill is concerned, the Minister has a few guidelines so he will know what to do with this legislation. I think it is important to know that the Minister will be giving the main policy direction. We have the conviction that decisions made from Toronto are not necessarily, I say not necessarily, good for the whole country. I am convinced that the Toronto perspective may be useful, but we would like a more pan-Canadian perspective.
I think that when we consider other aspects of my hon. colleague's amendment, it is not so unreasonable to ask the Minister to find other potential buyers who are Canadians. I thought this legislation was called "an Act respecting invest-
Iinvestment Canada Act
ment in Canada", and before seeking out foreign investors to, for instance, take over Canadian companies, we want to oblige the Minister to look around and see if any Canadian citizens are interested in buying the company, and that, Mr. Speaker, is the same principle we apply to immigration. Hon. Members are aware that before we can give a non-Canadian a work permit, the job opening is posted, and we make sure that any Canadians qualified for the position are given a chance to apply before the position is opened to a non-Canadian. We want to apply exactly the same principle to investment and ensure that Canadians are considered first. 1 fail to see why my colleagues opposite would have any objection to such a worthy principle, Mr. Speaker.
Research is another aspect mentioned in the amendments proposed by my hon. colleague. He wants to set guidelines for the Minister responsible for the agency, once and for all, to ensure that research on domestic and international investments is done officially, in accordance with certain criteria, to ensure that the Minister does not just set this aside and decide that as far as he is concerned, the research has been done. For instance, he examines his conscience, and hurrah, we accept our friends from Chevron, and we approve applications by other friends for taking over Canadian companies. Mr. Speaker, as for the requirement to table the results in the House of Commons, I think we all need this research, to find out whether the Minister took the advice he was given.
Mr. Speaker, we have all been gagged in this debate, and unfortunately, I have only ten minutes, otherwise 1 could have spent all afternoon describing some horrifying cases of foreign investment that were to the disadvantage of Canadians and 1 am sure that includes some Canadians in the riding of Gatineau and during the next minutes I will be allowed, I will have an opportunity to name a few, despite the fact that this Government, with its tyrannical majority, would keep us from speaking. I have to stop for the time being, but I will be back to this later on, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments because the Bill does not give the Minister the kind of direction he should have. They allow him to approach the whole question of investment without any suggestion that he has some responsibility to Canadian investors. Clause 5 seems to suggest that the Minister has the responsibility of bringing in foreign investment as though it were preferable to Canadian investment. The clause does refer to assisting Canadian businessmen to exploit opportunities for investment and technological advancement, and they are very good words. But this clause and the whole Bill seem to point in a different direction. Therefore, the series of amendments which the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party have put before this House and in committee are an attempt to assist the Government in giving the Minister some direction to make sure that Canadian

April 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
enterprise, Canadian business, Canadian investment would have a better opportunity for success than investment from outside the country.
The three or four amendments our Party has put before this House in this group are exactly along that line. They indicate that Canadian investment should be encouraged as much as possible. Where investment deals directly with the national identity and cultural heritage areas of the economy, there should be a blockage of investment from outside of Canada, or at least the Canadian investor should be given specific encouragement and some specific responsibility in making that kind of investment.
I think everyone in this House would agree that rather than suggesting we buy foreign-made products, we should produce those products here. The problem seems to be with what is meant by "Canadian-produced". The Government suggests that buying Canadian means buying products made in Canada by a foreign investor and that this is better than buying those made by a Canadian investor. The Bill does not give the Canadian investor the title bit of an edge required because of our smaller market.
A major amendment which we have put forward is that which would require foreign investors to take some responsibility for their treatment of labour in the Canadian tradition. We have had some bad experience with foreign corporations coming into the country and establishing labour-management relationships which are not in the Canadian tradition. An example is that of the Nova Scotia Government over the last few years which did not help that province's labour-management situation. We do not want the creation of a no-man's land in labour-management relations, which is possible if this Bill passes.
One of our amendments deals with that, and when we come back after the lunch break I would like to put before the House the reasons why Canadian investment is more important than foreign investment.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, our capital is host this week to a gathering of survivors of the Nazi Holocaust which ended 40 years ago with the Allied victory in Europe. Over 3,000 Canadians are here for the gathering. They include survivors who were liberated as the death camps were discovered, exposing to the world the full horror and inhumanity of the Nazi agenda.
The gathering includes as well the children of survivors, here to commemorate and to try to understand further the experience, the scars of which will never fade from their lives. Many are here today in the galleries of the House. They are welcome.
The scars which they bear are also scars on Canadian and world history. Racism is an evil from which no society is immune. The death camp was the ultimate expression of racisms. As proud as Canada can be of its honourable role in World War II, as we remember those Canadians killed and wounded in that arena we must also remember that it was racism which held Canada back in the 1930s when it might have acted to alleviate the Holocaust by admitting refugees from the Nazi agenda.
As a Canadian and a Jew 1 call upon the House and Canadians to dedicate themselves to fight all racism. Let us keep the wounds fresh as a warning-never again.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday my colleague, the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he would, on behalf of the Government of Canada, intervene with the President of the United States and request that he cancel his proposed visit to the cemetery in Germany in which former SS troops are buried. The Secretary of State for External Affairs responded by saying:
In view of the Government's regard for the sovereignty and sovereign decisions of other countries, we will leave decisions about United States policy to be taken by the administration of the United States.
That answer is totally unacceptable. In the circumstances, to sit by and watch this happen is neglectful. When a Government sees another Government doing something that is totally wrong, it is appropriate to intervene in a friendly way to suggest that it ought not to pursue the policy it is pursuing. In this instance it is an affront to those who died in the concentration camps that our Government refuses to bring to the attention of the Government of the United States that it would
April 29, 1985

be inappropriate for the President of the United States to visit that cemetery.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, over 3,000 members of the Canadian Jewish community from coast to coast have gathered to observe the fortieth anniversary of the liberation of the Jews from the Nazi oppression in Europe. I attended the opening plenary session last evening where several Holocaust survivors and their children spoke with emotion and passion about their painful memories.
We cannot let Canadians, nor indeed the world, forget the unspeakable atrocities which were committed. Six million Jews were slaughtered. In memory of those millions of people who were starved, tortured, and killed, we must rededicate ourselves to taking steps to ensure that such wicked atrocities will never occur again.
My Government has appointed the Hon. Justice Jules Des-chenes to conduct investigations into the alleged presence of war criminals in Canada. We must also deal more effectively with anti-semitism, other forms of racism, and hate literature. The victims and survivors of the Holocaust must never be put on trial again with the cruel responsibility to prove the existence of the Holocaust.
We can best honour the memories of the millions of Jews who were so mindlessly killed, the survivors, and the children of the survivors, by joining our hands and our hearts in a prayerful commitment to action.




Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for the constituency of Willowdale, which has the largest Jewish population in Canada next to the riding of Mount Royal, and as a person who witnessed first hand the atrocities of World War II in my native Holland, I also wish to inform the House of the Canadian gathering of Jewish Holocaust survivors and their children which is taking place today and tomorrow here in Ottawa, commemorating the fortieth anniversary of that liberation.
The objectives of this gathering are to assemble Holocaust survivors of all faiths and races on the anniversary of their liberation to commemorate the memory of six million Jews, and millions of others, who perished in the Holocaust. The survivors wish to recognize the contribution of the Canadian Armed Forces in the struggle against our common enemy, and to express their appreciation to the people of Canada and their Government for the opportunity to build a new life out of the
ashes and despair of that terrible and frightening period of our history.
Sitting in the House are a number of the survivors of this tragic event who have come from all over Canada to attend the commemorative events of this fortieth anniversary of the liberation. We welcome them, and recognize their enormous contributions to Canadian society and culture. We share a common goal with the survivors, that the lesson of the Holocaust is not to be forgotten. Man's inhumanity to man, caused by the perversity of discrimination and racism, is not to be tolerated.


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind Members at this point that any reference to the presence of anyone in the galleries of the House is entirely out of order.




Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, today is a date of remembrance in commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the liberation of Holocaust survivors. We dedicate this day, not only to the memory of the six million Jews who perished, but also to all of us committed to the principles of justice, freedom, understanding, and peace.
The act of remembering must include awareness, which subsequently must lead to action. Racism and intolerance must be fought now on all levels to help all peoples. In no way may we remain indifferent.
We are reminded today of the violence, both past and present, which is a menace to all societies in which bigotry and hatred are allowed to spread unchecked to the detriment of all. Action must be undertaken in the name of human compassion, justice, and memory, so that no group will be allowed to suffer from racial discrimination.
Today members of the Canadian Jewish community, and others dedicated to peace and tolerance, are gathered in testament to survival and continuity. We will remember and commemorate those who suffered, and celebrate in an expression of solidarity, determination, and hope for all Canadians so that the lesson of the Holocaust will always be remembered. Like second generation survivors, we vow that it shall never happen again.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations, and that of the entire New Democratic Party caucus, to Gerard Doquier and the Canadian division of the United Steelworkers of America for their generosity in introducing a permanent payroll deduction plan to raise money for famine relief in the Third World.

April 29, 1985
As the procedure authorizing employers to make the deductions must still be negotiated before it can be put into place, I urge the companies involved to facilitate this payroll deduction plan. I also urge the employers to rise to the challenge offered by their employees, by matching their contributions.
I would further suggest that the federal Government follow this initiative by entering into discussions with its employees in order to create a plan which would provide the same possibilities for federal government employees.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, do you know what? Thousands, perhaps millions of Canadians are disillusioned with the Liberals and the NDP. We teach our young people to respect the law and to obey the law and, if they do not agree with the law, to work like blazes to change it, but while it is on the statute books it should be obeyed. Well, here we have Liberals and the NDP standing up in this House and supporting the defiance of the law.
Dr. Morgentaler brags that he is defying the laws of Canada, and that is bad enough, but for a Member of Parliament to support him in his defiance is unbelievable. And the peace campers defy the law and refuse to obey it, and Liberal and NDP Members stand up in this House and justify it, or try to, and one NDP Member is daring the RCMP to arrest him. These Members of Parliament are saying to the people of Canada, including our youth: "If you don't like a law, defy it". The ultimate end of that kind of logic is chaos and civil disobedience.
I have no difficulty with people who disagree with a law and work to change it. That is their democratic right, but to defy the law and to encourage others to defy it and disobey it, are inexcusable acts. Ah, but you say it is for a good cause! Well, when a man is jailed for stealing bread to feed his hungry children it is a good cause, but it is still theft.
Canadians generally would agree with John Galsworthy when he said: "The law is what it is, a majestic edifice sheltering all of us, each stone of which rests on another".



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed Hansard for this session of Parliament and could find not one single statement or question complimentary to Canada Post Corporation.
On March 19, 1985, I raised with the Minister responsible for the Post Office the fact that the Post Office appeared to
have abandoned its service standard of establishing door-to-door postal delivery when a new subdivision or apartment was more than 75 per cent occupied, and when the streets were paved.
Subsequently the Minister arranged for the President of Canada Post to meet with Members of Parliament who were experiencing difficulty in obtaining new door-to-door delivery. In addition, I was able to meet with Bob McGarry, President of the Letter Carriers Union of Canada. Together we were able to identify some 3,300 residences in York-Scarborough which should qualify for door-to-door service. 1 am pleased to report today that just over 60 per cent of these residences will receive door-to-door delivery next week, as a result of the reassignment of letter carriers from southern Scarborough to northern Scarborough.
I would like to thank both Michael Warren and Bob McGarry for their co-operation in agreeing to these route changes.
Sixty per cent is a passing grade in high school, but just barely. I look forward to meeting with Mr. Warren personally over the next couple of weeks to discuss extending door-to-door delivery to the remaining residences which meet the service standard, as well as to discuss reversing the dramatic decline in service in several of the small business corridors in my riding.



HISTORIC EVENTS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as other colleagues have already stated, yesterday several thousand Canadians, mostly Jews, gathered in Ottawa to remember the six million victims murdered in the Nazi Holocaust. These six million murders took place throughout Europe in a large number of camps, the most horrifying at Buchenwald, Dachau, Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Treblinka. They are a terrifying reminder of how low man can sink in his treatment of fellow human beings. When Dachau was liberated forty years ago, it held over 30,000 victims.
The purpose of the meeting taking place in Ottawa and around the world is to remind younger and older generations of exactly what happened, so that it will never happen again. The world must be eternally vigilant so that similar incidents will never be repeated.
The plaque at the exit to the Dachau Museum quoting the philosopher and poet, George Santayana, reads as follows:
Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
April 29, 1985


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the men and women involved in the mining industry in Canada.
You will recall a seismic event measuring 3.5 on the Richter scale on June 20 of last year which killed four men in the Falconbridge Number Five mine shaft in Sudbury. In their memory, and of others who have met similar fates, the Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers' Union, Local 598, will hold a special service on June 20.
Country music singer and composer, Janet Moore, is releasing her new song entitled The Rugged Miner, at a press conference Wednesday morning in this building. I urge members of the Press Gallery to support this noble cause by presenting the Union's concerns to the people of Canada.
It is common knowledge that the mining industry is fraught with danger, due to the very nature of the work. Through the efforts of this Union and of Janet Moore, we are reminded of those persons toiling thousands of feet away from the light of day.
We are also reminded of the wives and children who have lost their dear husbands and fathers to the unsettled, shifting earth that was their workplace.
Tribute must also be paid to the miners who have perished from industrial disease. Their demise is less sudden, but no less tragic.
June 20 will be a day of remembrance for all Canadians. It is also a day of celebration in honour of those persons who toil amid danger for the common good.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there would be a disposition in the House at this moment to observe one minute of silence to commemorate the ending of the Holocaust and the closing of the concentration camps. Would the House join me for one minute's silence.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the Members stood in silence.]
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Last Thursday in Toronto in the company of the Prime Minister, Premier Frank Miller made what I deem to be a disturbing statement. Mr. Miller said that he was going to call upon the Ontario Legislature to pass a resolution, and I use Mr. Miller's words, "stating our resolve to retain quotas" on foreign automobiles.
Given that the Premier met with the Prime Minister and is presumably privy to the Government's intentions in this particular respect, why would he consider it necessary to seek a resolution from the Legislature of Ontario to impress upon the federal Government the need to continue the auto quotas on Japanese imports?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition I would have to assure him, first, that Premier Miller can speak for himself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: That is debatable.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As far as the Government of Canada is concerned, our actions to date have been exactly what Premier Miller has requested.
We have indicated to the Japanese, as I have stated in this House, that we feel, until suitable arrangements can be made, they should not increase the number of cars coming into Canada. That means they should stay at approximately an 18 per cent level of the Canadian market. We have had negotiations in Tokyo pressing this point last week, and I will be meeting with those negotiators when they return to Canada later this week.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH JAPANESE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister must know how well his negotiators did in Japan, if they did well at all. Did the Minister get the agreement he has just laid out before the House? Is it true that if there is an agreement, it does not meet that standard, and the reason the agreement is not being made public is to avoid upsetting the voters of Ontario, and the publication of that agreement is going to be delayed until after Thursday? Would the Minister tell us whether or not he has an agreement with the Japanese, and give us the substance of that agreement?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, there is no agreement at this point. We feel that the discussions have been very beneficial on both sides. We have been pressing upon the Japanese the need for more sourcing and more investment in Canada. We believe they understand our position. I only remind the Leader of the Opposition that last year it took until June 12 before a satisfactory agreement could be arrived at, in the sense of something which could be put in place. As far as we are concerned, we hope there will be a satisfactory agreement well before June 12, but I am sorry I cannot say that we have that agreement at this time.


EXISTENCE OF QUOTAS-PREMIER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my final question is directed to the same Minister. He will recall that last year those quotas were maintained. Technically they have expired as of March 31, as the Hon. Minister knows. Is the Premier of Ontario privy to information which the rest of us do not have on how those negotiations are going? Why else would he feel constrained to suggest to the voters of Ontario that he would need a vote of the Ontario Legislature to reinforce that province's position, and to impress upon the federal Government the necessity for the maintenance of those quotas?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I can only say that Premier Miller made a statement which was completely in step with the position of the federal Government with respect to these quotas. We have been pressing the Canadian case. We have indicated that there will be a monitoring of the arrival of imports. If we see any sizeable increase compared with last year, we will draw that to the attention of the Japanese and take what action we feel is necessary.


INDUSTRY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. At a recent meeting of the Canadian shareholders of Canadian General Electric it was revealed that the parent company made a threat that it would close down CGE, or sell it off, unless that subsidiary returned a much higher dividend to the parent company. That is a very serious problem, or dilemma. Has the Minister looked into that case? In particular, has he determined whether the threat made by the parent company of CGE contravenes the 1975 guidelines for principles of international business behaviour in Canada?
Will he tell us whether he intends to take any action against the parent company for contravening those guidelines?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, as he knows that news came out, I guess, about a week ago. We asked for a report from the company on what led to the news story. My own people advised me as of this morning that they have not received a full report back yet, and we have not had an opportunity, accordingly, to review the circumstances, or certainly to check whether there was any breach of some guideline in earlier years.


GUIDELINES GOVERNING FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. As he has said many times in the House, the Government intends to provide a much broader invitation to foreign investment. Taking that into account, does the Minister not think it is now time for the Government to establish more clearly what are the guidelines for the behaviour and performance of foreign-owned companies and their subsidiaries in Canada? Does he not also think that it would be useful for the Government to bring in amendments to the Investment Canada Act to ensure that parent companies cannot intimidate or threaten their Canadian subsidiaries, such as CGE has done?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I think the short answer to that question is no.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and it concerns the forthcoming Budget. All those Canadians who are currently out of work and are looking for some stimulus to create jobs, are looking forward to the Budget. All those additional thousands of Canadians who want some tax fairness are looking forward to the Budget. Considering that the Minister is leaving later this week for an important international meeting on finance, is he now prepared to tell the House the precise date on which he will be bringing down the Budget?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think those Canadians who will be looking for tax fairness, and those Canadians who will be looking for a degree of encouragement for job creation, will be very pleased with the results of the Budget. I have indicated that the date of the Budget will be some time in the week of May 20. I will be announcing that date precisely in the House in due course.
April 29, 1985


MINIMUM TAX PROPOSAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I hope we do not hear it by way of a rumour from Bonn. Considering that those thousands of ordinary families who had to send in cheques to the federal Government on the weekend are paying more than their share, and have been looking forward to tax reform to ensure that those thousands of rich Canadians who are not paying any taxes will be doing so in the future, I have a specific question for the Minister.
Since the election, and according to figures produced by the Government in the past two weeks, the number of rich not paying their share of taxes actually increased by about a third last year. Will the Minister make a promise to all those ordinary Canadians who are paying too much that he will be bringing in a minimum tax on upper income Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can commiserate with those Canadians who are filling out their tax returns. That is what I was doing myself last night. I should say that the matter which the Hon. Member raised has been dealt with by the Prime Minister and by myself in the House. That matter will be dealt with in the Budget.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I asked that question because it has not been dealt with precisely by the Minister. However, the Prime Minister said on November 22 in the House, and I quote: "We will follow through with regard to a minimum tax". After that the Minister indicated that there may be a study of a minimum tax, that he might be looking at it, but he did not indicate clearly that there would be a minimum tax. Since the Prime Minister promised that in the election campaign, and since he reiterated it on November 22 in the House, will the Minister clarify the matter for sure, and tell overburdened, ordinary taxpayers that the rich finally will face a minimum tax in the forthcoming Budget?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this line of questioning can lead us down a path where the Hon. Member will be asking me questions on all sorts of things which might or might not be in the Budget.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister said it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As I indicated, and as the Prime Minister indicated, that matter will be dealt with in the Budget as the Hon. Member has indicated in his question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises out of the fact that during the recent visit to Canada of Prime Minister Shamir, Israel indicated for the first time that
Oral Questions
it would welcome the opportunity to extradite Nazi war criminals from Canada for trial in Israel. Is the Government prepared to respond positively to Israel to permit such extraditions to occur?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we will be following up on representations which might or might not have been made by the Government of Israel. I think the Hon. Member would agree that there is no particular advantage at this point in time, before any formal response has been made, to speculate on the floor of the House of Commons.


POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF WAR CRIMINALS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I gather from that that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is intending to wait on that matter until the Deschenes Commission reports. I want to ask him for an assurance that the Government will continue, while awaiting the report of the Deschenes Commission, to carry out the work begun by the former Government in dealing with war criminals and, if possible, to expand that work in view of additional legal advice and opinions and the findings of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police during recent periods.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as the former Government did not, we have established the Deschenes inquiry. We intend to ensure that that inquiry carries out its obligations and its mandate. Where it is appropriate for the Government of Canada to be acting in advance of receipt of the recommendations of that commission, naturally we will continue to do that.


INDUSTRY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister is aware that Canadian Porcelain, which manufactures insulators in Hamilton, was recently forced into receivership, primarily because of the dumping of insulators by Lapp Industries of New York State. Will the Minister look into the bizarre circumstances which now appear to have put Canadian Porcelain into the pocket of Lapp Industries Canadian Industries, whereby the receiver has accepted an offer from Lapp Industries to buy that company over a more significant and more substantial offer made by the former employees of Canadian Porcelain?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, who was good enough to mention this problem orally to me, I can assure him that, if the facts are as represented by the Hon. Member, we will be looking into the situation and seeing if

April 29, 1985
Oral Questions
something can be done at least to ease what appears to be an inequity.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF TAKEOVER OFFER
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister move to inform Peat Marwick that the sale must not be consummated until such time as a review has been undertaken to determine whether (a), on the one hand, Lapp Industries is not simply moving to purchase its competition in order to put it out of business, and (b), to determine whether it is acting in the best interest of the community and the employees of that business by not accepting their $1.3 million offer over the $1.25 million offer of Lapp Industries?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will be pleased to learn that I have already asked my officials to check into this matter to see what stage it is at and what might be done to relieve the situation as he described it to me earlier.


BANKS AND BANKING
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns the Canadian Commercial Bank. People who bought preferred shares in the bank during the week the bail-out was being negotiated have seen the value of their shares plummet. However, when they bought, there was no indication that the bank was in any difficulty at all. Will the Minister tell the House why there was not full and timely disclosure of the bank's financial situation, as is required under Ontario law for shares trading in Ontario?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that there is a possibility of some legal action being taken on that matter, so I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on it. I also remind her that there will be a committee of this House looking into the CCB matter. If she has questions, that is probably the most appropriate place to ask them.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR FULL DISCLOSURE
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if the Montreal, Toronto, or Alberta Stock Exchanges did know what was going on between March 14 and 25, they did not say. There were 8,500 preferred shares traded while the bank's fate was being decided. The Government's silence gives an appearance of acquiescence in the bank's failure to present its financial situation accurately. Will the Minister tell the House whether he sees any responsibility on the part of the Government, through the Inspector General, to ensure in general that there is full and timely disclosure?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the rules of the stock exchanges and of the securities commissions under the jurisdiction of the provinces do require a full and timely disclosure. I am sure that the bank has met those. If that has not been the case, we will be able to find that out during the course of the committee hearings when the officers of the bank are in attendance.


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE RECEIVE INVESTIGATION RESULTS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. It is on the same matter. Now that the Canadian Commercial Bank collapse has been referred to the House of Commons' finance committee, will the Department of Finance, or any of the agencies of the Government, be submitting the results of any investigation by the four organizations, public and private, which examined the bank between December and March and found no sign that the Canadian Commercial Bank would collapse very quickly?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kennett, the Inspector General of Banks, will be appearing before that committee and will be able to provide all the answers to the specific questions of the Hon. Member.


SALE OF SHARES BY VICE-PRESIDENT
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped the Minister would be shocked by the fact that three of Canada's leading auditing and investment firms, and the Inspector General of Banks, failed to uncover the problems of the Canadian Commercial Bank at a date so close to its collapse. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government is investigating the activities of one insider who knew something could be wrong? Specifically, is the Government investigating the sale by CCB vice-president Scott McCreath, who sold 2,000 preferred shares in that company in early February for over $20 a share, while the same shares are now trading at less then $5? What action will be taken following the result of any such investigation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of insider trading is primarily the responsibility of the provincial Governments which have jurisdiction over the stock exchanges and the issue of securities. I will bring that matter to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance. I am sure that she will look into it diligently, and get back to the Hon. Member.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The Minister will know that in a change of command, Colonel de Tracey over the past
April 29, 1985

weekend turned over his command at Namao Air Base in Edmonton. Has this active officer been sentenced to a desk job in Ottawa without a fair hearing, or was he deemed guilty by virtue of an incident simply having happened? Has Colonel de Tracey's posting to NDC Kingston been cancelled, which would have a real effect on this gentleman's career, and will the Minister intervene?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered a similar question put by the Hon. Member and by the Hon. Member for Pembina two weeks ago or thereabouts. My answer is still the same as it was on that occasion. Colonel de Tracey has been posted to Ottawa effective the end of this month, I believe. He has not been posted to Kingston. The other two premises with respect to a fair hearing and permanent desk job in Ottawa are ill-founded. The investigation, if not complete, is very close to it. Undoubtedly there will be further postings in Colonel de Tracey's career as it moves ahead, as there is with any other officer, or man or woman in the Forces.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Government House Leader and President of the Privy Council. I want to come back to the Sherman appointment. Given the refusal of the Minister last Friday to allow for a review of Mr. Sherman's appointment to the CRTC, will the Minister and his Government at least do the honourable thing and suspend the appointment of Mr. Sherman until the committee on reform of this House has come up with the recommendations that we are all awaiting, and then proceed with the review, as promised by the Conservatives in the election?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Hon. Member on Friday, the parliamentary Task Force on Reform of the House of Commons is mandated to make its final and complete report with respect to the reform of this place by the end of June. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that it will not be an untoward time before we will receive the recommendations concerning the matter of review of appointments and of the guidelines under which we will be dealing with these particular matters. I cannot comment with respect to the other matter because the appointment has been made. It is a matter in the discretion of the appropriate Minister and the Prime Minister.
Oral Questions


MINISTER'S CONSULTATION PRIOR TO MR. SHERMAN'S APPOINTMENT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Communications. Given Mr. Sherman's remarks concerning institutional and Canadian bilingualism and the response of the Leader of the Government in the House, does the Minister agree with the saying that birds of a feather flock together? Will Mr. Sherman really be a commissioner likely to live up to the aspirations of the Minister? Was he consulted about Mr. Sherman's CRTC appointment?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: As
provided under the Act, Mr. Speaker, the recommendation was made by the Minister of Communications and endorsed by the Government. I am convinced that the new commissioner will judiciously discharge his responsibilities in accordance with the legislative provisions.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Since the Minister has helped Hamilton, I must ask him if he will help Windsor now. Chrysler Corporation has just announced plans for a large, new investment in parts production in Korea. It has also announced record profits. Will the Minister arrange a meeting with the head of Chrysler, given the dangers to Canada of this transfer of parts production to Korea, in order to request Chrysler to reopen its Windsor-based engine plant as a small return for the $200 million in loan guarantees that Chrysler received from the Government?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, I am sure that he knows that we have ongoing discussions with the various car manufacturers, at times together and at times individually. Naturally, in the case of Chrysler, we will raise the point as to whether or not there has been any unfairness to Canada. I can assure the Hon. Member that most of the manufacturers are making a very significant contribution to Canada as far as investment is concerned, and perhaps some day we will be able to get the Japanese to match some of the investment that has been taking place in Canada by other manufacturers.


PRODUCTION OF PARTS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the $200 million that Chrysler received from Canada was

April 29, 1985
Oral Questions
crucial to its receiving $1.5 billion from the United States Government. Does the Minister believe that Chrysler should say thank you to Canadians in a concrete way by putting some of its new parts production in Canada rather than putting all of it in Korea?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again in reply to the Hon. Member, surely he would agree that the turnaround as far as Chrysler is concerned has been one of the more encouraging things that has occurred. 1 would only say that if there is a thank you to be given, I have no objection to expressing general satisfaction in a company that has turned around as sensationally as Chrysler.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. U.S. coal imported into Canada has a 5 per cent sulphur content, whereas Canadian coal has a sulphur content of only one-half of 1 per cent. Is the Government working toward increasing the volume of Canadian coal used in Canada, thus decreasing acid rain and providing jobs for Canadians?
[ Translation]


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank my colleague for his question. He will be pleased to know that a few months ago we drafted a commercial evaluation pilot project for transporting low sulphur content coal to meet the needs of Ontario Hydro.


TOURISM
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Tourism). Two weeks ago the Minister told me in the House in reply to a comment that a gasoline price increase drives tourists away that-

We ... do not believe that factors like gasoline prices, taxes on alcohol. .. should be looked at separately.
[ Translation]
As we recall, Mr. Speaker, the Government did raise the price of gasoline last November 8, as it did the alcohol tax, the airport tax, the national parks entrance fee, the fares on ferryboats, just to mention a few. Taken separately, all those services which bear directly on tourism cost more. Can the Minister assure the tourist industry that at least one of those
services, namely gasoline, will be spared and that there will be no gasoline price increase in the May Budget?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of State (Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic, if not passing strange, that any Hon. Member in the Liberal Party would, by implication, lecture anyone of the subject of gasoline prices.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: The Hon. Member will recall that his Party won an election in February, 1980, on a firm commitment to keep gasoline prices down. At that time the price of leaded gasoline was 23.9 cent per litre. Within the term of that Government's mandate, because of federal policies, taxes, and programs, the price of leaded gasoline was allowed to increase to 45 cents per litre.
In response to the Hon. Member's question, let me say that I know the Minister of Finance is very sensitive to the interests of the tourism industry and the interests of consumers. Indeed, a few days ago he met with the senior executive of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada. 1 think that is the first time such a meeting was held between a Minister of Finance and TIAC. The members of that association went away from that meeting very happy indeed.

[ Translation]


PRICE OF GASOLINE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Fernand Robichaud: All 1 am
doing, Mr. Speaker, is repeating the representations or criticisms of his colleagues when they were in Opposition. Believe me, they never missed an opportunity to mention the price of gasoline. Will the Minister support the CAA's request to the Minister of Finance that he go as far as reducing gasoline prices in his forthcoming Budget? Does the Minister endorse that request?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I have made many representations to the Minister of Finance on behalf of the organization to which the Hon. Member made reference, and on behalf of other large associations within the tourism industry. I know that the Minister of Finance, having previously been a Minister of Tourism, is sensitive to those interests. Even the Hon. Member will be happy with the Budget when it is brought down.
April 29, 1985


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broad view-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications and concerns the awarding of a $100,000 grant to the National Theatre School in Montreal. My question does not concern the merits of the proposal but certain possible irregularities in the way it was awarded, and in particular the possibility of political interference from the Prime Minister's Office.
Would the Minister admit frankly that there are no published criteria for his Special Initiatives Fund so that groups that want to apply do not know if they are eligible, or will he come completely clean and admit that the sole criterion for funding is political connection with the Conservative Party?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, 1 will excuse the Hon. Member for being ignorant of the way grants are awarded at the Department of Communications, especially those awarded under the Special Program of Cultural Initiatives. The public knows about the forms, which are completed by the agencies. There are a great many people busy judging these agencies, and the Department is always happy to contribute to the development of Canada's cultural community.


ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the Minister does not know what his own Department is doing. The former criteria expired on March 31 and now there are no criteria under which the Department is working. My office has tried to get hold of such criteria and was told that they are still being discussed.
I wonder if the Minister would check on the facts as they exist within his own Department. As well, I wonder if he would not admit that the Canada Council does things very differently. It does not receive phone calls from the Prime Minister's Office but uses established criteria and a merit system worked by juries. Would the Minister not concede that the arts community wants merit to be the sole criterion when making these awards, and that a Minister's slush fund has no place in the cultural policy of the country?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, first of all, as long as the new criteria have not been released, the old ones will continue to apply. Second, the Special program of cultural initiatives is a different program with objectives that differ from those of the programs administered by the Canada Council, and I believe that both programs achieve their objectives fairly and squarely.
Oral Questions


HUMAN RIGHTS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Canada is host to the Human Rights Experts Meeting which will take place at the beginning of May. The agenda of that meeting is to review the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Accords to which we, as well as many other countries, including the Soviet Union, are co-signators, and to which we are mutually bound. As I understand it, the position of the Canadian delegation has been not to use specific names at these meetings, but rather to raise the issue of human rights as a matter of principle.
I have just returned from Russia. I have been witness and can testify to the fact that the prisoners of conscience, those whose crime is to study and practise their religion, and many refusniks who have suffered as a result of asking for exit permits, are prepared and hope that the Minister will raise their cases and name names. Will the Canadian delegation be prepared to raise specific cases at this experts' meeting?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of other Members of the House I would like to pay tribute to the interest which was shown by the Hon. Member, and other Members from other Parties, on the parliamentary delegation which recently returned from the Soviet Union. I know their commitment to the question of Soviet Jewry, and I think she will understand that when I had the opportunity to raise questions of this kind, I also raised them with vigour and with all the force at my command.
With regard to the very important meeting which will be held in Canada, for the first time in North America, officially beginning in May, there are a variety of ways in which these cases can be raised-generally and specifically, in formal sessions and in corridors. I think the Hon. Membker will agree with me, as will her Leader, that it is in the interests of Canada and in the interests of this process that we make some solid progress at the CSCE meeting of experts. I give her my commitment that we will find ways to raise individual cases with the Soviet Union and with others in a manner that will lead to a successful conference which will contribute positively to the CSCE process.


INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL EXCHANGES
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased with and respect the energy and the efforts of the Minister.

But there is one thing, Mr. Speaker. How can the Minister propose to sign cultural, scientific and academic agreements and expect the Soviets to respect these, when they have never

April 29, 1985
Oral Questions
respected such agreements, and especially not the Helsinki Accords? My main concern is: Is detente going to have a human or an economic face? That is the point.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I said repeatedly in the Soviet Union, I think the Soviets must accept that if they want trade or economic relations with a country like Canada, they must have a more effective and more acceptable performance in the area of human rights.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and it relates to the work stoppage at Air Canada. The Acting Prime Minister will realize that the main reason for the work stoppage is the fact that Air Canada is insisting that 45 per cent of its workforce, as far as passenger agents are concerned, must become parttime. In other words, many full-time positions, which are basically women's jobs, will be eliminated. It is certainly a matter for government policy. What is the Government's policy with respect to the taking away of full-time jobs and making 45 per cent of a workforce part-time?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the Hon. Member will be one of the first to agree that it is not helpful to debate the elements of any discussions between management and labour, while those discussions are ongoing. It is my understanding that the discussions have been adjourned. That is an entirely normal course for negotiations of this nature to take, in order to allow assessments to be made on both sides, in preparation for hopefully soon getting back to the table. Any debate of the elements involved at this stage would, I suggest, not be helpful to that process.


POLICY INQUIRY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The Government saw fit to change the Board of Air Canada with the idea that there must be people in charge of Air Canada who know what the Government wants and who will act favourably with respect to government policies. Would it not be helpful to the management at Air Canada to know what the Government wants in terms of full-time and part-time work and what the relationship should be, especially since it has resulted in a work stoppage at this time? What is the Government's policy?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that we are dealing with a Crown corporation which has the fundamental responsibility of making that kind of decision. But, in any event, I would
again suggest to the Hon. Member that it certainly would not be helpful to the process which is now ongoing, and in which the parties are now engaged, to debate the elements which we all hope will be resolved. In the meantime I am informed that Air Canada flights-as far as it has been reported in the media-have been on time and are still flying. Let us all hope that the parties get back to the table in the very near future to resolve their difficulties.


BEEF IMPORT QUOTAS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and it concerns the Prime Minister's visits to London and Bonn this week. So far those visits seem to be geared mainly toward publicity and public relations. Can the Acting Prime Minister assure Canadian beef producers that the Prime Minister will urge the four heads of Government in the European Economic Community to respect our meat import law and the quotas which we have provided to EEC countries, and to press those four heads of Government to remove the threat of a countervail duty on Canadian agricultural products during the meetings in Bonn?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Hon. Member that we are still engaged in discussions with the European Community with respect to beef. Approximately an hour before I came into the House I had a personal telephone conversation with Mr. Wyllie de Clercq, the Commissioner of the EEC, with respect to this problem, and he is having a meeting with his deputies to discuss it this afternoon.


PRIME MINISTER'S ROLE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister as he is representing the Prime Minister. We heard the same kind of generalities after the Quebec Summit about trade problems. The President then went back to the United States and imposed a massive countervail duty on Canadian pork products, which is destroying that industry.
Why are the Government and the Prime Minister not prepared to use this meeting to solve practical problems, like the dumping of millions of pounds of subsidized beef into the Canadian market, and the threat of a countervail duty? Why is the Prime Minister, who is attending these meetings, not prepared to take advantage of the occasion to solve these practical problems for our agricultural producers?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is one of the worst offenders in this House for smuggling irrelevancies and mistakes of fact into his questions.
April 29, 1985

I would like to begin by addressing the matter which he raised in his preamble, that being the question of it being a publicity exercise. That already has been discounted. I might say to him, that just as I am answering this question now Prime Minister Thatcher is attending a reception at Canada House which is being given by the Canadian Government. It is the first time upon which any British Prime Minister has attended such an occasion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Second, Prime Minister Thatcher herself has requested additional time in her tete-a-tete tomorrow with the Prime Minister to discuss a whole range of matters of concern to the two Governments.


Maurice Brydon Foster: What about the trade problem? Why doesn't he discuss that with her?


Erik Nielsen: With respect to the trade problem, the Minister to whom the question should have been directed has already answered-


Maurice Brydon Foster: He has already struck out.


Erik Nielsen: -and I am sure that the matter will be given the kind of adequate attention which this Government intends to give to all such problems in its discussions with our European allies.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Brant. One question.


INDUSTRY
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion responsible for DRIE. It has to do with White Farm Equipment in Brantford. Borg-Warner carried the company for several years, and under very depressed market circumstances White Farm has been able to increase its share of the market with its new axial flow combines. There are 600 jobs on the line, and there are several suppliers who may go bankrupt. Could the Minister assure the House that, if all else fails, the Government will very seriously consider loan guarantees to White Farm to keep it operationg until market conditions improve?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member is most pleased that discussions continue with respect to White Farm Equipment. Every effort is being made to save the company and, hopefully, there will be a private sector thrust which will ensure that that company can not only be maintained but can expand.
Introduction of Bills CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) on Friday, April 26, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Northumb-erland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine) on Friday, April 26, 1985, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee of Public Accounts.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Rodney Edward Murphy: for leave to introduce Bill C-237, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (political rights).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce today a Private Member's Bill which will provide political rights to federal Government employees. In the present Ontario campaign-


Mr. Dick:: Order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -as is in the case of every campaign-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -I am meeting people who feel that they are second-class citizens because they cannot fully express their political views. I have met people who live in fear of being discovered as supporters of a particular Party.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That's a political statement.

April 29, 1985
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is entitled to make his summary to the House-


Mr. Forrestall:: He is making a speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. He is entitled to use his moment to summarize his Bill in any way he wants, but the Hon. Member must be brief.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: He is trying to be.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I am certainly trying to be brief, Mr. Speaker, and if the interruptions would stop, I am sure I could finish much faster.
The point I would like to make in introducing my Bill, Mr. Speaker, is that in the campaign which is going on in Ontario, or in any other campaign, there are people in this country who are not treated as full citizens of this nation, and I hope that all Parties in this House will support the Bill.


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

Mr. Gagliano: Did the mixed study team on Services and Subsidies to Business, present a report to the Ministerial Task Force on Program Review and will the Government Table the report and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?
Hon. Erik Nielsen Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence): 1. Yes.
2. (a) No. (b) Being advice to the Cabinet, this report is a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, Questions Nos. 206 and 303 will be answered today.


Mr. Henderson: Did any Prince Edward Island Post Office have their hours of operation cut since September 17, 1984 and, if so (a) which ones (b) what was the projected saving as a result of each reduction?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: The
Canada Post Corporation informs me as follows:
(a)	Since September 17, 1984, the following post offices in Prince Edward Island have had their hours of service adjusted: Bonshaw; Elmira; Victoria; Freetown; Lennox Island; Mimine-gash; Richmond.
(b)	The projected savings to Canada Post Corporation as a result of the above service adjustments will be as follows:
Bonshaw	$1,306.76
Elmira	1,306.76
Victoria	1,306.76
Freetown	1,306.76
Lennox Island	1,209.96
Miminegash	1,306.76
Richmond	3,915.60
Total Savings	$11,659.36



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and Motions Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 9 (Mr. Axworthy), No. 10 (Mr. Langdon), No. 11 (Mr. Axworthy), No. 14 and 15 (Mr. Langdon), No. 16 (Mr. Axworthy) and Nos. 17 and 18 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4183).
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, just before the luncheon adjournment I was approaching the point at which I wanted to indicate to the House the reasons why it is very important that Canadian investment be protected. It is mostly because of the record of foreign corporations in Canada. First, foreign companies do not spend nearly as much on research and development as do Canadian controlled companies. If any Hon. Member of the House wishes to look at the record of that, he will find that Canadian companies will spend three times as much on research and development as do foreign-based companies.
Second, foreign-controlled firms import much more than Canadian-controlled firms, thereby reducing the spinoff effect and their economic impact upon the country. Foreign companies imported 22 per cent of their sales, which is five times as

April 29, 1985

much as Canadian companies. In the manufacturing sector, foreign companies imported 30 per cent of their sales, which is four times as much as Canadian companies.
Third, foreign companies account for a disproportionate share of the non-merchandise items such as interest, profits and other services which they buy and pay for overseas. In other words, they spent a lot more money in remittances to foreign countries. If Hon. Members want to find the basis for that. Statistics Canada will clearly show it.
Multi-national corporations seek to maximize their global profits and they do so in any way they can. Consequently, they shift their funds so as to declare higher profits in countries where the tax burden is lower. This goes on all the time and it is basically just a method of increasing the profits of the large corporations which are based in several countries at the same time.
Fourth, in a study of the computer industry it has been found that there was a $50 million loss in income for the Canadian Government in taxation through this mechanism. Those foreign companies paid approximately 30 per cent less than they should have paid because they transferred the costs to Canada and the profits to other countries.
Fifth, foreign-controlled companies export much less in relation to their sales than do their Canadian competitors. These corporations do not compete with their parent companies. They will not export into countries where the parent company is already exporting. Therefore, we lose that kind of competition and the amount of production which these corporations might be able to give. Ninety per cent of the exports of the Canadian subsidiaries went to the U.S. parent companies in 1978, and 57 per cent of those corporations had their subsidiaries restricted in their exports out of Canada.
Sixth, the high foreign control of Canadian industry contributes to poor productivity performance. Again, the effect of foreign control of the industry reduces competition.
I am attempting to give you, Mr. Speaker, and this House, a large number of reasons why this Government should increase the amount of support it gives to Canadian companies and withhold its support to foreign corporations.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the group of motions we have before us are all concerned with putting some measurable, quantifiable element into a Bill which, as it stands before us, is really very vague. The Government has apparently decided that all foreign investment will be so beneficial to Canada that it is not necessary to apply any criteria. While I have said before in the course of debate on this Bill that one could clearly make a case for updating FIRA, which is 10 or 11 years old, the Government has really gone too far in throwing out any requirements for the emphasis to be placed on jobs and research and development within Canada. This cluster of amendments, if accepted, would put some of those requirements back into the legislation.
Investment Canada Act
Let us just go back into the recent history of Canada which led up to the establishment of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. In the early 1960s Canadians realized that the surge of post-war capital entering Canada, mainly from the U.S., was resulting in a great proportion of Canadian industry, particularly resource extraction and manufacturing, ending up under the control of foreign owners. There was a small nationalist group which became very concerned about this and very vocal. Most people were not swept along with that feeling; they did not really see that there was a danger, as the present Government does not see a danger. But then look what happened as time went on. We began to see Canadian companies created by foreign owners for the specific purpose of cultivating and serving the Canadian domestic market. That was a legitimate goal of the companies concerned, but from the point of view of Canadians these companies were not interested in developing export markets. They were particularly not interested in developing Canadian resources or moving into secondary processing, so we found our exports limited to primary products and transactions between foreign owner or parent, parent company and subsidiary, and therefore our balance of payments suffered.
Another very serious result of the branch plant economy was that branch plants imported their management from abroad, usually from the U.S., and when it came time for these managers to have a further promotion they went back to the U.S. or to another country, and therefore Canada was not developing a domestic pool of top management talent. We continue to suffer from that handicap. Then, at the time of the Cuban crisis, the U.S. administration interpreted the Trading With The Enemy Act as applying to Canadian subsidiaries of American companies, even though Canada did not identify Cuba as an enemy. This is only one of many examples of extraterritorial application of domestic U.S. policy which we have seen.
Research and development have tended to become concentrated in the home country. This is a logical thing for the parent company to do as it thinks of its interests, but it certainly does not serve Canadian interests. We have also found in the past that even when a Canadian subsidiary developed a new product or new adaptation, the proprietary rights were repatriated to the head office in another country. When the oil crisis struck in 1974, the Canadian Government found that the major oil companies had been giving it exaggerated figures and the reserves they had claimed simply did not exist. There were a dozen other signs that Canada's open door investment policy had gone too far, hence the establishment of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, which again gave us some control of our economy and has resulted in some significant shifts.
I am all for updating legislation, for the world has changed since FIRA was established. An updating to ensure that the legislation is still current and applicable would have been in order, but the Government has just thrown the door wide open and would put us back to the 1960s situation and 1960s problems.

April 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
May I mention again a situation that I have mentioned before in this House, and that is that we saw situations in Ontario where companies established before FIRA, before there was any requirement that they do research and development or anything other than simple assembly, have in recent years, as the economic climate has become a little more difficult, simply closed their doors and moved to the southern states of the U.S. where there are no minimum wages, energy costs are lower, and so on. In some cases, they have simply closed their doors, moved out lock, stock and barrel on a weekend, leaving Canadian employees high and dry with no particularly marketable skills, no vacation pay and no financial settlement. Worse than that for some of these employees whom I have talked with, painful though the economic impact was, what hurt even more for someone who had served the company loyally for 25 years was to go in on Monday morning and find the doors closed and feel that no one cared enough for him to say, "Thank you for 25 years of loyal work; I am sorry, we are in difficulties".
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in one of his speeches, described as melodrama the comments being made on this side of the House about the risks of unemployment when FIRA is abolished. It is not melodrama. It is a real human situation. I have seen in my own constituency office a proud man in tears because the job he thought was his forever was suddenly gone in one of the circumstances that I have described. This was a man who was educating his children, buying his house and proud of the fact that his wife had not needed to work and could stay home to give their children a good start. Suddenly, 25 years of work was just gone without any recognition. This is not melodrama, this is fact and it has happened to many people in Ontario.
I appeal to the Government again, even if it does not wish to accept the particular amendments in the form in which they have been put here today, to stop and reconsider them before it opens the door wide to these problems which we have experienced before and which can and should be avoided. We can welcome foreign investment, but there is a big difference between foreign investment and foreign ownership. It is not being anti-American to say that an American-owned company will not have the same interest in its Canadian workers and in contributing to the Canadian economy as a Canadian company will. Let us welcome foreign investment, but like every sensible industrialized nation in the world, let us keep some controls over and expectations for performance so that we do not let our ownership and our control of our economy go by default.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate the amendments which are before us. I would like to support the general intent of the amendments. Over the years that I have been in the House of Commons I have found that a lot of the real decision-making has been placed on the head of the Ministry. In other words, it is up to the Minister and his Department to make many decisions which, in the past, would have been made by the House of Commons itself. Since that is
the general direction which the nation is taking, I think it is important that when we pass legislation we give instructions as to what the Minister and his Department should be doing in terms of their responsibilities to ensure that the legislation is effective.
That is the line which is being pursued in the amendments before us today. We are saying that there are certain duties and responsibilities that the Minister and his Department would have if this legislation were to pass. That is something that we have not done enough of in the past. Members of all three political Parties in the House of Commons have bemoaned the fact that regulations introduced by the Minister's Department after the legislation has passed are quite often more important than the legislation itself.
When the House of Commons passes a piece of legislation, we have some general idea of what the Government wants to do, but do not know specifically what the Government will do until we see the regulations. When the Conservatives were in opposition, I heard members of that Party bemoan that fact. Now that the Liberals are in opposition, they are recognizing the fact that regulations should be subject to more review by the House of Commons before they come into effect. Of course, we have taken that position for many years now.
I would like to point out a number of areas in which this legislation needs to be strengthened. A number of the amendments which have been grouped for debate basically put more control on the Minister and his Department. We insist that in its decision-making the Department reflect certain ideas, which we have included in the amendments. We say that there must be greater public co-ordination and planning of the investment process. We say that there must be a broader based input into the decision-making process in terms of advisory groups to various industrial sectors comprised of businesses, labour communities, academics, et cetera. We have also said that there must be an emphasis on achieving greater Canadi-anization of the economy, and that there must be a special responsibility to assist foreign-controlled businesses and to advise those businesses with regard to the Canadian labour-management traditions.
I would like to refer particularly to the area of community advice. One of the great problems Members of the House and communities have found is that when there is a foreign takeover of a local firm which is very important to the economy of the area, there is no mechanism for the mayor, council, workers involved, or Members of the House of Commons to have any real input into the decision-making process. There is an application for foreign investment and FIRA makes a decision based on certain criteria which are in front of it. There is no guarantee that the community itself will have any input.
Many examples of this problem have been pointed out in Question Period. A number of times the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) has spoken in the House about the fact that two or three years after a foreign takeover in his area a plant has closed down and there has been no control over what happens. Earlier today the Hon. Member for Hamilton Moun-
April 29, 1985

tain (Mr. Deans) spoke about the same type of situation. He asked questions of the Minister responsible for this piece of legislation in the House of Commons. In that case an American firm is dumping its products in Canada at a cheaper price. As a result of the dumping exercise it is able to buy a Canadian company which is going into bankruptcy. I believe those examples point out the need for the amendments which are before us today.
It is interesting to consider what happened before the committee which studied this legislation. Witnesses appeared who were not New Democrats and where not aligned with the Canadian Labour Congress. They represent other sectors of our nation such as the Science Council of Canada, which is headed by the former Leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario, Dr. Stuart Smith. Dr. Smith spoke to some of the problems of research and development recognized by the Council of this legislation were passed without amendment. The President of NOVA Corporation, Bob Blair, spoke about the history of Canadian-owned corporations versus the history of American and other foreign-owned corporations. That type of testimony points out that there are a number of sectors of the Canadian community which are concerned about how this legislation is going to be put into place.
In a previous speech which I made in the House of Commons I pointed out that Canadian-owned firms basically do twice as much research and development as do American-owned firms. There are studies of the Science Council of Canada which prove that. The study by the Science Council of Canada pointed out that in two different situations it was evident that Canadian firms were more concerned about doing research and development in Canada.
That is important because our young people want to do more than just work in the factories. Some of them want to be involved in research and development. If those opportunities do not exist in Canada, many of our young people will have to look for job opportunities elsewhere. It is also important to know that if we do not do our own research and development in Canada, we will not benefit from the technological advances which take place. In other words, if Canadians do not have a chance to do the R and D and develop the new processes and machinery, short-term as well as long-term jobs will be lost in Canada. It is important to make some requirements of the Minister when we pass this legislation.
As indicated in the presentation of Mr. Blair, the President of NOVA Corporation, he believes that there is a higher level of corporate citizenship from Canadian controlled businesses than there is from foreign-controlled firms. We will have a chance to get into specifics as the various amendments come to the floor of the House of Commons today and over the next two or three weeks.
However, the general theme of what Mr. Blair said to us is very important. Mr. Blair is certainly not known for being a socialist or a supporter of this political Party. He points out that we can expect people who were brought up and educated in this country and whose firms developed within our nation, to have a higher sense of responsibility to the community and
Investment Canada Act
nation in which they exist. I think that is logical. Unfortunately, the opposite is true as well. An American firm which originated in Atlanta, or some other community in the south, is going to have a certain loyalty to its own community. It will have a certain loyalty to its own nation. This means, as in the examples I mentioned earlier, that when they acquire property and new technical ideas from buying a Canadian firm, they will take the benefit to their own country. It also means when it comes time, and it usually does come time in some of these firms where they have to have lay-offs or they have to shut a plant, that they are not as likely to shut a plant in their own nation as they are to shut a plant in Hamilton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, or in British Columbia. That is a problem we face. We are not saying that these foreign-owned firms are evil. That is hardly the case. They have by their very nature other interests and other loyalties.
It is important to us when we pass this legislation that we make sure the Minister and his Department see to it that these firms live up to some Canadian guidelines. This House of Commons is the logical place where those guidelines should be made.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I have had the opportunity to speak on this Bill. As I have listened to the debate, there really is nothing I have heard that has made me change my mind that this Bill should be dealt with as an urgent matter. It really is, as I said earlier, a public relations gesture. I do not think there is any meat in the Bill that will create jobs immediately in Canada and certainly not in Atlantic Canada. It is like the old story of the preacher's marginal notes which say "argument weak, pound the pulpit". What the Government is doing here is more pulpit pounding in the absence of firm, cogent, meaningful arguments.
There has been a lot of that recently, particularly aimed at the United States, a debate is starting in Canada now with regard to how close the economic liaison should be. Mr. Hurtig, the Alberta publisher and Canadian nationalist, has said that the recent oil agreement signed between the western provinces and Ottawa is the biggest sell-out to foreign oil companies in history. While he is not specific, he said the new agreement amounts to a give-away of billions of dollars to non-Canadian companies and is also jeopardizing easily accessible Canadian reserves of light oil.
There will be a debate, no doubt, on how close those economic ties should be to the U.S. I look forward to that debate. Specifically, let us talk about foreign investment in Canada with regard to this Bill. I want to focus the attention of the House particularly on our Motion No. 9, which reads:
That Bill C-15, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 29 to 31 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(*) assist in the development of industrial and economic policies that effect investment in Canada and consult with labour, business and community representatives about the effects of proposals for acquisition and new business establishments by non-Canadians on regional employment and economic growth,"
4208

April 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
It is very important we do that. This motion tries to put down more explicitly that there is a need for a consultation process, that there is a need to recognize that Canada is not one country the same all across the continent and we are different in different parts. We have different needs. That difference should be recognized within the context of that legislation.
The province from which I come happens to have, I believe, a greater need for economic development than that, for example, of the province from which the Minister comes. I am not saying that just because the Minister has a great deal of power in this Bill to decide which come in and which stay out without consulting Parliament or the Cabinet. The Minister is given a great deal of powers. I am not saying that just because he comes from Ontario he would decide in favour of a company that wanted to establish in Ontario if at the same time it happened to hurt a company set up in Newfoundland. He might not do that; let us give him the benefit of the doubt. The problem is this. The problem is that an American firm might want to invest in Ontario, which is already heavily industrialized, and at the expense of some manufacturing company in Newfoundland which is under-industrialized. Our need is to have that secondary processing. That is what we need in Newfoundland. We are a resource-based province. Already many of our national resources are being shipped out in their raw state. What we need to create jobs in our province is secondary manufacturing. That is why we need a policy. We need it to say that when applications come from foreign firms they will be screened on the basis of the impact they will have on the various regions of this country.
We need that built in to any proposal. We used to have that in the PIP grants which the previous Government established and which were in effect until very recently. There were clauses in those grants that stated that before you get money for drilling, you must ensure Canadian content, Canadian jobs, a certain degree or precentage of Canadian products used. All of those things were built into the policy. When companies drilled off the east coast of Newfoundland, off the Hibernia area, those things came into play. Before companies got the funds, they had to agree to Canadian content. The PIP grants have gone. We no longer have them. The policy makes industry wide open to competition from anybody. We used to have a focus on an area that needed protection and we do not have it any more. It is the kind of thing we should have in this legislation and which is lacking.
I want to see something in the legislation that says: "Before the Minister says yes, you can come in from the States, you can come in from Britain or wherever and take over a company or invest in Canada, there must be a consideration of regional needs". There must be consideration of how this will impact on a province that has a weak manufacturing sectors. Is it going to hurt? If so, it should not be allowed. That is why we are asking for an amendment that provides that before approval is given there must be consultation with labour, business and community representatives about the effects of proposals for acquisition and new business establishment by
non-Canadians on regional development, regional employment and economic growth. That is what we want, Mr. Speaker.
The record of foreign investors leaves a great deal of question in my mind. The company with which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was associated is a large American investor. What is the track record of that investor in Labrador City? Fifty per cent of the workforce is now gone from that particular community because it was an American company. I believe if a Canadian company had been there instead of an American company, we would have seen quite a different policy following. The same thing applied in the City of Corner Brook. We saw a British firm with an old mill in which it had not bothered to reinvest or to modernize. The mill was at the end of the production chain. It was the weakest link. It was let go and was wiped out. As a result, the Government had to take steps to see that the company was taken over. The track record of foreign companies in my own area in certain circumstances leaves a lot to be desired. I do not think we should simply open the doors wide without building in some safeguards.
The model to which I would like to see the Government pay attention is the Industrial Labour Adjustment Program. ILAP operated under the Liberal Government. The present Government intends to wipe it out. We made great use of ILAP in the circumstances to which I have referred. When the Iron Ore Company of Canada laid off its workers, it did not make a financial settlement with them. Instead, it said to them that their contract indicated that if they were laid off temporarily, the company had a three-year recall right, and that if they were laid off under those provisions of the contract, it did not have to pay them severance pay or relocation allowances at any time during those three years, knowing that the iron ore industry would not revitalize that quickly.
I would like to see some consideration being given to taking that kind of approach with foreign companies when foreign companies take decisions which impact adversely upon Canadian companies. This is why I support Motion No. 9 particularly. Unless we do that, it will have a serious effect in my own area.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments about the Bill, in particular about the amendments which we have put forward in the second group. I want to talk about two specific amendments because I think they are very important and that the Bill is weak, if it is intended to do what it says it is intended to do, namely, to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians as well as to encourage investment in Canada by non-Canadians.
There has been a great deal said during the course of this debate and second reading debate about the concerns of our Party that the Bill will simply perpetuate foreign control of our economy. It certainly seems to be an open invitation to bring foreign investment into the country, where previously it was reviewed and there was an attempt to ensure a demonstrable benefit to Canadians.
April 29, 1985

Part of the purpose of the Bill is to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians. In Clause 5, to which we propose amendments, there are a number of duties given to the Minister. It seems to me that it would be very useful to elaborate upon them, if the Government is genuine in its concern for trying to develop investment in Canada by Canadians. We are talking about whether or not the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) will take responsibility for industrial strategy within this country, something the previous Government talked a great deal about but did not implement. It seems that the same is happening under this new Government as well.
I am very much afraid that Clause 4, dealing with the duties of Ministers, and the carrying out of that in Clause 5 about which we are talking right now, is mere window dressing. In fact, they are put in there to try to placate critics of the Bill who say all the Government really wanted to do was to take away the protections of the Foreign Investment Review Act and not put anything in their place.
Our amendment refers to the need and the obligation of the Minister to develop medium-term and long-term public and private industrial sector investment guidelines which would be consistent with an industrial strategy that emphasizes full employment, growth, diversification, autonomy and export competitiveness of the Canadian economy. As a socialist, as a Canadian social democrat, I can say that I think those are good objectives for an industrial strategy. If we were to achieve those more effectively, we would have equity in terms of employment, and the country would look a lot better economically and socially than it does right now. If we set those as objectives of an industrial strategy, we have to worry about how we will get there. I am afraid that the present Minister and his Government are ideologically and temperamentally opposed to actually deciding what an industrial strategy should be and then working out how we will get there.
We recognize that our amendment cannot compel the Minister to do that, but at least it puts more into the legislation than is in it right now in terms of what the Minister's obligations are meant to be. We can then try to hold him accountable through the various means which we have in Parliament and which the people of Canada have at election and other times.


Mr. Thacker:: Social democrats respect the law?


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Hon. Member must have been a member of that Conservative group which set up that "freedom from metric" gas station that consistently broke the law of Canada over two and a half years. I think he should talk to his own Members for a while.


Mr. Gurbin:: That is not what the judge said.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The judge has not said anything.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. There is only a 10-minute period for speeches. We should not waste it on heckling.
Investment Canada Act


Michael Morris Cassidy: I point out to Hon. Members that not only has there been no court ruling; in fact, there is no law to be broken right now because the Public Works Nuisance Act regulations, which were enacted by Cabinet a few days ago, have not been gazetted. They do not have the force of law. The RCMP is being forced to make illegal arrests out there at the direction of the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle). 1 suggest to members of the government Party that they tell the Minister of Public Works to stop breaking the law and making the RCMP enforce a law which does not exist.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. Everyone in the House knows very well the concern of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) on that issue. We are presently debating another piece of legislation.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I think you might have brought our colleagues on the government side to order when they chose to introduce those irrelevant remarks.
Another amendment in this group calls upon the Minister to convene industrial sector advisory groups, bringing together business and labour, provincial and local authorities, which would seek to recommend on investment policies and priorities. I cannot over-stress the importance of that approach if we as Canadians are in fact to be successful in implementing an industrial strategy and holding up our own in terms of the world competition with which we are faced right now.
During the course of his comments on the Bill-and I think it was accurate-the Minister said that we have to recognize that there is a changing competitive environment out there. The question which has not been adequately debated in the Chamber, in the Commons Finance Committee or any place else, is what we as Canadians will do about it and how we will respond. Too often, whether it is Ontario or federal Conservatives or whether it is business spokespeople, I hear people saying that the thing to do is to beat down workers, force them to accept minimum wage and impose the standards of Taiwan on Canadian workers rather than use our human resources, brain power and skills to build upon our natural resource base, to maintain a decent standard of living and to maintain the kind of economy we have known over the course of years.
Everyone knows that the key to industries in the future will be the best use of human resources. It will not be working more, but working smarter. If we want to work smarter, this means learning how the different elements in a society or in a business enterprise, or for that matter between Government and business, can in effect work together. If we are to have effective industrial strategies, it will require having business, labour, local communities, regions and voluntary groups working together to devise the strategies which they will then buy into and be prepared to co-operate in implementing.
That is extremely important and is largely ignored in the present law which says that the Minister, if he feels like it, may consult and organize conferences of representatives of industry and labour or provincial and local authorities in exercising his powers and in performing his duties under the Act. Any Minister can have conferences. That is done all the

April 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
time. We have seen a few economic conferences under the new Government. They do not need legislative authority to do that. However, 1 would suggest that this be a requirement. The Government of Canada, through this particular Minister, should not only be implementing an industrial strategy, coming full blown from the brow of the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion. It should be developed at the base, at the grass roots, community by community, industry by industry. Working people should be involved as well as managers. That is the way to begin to turn around the economy of this province and of this country.
Just the other day I spoke to a conference on industrial strategy at York University. The title of the conference was Competitiveness Through Technology. It was extremely interesting to hear the approaches of experts from Britain, the United States and Canada. They considered me one. 1 was glad to be there. Some of them were discouraged in terms of their efforts to implement an industrial strategy. However, some of them reflected the sense of optimism which we in our task force on jobs found across the country. They said again and again that it was not one vast strategy, that it was a lot of specific measures taken in order to become more competitive, in order to adopt technology more rapidly and see it diffused more quickly within a particular industry, in order to co-operate in terms of marketing in difficult areas of the world, and in order that some of our industries in Canada which compete against each other on the Canadian stage can co-operate with each other in competing against very large industrial players from Japan, the United States and the European Common Market when they go out on the international stage. All of these things require co-operation. You will not get co-operation unless you get the Parties to sit down together. You must get them working together to determine the needs, the kinds of investments that have to be done. They must start to lean on those participants in the industry that are not doing the job in order to encourage investment by Canadians in Canada. You must get a means by which, for example, you can ensure that multinational companies that have not become Canadianized at least provide world product mandates for companies which have been operating in this country for a substantial period of time.
These are the kinds of things that we see as the central element in an industrial strategy for Canada. This is what we would see flowing from the kind of amendments which we have put forward to the Investment Canada Bill. I am perhaps a bit naive in saying that what we have done is try to take the investment in Canada portion of the Bill and make it real rather than simply turning this Bill into a watered-down version of the Foreign Investment Review Act, designed by the Progressive Conservatives to pander to those elements in business which want to see all control over foreign investments simply removed from this country.
I know that it is a tall order in one Bill to try and devise how it is you can work. However, from my reflection, I have come to feel with increasing intensity that we have to find some new
ways of doing things in this country. We have to find new ways by which we can learn about export competitiveness, foreign markets and how we can expand and grow and build our industry. We are not going to do that by simply saying a few pious words to the Minister. Specific measures are needed to ensure that the Minister does carry out an industrial strategy for Canada. That is the purpose of this group of amendments coming from the New Democratic Party.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the second group of amendments proposed by my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), we cannot speak to all those amendments, there are too many. So perhaps I will restrict my comments to the two main motions, namely Motions Nos. 4 and 6.

This constructive amendment was, of course, rejected by the Tories in committee. The Liberals propose that the separation of the Minister and the public servants who serve Investment Canada be clearly indicated in the Bill. Investment Canada is not intended as a personal staff for the Minister. That is why Motion No. 4 specifically excludes the word "management" from the Bill and replaces it with "provision of policy direction to the agency".
That is a situation which, in my view, is as clear and concise as anything political I have heard. I have been in politics a long time. One of the greatest difficulties with understanding things political is to be able to differentiate between what is political and what is rules and regulations, the why of the issues and the how to best put into action these objectives. Why should we have a review process? Why should we have a Minister who is interested in seeing that investments in Canada are for the benefit of all Canadians? That is something which any of us in this House could make a speech on for one or possibly two hours.
How best do we do that? How to better implement these objectives that are reached by all of us, as determined by law, is the work of public servants. That is known as the how issues. They are the professionals who best know how to advise the Minister and who best know how to go about doing these things, and should remain in that position.
In this Bill we see that the Minister is going to be charged with management and direction of the agency. We say that the Minister should be charged with providing policy direction, but should not be charged with management. That is the prerogative of the public servants and rightly so.
We have a different view from the Government on this question. I think Canadians understand that we justifiably hold that view since we believe there should be a division between the Minister's staff and his policies as he sees them and as his Party enunciates them and how public servants would carry out the directives. Otherwise the Minister leaves himself open to accusations of being friendly to the big contributors, to his personal friends and so on, and very narrow in
April 29, 1985

his outlook, some would say Toronto-based and not nationally-based.


Mr. Boudria:: To be Tory-like.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: To be Tory-like, but not be Canadian-like. What direction is indicated by the Minister's actions to date? What kinds of proposals would he consider rejecting, for example, as not being of benefit under this new legislation?
As I said, this constructive amendment leads me in the short time that I have to try and address the second point, which is Motion No. 6. In my view, and in the view of this Party, the Minister should be responsible to assist Canadians to invest in Canada. To do that, the Minister has to be aware and he has to examine the potential of Canadian interests in investment.
I want to relate something which happened in my riding which I also related at second reading. It is rather important. It deals with something that I am sure everyone will understand. The University of Ottawa is the biggest employer in my riding. There are 3,000 people who work there and there are some 18,000 students. It has a bookstore. The bookstore was having certain difficulties, mainly because of a lack of proper expertise and management. Capital outflows were not sufficient. The university was thinking of getting some outside help to administer this important contribution to university life. A company called Brennan College said that it had the expertise. It operates in the United States. It said that it thought it could take the bookstore over and make it a paying proposition.
[ Translation]
The University of Ottawa was forced to lease its operations to a foreign company. FIR A was in on this, of course, since a foreign company was going to take over a Canadian organization. The review done by the federal Government agency revealed that it was not to the benefit of Canadians, that Canadians did not stand to gain significant benefit if Brennan College were to take full control over the bookstore. Negotiations were held, and I imagine the Minister took interest in the matter even though the whole deal was secret. Some cooperative companies were invited to consider the possibility of coming to Ottawa and keeping the bookstore in operation. None could meet the requirements.
Finally, after further negotiations, Brennan College reached an agreement with the University: Brennan College would provide the required expertise, the University would retain a 51 per cent ownership, Brennan College would have the remaining 49 per cent. A new application featuring the conditions I have just mentioned was submitted to and approved by FIRA. Everything is going just fine, and that is what we mean by a role of examiner, a role of reviewer, a role of promoter, a role of defender of Canadian interests.
The University still holds a major interest-49 per cent in Brennan College Service Inc.-the bookstore is operating normally, the students are satisfied, everybody is happy, and we
Investment Canada Act
have kept here a bookstore which is being run on a profitable basis. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, without FIRA, the Ottawa University bookstore would now be wholly owned by U.S. interests, and I think it is pretty obvious what would have happened to other universities which like Ottawa were having problems managing their university bookstores. Demand varies constantly, and books do not always sell easily. With an organization like Brennan-with its particular expertise-that is in a position to offer students a system of sales and exchanges, it works a lot better. The fact is that we have here an example of American expertise that was imported and that provides a service, mainly to Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the cultural environment of our young Canadians has been preserved. I do not think Brennan College, the U.S. company, has any expertise in biculturalism or bilingualism, but the university does, and the combination of a Canadian and a U.S. component has strengthened a business in my riding. It has helped it to maintain an essential service, and to maintain the cultural level of that service.
There are many more examples, Mr. Speaker, but I see you are making signs that my time has expired. That is unfortunate, but I will get back to this later on.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Environmental Affairs-United States sulphur emissions-Chemical pollution of Niagara River; the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin)-Petro-Canada-Sale of Come by Chance oil refinery. (b) Request that sale be halted; the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett)-Railways- Atlantic Limited-Request for restoration of service.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, as reported (with amend-
[Stage Direction]
April 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
ments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and Motions Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 9 (Mr. Axworthy), No. 10 (Mr. Langdon), No. 11 (Mr. Axworthy), Nos. 14 and 15 (Mr. Langdon), No. 16 (Mr. Axworthy) and Nos. 17 and 18 (Mr. Langdon) (p. 4183).
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to place a few remarks on the record regarding this particular group of amendments which pertain to Clause 5 relating to the duties and powers of the Minister. At the outset, 1 would like to say that we in our Party recognize the importance of investment and its necessity to our economy but we believe that investment must be made in accordance with certain guidelines. This motion requires the Minister to develop those guidelines both for the medium and the long term.
It was interesting last December when the Minister first introduced this Bill. At that time, an editorial appeared in The Toronto Star, I believe, that spoke of "Stevens' short-sighted gamble". This Bill takes a very short view, a view that hopes that by opening the door to investment, we will create all kinds of good things for the Canadian people. However, the Bill does not take a medium point of view, much less a long-term point of view.
I believe all of us would agree that today the Canadian economy is badly distorted. If I could use an example from my home Province of British Columbia, I would point out how over the past number of years the entire economy of British Columbia has become more and more oriented toward the export of natural resources and in many cases the export of natural resources in an unfinished form. We do not smelt our own copper. We have seen an increase in the export of round logs. In many cases we export pulp rather than finished paper. We are now into a situation in which there is a depletion of these resources. Many of our mines have been worked out and our forests are in a serious state of crisis.
The Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia have not yet been able to come to an over-all, comprehensive ERDA agreement that would see funding to help our forests. We are having difficulty with our fisheries and the Fisheries Committee is dealing with some of those problems right now. Different user groups are involved in a great battle over who will get what share of this resource.
At the same time as there is difficulty with the basic resources, we are having more and more difficulty with our markets. We are even having difficulty selling the products upon which we have traditionally relied even though those resources are getting more and more scarce.
Although the Government promised that there would be jobs, there are 22,000 fewer people working in British Columbia today than there were last September when the present Government came to power. We have not seen any instant creation of jobs. I do not believe that this Bill will see the creation of jobs unless it is amended very substantially to include the kind of guidelines we wish to see.
The distortions we see in the British Columbia economy today and indeed in the economy of Canada as a whole are distortions that are the result of investment decisions that were made by large corporations that were acting in their own interests. They were acting in the interests of maximizing their power and profits. I do not think there would be any point in our trying to fault large corporations for acting in their own interests. After all, that is what we expect of them. We should not try to fault large corporations for that any more than we should try to fault tigers for being carnivorous. However, we do not allow tigers to roam at will. Just because we do not wish to fault a tiger for acting like a carnivore, there is no reason for opening up the village and allowing it to devour what it will.
The so-called free market to which this Bill looks to develop the Canadian economy is really nothing more than a jungle filled with predators. Unless there are some guidelines to protect our interests, our interests will not be protected.
We believe that investment decisions should be made not only in accordance with the guidelines developed by large corporations for their benefit but also in accordance with guidelines developed for the benefit of the Canadian people. That is the responsibility of the Government and the Minister. That is why we want to see Motion No. 10 incorporated into the Bill.
We in our Party believe that investment should not be haphazard but should fit in with an industrial strategy that will try to guarantee full employment, ensure growth and diversification and ensure Canadian autonomy and export competitiveness. I am sure all Members will agree that these are desirable goals and certainly Hon. Members on the opposite side see these as being desirable goals. However, here is where we find the basic difference between New Democrats and Tories. The Tories believe that somehow these goals will be achieved if only we open the doors to foreign capital. If only we make it possible for foreign investment to enter Canada, they feel that these goals will all fall into place naturally.
The "Gospel According to Sine" says: "Seek ye first foreign investment and all these things shall be added unto you". We say: "It ain't necessarily so; in fact, it ain't so at all". Studies have indicated very clearly that this is not the way things work.


An Hon. Member:: Do you deny God?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, a Conservative Member asked me if 1 am denying God. Well, if the Conservatives want to make a god out of the almighty foreign investment dollar, as some of them do, then yes, I am quite prepared to deny that deity.
New Democrats believe that we must plan in order to meet these goals. There is a role for private capital, but that role must be in accordance with public criteria. The federal Government must develop a planning framework. Within that framework there must be a provision for local input. If 1 could refer again to my constituency, I do not believe that the

^i
April 29, 1985

loggers and the millworkers in the Lake Cowichan area would have seen that area so completely and quickly devastated, and the timber resources sold off so rapidly, if they had done the planning. If they had done the planning there would still be strong milling communities in that area, instead of communities which depend more and more upon tourism and retirees for the basic economy.
I would like to make a few comments on Motion No. 14, which requires that non-Canadian ownership and control, when it comes into Canada, must respect the rights of workers, and particularly the right of workers to collective bargaining. We believe that is essential. As one of my colleagues stated, we do not want to see the labour standards of Taiwan, Singapore or South Korea being imported into Canada and forced upon Canadians as part of the Investment Canada package. Again, it should be a responsibility of the Minister to insist that the foreign companies which come into Canada know what are the rights of the workers of this country.
Motion No. 15 states that one of the duties and powers of the Minister should be to encourage Canadian control in areas relating to our cultural heritage and national identity. We would like to see that as one of the Minister's recognized duties.
Motion No. 17 adds the words "or territory" to Clause 5 of the Bill. It requires that the Minister will not only enter into agreements with the provinces, but also that he must include the territories. I know it is commonly understood that the word "provinces" includes the territories, but we think it should be spelled out in order that the territories will not be ignored, as they are so often.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired. I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on debate.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-15, and the amendments which have been proposed by my colleagues with respect to some of the worries which we have vis-a-vis the legislation as it presently stands.
My colleagues have spoken at some length on these amendments because we are worried about what this Government is trying to do. It wants to change the foreign investment legislation to encourage the investment of foreign capital in Canada.
Everyone is in favour of having more investment and more capital to create jobs, but that is not the issue. I know it is hard for Tories to understand this, but we, as Liberals, want to introduce amendments which will ensure that there will be good economic benefit for Canada. Furthermore, we want to ensure that the decisions which are taken are not taken in a political way by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens).
It is our view that the staff which will be charged with the policy decisions at Investment Canada should not report directly to the Minister and be in the position in which they
Investment Canada Act
will become merely part of the Minister's personal staff. Ministers have a personal staff which is already far too large. We know that just from peeking out the window and seeing the large array of automobiles, limousines, drivers, assistants and political commissars. The last thing this Government should do is set up legislation which will enhance the personal office of the Minister, instead of having unbiased public servants playing their regular administrative roles. We want the administration of such programs to be done in a non-partisan manner.
Why do we want that? Let us recall what happened a few weeks ago in the Domtar issue. At that time, a number of Ministers were contradicting each other. Had it been left to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, I am sure that my colleagues opposite, especially those from Quebec, realize that Domtar would not have received anything because the Minister was of the view that nothing should be done to assist Domtar. Luckily, other Cabinet Ministers had different views. Of course, that may now be changing. However, with the advent of this legislation we are giving those kinds of unilateral powers to the Minister and not to Cabinet. The Minister will be able to deny benefits or to encourage investment without restriction. Perhaps, he may do so in a biased manner, or with a purely regional perspective, and those decisions will not have the benefit of assistance from other Members of the House or Cabinet. Our Party wants these amendments to ensure that the legislation will be more accountable to the Government, and that the staff of Investment Canada will be more responsive to the Government, the House of Commons and Canadians.
During the last few months I have become increasingly worried about the situation in the textile industry. My concerns are due, in large part, to the unrestricted imports of various textile products which come into Canada. I am also concerned with the fact that textiles are not properly labelled. Certain products which have quotas imposed on them are coming into Canada under a different label. For instance, a T-shirt is called a shirt, as opposed to something else. Therefore, certain products which are tariff-exempt are entering Canada when tariffs should be imposed on them. Of course, in my constituency a great number of people are employed in the textile industry. The number is less than what it was at one time because of the difficulty in that industry.
The same, of course, applies to the footwear industry. On December 10, 1984, the Minister responsible for international trade wrote a letter to Monsieur l'Abbe Gerard Dion of the Canadian Textiles Labour-Management Committee. He was responding to a letter from l'Abbe Dion. The Minister said in his letter:
You will realize, of course, that there have been many priorities facing the Government since it took office in September and it is not possible to address them all simultaneously.
The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) was telling us in December that he did not have the time to look after the textile industry and to protect Canadian jobs, yet,

April 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Mr. Speaker, his colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, who is responsible for the textile industry- perhaps not the import section of it, but for the industry in general-had all the time in the world to introduce an Investment Canada Bill and to send his leader to New York, Washington, and all over the place to tell the Americans what a great thing it would be to have unrestricted investment provisions from here on in. But he failed to protect these jobs allegedly because the Minister for International Trade did not have the time.
It is clear this Government looks at its priorities in a rather unusual way. It has the time to speak to foreign investors in New York, alleging that it wants to create more jobs, but does not have the time to introduce legislation and protective measures to protect the jobs we have already. You can understand, Mr. Speaker, that my constituents who work in the textiles and footwear industries are very concerned.
I would like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, a letter which was sent by The Shoe Manufacturers' Association of Canada on April 1, 1985. The letter is addressed to the Minister for International Trade. It says in part:
Dear Mr. Kelleher:
In your letter of October 16, 1984, nearly six months ago, you wrote me that "I hope to be in a position to get together with you, representatives of your association and the unions at an early opportunity". We know that as Minister for International Trade you are travelling very much and that you are very busy but we would appreciate an hour of your time in April.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, eight months after this Government was sworn into office, no representative of Cabinet had the time to meet with people from the shoe industry. But they had all the time in the world to give away the store to large American investors without any protective measures at all for the people of my riding and for others in this country who are involved in that particular industry.
I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a report which was tabled in this House and given to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion on January 14, 1985. This report is entitled, "Trousers, Slacks, Shorts, Jeans, Overalls and Coveralls. A Report to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion". This report describes all of the problems of that industry and what restrictions are necessary in order to protect the jobs we already have. We in our Party are very concerned about the way in which this Government has been proceeding with this legislation as well as other measures. We want protective measures. We want foreign investment but we do not want it at the expense of Canadian jobs. Therefore, the amendments proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), are very necessary and, of course, I support those amendments.


Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: This afternoon the House is considering several motions introduced by the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party. The Bill refers to the power of the responsible Minister, Mr. Speaker, and to many other very important powers.


Don Boudria: The "irresponsible" Minister.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I beg your pardon?


Don Boudria: The "irresponsible" Minister.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The "irresponsible" Minister. That comment was made by the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
Well, Mr. Speaker, many important duties are mentioned here. For instance, the Minister shall encourage business investment by such means and in such manner as the Minister deems appropriate. Second, he shall assist Canadian business to exploit opportunities for investment and technological advancement. Third, he shall carry out research and analysis relating to domestic and international investment. Fourth, he shall provide investment information services and other investment services to facilitate economic growth in Canada.
And other important duties, Mr. Speaker.

I believe, despite these kinds of powers which we see given to the Minister in this particular session, there are a number of things missing. I think that the whole thrust of this particular Bill weakens the position of the federal Government in terms of foreign investment, investment which is so important to the future of Canadians as far as jobs are concerned. It is very important that our country assert its sovereignty and independence, in no way any stronger than that of other countries around the world.
One way of doing that is by accepting many of these motions put forward today by the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. These motions will strengthen the role of the Minister and the Government when it comes to foreign investment in our country. We are not asking for anything more than other countries do. We see a positive assertion of economic nationalism in most countries around the world.
We sometimes criticize the Americans for being too nationalistic, "It is my country, right or wrong", or Japan for being too protectionist in the way it organizes its economy or, indeed, many European countries. There was a question in the House today from an Hon. Member of the Liberal Party with respect to the European Common Market. He asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) about the Europeans being too protectionist about some of their farm products. This particular question concerned beef. We had the Reagan-Mul-roney summit in Quebec City. Our Prime Minister and the President of the United States talked about free trade and this new cuddly arrangement between these two good friends. But no sooner are the Prime Minister's officials back in Ottawa and President Reagan is back in Washington than the President's people announce this countervailing duty on hogs which hurts this multi-billion dollar Canadian industry.
Other countries around the world assert their independence and their sovereignty. They want control over their own economy and want to exercise their national powers. What we on this side of the House are seeing, and what I know a lot of Conservative back-benchers see but, of course, cannot say
April 29, 1985

publicly because of the kind of system we have, is that we should strengthen as well the rules and regulations which govern foreign investment in our country. I know that these Conservative back-benchers are becoming very frustrated.


An Hon. Member:: Show me one.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: There is one across the way who just spoke out. I think he is very frustrated and other Hon. Members are very frustrated. They cannot speak up in the kind of system we have because they are afraid of the Prime Minister. In fact, the Prime Minister is trying to emulate Mr. Reagan. He is becoming more and more of a Republican in the way he governs this country right down to the podium, Mr. Speaker. They are afraid to alienate the Prime Minister's Office for fear they may not get to be a Cabinet Minister or parliamentary secretary or chairman of a committee.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, 1 can understand why the Member from Quebec would agree with me now. He is not at all pleased about the course taken by the Government of Mr. Mulroney. He does not agree at all because his boss, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, spent most of the election campaign talking about job creation-jobs, jobs and more jobs-and yet the unemployment rate is now exactly what it was six, eight or nine months ago. There are still 1.5 million unemployed Canadians in this country. The situation is the same as it was when Mr. Trudeau led the Government. I know that my friend over there is very disappointed by this Government and 1 hope he will speak openly and strongly in the House, Mr. Speaker.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, you are about to call me to order; I was getting a little bit off base there. However, I think it is important for these Members across the way to speak out, to stand up for their country and its sovereignty and say we are going to strengthen these particular clauses which deal with the power of the Minister. We want greater public co-ordination and planning in the investment process. We can get that by accepting this package of amendments.
I know the Canadian people also want broader-based input into decision making. My colleague from Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and others who travelled across this country a few months ago on the issue of jobs found that the main thing people wanted was more participation in the decision-making process at the local level. They wanted more economic democracy, more self direction from their local community, and more direction of the economy in general. There was a lot of criticism of some of the megaprojects which have been directed from Ottawa or by big companies. They also want greater Canadianization of our economy. They want the money made in Canada to stay in Canada. They want to ensure that the research and development which was paid for with money provided, in effect, by the workers of this country will stay in
Investment Canada Act
this country. Most research and development is not done in Canada but elsewhere.
These are things that the Canadian people want and all we are saying in this series of amendments and motions is that we should strengthen the hand of the Minister and the federal Government in the decision-making process and not leave it to the so-called open market. I find this all over the place. In my own Province of Saskatchewan we have a small population base. Back in the 1930s the province was in the middle of a great depression. We had drought, a tremendously bad financial rating, a lot of poverty, farmers riding the rails, dust storms, hunger and famine of the 1930s. Our people decided they had to control their own economy and they built the wheat pools and the co-operative movement and fought hard for things like the Wheat Board. They wanted more public direction, control and self-determination, which is probably the best word, over the way the Saskatchewan and Canadian economy worked. They went out and fought for some of those ideas and we now have a Canadian Wheat Board which gives farmers collective clout, and a Minister who has a lot of clout in grain marketing in this country. I am not asking, nor is the Liberal Party, for anything more than some clout, some public input and direction. 1 know the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), who just came into the House, is one of the best known red Tories in Saskatchewan.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He was a Liberal at one time.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: One of the best known red Tories in Saskatchewan gets up and fights for things like the Wheat Board, parity pricing and the CBC. He does that because he believes that the Canadian people need to have more say over the future economic direction of their lives. If he were the Minister in charge we would not have a Bill that was as wishy-washy as this one; we would have a Bill that would give the Minister some real clout. So I feel sorry for the Hon. Member who must feel very frustrated that this Government across the way is so conservative. No wonder he is silent, because if he got up he would give a thundering dissertation in this House just like John Diefenbaker would do. John Diefenbaker used to have a national vision; he stood up for Canada and criticized- [Translation]
-and you agree with me on that, he often criticized the Liberal Government and the Liberal Party for being overly pro-American, too strong a supporter of the United States. [English]
He was very, very critical of that and I am sure that if he were in this House he would be extremely upset to see this kind of legislation before the House. We are timid and meek like little kittens. I am sure he would agree with that. We are really afraid to assert our own independence, and that is not what the Conservative Party used to be. Historically it was a nationalist Party and the Liberal Party was a continentalist Party. I think the Hon. Member for Assiniboia agrees with me and I am sure that is why many years ago he left the Liberal Party and joined the Conservatives, because he thought John

April 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Diefenbaker stood for Canada. With this kind of legislation we are seeing a Conservative Party which has become more and more like the Republicans. In fact, they have become the Republican Party North, and I am sure that is why you are rising; you do not like that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin where I think my friend from Saskatchewan left off, and that is to indicate my concern that the back-bench Members of the Conservative Government are sitting so quietly and silently through the passage of every one of these amendments before us. As you know, there are several amendments before us and if I were to attempt to speak to each and every one of them on an individual basis I would more than take up my 10 minutes of time. Therefore I am going to focus primarily on two parts of those amendments.
The first one deals with the role of the Minister with respect to policy on investment, the way in which it fails to separate the role of the Minister responsible for the agency and the manner in which the policy is carried out by the bureaucracy. This Bill does not take into consideration a demarcation between the policy direction, namely that taken by Cabinet, and the way in which it is administered, namely by the bureaucracy. Secondly, I want to focus some of my remarks on the motion which deals with the Industrial Labour Adjustment Program.
Before doing so, I want to ask the Conservative back-benchers from Toronto why they are not speaking about this Bill which fails to protect the transfer of technology. Surely they would want to be speaking on this Bill to make sure that in the days ahead when the sale of de Havilland Corporation to European enterprise is imminent, if all reports are true, they represent their constituents and make sure that Investment Canada will protect Canadian jobs in Downsview; will protect workers from facing a situation where a foreign national can come in and purchase de Havilland, withdraw all the technology, and transfer it to its European-based enterprises.
I suppose the best example is that of the latter part of the 1950s and early 1960s when the Conservative Government under John Diefenbaker scrapped the Avro Arrow and allowed a foreign multinational to transfer all the technology to the U.S. we exported all of our scientists who had to go in search of employment in the U.S. rather than in the Canadian environment they were so used to. I ask myself why is it that the Conservative MPs from Toronto are so silent on this issue? I ask myself why there is not one Conservative Member of Parliament from the Montreal region standing up to talk about the motions which can affect the sale of Canadair Corporation. Everyone knows that the Minister responsible for industry is planning to put on the block a number of Crown corporations which in the past have been so instrumental in developing Canadian technology and creating jobs here in Canada. This allowed Canadian firms to compete on a worldwide basis and keep the jobs here in Canada. Why is it that
there is not one Conservative Member of Parliament from Montreal standing up to protect his constituents?
In his November 8, 1984 economic statement the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) outlined for the first time some of the long-term plans he had for DRIE, which included cut-backs. Why is it in the weeks that followed that announcement we did not have one Member of Parliament from the Conservative back-benches who represents those areas of this country which have in the past been aided so well by DRIE get up and speak on this issue? Where were they when these cut-backs were announced on November 8?
I ask myself where are they today when we have under Motion No. 9 a severely limiting effect on the ILAP program? There is a program that I am very familiar with. I represent the constituency of Sudbury which I think most Members in this House would recognize has had a rough economic ride, so to speak, in the last decade. In that decade we witnessed 10,000 of our people emigrate outside the Sudbury region in search of employment elsewhere. That emigration would have been much worse had it not been for the programs put in place by the Liberal Government under DREE and later under the reorganized program called DRIE. The Member for Win-nipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was the Minister of Employment and Immigration at the time that those lay-offs occurred in the Sudbury area. He was instrumental, using the provisions of the Industrial Labour Adjustments Program, in minimizing the impact of the loss of those jobs in our community. The people in our community banded together. Labour groups, small business groups and local Government formed committees to help mitigate against the loss of jobs which was going to be incurred in our major industry.
A veil of secrecy and silence permeates this discussion, Mr. Speaker. People who are watching this debate at the present time will note that only Members of the Opposition are rising to debate this Investment Canada Bill clause by clause. One must stretch one's imagination to believe that Conservative Members of Parliament who represent small town Canada will not see their communities severely impacted in the next several years.
The trend lines in our economy dictate that there will be changes in the textiles and shoe manufacturing industries. These are not going to affect the Torontos and Montreals of the world but rather small town Canada. None of the Conservative Members of Parliament who represent those areas have told their Government what changes they want in this Bill to protect the interest of their constituents. That says something about the way in which the Conservatives are putting this Bill through the House of Commons. In order to represent their constituents they should be speaking to ensure that Investment Canada will fulfil the mandates that their constituents require of this legislation.
I spoke earlier about some of the amendments to the main motion. I would like to focus in on one very small area. Under the old Foreign Investment Review Agency the Government

April 29, 1985

could review the multinational take-over of a firm worth considerably less than the $5 million which is being proposed in the present Investment Canada Bill. I think most Members of Parliament would agree with me that in the past the creation of job opportunities has not come from multinationals or large employers such as the International Nickel Company or General Motors. These large companies have had a decrease in the number of people they employ. Most people now recognize that the major engine of growth for job opportunity and job creation in Canada today comes from thousands of small businesses which employ 20 people or less. By and large these firms have less than $5 million of equity. Through their own research and development many of them create niches in the North American markets. They have products which can be marketed on a world-wide basis. They involve technology that has been created in Canada to create jobs for Canadians.
There is nothing in this Bill to prevent a multinational from purchasing a small Canadian firm and transferring the technology that has been created at that place of employment outside the boundaries of our country. The cost will be Canadian jobs. The job opportunities in this country have not been created only in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. They come from the small backwater sections of Maritime Canada and the small communities in rural and northern Ontario. Why are the Members of Parliament who represent those areas of the country not standing up to speak on this Bill?
In the last 15 years in northern Ontario we have witnessed a net migration of our young people. Only through the efforts of the Members of Parliament who represent those areas to get the Government of the day to move on programs which defend their constituents' interest are we able to keep that emigration of our population to a minimum. I think their constituents should be asking where their voices are. They should be standing up to debate this Investment Canada Bill.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I must express my amazement at the complete silence of Members of the Conservative Party. Many of the amendments which have been moved by Members of my Party and of the Official Opposition deserve careful consideration and support. I would like to put on the record one amendment proposed by my colleague the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) which reads as follows:
-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;".
Clothing or textile plants which are the only industry in some smaller cities are disappearing every week. The unions representing clothing and textile workers have been calling on Governments of the day to take steps to ensure that the industries can survive and provide jobs. Yet the fact remains that in Canada, as in the United States, plants are closing up every week. Companies which have been in operation for 40 or 50 years are closing, very often due to bankruptcy. Workers who have worked for a company for 10, 20 or 30 years are
Investment Canada Act
finding themselves unemployed. That is happening because no company in these fields in North America can compete with the product produced in many of the Third World countries where workers receive less wages per day than workers in Canada get per hour.
I am not suggesting that I am opposed to imports. I am not suggesting that it may not be advantageous to consumers to import clothing or textiles made in other countries. However, if the Government has concern for the people of this country, it should develop policies to provide alternate employment for people employed in the industries which are to be eliminated or are to face a steady decline in employment. There are between 10,000 and 15,000 people in Winnipeg who work in the textile and clothing industries. If the companies which employ those workers cannot compete and get orders, and therefore go out of business, it will be serious. Employment in Winnipeg is diversified. Hopefully those workers who are now in the industry will find jobs in other fields. I am concerned about the people who work in those two industries in Winnipeg. I am even more concerned about the workers who work in those two industries in those cities and towns in Quebec, not just in Montreal, where there is no alternative employment. I have not heard a single Conservative Member of Parliament from Quebec expressing the concerns, which I am sure there are, of their constituents about what will happen to them unless the Government adopts a policy to protect those jobs or at least will see, as the jobs disappear, that there are alternatives.
Let me turn to another problem that I see, namely the desire of the present Conservative Government to privatize Crown corporations. We have never had a social democratic government in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Somebody says hear, hear. We social democrats believe in a substantial amount of publicly owned enterprises. We have never had a social democratic government in this country. All the Crown corporations which we have in Canada-I am talking about the ones that come under the jurisdiction of the federal Government, the federal Parliament, and nearly all of the Crown corporations established in the provinces-have been established by Liberal, Conservative, Social Credit, Union Nationale, or PQ Governments. Why were they established? They were established because the Government, federal or provincial, believed that there was something needed in a province or nationally which was not being done by the private sector and the Government had to step in. The people of Canada, the Government of Canada, now own two very large Crown corporations involved in the aeronautics, aerospace field. I am talking about Canadair and de Havilland. Why are they Crown corporations? They are Crown corporation because when they were originally privately owned there came a point when business was so bad that the private owners said: "We are not going to continue. We cannot continue. We are going to close". The Government of Canada,

April 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
with the consent of Parliament, said that a modern industrialized country had to have an aeronautics, aerospace industry and that it must not let those companies close. We had an experience with a former Conservative Government which closed the company that developed the Avro Arrow, de Havil-land and Canadair are now Crown corporations. They employ thousands of workers in Toronto and Montreal. The Government says that it is going to privatize them.
Let us assume for a moment that there are private investors prepared to pay a fair price for those two companies. I doubt that, but let us assume that for a moment. What happens three, four, or ten years from now if the industry goes into a decline? Will the then Government of Canada let those two companies close if they are not making any money? Will we permit 10,000 workers to be out of jobs? Will we get out of the industry? We won't of course. We have said that we need in this Bill a clause that will protect the interests of the ordinary people of Canada. Unless and until we have that kind of clause in the Bill, Mr. Speaker, I and the other Members of our Party cannot support this Bill. We will continue to oppose it.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that we have to debate in the House of Commons one by one these motions that ought to have been accepted in committee.
Let me illustrate the point with a brief analysis of three of them which seem to me to be eminently reasonable and which should have been accepted in committee. I will start with Motion No. 6. Clause 5 gives to the Minister the powers to assist Canadian business to exploit opportunities for investment and technological advancement. All we were asking in committee through the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was to add the words "and find Canadian buyers wherever possible purchase businesses of value to Canada". What is wrong with that, one inevitably has to ask? For the life of me I cannot understand why the Government would find it impossible to accept this amendment which simply puts a greater emphasis on the desirability of "wherever possible", so that as a modification of this trust that is not mandatory in absolute terms, it just says that wherever possible let us try to find Canadian buyers to purchase businesses of value to Canada. What is wrong with that? I really wonder, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you wonder too.
1 draw your attention to the next motion, Motion No. 7. In the proposed Bill Clause 5 simply reads:
The Minister shall-
(o) carry out research and analysis relating to domestic and international
investment;
What we were proposing in committee to the Hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is an expansion of this thought, namely "including research on means to achieve greater autonomy by non-Canadian controlled businesses in Canada"-and by that we mean subsidiaries of multinationals-"to compete for world markets with their parent firms". Again, this is a motion that I am sure privately every Tory Member from Quebec and Ontario and other industrial centres would be glad to support. It makes sense. It is good politics and good
Canadianism. Here again we are facing this kind of indifference which makes it so hard to understand why on earth this kind of motion which is simply an expansion of a concept, which does not modify the sense of the concept but only adds greater emphasis to an orientation toward Canada, would not get acceptance by the Government.
Let me also draw your attention to Motion No. 9 also before us, Mr. Speaker. Here you have a concept whereby in the proposed Bill Clause 5 reads:
The Minister shall-
(e*) assist in the development of industrial and economic policies that affect
investment in Canada;
That is just fine. In the amendment before us, we are adding something which was almost the theology of the Tory Party in the last election. We are actually talking Tory language by saying "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". We know this process of consultation has value. It has validity. We have seen in communities the purchase of a plant by a company from abroad. A few months later the plant, once acquired by that foreign interest, is simply closed. The local jobs are gone; they disappear. It could be a cannery of tomatoes in British Columbia or a tannery in Chicoutimi. It could happen in the backyard of the riding of any Member of Parliament. When it happens it is a bit too late and it hurts profoundly. Therefore this concept of local consultation has a certain validity. Mr. Speaker, I note that you are becoming a bit nervous-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am not nervous. 1 am just going to call it five o'clock.

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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 159?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 29, 1985



Gordon Edward Taylor: that Bill C-211, an Act to protect heritage railway stations, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to move second reading of this Bill, an Act to protect heritage railway stations, known as Bill C-211. I should like to pay tribute to the former Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park because he actually had the Bill prepared by the legislative counsel. I was in the process of preparing a similar Bill when the former Hon. Member introduced this one. When the Hon. Member was not re-elected, we decided that we might just as well use the same Bill, as they were so similar. I pay tribute to him for preparing this Bill.
I should like to deal with what the Bill really does. If it is passed, it means that no railway company or any other company shall remove, destroy, sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of a heritage railway station owned by it or otherwise under its control, unless authorized by an order of the Governor in Council or, in other words, of Cabinet. Any company which contravenes this Act, once it is passed, is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not less than $50,000 or not more than $1 million.
Another clause of the Bill provides that if a company plans to remove, destroy, sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of a heritage station owned or controlled by it, it must file an application for authorization to do so with the Minister in accordance with the regulations passed by the Governor in Council. After having given public notice of its intention, the company files notice with the Minister. Concurrently with the said filing, the company shall submit to the Minister a profit and loss statement of its estimated annual losses for preserving the said station and of any other expenses the company would likely incur in future years as a result of the application being refused.
Any person who objects to an application for authorization shall within the stipulated time within the Act serve notice on the Minister setting out the reason for the objection and any relevant facts, so that the general public has an opportunity to say why a station should not be destroyed, sold, et cetera. Upon the expiration of the stipulated time, the Minister refers the matter to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board for a hearing and report. The Board then holds a hearing as soon as possible after publishing notice in at least one newspaper in each official language in general circulation in the municipality in which the station is located. The Board must grant all interested persons a reasonable chance to appear before it to make representations. After the representations have been heard, the Board must within 30 days submit a report not only to the Minister in charge of this particular Bill, but also to the Minister of Transport setting out its findings and recommendations together with the reasons for them. I think that is a very excellent point. The report will not rest with one Minister.
Heritage Railway Stations
The Minister of Transport is being brought into the picture as well.
Within 30 days after receipt of the report, the two Ministers shall transmit to Cabinet or the Governor in Council their recommendations along with a copy of the said report, the application for authorization, the estimated annual costs and the notice of objection. The two Ministers must reach a decision and then take that decision to Cabinet.
Cabinet may authorize the company to alter the station owned by it, or the company may be authorized to remove, destroy, sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of the station. In other words, if they accept the application, the railway company has authority to go ahead and do what it wanted to do. If they do not accept it, then of course it is given heritage designation. The authorization required by the company is in addition to any and all authorization and any other legislation. There will be nothing slipshod about it. It will be thoroughly reviewed.
That is the gist of the Bill which I thought 1 should outline to Hon. Members of the House. The Bill will actually provide efficient mechanisms which allow concerned citizens to make timely objections to the destruction, removal or sale of stations of historic or cultural value to ensure their conservation in the public interest.
The reason I was interested in this Bill-and I suppose it is the same reason the former Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park was interested-is that too many of these stations are being destroyed. I can think of a station in my own City of Drumheller, on the banks of the Red Deer River, in the Valley of the Dinosaurs. CNR moved out and without saying a word to city council suddenly one day destroyed the whole station. It was an historic momunent of that city. Thousands of people went through that station. As a matter of fact, the unique part of that station was that if one was going east; one would get on a train going west, and if one was going west, one would get on a train going east, because the line wound through that beautiful valley.
How many other stations have been destroyed? Perhaps we will never know. Scores of stations were built in another era of Canadian history, typical of their period. They tell people what it was like in the early days of the railways. They were built with public money and railway money, but they have become historic monuments. They are relics of a particular era. In my view they should not be destroyed.
I know of another station in the Town of Claresholm. The people of the area want to have it designated a heritage station and used as a museum. They are fixing up the grounds around it. This Bill will be welcomed by them.
Things have happened in terms of a number of stations as a result of co-operation on the part of one of the two railway companies. For example, in the town of Okotoks its station was made into a meeting place and a place for the arts, for drama and painting. The people of that area come there to paint and participate in other cultural activities. Drama is presented on the stage. It is also a meeting place. Recently 1

April 29, 1985
Heritage Railway Stations
attended a meeting of the Big Rock Club. It is named after a large rock in the Okotoks area.
In High River, they made the station into a museum. In the village of Beiseker, they turned the station completely around so that it would face Main Street. It remained in the same location but completely turned around. It was made into the town hall and included the council chamber and village office. They used a little imagination and put in the library. The person who looked after the library was also to look after a small store which sold knitted goods, clothes, fancy dishes and moulded items to tourists. Some splendid things have been done. We want the same to happen in every town and village across the nation.
When I was pursuing this subject I wondered whether this was only an Alberta problem. Therefore, I wrote to some of the Ministers across Canada. I will read a few excerpts from what some of these Ministers said. The Hon. Billy Joe MacLean, Minister of Culture, Recreation and Fitness for the Province of Nova Scotia, after mentioning that his staff is undertaking a study of transportation heritage, wrote:
I mention these activities to make clear my desire that action be taken by legislative and other means to protect and/or recycle railway heritage properties.
The Hon. James Chabot, Minister of Government Services for the Province of British Columbia, said:
The protection of railway stations with heritage significance is a concern of my Ministry.
The Hon. Rick Folk, Minister of Culture and Recreation for the Province of Saskatchewan, stated:
Your proposed Bill to protect railway stations across the country is a most welcome item of legislation, and this Department certainly supports your efforts.
The Hon. Eugene Kostrya, Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation for the Province of Manitoba, said:
-this is a current concern of the Province of Manitoba and although we have made significant headway in our efforts, support at the federal level is essential.
The provinces are supporting it. I was very happy to have the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) say that he was interested in supporting the Bill. He is in the House today. Also, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) indicated to me that he would give strong support to this Bill.
The Bill is not complete. I have read quotations from various Ministers. Some Ministers had concern as well. One concern was the matter of land on which the building was sitting and whether that would be looked after. There are concerns and probably some ramifications. Consequently, I would not expect the House simply to pass the Bill as it is and say that's it. Either we pass the Bill and it goes to committee, where it receives a lot of consideration, or we discharge second reading of the Bill, which 1 hope the House will do, and send the subject matter of the Bill to committee for consideration. Perhaps it could come back here in the form of a government Bill. That is what is important. We need protection for these stations. Therefore, I take great pleasure in moving second reading of Bill C-211, an Act to protect heritage railway stations.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are glad to support this excellent Bill. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) for having taken this initiative. I also want to pay homage to the work done, as he mentioned, by the former Member from High Park who was extremely interested in this issue.
We have come to this conclusion because of experiences at the municipal level for many of us as a result of the existence of historical buildings, not necessarily railway buildings, being threatened. Often the feeling was very strong in the community that without the history provided by a building, a nation loses its sense of history. It has to be passed from one generation to the other in order that we can understand lifestyles, ways of communicating and moving people, in the case of railways, for generations preceding the one that still has the benefif of admiring certain buildings.
In north Toronto we had a very sad experience a few years ago. The Canadian Pacific Railway station, despite enormous interest expressed by local community groups and the endorsement of the mayor and some Members of Parliament from that part of the city, was all of a sudden destroyed. That building had character. Alternative future uses had been proposed. That experience left a very bitter taste in the mouths of the citizens. Canadian Pacific displayed a distressing insensitivity to the will of the population there. Many had been born around the station, grew up and had learned to appreciate the presence of that station. It had a beautiful architectural design, was functional, had character and, as I said, a future. That building is gone. Therefore, there is the necessity for taking certain measures such as that proposed by the Hon. Member for Bow River. We are glad to see his initiative. We congratulate and applaud him. We hope this initiative will go to committee for further study and improvement.
The federal Government does not necessarily have the final word in this matter. It is mainly a provincial and municipal power to be exerted. Nevertheless, it will have an exemplary effect and a symbolic meaning. It will be useful to citizen groups. They will be extremely grateful to the Hon. Member for Bow River if this Bill becomes adopted one day. It will be appreciated by present and future generations of Canadians.
Mir. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, like probably every other Member in this House, I am delighted every time the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) gets to his feet, particularly on this occasion when he is bringing forward a subject matter and a Bill that deals with an area that all of us from time to time are touched by, namely the heritage of Canada. We are doubly pleased. We congratulate him on his efforts and the excellent remarks that he made in bringing forward this topic and this subject matter.
We can all understand his references to the number of facilities or railway stations in his area that either have been or might be affected if we do not do something constructive and approach this problem, which does not rest only in his constituency but exists right across Canada. We are looking for ways
April 29, 1985

to address this problem and ensure that the natural heritage of Canada is protected.
This Bill is particularly timely now because heritage conservation is much in the minds of Canadians this year. One hundred years ago this November, the Government of Sir John A. Macdonald established Canada's first national park at Banff. That was regarded by all of us as the beginning of the heritage conservation movement in this country.
The National Parks centennial year is an occasion for all of us to celebrate what has been accomplished in the last 100 years and also to chart a course for the future of Canadian heritage conservation. Today there are 31 national parks across the country; at least one in each province and each territory. There are also more than 70 major national historic parks in Canada and nine heritage canals. All of these heritage places are managed by Parks Canada for the benefit and enjoyment of all Canadians.
This year there are centennial celebrations at every national park, site and canal across the country. I am sure the Hon. Member and indeed every Member of the House joins me in wishing great success to these special festivities.
It was a Conservative Government which, 100 years ago, took the first steps to protect our natural environment, and it was a Conservative Government which took the first steps to protect our historic resources. Canada's first national historic park was initiated in 1917 at Fort Anne, Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia. Two years later, 1919, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada was created by the Government of the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden.
This Bill would propose new responsibilities for the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. I invite Hon. Members to look for a moment at the Board's historic and at its important accomplishments. The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada was created to identify persons, places and events of national historic significance and to advise the federal Government on appropriate ways to commemorate them.
The first point I would like to make is that the Board's task is enormous. It has a responsibility for the entire country with many specific items to consider. At the time it began its work, there were literally dozens of sites of great historic interest in every province, sites which were unprotected and subject to destruction at any time. Interested Board members were given a $10 per diem allowance to attend Board meetings and in order to discourage unnecessary expense they were instructed to do the bulk of their work by correspondence. I do not know how well that would work today, Mr. Speaker, but at that time perhaps correspondence services were satisfactory.
By 1921, 46 sites had been recommended to the Minister for commemoration as soon as possible. The first bronze commemorative plaque was set in place in 1922 at Port Dover, Ontario, to mark the location at which France laid claim to the Lake Erie region in 1670. For those who do not know where Port Dover is, it is very close to Simcoe. Soon after this more plaques were erected in different provinces.
Heritage Railway Stations
Today the Historic Sites and Monuments Board consists of 17 members who advise the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) on matters of national historic and architectural significance. Each province and territory is represented by one member except Ontario and Quebec, each of which has two members. Other members of the Board are the Dominion Archivist, a representative of the National Museums and a representative of Parks Canada.
The Board meets twice yearly to review submissions and make recommendations to the Minister of the Environment. Only the Minister can declare a person, place or event to be of national historic significance. The Historic Sites and Monuments board welcomes suggestions from historical societies, heritage groups and other organizations and individuals. Suggestions should be of truly national importance as opposed to regional or local importance.
To determine what constitutes truly national importance, the Board has established general criteria. The first such criterion is persons who have had a significant impact on Canadian history, irrespective of the country in which all or part of their achievement occurred; second, events or movements which have shaped Canadian history or illustrate effectively the broad cultural, social, political, economic or military themes of Canadian history; and third, places which shed light on or illustrate effectively the culture of a prehistoric people or are associated with important archaeological discoveries. That is very reminiscent of the comments made by the Hon. Member who spoke previously about the great archaeological items in his own constituency. The fourth such criterion is structures which embody the distinguising characteristics of an architectural or engineering type, are exceptionally valuable for the style or method of construction of their periods or are examples of the work of a master builder, designer, engineer or architect.
The Board very specifically does not consider for commemoration cemeteries and graves except those of the Fathers of Confederation and those having archaeological significance; structures that have been moved from their original location; places outside Canada; and people who are still alive or who have died within the past five years. If the Board determines that a person, place or event is of national historic significance, it so recommends to the Minister, advising an appropriate means of formal recognition.
In most cases a bilingual Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada bronze plaque of standard design is erected. The site where the plaque is located need not be owned by the federal Government. Today there are more than 900 plaques across the country, many of them located on privately owned property.
In special cases, the Board may recommend that a distinctive monument be built. The Marie Madeleine de Vercheres monument at Vercheres, Quebec, and the Stefanson memorial at Arnes, Manitoba, are examples of this. The Board may recommend that the Minister enter into a cost-sharing agreement with a non-profit organization. The independent organization owns and manages the historic location and ensures that

April 29, 1985
Heritage Railway Stations
the site is open to the public for a specified number of days each year. This gives the public an opportunity to visit these special sites and locations. The Trestler House near Montreal and Craigflower Manor on Vancouver Island are good examples of cost-sharing agreements.
Places of extraordinary importance to Canadian history are acquired and developed by Parks Canada as national historic parks. National historic parks range from the Motherwell homestead in Abernethy, Saskatchewan, to Bellevue House in Kingston, Ontario; and as everyone on this side of the House at least knows, Bellevue House was once the home of Sir John A. Macdonald. Fort Langley near Vancouver, Lower Fort Garry near Winnipeg, Artillery Park in Quebec City and the mighty Fortress of Louisbourg near Sydney, Nova Scotia, are among the many other national historic parks across Canada.
A great deal has been accomplished since the Board's first meeting in 1919. In large part this is due to the hard work and dedication of individual Board members. It is also due to the Board's advisory rather than administrative role. The Board does not have a staff or office space. Its members are paid only a small honorarium and an allowance for expenses incurred while travelling on Board business. The Board exists solely to advise the Minister on matters of national historic importance. I am sure all Members of the House would want to join me in thanking the members of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board for the important work they do for all Canadians. Members generously donate their time and experience to help us preserve significant aspects of our history.
The Bill before us proposes that the Board take on an administrative role regarding the future of heritage railway stations. That is the key point, Mr. Speaker. The Bill proposes changing the function of the Board from a simple advisory role to an administrative role. The Bill would require that the Board hold hearings and prepare reports on the future of all heritage railway stations that are in any way threatened or scheduled for renovation, restoration or repair. What a monumental undertaking that would be! In fact, the very limited resources would be quite incapable of responding to this very important work and this great need.
There are thousands of railway stations in this country. All of us have the unfortunate experience of knowing what has happened to the railways in this country and to many railway stations, many of which are close to the hearts of many of us and our constituents. If the Board were assigned the responsibility of looking after the future of these sites, it would change very dramatically its basic role. I would ask Hon. Members if they want the Board to take on this administrative role.
The Historic Sites and Monuments Board is well aware of the heritage value of our early railway stations. The Board has considered many applications concerning railway stations. In fact, 24 stations across the country have already been declared of national historic or architectural significance.
The Board selected for commemoration stations which express the development of our various railway lines. For example, the station at Levis, Quebec, and Pictou, Nova Scotia, represent the Intercolonial Railway Line. The Canadian Pacific Railway is represented at McAdam, New Brunswick, and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Maritime railways are represented at Kensington, Prince Edward Island, and Rothesay, New Brunswick. The Canadian Northern Line is represented at Kamloops, British Columbia, and Miami, Manitoba.
The fact that these 24 stations are recognized does not preclude other stations from consideration in the future. The Board receives submissions at all times and will judge each railway station on its historic and architectural significance to Canadian history. Our early railway stations are all an irreplaceable part of our heritage. This Bill makes that point very clearly and I agree completely with that sentiment.
While I congratulate the Hon. Member for calling our attention to this important issue, I would ask the House to consider carefully whether the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada should be charged with the new administrative responsibilities which are imposed by this Bill.
In view of the comments which I have made, and in view of what I think we all know are very honest and reasoned intentions on the part of the Hon. Member, I hope that the House will be in a position to receive an amendment. I would like to move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-211, an Act to protect heritage railway stations, be not now read a
second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the
subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Forestry".
With that, I will conclude my remarks. I would like to thank the Hon. Member again for his contribution and I hope that the House will be prepared to receive the amended motion.


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


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, this Bill has come before us as a result of a number of scandalous incidents which have taken place concerning railway stations, and in particular the flagrant example of CPR destroying an historic railway building, which was contrary to the wishes of the community, after its importance as an historic monument was recognized. It is incidents of that sort which have led the Hon. Member and Members of the Opposition to argue for more vigorous measures to ensure that Canadian heritage properties and, in particular, railway buildings, are protected.
I respect the intent of the Bill. We know the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) supports it. As he is an old railroader himself, he is interested in the railroads and, therefore, is giving moral support to the Bill. I, too, support the Bill. However, I am a little concerned about the amendment to send the Bill to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for study. As the culture critic for the NDP caucus, it seems to me that this is very much a heritage matter, and I am
April 29, 1985

wondering why that committee would be selected to discuss heritage measures.
1 would like to look at the broader context of the heritage aspects of the Bill which is before us. It is not just railway stations which are threatened. There is a whole policy on the protection of cultural institutions which must be studied. The fact is that we do not have an adequate heritage policy for Canada, although the arts and culture community has argued for one and various organizations have put forward very constructive proposals.
The recent report of the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee included a major section on heritage. If the recommendations from that report had been implemented, we would not be discussing the Bill which is before us now because the matter would have already been dealt with by government legislation. So often a Private Member is forced to bring in a Bill to deal with a matter which the Government has simply neglected.
The Applebaum-Hebert Committee, the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee, came up with a number of proposals which addressed precisely the problem which is before us. I would like to refer to a couple of the recommendations which I believe are relevant. Recommendation 15 called for the establishment of an arm's length agency which was to be called the Canadian Heritage Council. It was to be a visible champion of heritage interests. If that kind of institution had been created I wonder whether it might be the body which would be referred to rather than the Historic Sites and Monuments Board.
Recommendation 17 of that report is very relevant to this debate. It stated that existing federal legislation relating to the designation of historical sites should be strengthened to compel heritage impact studies to be carried out and reviewed before any site is sold, developed or altered from its present use. That is precisely the problem which we have before us now with regard to railway heritage sites.
What has happened to the very pertinent recommendations from the major and rather expensive Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee? A number of the recommendations were discussed by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture and a great deal of progress was made in ranking them in terms of importance and analyzing them. Positive support was given to the recommendations by the Conservative Party when it was in Opposition. The recommendations were discussed further during the course of the federal election campaign to determine what the Conservative Party's position would be if it formed the Government. I would like to report an exchange which took place with the Canadian Museums Association. The Association asked:
What will you and your Party do to ensure the heritage and other recommendations of the Applebaum-Hebert Report are given thorough consideration and in close consultation with the museum/gallery community?
The answer to that came from the official Progressive Conservative pre-election platform. It stated:
We will begin immediately to consult with groups and individuals in the cultural sector on all aspects of policy development. The recommendations of the
Heritage Railway Stations
Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee will form a substantial part of our consultative agenda, because the issues dealt with in that Report were already of pressing concern when the Committee was struck.
Well, consultations are a good idea. The PC position continued:
The Standing Committee's consideration of the Applebaum-Hebert Report was suspended temporarily to deal with the taxation issues of artist and writers.
That is true. It continued:
We would hope that the Standing Committee will seek a renewal of the Applebaum-Hebert reference in the new Parliament.
That has not happened. It continued:
To ensure that there are no unnecessary delays in implementing those recommendations which the Standing Committee and the cultural sector identify as priorities, we will accelerate the process of consultation between the Department and the sector.
There has been no acceleration of consultation. Indeed, consultation has fallen by the wayside. Arts groups, in great frustration, came to Ottawa to lobby on Parliament Hill. They told parliamentarians about their frustration in getting the Department of Communications and the Minister to listen to them.
The pre-election statement of the Conservative Party continued:
We would encourage the Standing Committee to examine, as soon as possible, the Report's recommendations on heritage and specifically the idea of a Canadian Heritage Council.
I raised that matter before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture last fall. At that time 1 asked the Minister very specifically where he stood with regard to the excellent recommendations on heritage which were accepted by the Conservative Party when it was in Opposition. Very specifically, I asked him what he would do about heritage and the Applebaum-Hebert recommendations. The Minister said that all of those reports are not the Bible. He said that they are instruments and we have to use them like that. In short, they are instruments which can be used, but they can also be ignored. There is no sense in honouring commitments which have been made by the Government, especially very specific and well-studied commitments which were made by the Conservative Party when it was in Opposition and during the course of the election campaign. I believe it is a flagrant example of broken election promises.
What is the importance of this heritage policy which we do not have before us, which is somewhere wallowing around in the Department of Communications being studied? It is an important matter. Canada is a young country in the sense of its architecture and its permanent material culture. People may argue that because Canada is a young country it does not have many heritage buildings which need to be preserved. 1 would regard that as the wrong approach. On the contrary, because we do not have many heritage buildings we have a special obligation to preserve those which we do have. The railways were enormously important historically in uniting Canada. Canadians are nostalgic about their railways. We remember the good old days when they worked a great deal better. We like the old railway buildings. They are a part of

April 29, 1985
Heritage Railway Stations
our history, a very important and unifying part. So these railway stations above all should be part of our cultural preservation concerns.
Heritage concerns have to be a major part of our cultural policy. We have to preserve the achievements of previous generations. It is not enough just to go after what artists have to contribute at the present time. What hope will they have that their works are going to be respected in the future if we do not show respect for the contributions of past generations? I very much support this Bill in principle, but I feel that we need to have a mechanism with which to deal with the preservation of railway buildings.
As to the specific amendment before us, I do have some queries as to whether the Bill should go to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and not be considered a heritage matter. While supportive of the intent of the Bill, I have to be critical of the Government's failure to bring forward a heritage policy as part of a general cultural policy for Canada. That is really the approach we should be following. We should not be dealing with the question of railway properties in isolation from other heritage matters. We need a comprehensive strategy and adequate funding. It is an important matter for Canadians and that is where our priorities should lie.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to make a few remarks on Bill C-211, an Act to protect heritage railway stations. I want to compliment my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), for bringing forward this Bill today. I would be hesitant in referring the Bill to committee for discussion if I did not know that the Hon. Member for Bow River would be watching with his usual tenacity to ensure that it gets through that committee and back into the House with the objectives of this Bill met.
I have known the Hon. Member for Bow River for a number of years. I know he will understand when I point out to the House that all areas of my riding are affected by this Bill. As recently as last week the CNR, the Crown-owned company, applied to the Town of Lac La Biche to take down the old railway station which is now not being used. A number of people in the community got together and were hoping to convert it into a senior citizens' drop-in centre such as is presently in the Town of Athabasca. Within a matter of 12 to 14 hours, however, the CNR gave the order to demolish the railway station and that was done. That old building which sat in the middle of the Town of Lac La Biche is lost forever. People can remember going to the station when the train came through two times or maybe three times a week to watch the people getting on and off, to watch the unloading of the milk cans, and so on. The milk can stands were still there. All of those things were very much a part of the development of this country and that is why I salute my friend, the Hon. Member for Bow River, for bringing this Bill forward.
I would like to point out some of the things which can happen. The way the Town of Athabasca is situated, the
railroad station is a focal point at the end of Main Street. At one time it was going to be torn down but the people in the community got together and took over. They made an agreement with the Northern Alberta Railways, which was jointly run by CPR and CNR, and converted it to a senior citizens' drop-in centre. Any afternoon of the week one can drop in and not only live heritage but one can talk heritage to all of the senior citizens who make it a point to be there.
Again, I would like to compliment my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River. He has indeed performed a service to our communities. With his usual tenacity, I hope he will ensure that this Bill comes back to the House and is passed quickly so that we can protect our railway stations.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I also join with the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) in complimenting the very distinguished senior member of this Chamber, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), on his initiative. It is certainly agreed that efforts should be made to preserve these buildings as cultural and social focal points for our communities, indeed for our provinces and our nation. I am sorry that the last speaker for the New Democratic Party has left the Chamber, but for the record I might explain that the reference of the subject matter of this Bill should be to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry simply because that standing committee is the committee responsible for dealing with matters arising out of subject matters such as this.
Efforts towards the protection of buildings of heritage or historical significance should be guided, I believe, by four principles. The four significant principles I think we should touch on is, first, that all heritage buildings under federal jurisdiction, whether belonging to the railways, government departments, or Crown Corporations such as Air Canada and CBC, in fact should fall under one umbrella legislation and be the result of one policy. Treatment of each type of building by itself-for example, the railway stations-could lend itself to difficulties with other heritage sites. In theory we could have conflicting legislation which could make almost intractable, certainly very difficult, the enactment of legislation in other areas of equal importance.
Second, the responsibility for making decisions as to the heritage or historical significance of specific buildings should be assigned to an agency which is competent and qualified in the area of heritage and our history.
Third, the costs and liabilities of preservation of a building, after it is no longer required for its owner's purposes, should not be borne by its owner. Rather, the legislation might identify an appropriate agency which would be responsible for all costs and liabilities after the building had ceased to perform its primary or historical function. This agency may logically be the one which makes application for designation of the building as having heritage or historical significance.
Fourth, the legislation should prescribe time limits for each step of the entire process beginning with application for designation of heritage or historical significance, and proceeding all
April 29, 1985

the way through the appeal process to the negotiation of sale, lease or other arrangements for the building. Unless such time limits are set, the process is vulnerable to sabotage, whether wilful or unintentional, through inordinate delays in action on the part of one or more parties to the process.
Bill C-211 is in fact on the "right track" and 1 make the following suggestions which Hon. Members or the committee may wish to consider. First, other buildings under federal jurisdiction perhaps should be considered. Indeed, it would be my hope that they would be.
Second, responsibility for heritage designation should be assigned to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Under its current set-up the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada is not equipped to fulfil the responsibility of heritage designation. Perhaps the Government might be persuaded to consider the reconstitution of the Board to allow for this.
Third, Mr. Speaker, identification of an appropriate agency that would pay the cost of preservation of such heritage buildings after they are no longer required for their primary purpose, such as railway stations in the case of the Hon. Member for Bow River's Private Member's Bill. Again, we may want to suggest time limits or conditions for the negotiation of sale, lease or other transfer of the building to a preserving agency.
Fourth, the Bill requires the Historic Sites and Monuments Board to hold a hearing for every application. I might suggest that, if written evidence submitted to the designated agency suffices, we could dispense with hearings for every single application and rely upon the history built up by the designating agency, and allow them to make the primary determination.
Having said what 1 have said, I am sure Hon. Members will agree that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) would not be an appropriate designated authority for heritage matters even as they may pertain to railway stations. Although railways fall under his jurisdiction, it has been found to be both efficient and prudent that certain aspects of the railway business, such as taxation and the environment, be governed by legislation under the jurisdiction of other Ministers. We in Transport believe that heritage is one such aspect which perhaps could be better dealt with by another agency.
I have outlined some of our concerns over the Hon. Member's proposed Bill. These are concerns generated within the Department. I know that were the Minister here he would commend as highly as all others have the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on bringing this matter to our attention. I am confident the House would want to see the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee and 1 repeat for his edification what I said a few moments ago, that the reason it is going to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry is that is the appropriate committee to deal with matters of the environment, within which this issue falls. The Bill commends itself. We have been chastized in the House today for
Heritage Railway Stations
having given undertakings during the election campaign, indeed in the months and, for some of us, in the years prior to that, but for not having moved immediately. This is one area that is important to Canada, a matter of great importance to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Cabinet generally. There are priorities, 1 suggest to the Hon. Member. We have only been in government for seven or eight months; give us a little while and we will do it because there is genuine concern on this side of the House about matters such as this. Thank you for allowing me to participate.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Parproski):: It has been moved by Mr. Gurbin, seconded by Mr. Fretz:
That Bill C-211 be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry; and that accordingly the Bill be withdrawn.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the main motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gurbin) agreed to.


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


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


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


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
April 29, 1985
Adjournment Debate

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in raising this matter today, and it was touched upon in November in this House in Question Period, I would like to preface my remarks by saying that we have already seen a Government which has failed to convince the United States' administration at the Quebec City Meeting that there is an urgent need to act on smokestack industries, and that we should jointly proceed with the U.S. in a clean-up operation. As you know, at this stage an increasing number of nations are recognizing the importance of reducing smokestack emissions, and increasingly the U.S. finds itself isolated in denying a policy which would allow it to reduce emissions which, as you know, amount to some 26 million tons a year. We are downwind of these emissions. This policy does not permit us to proceed jointly in the clean-up operation which we set on its way so well by policies initiated a number of years ago.
Today I would like to bring to your attention the question of attempting to convince the U.S. administration that there is an urgent need to halt the flow of toxic chemicals into the Niagara River from leaking dumpsites, industrial emissions, and from municipalities. Here again we may be facing a similar failure. It should be noted by way of background that the report released this month by the federal water policy inquiry during the public hearings which were held across Canada indicated that probably the single most widespread anxiety Canadians have about their water resource is the deterioration of its quality. The report stated that pollution, if we define the term broadly to include toxic contamination, disruption of fish and wildlife habitat, acidification and sewage discharge, attracted more testimony at the hearings than any other issue. That, I submit, should be enough to convince the Canadian Government that urgent action is required to remedy the Niagara River problem.
Again, as I did in November, I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) when she will pursue the recommendations contained in this October, 1984 report published by the Niagara River Toxic Committee.
Let me briefly outline some of the recommendations to refresh everyone's memory: For example, that the Niagara Falls waste water treatment plant be made operative as originally designed and as early as possible. Of course, to obtain that we have to exert pressure on our American friends and neighbours. Secondly, it recommended that the clean-up of the problem dumpsites should be undertaken by the fastest means available and not allowed to be entangled in litigation in the court system south of the border. Techniques should be developed such as recycling, or phasing out the use of many toxic substances and the development of less toxic substitutes, and incineration or chemical fixation to deal with existing and future waste. Finally, the control of persistent toxic substances should be implemented as called for by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978.
These are key recommendations. But I would like to refer the Minister to two specific recommendations, Nos. 23 and 24,
on which the United States members of the committee took a different position, a fact which we all must regret very much. Although the U.S. position is in agreement with the need for bi-national management of toxic input into the Lake Ontario basin, they believe that the first step in the implementation of such a plan is the review of all sources of toxic substances in Lake Ontario. The review is a delaying tactic against the knowledge that the presence of toxic substances is now on the increase, rather than the decrease as claimed by the U.S. members of the commission.
I would like to ask the Minister whether she is aware of this position. Has she met with the International Joint Commission to discuss the U.S. position? Has she taken a position on these two particular U.S. recommendations? It seems to me that the Minister must move on the information already obtained and on the content of the report of last October.
Has the Minister met with the EPA to work out a joint Canada-U.S. plan of action for cleaning up the Niagara River? What were the results of the meeting. I ask these questions because the Niagara River is an urgent priority. The communities on that peninsula are extremely worried. We know from the Niagara River Toxic Committee report that there are 61 sites on the U.S. side and five on the Canadian side that have been designated as having significant potential for contaminant migration into the Niagara River.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we know that these sites have been identified. Most of the recommendations have been agreed upon, but two are outstanding and they are very serious in their long-term implications. Urgent action is needed. If we wait, the cost of cleaning up the problem will continue to rise for both Canada and the United States. More importantly, we stand to jeopardize the quality of water in Lake Ontario for decades to come. Hence, the urgency of this issue, Mr. Speaker.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) will recall that it was anticipated that there would be a meeting with Mr. Ruckelshaus within a week of his asking that question last fall. In fact Mr. Ruckelshaus resigned one week after the question was asked. Following that, even though a meeting had been arranged between the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) and Mr. Ruckelshaus, it was necessary to delay that meeting.
Since the appointment of the new EPA administrator, Mr. Lee Thomas, there has already been one meeting and there will be another meeting in the very near future, on May 9 1 believe.
The questions which were posed originally by the Member centered around two issues; one was the toxic substances in the Niagara River and the Great Lakes, and the second was acid rain. I noticed that the Member did not spend much time on the acid rain issue, although I think he would be quite amenable to the idea that it continues to be an important part
April 29, 1985

of our bilateral discussions. I would like to assure the Member that those two major points will be subjects for discussion between the Minister of the Environment and Mr. Lee Thomas.
With regard to the toxic wastes in the Niagara River, the Minister has in fact spent a good deal of time on that both in consequence of the report that the Member mentioned, and in looking for constructive actions that we as Canadians can take. We must recognize, as the Member did, that the vast percentage of the contamination has continued to come, and has been identified as coming, from the American side. It is necessary to work out acceptable and constructive agreements as soon as possible.
The urgency factor which the Member has identified is clearly in the mind of the Minister. It in fact accounts for the reason for the second of two meetings and any further meetings that might be necessary in order to deal as effectively and quickly as possible with this problem. The answer to the Member's question is, very simply, yes. When he receives the detailed response from the Minister I hope he will be satisfied with the details.


PETRO-CANADA SALE OF COME-BY-CHANCE OIL REFINERY. (B) REQUEST THAT SALE BE HALTED
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to take advantage of the proceedings on the adjournment motion this evening to make some comments with respect to questions I asked of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) in this House on March 12 and on subsequent occasions regarding the sale of the Come-by-Chance oil refinery in Newfoundland.
Members will recall that Petro-Canada bought the Come-by-Chance oil refinery from receivers approximately two years ago for a price of $17 million. At the time Petro-Canada bought the refinery there was some hope that Petro-Canada in doing an analysis and undertaking some studies would determine whether it was possible for that refinery to operate as a refinery once again. In fact, the refinery was put into mothballs for some years. A number of months ago Petro-Canada announced that the continuing cost of mothballing the refinery and maintaining it was more than it wanted to bear at this time. In fact, it was putting the refinery up for sale.
In the early days quite a few companies expressed an interest in the refinery. Six posted bonds of $100,000. Most of the groups that came forward were primarily interested in the possibility of scrapping the refinery; that is taking it apart piece-meal, taking those parts of the refinery that could be rehabilitated and used elsewhere in an industrial complex and selling them to that industrial complex and basically taking the rest of the refinery and breaking it down into scrap metal.
The cost of building a similar type facility today, a new facility, is in the range of a billion dollars. It has been estimated but never in any study carried out by this Government that the cost of rehabilitating the refinery would be in the range of some $200 million.
Adjournment Debate
Despite earlier anticipation that we were going to see only a number of bids from people interested in scrapping that refinery or selling it off piece-meal, it has been brought to my attention by some very excellent sources that we are going to see within the envelope of bids to be opened in a few days, on May 2, by Petro-Canada, bids that will do something more than simply scrap that refinery. These bids would propose to operate the refinery at a much reduced level from what its total operating capacity is, but nevertheless operate the refinery. That means jobs for Newfoundlanders and it means holding on to a facility, keeping it functioning for the day when perhaps a petro-chemical industry will be more promising in Newfoundland.
I asked the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources in this House what was going to be the criteria under which Petro-Canada would sell the refinery. Was the criteria simply going to be that Petro-Canada would simply attempt to get the best possible price? Is that the criteria? Is it that Petro-Canada would try and realize the maximum return on its investment, both the price that it paid for the refinery of $17 million and the cost subsequently of maintaining it? Or was the criteria going to take into consideration what in fact would be the best long-term economic interests of Newfoundland?
My concern is that we may have a series of bids, and when they are opened we may see that the highest bid comes from somebody who wants to scrap the refinery. Let us take an arbitrary figure of $50 million and that a lower bid comes from somebody who wants to put money back into the refinery, that is to spend money in retooling the refinery. Let us take an arbitrary figure of $25 million. If the criteria is simply the best return on its investments, Petro-Canada will take the $50 million bid. It has been estimated that by scrapping the refinery one can generate $90 million. Why would you not pay $50 million for a $40 million profit? My information is there are bids coming forward that will not meet a $50 million price tag, but will see Petro-Canada getting its money back, with the people making those bids saving their capital to reinvest in that refinery in order to make it work, to give the people of Come-by-Chance jobs with the opportunity and the dignity of work.
It is important when I stand here on behalf of Newfoundlanders asking for the criteria that the Minister say something more than, "that is not my business; that is Petro-Canada's". What we are talking about with this facility, and what we are talking about when Petro-Canada has a sale is not just how many cents on the dollar Petro-Canada will realize when the bids are opened. We are talking about future employment possibilities, the prosperity and dignity of people in a province where unemployment is in excess of 30 per cent.
What are the criteria? Will the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Minister assure the House and, through the House, the people of Newfoundland that more than Petro-Canada's realized profit or benefit from the time it has held the refinery will be at stake when those bids are assessed? Will

April 29, 1985
Adjournment Debate
he assure the House that the long-term economic benefit of Newfoundlanders and their province will be the guiding criteria in assessing who should get that refinery?
If those kinds of criteria are not in place, we shall see the possibility of opportunities lost, the ability to create jobs lost, and an even stronger sense on the part of Newfoundlanders, who live far away from the centre but nevertheless are as proud Canadians as anyone, that this country does not work for them when it can and when it should.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to strike a small deal with the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). 1 would like to help him with his anxiety attack, as long as I get from him an assurance that he will not raise unnecessary anxiety in the people who live in his Province of Newfoundland.
I give him the assurance which he asked of the Minister. There has been no deal struck. There has been no limitation of any option as to what might happen in terms of the future of that refinery. All options are open. The Hon. Member should recognize very clearly, being the astute representative he is, that it would be very untimely to start talking about specific details of any one option. Those matters rest in the hands of those who must make the final decision. All options are open. There is no limitation.
For the second half of our deal, the Hon. Member should look back at his question and realize that he tried to indicate that somehow the future of the refinery will determine the future of Newfoundland's relationship to the Hibernia oil fields. I would like to make very clear, in accordance with statements the Minister has made many times, that that in no way has there been any implication, and there will in no way be any reflection on the ability of Newfoundland to have its options in terms of Hibernia. In fact, as the Minister has stated, there is a very clear ability on the part of Newfoundland to have an option of first refusal for offshore supplies, as provided in the Atlantic Accord. The Atlantic Accord in itself assures that the interests of Newfoundland are and always will be protected.
I know the Hon. Member would want to fulfil his margin of the small deal which we have just struck by ensuring that his constituents know that Newfoundland is well looked after by its many representatives in the House of Commons, and that there will be no deals struck which are not in their long-term best interests.


RAILWAYS-ATLANTIC LIMITED-REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF SERVICE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to deal with the Government's commitment to return the service of the Atlantic Limited to the Maritimes and Upper Canada. Prior to the last election the Conservative Party committed itself to restoring that service. I am absolutely delighted and extremely proud the Government has done just that. The service will be restored as of June 1. It
is certainly an indication of the sincerity of the Government in terms of fulfilling its commitments. This is one of many pledges the Progressive Conservative Party undertook prior to the last election, prior to forming the Government, which it has honoured throughout its early term of office. They certainly are to be congratulated for doing just that.
There are a number of concerns that have been expressed by numerous constituents of the maritime region who will once again be able to enjoy the use of this train from Halifax via Saint John on its way to Montreal. It is important that we ensure that the restoration of this train is in such a fashion that it will be utilized to its fullest extent. I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister, through the Parliamentary Secretary, just a few of those concerns, two specific and one general.
The specific concern I refer to is the apparent intention of VIA rail at the beginning to have only three agents at the VIA rail station in the city of Saint John. When the rail service was discontinued there were seven passenger agents, some of whom doubled as baggage assistants. The concern is quite obvious. If the service is to be utilized to its fullest extent and to its best opportunity, obviously the service people must be in place to ensure that the train runs on time. People must not be inconvenienced by poor service at the ticket counter. Tickets should be readily available. There should not be an opinion formed of VIA rail that the service is less than first class and, therefore, a disincentive to people to use the line. This is basically what my entire address is about this evening. I ask the Minister to look at the staffing positions in the City of Saint John at the VIA rail station to ensure that sufficient people are in place to service the needs.
Second, apparently the baggage car is not going to be manned between several stations along the way, for example, between Saint John and Moncton. This means that people who get on the train at Sussex, which is a focal point in Fundy-Royal, are not going to be able to check their luggage. Their luggage will have to be placed in the car in which their accommodation is, whether it be the day coach, sleeping car or whatever. This will be a terrible inconvenience to a great number of people.
It is extremely important that the baggage car be accessible at all points at which this train will make stops along the route so that people will not be inconvenienced, with another disincentive to people to use that line. After all, if ridership is down, there will be those who will point and say that the service is not good, that it should never have been restored. Therefore, we must make every effort to ensure that the service is there.
Another matter of concern is that there must be some attention paid to restoring the equipment. For the most part, the equipment is 30 years old. When it was announced that the service would be reinstated there was a commitment on the part of the Government to put a fair amount of money into the kitty for restoring the old cars and replacing the old engines. For example, more than $3 million will be spent to refurbish
April 29, 1985

coaches and locomotives serving the Atlantic line, and another $6 million to $7 million for upgrading tracks and stations. The equipment needs to be replaced.
I would like to read into the record what the rail passenger action force recommended. It recommended that VIA rail "replace at the earliest opportunity its outdated rolling stock with modern state of the art high capacity proven technology cars and locomotives to the highest degree possible with labour components and engineering obtained from across Canada." I support that. I urge the Minister to get on with the program of replacing and updating the equipment. That will take three years if those orders are placed now. We will then have new equipment. The old steam heated outdated equipment of 30 years ago will be gone. People will be further encouraged to use this very valuable and vital service to Atlantic Canada. Again, my congratulations.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I share in enthusiasm for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) of this country as much as the Hon. Member. Indeed, on January 15 of this year the Minister of Transport announced the reinstitution and restoration of some six rail passenger services in Canada; three of them of a national nature and three of them of a regional nature. We are, of course, speaking of the Super Continental line going from Winnipeg to Edmonton to Vancouver and the Canadian line going from Montreal to Ottawa to Sudbury. The three regional services are the Montreal to Sherbrooke line, the Toronto to Peterborough to Havelock line and the Mont-Joli to Montreal line. Last but certainly not least, and
Adjournment Debate
dear to the hearts of all of us in the Maritimes, is the Atlantic line.
The Atlantic line will be a full-service passenger train with dining cars and a complete range of sleeper and day-nighter coaches. Trains will leave Montreal in the early evening arriving in Halifax the next afternoon with the return trip leaving Halifax in the early afternoon and arriving in Montreal the next morning. Stops along the way will include such major cities as Sherbrooke, Saint John and Moncton, as well as numerous smaller towns in both Canada and, I am proud to say, the State of Maine.
To answer in part another question raised by the distinguished Hon. Member, funds allocated to restore the services will be approximately $40 million and some 2,000 jobs will be created both directly and indirectly. I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure we all agree, that the restoration of these services goes a mighty long way toward emphasizing this Government's intention to keep its commitments.
With respect to the other two questions raised by the distinguished Hon. Member, there are worthy questions and I will take them as representations. I will solicit the Minister's support in ensuring that adequate agents are on station in Saint John and that the baggage car, if at all possible, will be manned. The Hon. Member has made a good point.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.22 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 30, 1985