1985-06-06

Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion) moved: that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be read the third time and passed.


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


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in third reading of a Bill on which we have spent a lot of time over the past six months. 1 think it is worth hearkening back to the brave predictions of the Minister in December when he said that we would be through all this in January. It is now close to the middle of June, and we still have one final opportunity to try to convince the Government that it is necessary to reconsider seriously many of the ambitions which it has put forward.
While this particular Investment Canada Bill may not have generated wild surges of public opinion over the last two or three months, I predict that in years ahead it will be a matter of increasing public importance, concern and anxiety, and that the consequences of the actions taken by the Government will be as devastating and as disastrous for many ordinary Canadians as the actions taken in the present Budget. Unfortunately, too many Canadians will have to live with the consequences of this Bill. It is not an academic matter.
The Government has talked a great deal about jobs. It said that its primary ambition was to provide a change in foreign investment practices. I have no quarrel with that basic and very important preoccupation, because that has been our preoccupation as well in debating this Bill. We have been equally concerned about the jobs of Canadians and about the number of jobs which will be lost as a result of the actions taken by the Government through Investment Canada. We are concerned about the number of closed communities and industries which will have their technological advantages stripped. We are concerned about the way in which the capital will be used, not to produce employment, but simply to provide for unfair advantage.
Over the last several months we have seen that this Bill is really a blinkered ideological vision of a kind of continental dependency upon the United States. If anything has been galling about the remarks made by many Conservative speakers, it is their lack of trust and confidence in the country. They have said that we must base our economic renewal upon foreigners and that we must go ahead and depend upon their ability to invest in this country, not upon our own.
It is interesting that they turned down a number of amendments to the Bill which we introduced that would have made Investment Canada truly an agency to encourage Canadian investment. The reason they were turned down was because their primary interest, as we saw in the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in New York several months ago, was to go cap in hand to the corporate leaders of the multinationals and say: "Help us out". It is an awful admission of a new Government that it must rely upon those outside our borders to be the architects of our economic renewal. Somehow there has been this blind, almost voodoo-like belief that if all Conservative Members gather around in a circle and chant to themselves long enough and hard enough, economic growth will happen and somehow a form of mystical osmosis will take place.
Let me put forward, for example, a very critical contradiction which we see in the Bill between one set of economic policies and another. The Government has said clearly that it is interested in freer trade in Canada and that it wants to promote opportunity for Canadians to have a wider, broader market for their goods. I suggest that that is a very reasonable and useful issue to debate and examine, but if that is its concern about relying upon freer trade, then surely to goodness it has to re-examine exactly what it is doing in Investment Canada. What we are seeing here is the erosion of the ability of Canadian-based companies to compete more effectively in a freer international environment. If there is any one strong message which has come through all this debate, it is: Let us give our companies a fighting chance in this new, tough, competitive world. In fact, what this Bill will bring, if enacted, is the erosion, a reduction and elimination of that ability.
MO)
I am afraid what we will discover is that if we move on simultaneous fronts to this so-called open-door investment policy, without the ability to determine what the behaviour and performance of Canadian-based subsidiaries will be, we will find ourselves with a handicapped economy in regard to its ability to produce world markets. I would like to be precise in this regard. There is something in the order of 16,500 major enterprises in this country. Some 10,000 of those are foreign

June 6, 1985
Investment Canada Act
controlled. That is the highest percentage of foreign ownership in any country in the world. I would suggest if we move toward any form of continental or world free trade market, even as we proceed under the present GATT negotiations to a further reduction by 1987, that many of these subsidiaries will be required to act in a way which will substantially limit their independence of action.
We in the Liberal Party have great faith in Canadian entrepreneurs. What we have to pay particular attention to is the testimony given by Professor Glen Williams of Carleton University before the committee. He pointed out that contrary to the nice and pure economic models of a continental economist that if you look at the actual performance and behaviour of foreign-owned companies in Canada, there are a number of major institutional and structural impediments to their acting in a similarly economic and beneficial way when compared with Canadian-owned companies.
For example, we know that the demand for imports by Canadian-based subsidiaries is about five times higher than that of Canadian-owned companies. This is even with regard to raw materials. In other words, corporate headquarters sends down the message that these companies must buy from the parent, whether it is at the best price or from the most effective or productive enterprise. As a result, we are faced with companies which have become inefficient producers. We find that in areas such as data processing and in the purchase of machinery and services that the ambition of most Canadian-based subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies is to buy overseas at a much higher level and frequency than Canadian-based companies.
I would make the case to you, Mr. Speaker, that if foreign-owned firms bought their machinery and supplies in Canada to the same extent Canadian-owned firms do, then there might have been close to 300,000 additional jobs in Canada than there actually were in the past year. The actual economic subtraction of jobs in the country, which was created by this import demand of Canadian-based subsidiaries, has lost us close to 300,000 jobs in one year alone. The Minister is fond of saying that it is not a perfect world and that we will not see a total turnover. However, the point I am making is that the continued dependence upon this type of foreign ownership results in a substantial economic withdrawal from the country.
May I also point out that one of the major economic problems we face as a country is our balance of payments. This has an important impact on the rate of our dollar and our international financial standing. Last year, foreign-owned firms sent something in the order of $24 billion out of the Canadian economy. That amounts to approximately 30 per cent of their total sales. At the same time, Canadian-owned firms sent only $5 billion out of Canada, or some 8 per cent of their total sales. In other words, through this incredibly high dependence on foreign ownership, we have major financial leakage in the country.
The point I am making is that the Government is talking about opening the doors of trade, ensuring that Canadians can compete more effectively, while through the Bill before us it is
maintaining and, in fact, enhancing, the type of handicap the Canadian-based companies have to compete with in an international environment. Canadian companies do not get the world product mandate. They do not get the R and D. They have a much higher level of dependence upon imports and sales. As Professor Williams also pointed out, they are subject to some of the whims and caprices of their parent corporations.
For example, let us look at what happened to Canadian General Electric in the past few months. The dividend sheet did not satisfy the stockholders of the new owners of the American-based General Electric Corporation, so the American-based president of that company ordered a stripping of the dividends and assets of Canadian General Electric to help bolster the balance sheet of the American-based company. What did that do to Canadian General Electric's ability to provide for more export markets and to provide for a stronger job-creation ability in Canada? It did nothing. In fact, it substantially reduced its ability to do those things.
In debate in the House and in committee, the Minister has been fond of trying to paint opposition Members as being afraid of the outside world. He should stop pretending that his own recipe for continental dependence and reliance upon the decisions of others is a fearless, new, brave entry into the economic order. I suggest that he is the one with the false bravado and that he has not been prepared to deal in a proper parliamentary way with the parliamentary and committee processes.
The Minister was not prepared to even look at constructive amendments that would help this Bill, amendments that would stay true to its objectives, but would improve upon them. That was probably one of the most disdainful performances by a Minister of this Parliament that I have seen in a long time. It was only through the total inadvertence and miscalculation of Members opposite that we were able to bring in a major amendment which the Minister had simply treated as a nuisance. It is an amendment that will protect people in the real estate field.
Evidence was given before the committee, as the Minister would know if he had bothered to read the record, indicating that the exemption related to real estate transactions was one of the things that led to the major real estate flips in Toronto and could lead to other forms of financial shenanigans like the Seaway and Greymac affair in which people were using foreign-owned, numbered companies based in Lichtenstein with no notification requirements.
We introduced an amendment to block that loophole and to make sure that foreign investment in real estate would be subject to review and notification. Fortunately, because government Members fumbled the ball, that provision will now be part of the law of Investment Canada. That did not happen because of any interest, responsiveness or sensitivity on the part of the Government but only because of the persistence of the Opposition.
June 6, 1985

Since then, a number of commentators have thanked goodness for the existence of that amendment because the figures in the Budget relating to the capital gains exemption and the proposals for the 6 per cent sales tax on materials will do nothing for renters but provide a greater risk for them. We introduced an amendment to provide protection for them.
What is before us is another example of Conservative camouflage. Conservative Members are saying that the economic renewal of Canada will be totally dependent upon the decisions of others who live outside of Canada and are saying that that is the new spirit of entrepreneurship that will exist in Canada. That is a total turn-around. It is the kind of thing that turns the world on its side, such as we have seen with other provisions of the Budget.
All kinds of groups came before the committee including Nova Corporation, McMillan, Binch and the Canadian Labour Congress. They all said that they were seriously concerned, as we move into the new international environment, about the capacity of Canadian companies to produce and respond to new competition, and they felt that that situation had to be corrected.
It is even more ironic if we look at the Budget. The Budget contains one of those grand ironies which we observe from time to time in Parliament. The Government, through its actions on pension benefits, is now offering a three-for-one sale to all pension funds in Canada. In attempting to entice them to invest in small business, the Government took off the lid so that S30 billion of pension funds can be invested in foreign ownership. That, together with the capital gains exemption, will mean that Canadians can now invest in Florida real estate, Swiss art or Chinese watches. The whole thrust of the Budget encourages an outflow of capital from Canada. Yet, the Minister has told us that the economic renewal will be based on capital which flows into Canada from other countries.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has opened up all kinds of sluice-ways which will ensure that billions of dollars of Canadian capital will pour out of the country. I predict that the net reduction which we have seen in the past two years will be geometrically multiplied over the next two or three years. It is ironic and silly. One part of the Government does not know what the other part is doing. Government members are falling all over themselves and contradicting each other with respect to the economic policy of the Government. There is no central strategy. There is no blueprint. It is a make-work project. The Government is the great critic of make-work projects, but it is the ultimate make-work project. Government members make the economic policy by the seat of their pants. There is absolutely no harmony to it other than the rhetorical flourishes.
However, if we look at the hard economic facts, the Minister of Finance is encouraging capital to leave Canada and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) thinks that some capital might flow into Canada. At the same time, by the admission of his own officials, the investment
Investment Canada Act
community in New York and other major foreign capitals, we are told that the net increase of new capital coming into Canada will be marginal.
It is no wonder that one of the most influential economic analysts in Canada, Informetrica, has predicted that by 1986 there will be a net loss of 80,000 jobs in Canada. This Government is the great producer of jobs? What the Government is bringing forward is such an economic horror show that it will scare off capital and jobs and leave a number of Canadian workers and communities vulnerable to takeover. Our technology will be stripped from companies and we will lose our ability to have an effective and competitive force in world markets.
Aside from the basic flaw in the economic reasoning of the Government, we object strongly to the way in which the Bill arrogates star chamber powers to the Minister. I defy any Member of this House to come forward with a piece of legislation which concentrates so much power and control in the hands of one Minister without any form of accountability. The Minister does not report to Cabinet, nor does he report to Parliament, yet he will be making decisions which will be worth billions of dollars and will affect every region of Canada without any cognizance except his own.
We saw how correct the Minister was in his flip-flop on the Domtar issue. He had to be soundly slapped down by the Prime Minister, by Members of the Opposition and the Quebec caucus because he had been insensitive to the economic interests of that region. We will find time and time again that the Minister, who has never shown much responsibility for economic development in the regions, will cause the Government incredible problems. I do not mind that. That is the Government's problem.
The amendments which we have tried to introduce would substantially improve the ability of Parliament to deal with these matters, and they would have made this better legislation. With that point, needless to say with the one exception of the amendment which we proposed-which we believed was a positive step forward-we will oppose the legislation.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Hon. Member, I hope he will be the first to agree that economics and getting people back to work was not the long suit of the Government of which he was a Minister. Will the Hon. Member tell the House just where-and I mean this quite sincerely-his economic policies differ from the social democratic economic policies of the people to his left?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if we could change the rules of Parliament to give me another 20 minutes, I would be glad to comply. The Hon. Member's question gives me an opportunity to clear up some mythology which has been perpetrated recently that somehow this Government, even in its first eight months or nine months in office, has been the great job creator. I would point out to the Hon. Member, because I was the Minister of Employment and Immigration for three years

June 6, 1985
Investment Canada Act
that we created as many jobs in 1980 as this Government is creating now. Between 1975 and 1979, in two of those years, we created 350,000 jobs, which is 100,000 more jobs than this Government will be creating this year. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that suggests that our economic policies were working pretty effectively. We had a very strong and major commitment.
During the period of recession, I would remind the Hon. Member because he was an Hon. Member of this House, we made a very clear, conscious decision that rather than exacerbating the problems of the worldwide recession we were all facing, we would maintain major investments in job-creation programs. We had the special capital recovery program with major investments into the municipalities. We had major job-training programs on which $1.4 billion was to be spent this year, which is about $500 million more than the Hon. Member's Government is spending on job training and development skills. Those were our kinds of interest.
As far as our philosophy is concerned, we believe that this country is a mixed enterprise. It needs investment by both private and public capital. It needs a partnership between the public and private sectors. It does not have some kind of fixed ideological blind side which says that only private enter-preneurship will work. We believe that the two, in combination, will work and we feel that that is the best prescription we can offer to the Government at this time.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the problem with all that the Hon. Member has just said is that-if my memory is sound- Canada had the highest rate of unemployment amongst the OECD countries for 1984. In other words, what the Hon. member's Government was doing was not working. It was working less well for the economy than any of the OECD countries from the standpoint of creating jobs. Does that not perhaps suggest to the Hon. Member that we have to try some new things such as encouraging the private sector?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, first, I would take issue with the Hon. Member. We did not have the highest unemployment figure. We only have to look at his Conservative compatriots in Great Britain to find a much higher unemployment rate than this country has faced. What Great Britain does not have is the kind of very severe regional disparities we do. There is a very thin economic base in parts of the Atlantic Provinces, in parts of northern Quebec and northern Ontario, and in parts of the area which the Hon. Member and I share as Hon. Members from western Canada. We have a large native population where there is no economic base. That is where the kind of public support about which we are talking is needed.
I have no argument with the need for new policies. I think that any Government at any time has to be always searching for better and alternative ways. One of the last acts I undertook as a Minister was in a major area of deregulation in the transportation industry, which I feel was a useful thing to do. I wish the present Minister would follow through on it. He has been holding back. That is an area where we could relieve a lot
of government regulation and allow the private sector management to make their own decisions.
I agree that there are all kinds of areas where new innovation can be undertaken, but I am suggesting that if the Government's intention in this Bill, Investment Canada, is to encourage Canadian investment, it is going about it the wrong way. There is not much encouragement of Canadian investment. In fact, the argument we have made all along is that it is a total dependency upon foreign investment to help the Canadian economy. If the Minister had brought in a real Investment Canada Bill, we might have been prepared to support it.


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment on what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) said about his Government putting more money in the Budget for training than we did. We were told by officials of Employment and Immigration when we looked into past programs, particularly the program for students, that the Liberal programs were very costly to administrate. That was why so much more money had to be put into the programs. The young people got less out of that program than they will out of the Challenge 85 program put together by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) for this summer. That seems to have been symptomatic of a lot of the programs his Government put forward. They were very costly in overhead and encrusted with bureaucratic rules. A lot of people were doing much less than they will in some of the programs we are now developing. This is one factor he should keep in mind when he is bragging about more money being put in his programs. It was not necessarily a very efficient spending of money. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the Hon. Member realizes that Motion No. 24 was adopted by inadvertence the day before yesterday simply because there had not been sufficient advance notice that the question was going to be put. Contrary to what he claimed a moment ago, the amendment did not change anything since we had already taken that situation into account and solved the problem that existed in 1976. The only possible outcome of his amendment motion was to re-establish FIRA's previous standards in that respect and, his claim notwithstanding, the situation remains unchanged.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the average cost of a summer job under our program was about $3,000 per student, which is a very economical way of putting a lot of students back to work. It also managed to get a lot of people working very quickly, which this program is not doing. A lot of students are still waiting because of the delay in getting applications out. I do agree that using the wage subsidy is a useful approach, but I would remind her that we pioneered that approach. We brought in the NEED program in 1983. We put up $500 million and we were able to generate $700 million of private investment at the same time. We proved that
June 6, 1985

we could generate a fair amount of private, voluntary and provincial sector capital, and 1 am glad to see that the new Government has picked up on that, but I do not think they should claim paternity for it because I introduced the program in 1983.
As to the other matter, I simply say that she should go back and read the amendment. Under the Bill as presented, all real estate transactions were exempted from any requirement for notification or review. They are now subject to that review. Therefore, a very important area of investment which was totally ignored by the Government will now be subject to at least notification. It will give the agency concerned the opportunity to determine whether there are untoward things taking place, so I think it is a very important protection for the tenants. I hope the Hon. Member will use her good offices to encourage the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to use that particular measure in an effective way because he does not seem to care much about whether he really reviews things or not.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). Very short, please.


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, it is very evident that the Hon. Member is not in touch with the reality of what is happening in the field. In the oil fields of his own province, as well as in Saskatchewan, because of the direction this Government has taken on both Canadian and foreign investment, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is booming today, something that did not happen under his Government. If you go to Estevan, Weyburn, or Melita, Manitoba, the Member's own province, you will find that unemployment is the lowest ever. There are 35 or 40 drilling rigs working today when there was only one when his Government was in power. The confidence which has been displayed-


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the Hon. Member that the 10 minute period for questions and comments has expired. Debate.


Lloyd Axworthy: May I respond?


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the Hon. Member the 10 minute period for questions and comments has expired.


Lloyd Axworthy: Could I just be allowed to respond briefly to-


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the Hon. Member that the 10 minute period has expired. Debate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rather welcomed the fact that you first called upon the Hon. Member who has just spoken because it gives me an opportunity to speak immediately after him. I wanted an opportunity to hear him out once again, to weigh whatever arguments he may put forth with respect to the Bill before us at third reading stage, because I have been looking at some 45 hours in the House and 40 hours in committee for something of substance which I feel would make
Investment Canada Act
a significant contribution to this debate on the legislation we are now considering. I am disappointed again. The tragic thing as far as the socialist axis over here is concerned, is that they will not accept the raw facts of the past. Perhaps 10 years ago the Hon. Member could have risen in his place and said many of the things he said today, but why does he do it in 1985 when we have a record of 10 years to judge what their policy with respect to FIRA has led to?
I want to be mainly very positive today. I think we are entering a new era. I also think it is very unfortunate that, before the new era even begins, people attempt so desperately to discredit the legislation and take us back to the past and make arguments which have proven to be unworkable. Let me give the facts. Since FIRA was put in place, up until the end of 1984, the total inflow of direct foreign investment in this country dwindled to $3.2 billion.


Lloyd Axworthy: From what?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I say it dwindled because we find that while there was a very refreshing inflow back in 1972 and earlier, year by year, accelerated by the National Energy Program in 1980, we find that it went into a deficit position in 1981 and 1982. In 1980 this country had a net inflow of only $180 million. In 1981 there was a net outflow of $2.9 billion. In 1982 it was a net outflow of $2 billion. In 1983 it was $150 million of net inflow, and in 1984 it was $1.8 billion net inflow.


Lloyd Axworthy: Not bad.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If we add up the figures-


Lloyd Axworthy: You just destroyed your argument.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry-


Lloyd Axworthy: That is not a bad record, $1.8 billion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He says that is not bad. A Conservative Mulroney Government says that kind of record is totally unacceptable in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is unacceptable because in the 10 year history of FIRA, the net inflow was $3.2 billion. The inflow to the United States from other areas of the world during the same period was $111 billion. If we had had even 10 per cent, which people say is the fair share for Canadian participation, we would have had $8 billion more of foreign investment in the country than we actually enjoyed. That is the record which the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) says is not bad. That is totally unacceptable.
What can be said about the so-called Canadianization on which members of the previous Government like to comment? During the FIRA years, Canadianization amounted to $16 billion. However, 42 per cent of that was due to the state

June 6, 1985
Investment Canada Act
taking over and nationalizing Canadian companies. The net amount of private Canadianization was $9 billion. I am very pleased to be able to say today that in nine months, through a new sense of confidence in the country, we have been able to facilitate privatization on behalf of Canadians to the amount of $6.6 billion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Here is the record. The Gulf Canada deal alone, amounting to $5.6 billion, raises the level of Canadianization in the petroleum and gas industry from 40 per cent to 45 per cent. In addition, we were able to facilitate the Texaco deal, amounting to $485 million of Canadianization. The acquisition by Corena-Bancorp amounted to $39 billion. The acquisition of Dominion Life by ManuLife amounted to $157 million. The Imperial Life acquisition amounted to $360 million. Other companies acquired over $6.6 billion in total assets. I can only suggest that that comes from the new sense of confidence that Canadians are once again feeling in their own country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is interesting that as this socialist axis has tried to delay the Investment Canada Bill, we have been getting on with the job of creating jobs in the country through the approval of various non-Canadian investments totalling almost $4 billion, which will result in 26,000 jobs being either saved or created in the country. That is the difference between the facts and the type of discredited argument put forward by the Hon. Member.
That is the background. I will now speak about the future. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry said that we were not getting on with the positive aspects. Passage of the Investment Canada Bill would give the agency the power to do something positive. Under Section 5, there is a specific provision which will, for the first time, enable Investment Canada to go forth and seek Canadian and non-Canadian investment which will help to create the wealth and jobs that the country needs. That is why I am anxious for the legislation to be passed. To the very best of our ability we must prepare ourselves to deal with a volatile economic climate in the world today. In anticipation of the passage of this legislation we have been talking to agency officials about that.
We believe that we must accept the world in the competitive state to which it has evolved. To that end, the Investment Canada Bill will help us to bring together Canadians and non-Canadians in partnership deals, and to blend technology, capital, and people for the productive creation of jobs in the country. We ask all Members of the House to join our spirit of enterprise because it is that spirit of enterprise which will give our economy the momentum it has been lacking for over 10 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: So much for the future, now let's come back to the present.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: By actively encouraging and seeking out investment, Investment Canada will attract new ideas and technologies, give Canadians access to new markets and new capital, and most important, contribute to the creation of new jobs. It is totally inexcusable that the previous Government left areas such as Cape Breton Island with a 29 per cent unemployment level. That will not continue under our Government. The Hon. Member has asked me to speak about the present. Since the Budget was announced, 36 new initiatives have been proposed, which will be announced in due course, with respect to the island of Cape Breton alone.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is the type of action that will be seen from this Government. Jobs will be created where they are needed in this fine country. Mr. Speaker, do you notice that when the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry hears of success, job creation, and an expression of interest in bringing down the 29 per cent unemployment level in Cape Breton he runs from the House?
It is clear that international investors see Canada as a superb location for joint ventures and licence arrangements. We should go out and capitalize on that feeling. Canadian businesses have considerable market experience in the North American market. We suggest they can capitalize on this. We can gain through our technology leadership. We can gain through our tremendous knowledge in marketing, distribution, telecommunications and transportation. These are the things we are hoping to make more positive use of. We should not say no to the non-Canadian who may want to participate. We should be saying in a positive way "let us sit down and talk about it, and if there is enough benefit for Canada, by all means come in and join us in our new prosperity".


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Those are heady words.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Many non-Canadian companies have established or are establishing in Canada to serve North American and even world markets. This is something we would like to develop further. We believe Canada can be held out as virtually the ideal location to get established not only to serve Canada and its people, but the people of North America. It is a stepping-stone. Let us be proud of it. We have one of the finest peoples and one of the finest countries in the world. Why up to this date, certainly not under the previous Government, have we not been willing to work with non-Canadians in developing that tremendous potential?
I would suggest that many Canadian corporations with expertise in advanced technologies and experience in the North American market are ready to join forces with non-Canadian investors and corporations to capitalize on that expertise and experience to which I have been referring. These kinds of international ventures with Canadians and non-Canadian businesses can have a distinctively positive impact on our economic growth. To bring about the economic growth Canada must have. Bill C-15 will help us to present the most positive and
June 6, 1985

inviting image of our country and ourselves to Canadian and non-Canadian investors alike.
The world recognizes Canadian accomplishments, and we should recognize that. This is the way of the future. There is a will in this country to stimulate investment. There is a determination to revitalize the economy. There is a new-found commitment on the part of the Canadian Government to consult and co-operate with the business community, with the labour community, with the provincial governments, all to ensure that most positive and productive relationship possible. The new investment policy imbedded in Bill C-15 is a plan for collaboration for a concerted effort by the public and private sectors.
Investment Canada will work closely with other federal departments. It will, of course, work with our Canadian embassies in foreign lands, with our consulates, and with business associations across the country to promote investment and jobs here. This is a joint venture between all of the important players in Canada for the benefit of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would suggest to Hon. Members, as is so evident in the debate that has developed in this House, that the two Opposition Parties are voices from the past. They feel because they have put programs in place which have been discredited, such as FIRA, being reactionaries, they do not want them changed. They say maintain the old, even if "old" is not working. We say let us change to the new. There is a better way.
Canadians want to break with the past. During the election campaign last fall, Canadians told us they wanted to see FIRA replaced with a more practical and dynamic investment policy. We have done that with Bill C-15 now before us. Bill C-15 is practical and a dynamic investment policy.
As we know, a recent Gallup poll showed that the majority, 62 per cent, of Canadians think that the Government should encourage foreign investment here. Bill C-15 will do that while retaining a review mechanism to safeguard our national interests. In voting today for final passage of Bill C-15, we are voting with the mood of this country. People want what is in Bill C-15. I invite all Members to vote with the Canadian public. Sixty-two per cent of Canadians say we are right, and as far as the unemployed are concerned, they know we are right.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, it is very good of the Minister to bring statistics before the House this morning. I would like to ask him from where his statistics come. I have in front of me statistics most recently released by Statistics Canada that deal specifically with gross in-flows of direct foreign investment into Canada. This is, after all, and I am sure the Minister will agree, what we should be looking at in order to test the impact of FIRA.
Investment Canada Act
According to these statistics, Mr. Speaker, the record looks something like this: In 1980 inflows by foreign investors for direct investment in Canada amounted to $4.2 billion; in 1981, they amounted to $4.7 billion; in 1982, $3.9 billion; in 1983, $3.5 billion and in 1984, $3.6 billion. If you include as well the purchases, the acquisitions, undertaken by specific foreign companies of Canadian businesses, those figures change slightly, but basically you have a period from 1980 through 1984 when in fact the statistics from Statistics Canada demonstrate very little change whatever with respect to inflows of direct foreign investment into Canada.
I have identified the source of my statistics. I have been very precise about what they represent. Could the Minister please comment, first, on these statistics? Second, could he give us a sense of where he got the outlandishly different statistics which he claims represented direct inflows of foreign investment into Canada?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps unwittingly the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has demonstrated once again why the New Democrats working in such close conjunction with the previous Government have led us into the type of deficit position we have. The figures to which the Hon. Member refers are gross figures. He does not take into account the funds that have been leaving the country. It is the net figure that is the important figure. You can see a clear illustration of the woolly type of thinking that comes out of the socialist ranks.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Outflow has nothing to do with FIRA.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They are talking about figures without taking into account what is the net position at the end of the year or the day or the month. The figures which I gave are the most meaningful ones on balance. Has Canada attracted more investment or has more investment gone out of the country in the various years to which I referred? If Hon. Members check that, they will find that on balance the net inflow into Canada was $3.2 billion over a 10-year period.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that the statistics, which provide all sorts of details with respect to both inflows and outflows, demonstrate that by far the great bulk- and I could give him the specifics-of the outflows about which he speaks represents acquisition of direct investment interest from non-residents by residents of Canada, in fact the very Canadianization process to which he referred positively and approvingly within his speech? Why does he bring those statistics into the debate? They undermine his position rather than support it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Again the Hon. Member, presumably unwittingly, raises something to which I referred earlier. The fact is that 42 per cent of what he refers to as Canadian residents are Canadian Governments. It is a nationalization program to which he is referring, wherein almost $7 billion of the figures

June 6, 1985
Investment Canada Act
that they attribute to Canadianization are federal and provincial Governments taking over concerns which used to be foreign-owned and, in the case of Petro-Canada or something like that, simply calling them Canadian without making it abundantly clear that it is nationalization and state ownership about which they are talking.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Minister refers to a woolly statement, 1 would only say, looking across from me, that it is the first time I have ever seen a goat with wool between its ears. The fact of the matter is that I have never heard such incredible, economic convolution in all my life.
The Minister points to net capital outflow. I presume this is a Minister who has some economic responsibilities in the Government. Is he so blind and so ignorant that he is unaware of the fact that the United States has become the central focus of large movements of capital from every country in the world because of its high interest rates? The entire international monetary system is being put in real jeopardy by the inflationary push around the world, and the Minister does not even take note of that fact. God knows why we are in trouble with the Budget, if this is the kind of economic analysis we receive from the Government's chief economic Ministers. Of course there is a net outflow of capital, as there is a net outflow of capital from every other country, because of the policies taken by the Reagan administration and because interest rates are drawing that flow into that country.
If this is to be a reasonably responsible debate, it seems to me that the Minister has some obligation to display-and I know he loves to tell a good story, not get confused by the facts-a tidbit of relevance to reality.
If the Minister is so concerned about the net outflow of capital to the United States in particular, did he personally oppose the proposal and proposition put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), which has taken a very large pool of capital under pension funds, some $30 billion according to the estimate in this week's edition of the Financial Post, and is offering it as a carrot in a three-for-one sale so that large pension funds can now have enormous leakages of Canadian capital into foreign countries in order to get them to invest in small business? If he is as concerned about net accounting as he seems to be, why did he agree with such a proposal, which will have as its end result a massive haemorrhaging of Canadian capital out of the country, not being used for investiment here at home?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the phenomenal interest rate increases which have occurred. However, he is overlooking the facts, and it is the facts with which 1 want to deal today. During the years to which I referred, Canadian interest rates were consistently higher than American ones. The fact is that in 1981, at a time when we had a net outflow of capital of $2.9 billion and higher interest rates than the United States, the Americans with lower interest rates had a net inflow of $22 billion. In 1982, we had a net outflow of $2 billion, with higher interest rates than the Americans. At the
same time, the Americans had a net inflow of $10 billion. Those are lost jobs in Canada that we are talking about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments is now over.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise, first, on a point of order if I may. According to the Order for today, lengths of speeches are pursuant to Standing Order 35(1). Unlimited time exists for the Minister moving the motion and the Member replying immediately after the Minister. I just want to confirm whether that is correct.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the point of order. Once again, due to a certain hesitation on the part of the benches opposite, when it became the initial responsibility of the Minister to rise to his feet to move the motion, he did not. Therefore, we stepped in and Mr. Speaker ruled, before you took the chair, Sir, that the speeches would be limited to 20 minutes. That was the basis upon which both the Minister and I made our remarks, and I presume the same standard would apply.


Claudy Mailly: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Claudy Mailly: With due deference to my House colleague, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is not the way things happened. The fact is that the Chair read the proposed motion to amend the Bill and asked whether we agreed. Those who did said yea, and that is when the Minister rose. The Chair realized that the Opposition did not seem to appreciate what was going on, that the amendment was going to be defeated, and the Whip of the Official Opposition then rose in a hurry and urged his colleague to stand up, and that is how they got sidetracked-


Mr. Gauthier:: I want to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker. What the Hon. Member has just said is completely wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I think it is out of order anyway.
In answer to the question of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon)-

That would have been the case, had the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) risen first to address the Bill. In these circumstances it is the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) who rose in the House, so we are proceeding according to the rules with 20-minute speeches and 10-minute periods of questions and comments.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, thank you for clarifying that matter. I must say that it is a
June 6, 1985

pleasure to come to the end of this debate, frankly, because the debate has been an exercise in fallacious arguments and in trying to push through, in an arrogant fashion, what can only be considered irresponsible legislation. I hope, after the Bill is finally shoved through the House, that there will be some return to civility on the part of the Government.
1 actually hesitated to intervene in the debate this morning because I expected that somehow out of the rafters of the House the ghost-like voices of Sir John A. Macdonald and John Diefenbaker would be heard. I can almost hear their voices now. I can hear Mr. Diefenbaker, with jowls shaking, looking down in concern at the Government and seeing its vision-this new vision for Canada of a stepping-stone society. The national policy of John A. Macdonald has become a stepping-stone economy of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens).
1 believe that tells us what this historic debate has actually brought us to in the House of Commons. I think back to the initial press conference of the Minister quite some time ago and his idle prediction that within two or three months the legislation he proposed would be law. It is not law. First, it is not law-and I am explaining here why we have fought it so strongly-because it is a deeply flawed, dangerous and irresponsible Bill born not out of the concerns and needs of the economy but, rather, out of ideological myth. It is a Bill shaped not to suit the modern conditions and challenges which the economy faces but, instead, the whims of a reactionary Minister.
It is a Bill which has been supported by fallacious and irrelevant arguments of which we just recently had an example with respect to the statistics brought before us today. We have heard arguments which have been designed to obscure what the Bill is attempting to do, as opposed to confronting the serious problems our country faces and trying to do something about them. For the Conservative Government of the country, the arguments surrounding the Bill have been an exercise in propaganda, not an exercise in honesty. The Bill before us has been driven through the House with insensitivity and a type of autocratic arrogance and pride which has made the whole process unhappy, graceless and an insult to the parliamentary traditions of the country. It has been the process typical of a bully, not of an economic leader.
I wish to say how pleased and proud I am of the New Democratic caucus. In its struggle, that caucus has helped to keep the Bill before us from becoming law. I am pleased about that for two reasons. First, as a result of that action, certain takeovers in the country have been subjected to the process of review under FIRA. Had the Bill been in place, they might not have been subjected to a review at all, or to a much weakened process of review.
I am reminded specifically of the workers from Canadian Porcelain who met with the Minister this morning to ask that he intervene and see to it that their community-based co-operative would have a chance to realize its hopes and aspirations
Investment Canada Act
within their community. These workers would not have found it possible to look for redress had we not delayed the Bill, which gave them a chance under the provisions of FIRA. Second, I think it important that the Bill be seen now as part of a broader Conservative economic strategy-an economic strategy which the Budget has brought out clearly to the people of Canada. It is a strategy based on providing handouts, and all sorts of abject support, to foreign investors, speculators and the large oil companies of the country. These are the people who have received the benefits. The people who have paid the price have been the pensioners, the women who looked for action in the Budget and received none and the youth of the country who looked for job expansion and found nothing.
The Bill before us is part of the huge and mighty redistribution which the Government wants to see put in place. It is a redistribution which will hurt the vast majority of the country while helping the foreign investors of whom the Minister speaks. However, this will occur at the expense of our people, our small-businessmen, our young people and pensioners. It will come about at the expense of those who have borne the burdens of raising us all, those who provided the economic support with which the country was built. The flaws, errors and omissions in the Bill before us are truly outstanding.
The Bill before us illustrates an exercise in draftmanship which, frankly, leaves one standing appalled. There are loopholes in the Bill through which it will be possible to drive not just locomotives but dirigibles. There are loopholes in the Bill which will permit the takeover of a branch plant of a branch of an American company without any review process whatsoever. The Bill does not provide for review of branches, just of subsidiaries. There are loopholes in the Bill which do not even allow for the definition of the asset level which is to be considered for purposes of the threshold in the Bill. Again, it will create a field day for lawyers who will be able to make use of that piece of inadvertent or, perhaps, intentional, disaster which is built into the Bill.
It is a Bill which provides new power for the Minister. What I have referred to as the octopus of Canada will have yet one more tentacle over which the minister will have control. It is a Bill which speaks of promoting investment in Canada; yet, it does not have a single specific recommendation within it to extend and support Canadian-owned business. We attempted to remedy that by putting forward an amendment which dealt with a specific mandate for the Minister to assist Canadian-controlled businesses. It is the New Democratic Party which supports Canadian business, not the Members who sit on the government benches. Of course, the Conservative majority voted down that amendment.
The Bill before us has thresholds so high that important enterprises in key communities across the country will no longer be able to turn to Government for the type of bargaining support on takeovers which should be in place. It is a Bill which has rejected important and useful suggestions for new criteria to be looked at in trying to assess net benefit. Unbelievably, the Conservative majority in committee who
5474

June 6, 1985
Investment Canada Act
looked at the Bill actually voted down the criteria dealing with whether or not a foreign company attempting to take over a Canadian firm had a viable economic record or not.
The amendment asked if the foreign company did in fact show in its home country that it was a viable economic actor. Even those in the most abject of Third World countries know that they have to look at the financial viability of a company that is taking something over within their domain. However, this Government does not know that. It would not put that provision into the Bill.
For all its empty talk about commitment to equality for women, for the disabled and for other minority groups, the Government rejected suggestions that the employment equity record of a company in its home country be examined. Therefore, we have a Bill before us which is fatally flawed and backed by the most fallacious arguments of which we can conceive. If I were to put my professorial hat back on in order to grade the economic reasoning of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, I fear that he would be lucky to get an "F".
In the logic that the Minister has put forward, there is nothing that justifies the Bill that has been brought before us. The Minister has spoken of the great decrease in direct foreign investment inflows into this country. In the question I posed to the Minister, I quoted the actual statistics from Statistics Canada that demonstrate very clearly that in the measure that should be looked at, the direct inflows of foreign investment from outside to Canada, because those are the inflows that were supposedly discouraged by FIRA, there has been no significant decrease whatsoever.
The Minister spoke of making Canada part of the world. I hate to have to enlighten him, but we are perhaps the largest trading country in all of North and South America. The aggressiveness in our trade outshines spectacularly that of the United States, a country which trades far less than Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That's not true.


Steven W. Langdon: It is absolutely true. In fact, 25 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product of Canada is traded while something in the order of 11 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product of the United States is traded.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: But they are 10 times as big.


Steven W. Langdon: Those are facts and they show that we trade far, far more than the United States. Because we trade more, we must be aware of what is happening in the international economy. We must be aware of the fact that country after country supports its companies that are battling in the world market-place. France, Britain, Sweden, Switzerland and Japan have powerful programs designed to allow them to trade aggressively, effectively and powerfully; in fact, so much so that they outbargain this Minister flat-footed in the case of automobile quotas, for example.
Those countries are supporting their companies and their people because it means jobs in their countries. Our Minister is stripping away one of those important instruments that permits us to support our companies in the world market. He is not introducing us to the world, he is throwing Canadian companies out into that tough, harsh market-place without the kind of support which any responsible, modern, democratic Government should provide.
The Minister speaks of giving workers jobs. There is no one in this House who is more committed to getting jobs for the 15 per cent of Canadian workers who are out of work than I am. This Bill stops the process of review, but the review process is what gets us those jobs from foreign investment. Anyone who looks with honesty at the reality of the operation of foreign companies and large conglomerates throughout the world will recognize that there are problems. Those companies seek to benefit their home countries and they need to have pressure applied on them to get research and development jobs in Canada, to buy machinery in Canada and to make other purchases in Canada. That is what the review process does. It is to get jobs for Canadians, not to cost jobs for Canadians. By cutting out the review process, the Minister will cost this country jobs. He should be prepared to admit that rather than trying to cloak what he is doing in fallacious arguments.
The Minister should also recognize the fallacy of the other great argument he brings forward, which is that FIRA created a false image of Canada throughout the world. Let me suggest that there is an easy answer to that question. I would suggest that he buy a set of billboards and that he take out some advertising in New York and London, He should buy a set of billboards on which his slogans appear and put them in Paris. That would be no problem. However, he should not use that excuse to change crucial pieces of legislation that support Canadian communities and protect Canadian jobs.
In putting this legislation through the House, let us recognize as well that the Minister at every stage has tried to cut off debate and to block witnesses. There were 28 witnesses who wanted to speak to the Regional Development Committee but were prevented from doing so. Responsible amendments were brought before the House by the Opposition but only the one that got through by mistake was accepted. Thank God for that one.
We have before us a Bill which is faulty and irresponsible and which has been backed by fallacious arguments. It is a Bill which has been rammed through the House in as nasty and autocratic a manner as one could imagine. It is a Bill which turns its back on the real challenge of the future which is to Canadianize our economy.
We on this side of the House are proud of Canadian businesses. We are proud to support Canadian businesses that are fighting in the tough international market-place. If that is what nationalism is about, I am proud to be a nationalist. I am proud to accept a term which the Minister seems to think is a dirty word. To me, nationalism means standing up for the interests of our country, helping our businesses to get the kind of fair break that they deserve against huge giants which are
June 6, 1985

far bigger and more powerful than the companies we have here in Canada. I am proud that there are now Canadian-owned multinational companies that can operate throughout the world. I want to see more of them. I want this country to be a key actor in the world economy but the way to have that happen is not through this faulty, shoddy piece of legislation. It will happen by taking leadership, by passing up this kind of ideological myth-making and by facing the future rather than running away from the past.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member could give us a few more details on his billboard economics. How many billboards would he propose to put in New York? What would he have these billboards say? What kind of a budget would he allow us as far as these billboards are concerned?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, frankly, I thought that I would put the Minister's face on each billboard. Second, I thought that we simply could have a quote from the Minister which would say: "Open for business-Canada welcomes foreign investment". If the Minister had wished to have endorsation messages from the spokespeople for his Ministry and each of the opposition Parties, I suspect that we would have been quite pleased. I doubt that he would want our faces on the billboard as well, but I would certainly be prepared to add a clause which would say: '.We, too, welcome foreign investment in the country". We believe, under the review mechanisms which exist, that foreign investment can make a real contribution to the country.
I suspect that we could probably have paid the costs of the billboards by cancelling a few of the trips to New York, London and Paris which have been made by Ministers who have tried to deliver the message. If it is propaganda in which we are interested, billboards represent a magnificent option, compared to this gutting legislation which will hurt communities and workers across the country.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, the Member began his remarks by saying that we were speaking from an ideological position. I do not know why he should be surprised at that. We spent the entire campaign telling Canadians that we wanted to open up the country to foreign investment. He has been speaking for 20 minutes on his ideological position. Are we not entitled to speak on our ideological position?
He went on to say that we used fallacious and irrelevant arguments. Well, if we have a philosophical position, it is based on the premise of a free market system, on an investment policy, and on the jobs which will flow from that philosophy. It is all right for him to say that the arguments are fallacious and irrelevant, if he continues to argue from his socialist position. Of course, our position will look irrelevant and illogical if he has a socialist mind-set and tries to apply his arguments to a free market system. If he will think for a moment of a wholesome free market system, then he will see
Investment Canada Act
that the arguments which flow out of the legislation are totally relevant, logical and that they hold water.
He said that the process has been an insult to the parliamentary tradition of Canada. Wait a minute. We spend about eight weeks last summer arguing for an open business economy in Canada. As a result of that campaign-and his Party voted to have FIRA made stronger-we elected 211 Members. Is it not logical to assume, as those arguments were ventilated for eight weeks, that the Government which was elected on that platform should be entitled to its legislation? It seems to me that is parliamentary tradition.
The task force on reform visited the United Kingdom a few weeks ago. The thrust of the U.K. Government's entire parliamentary calendar was that once a Government is elected and it follows through on the manifesto which it presented during the election campaign, then it is entitled to the legislation. The Hon. Member should not say, because he is arguing from a socialist position against our philosophy, and because we have imposed closure, that we are violating parliamentary tradition. We are simply following through on what we said we would do.
He also argued that the Bill will redistribute across the country. Of course it will. The socialists would like to have it done through a central agency. We want to distribute on a freedom basis in order to let the market forces work. It does work.
Last week I received a news release from a company in British Columbia. Partly as a result of the cancellation of the National Energy Program, that company is now able to build a fertilizer plant in my riding. That will provide 1,300 jobs during the construction period and it will provide 200 jobs when the plant is in operation. That is what this kind of program does. Opposition Members want to have direct job-creation programs. That is what this kind of a market-oriented program will do.
If the Hon. Member wants to argue from his socialist position, he should say that he is a socialist, that he is arguing from a socialist philosophy and, therefore, the legislation seems illogical to him. I would ask the Hon. Member to please not say that when we argue from a free market concept we are illogical. He should not impose his arguments on our philosophy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous respect for Conservative ideology. I believe it is a particular world view which is consistent, logical and incorrect. Nevertheless, it is deserving of respect. 1 would welcome debates of the sort to which the Hon. Member has referred. However, in the House, we are talking as Canadians representing our constituents; 1.5 million of whom are out of work. We should be talking about practical, real and immediate ways to get the country going once again. This is not a debating society in which we trade views with respect to philosophy. As I see it, this is a parliamentary chamber in which we try to grapple with the economic problems of the country, in a pragmatic and realistic way.

June 6, 1985
Investment Canada Act
We look at the facts and try to assess what we are doing wrong and attempt to correct it. I believe that is useful. It is something for which the people of Canada pay us to do. On the fringes, occasionally it is useful to indulge in an ideological exchange. Some day I might have a debate about why, in my basic commitments, I would call myself a socialist, but we are not talking about that today. We are talking about practical pieces of legislation. To debate that in a pragmatic, careful and serious manner is important to the future of Canada. We should not be ideological about it. We should not let our ideological baggage shape what we do. We should let reality shape what we do.
The Hon. Member suggested that parliamentary traditions were important to understand. I agree. Certainly, the Government was elected on the basis of a great many promises last summer. Most of those promises have been broken. God knows why the Government did not break this promise, as I would have welcomed that. The point is that parliamentary tradition permits a full presentation of alternate points of view. As well, it permits the capacity for the ordinary people of Canada to have some input. What bothered me most about the way this was done was that 28 witnesses from across this country wanted to testify and they were prevented from doing so by the Conservative majority who railroaded this Bill through.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments has now expired. We shall resume debate.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not going to dwell on the negative side and on the past like the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Like the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), I see myself as a Member for today and tomorrow, and I therefore prefer to concentrate on the very positive aspects of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully to Opposition Members on this Bill. They painted such a terrifying picture of the harm done by foreign investment that I found it hard to believe they were merely doing it out of partisanship or some kind of phobia. I went around my riding to find out for myself what the facts were about foreign ownership in Gatineau. I found, Mr. Speaker, that, contrary to what the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party Opposition have been saying, foreign companies established in Gatineau since the beginning of this century and new companies added since then tend to re-invest in their facilities as much as Canadians do. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, they do as much as, and in some cases even more than, some Canadian companies do for research and development. They do not abruptly close down unprofitable plants in the riding, they do not export tremendous sums of money to their own country, thereby harming our currency, and they have not managed to impose any regulations that would affect our sovereignty or economic growth.
On the contrary, they are very responsible members of our community.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, they are not restricting Canadian branches to the domestic market, excluding them from markets in their own country or anywhere else in the world. Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention a specific example. That example is ERCO, a branch of Albright & Wilson Ltd., the United Kingdom's second largest producer of chemical products. This company's products are manufactured in seventeen countries and distributed throughout the world. Albright & Wilson Ltd. is part of Tenneco Inc., a larger U.S. industrial conglomerate whose activities include oil, gas pipelines, chemical products, shipbuilding and insurance. In fact, ERCO is one of those multinationals which our colleagues opposite are so fond of criticizing. ERCO, Mr. Speaker, started in 1887 and the town of Buckingham on the Lievre River. At first, the plant produced elemental phosphorus for the Canadian match industry. Elemental phosphorus was obtained from locally mined apatite and extracted using electric power generated by the falls of the Lievre River. Until 1950, ERCO's production operations were restricted to Buckingham, the site of its first plant. Today, 35 years later, ERCO Industries has five branches, including the Buckingham plant. It is one of the largest Canadian companies with annual sales of $214 million. Mr. Speaker, ERCO is the sole Canadian producer of elemental phosphorus and industrial phosphate, and the largest producer of sodium chlorate in the world. Its products are sold both domestically and internationally. The company even has a warehouse in the United States to supply the American market. If we look at the sales figures, 61 per cent of sales are in Canada, 33 per cent in the United States and 6 per cent elsewhere.
As for research and development, ERCO has had its own separate services and its research and development centre for 30 years. It is located in Toronto, Ontario, and employs twelve experts, six of whom are Ph.D.s, and ten technicians and office staff. They also have a technical library, and the company spends nearly $2 million annually on these research services.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, each plant has a group responsible for development which reports to the plant's management. Speaking of management, Mr. Speaker, ERCO is fully Canadian, from the president down to the employees, and has been for 25 years. All decisions are made in Canada, including the decision to re-invest half of the profits in modernizing and expanding the plant, which was started ten years ago. Mr. Speaker, the situation differs completely from the image we have been given of foreign companies.
Mr. Speaker, I could name a few more: CIP, for instance, which was a U.S.-owned company and now belongs to Canadians, not because we wanted to Canadianize it for ideological reason but because it was so well managed that it had become
June 6, 1985

very attractive to probably our largest investor in Canada, Canadian Pacific. I am referring to Maclaren, a very prosperous family-owned company which was sold quite recently to the Noranda group. Did Noranda start laying off employees right away? It did not! It modernized the plant and is now training and re-training employees in the most advanced pulp and paper technology. And what is more, Mr. Speaker, Noranda is also part of an international complex.
I was comparing a foreign company and a Canadian company to demonstrate that their behaviour is the same. Maclaren is now starting a re-forestation program that will benefit our forests in the Outaouais area. And like ERCO, which is a foreign company, Maclaren has joined me and the Municipality of Notre-Dame-du-Laus in seeking a solution to a situation where a sawmill was closed because of a lack of markets, and as you know, Mr. Speaker, the lumber market is in very bad shape. So this is not exactly the picture we have been given of the typical foreign company that wants to invest in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, earlier we were talking about a poll that said that the majority of Canadians favoured foreign investment. On June 3, there was a headline in the Ottawa newspaper Le Droit which said: Yes to foreign capital! Interestingly, I looked at the breakdown of this poll, and it says here that the 62 per cent who were in favour of foreign investment included 50 per cent of the respondents who were NDP supporters, and who made up 18 to 20 per cent of the group. This means that a large number of Canadian NDP supporters are for foreign investment. In addition, nearly two-thirds of the Liberals are in favour of foreign investment, and of course a very large majority of Conservatives are in favour of foreign investment in this country. The question asked in this poll was: In your opinion, should Prime Minister Brian Mulroney encourage or discourage foreign investment in Canada? So 62 per cent said: encourage, and 19 per cent said: discourage. As I explained before, the answers did not depend on the politics of the respondents, since they all seemed to think there was something good in it.
Mr. Speaker, it is therefore a fallacy to say that only a small minority of very wealthy pro-U.S. capitalists who are too scared to develop their own economy are interested in foreign investment. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, they are very sophisticated people with a vision of Canada and nationalist hearts beating in their chests, as the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor said. But they do not equate nationalism with statism, it simply means they are proud to be Canadians and they want to protect our quality of life. That is not closing the door to foreigners who do come up with excellent ideas and are prepared to work with us to solve our problems.
Mr. Speaker, this brings me to the many allegations that we failed to keep our election promises. As 1 said before, what the Opposition calls promises we call solutions we wanted to bring to our problems. Our goal was to find solutions to our problems, including the shortage of investment capital. We look
Investment Canada Act
upon foreign capital as a source of development financing, and there is no reason to close our door. FIRA had a negative impact, so much so that a Conference Board of Canada study concluded that one of the problems created by the review agency was that it attracted much political and doctrinal intervention. An example of that was the oil industry, Mr. Speaker, a sector which was already creating jobs and whose future employment opportunities were very promising. A good many Gatineau residents found jobs in Western Canada's oil industry, not to mention others on the payrolls of manufacturing plants related to the petroleum sector.
Mr. Speaker, this fear of foreigners and this propensity for nationalizing potentially profitable companies had a predictable effect: the country's economic development came to a standstill and this was a significant factor in our slide into a recession even worse than that experienced by neighbouring countries with which we compete. The bottom line was that they nationalized a disaster when they could have put their bets on a very dynamic sector that could have helped us cushion the impact of the impending world-wide crisis. No, Sir, they undermined and weakened the industry because they chose to take a doctrinal and ideological approach rather than see it as an economic development sector.
That, Mr. Speaker, is precisely why I listened with great concern to what Hon. Members were again telling us this morning. They have not changed their tune and they did not come up with anything new. They maintain that we did not listen to Canadians, but I think we did and the polls bear me out. What is more, Mr. Speaker, I sit on the standing committee of the House which studied this Bill, and we heard many witnesses who shared the views of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor and those of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). We heard them out, we made notes of what they had to say, but then we also paid attention to other people who appeared before the committee to tell us they firmly believe that the review agency as it is structured did impede Canada's growth. There has to be some screening in key sectors, particularly those related to our culture and our identity as Canadians. But statistics did show that this mechanism slowed down the decision-making process to the extent that barely 5 or 6 per cent of all applications ever came up for review.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it would have been illogical to ignore the fact that economic experts and most people in Canada were urging us to do something about the agency because it did not foster development. That is precisely what we did, after listening to hours of discussions and evidence by various witnesses, and it must be kept in mind that this Bill contains a safety valve. There will be review levels and protected sectors, but what is even more important is that this Bill reflects a very positive attitude toward investment.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) mentioned France a while ago; he gave that country as an example

June 6, 1985
Investment Canada Act
and said that France promotes domestic investment, and I imagine he meant that it discourages foreign investment of at least is not as favourable to foreign investors as Canada will now be. I was in France recently, Mr. Speaker, as President of the Canada-France Parliamentary Association and I was taken around various regions by Socialist Members of the Government who took me to such places as the Dordogne, and I also visited Alsace with a Centrist Member of the National Assembly. Everywhere 1 found that these parliamentarians, whether Socialists ou Centrists, all said: You know, our greatest problem is to update our industries; the major problem is that our nationalized industries are not up to date; we had a lot more problems with Renault than with Peugeot; during the crisis, Peugeot acted with courage and showed good management as it should have done. They tightened their belts, made changes in job training and became more competitive, while Renault, because of the state bureaucracy, was slower to react, which caused us to lose markets, and we are now in difficulty.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, even in France where there is a Socialist Government, people realize that the economy is a reality and has nothing to do with theory, rhetorics and ideology. This Bill falls pretty much into line with the attitude now prevailing in France as well, because the Government there had to acknowledge the mistake it made early in its mandate in creating artificial jobs in the public service. It made mistakes in discouraging the private sector, and it now finds that the answers to its problems are the same as those we are suggesting. Therefore, I am quite ready to support this Bill. We shall be watchful in this case as in the case of our other pieces of legislation, such as the incentives for Canadian businesses that deal with the Government to provide equal opportunities for women. It is through this type of legislation, and I am not talking about Bill C-15 which deals with investment, but about the Bill introduced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss Macdonald), that we shall be in a position to ensure equality for women. I therefore find it passing strange to hear my colleagues speak about foreign investment as though it were a multi-headed monster which will swallow us, emasculate our men, eliminate equal opportunities for our women and ruin our cultural sector.
I think that Members opposite should try to live in this day and age. It is good to live today, better than yesterday, and it will be even better tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions, comments. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Either the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) is dreaming in colour, Mr. Speaker, or she has not followed the debate. We have never said that foreign investments were bad for Canada. We have said that the foreign control of the Canadian economy was not particularly desirable. We have criticized the Bill in a constructive way in an
effort to improve it. We have never said that foreign interests are not welcome in Canada. Far from that! They are quite welcome, but we would like them first to be subjected to a review process to make sure that Canada-


An Hon. Member:: One o'clock!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am really sorry. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock, the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) yesterday put on a display of fireworks full of sound and fury, after his display of the day before in the House of Commons, for the most part this signified nothing. His remarks concerning the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), calling her "baby", a "titmouse", and a "poltroon", while being cheered on by other members of the Government, finally exposed the Tory attitude toward the women of the country.
What an insult to women to hear the derogatory remarks-


Mr. Dick:: Is she a woman?


Don Boudria: -of the Minister of Justice, responsible for equality of women, whose feeble mind could only find one area in which to criticize the distinguished Member for Hamilton East, that being the fact that she is a woman.
Derogatory and sexist remarks such as "baby" and "poltroon" ought to be made unparliamentary. What is a poltroon? It is a worthless wretch. That is what the Minister of Justice and his cheering cronies on the other side consider a woman who stands up for herself on issues that she strongly believes in.
We remember the women's debate last summer during the campaign. Where is all the Tory concern for women now? "Poltroon" sums up how the Tories see women. First, broken promises, and now insults. Not only the Minister of Justice, but the whole Tory caucus, owe women an apology. Instead of letting him flounder like a bellowing, beached whale, the Tory Members gave that discredited Minister a standing ovation. The Tories promised-
June 6, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: 

OLD AGE SECURITY


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) received a telegram yesterday containing the following resolution, and I quote:
Whereas according to a survey conducted by the National Advisory Council on Aging, Government allowances constitute half of the total income of the elderly in Canada;
Whereas the elderly have paid and are still paying, with good grace, taxes and income tax to ensure they have some protection so they will at least be able to meet their basic needs;
Whereas the Mulroney Government was elected on its promise to eliminate the ceiling on indexation of Old Age Security Pensions imposed by the Trudeau Government;
Whereas Mr. Mulroney has admitted that the measures announced by Mr. Wilson are a violation of the promises made by the Progressive Conservative Party in 1984.
The Quebec Senior Citizen's Federation demands that the Mulroney Government reinstate full cost of living indexation for Old Age Security Pensions, retroactive to January 1, 1985.
Yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Bertrand) refused to meet this group. Next Wednesday, the Leader of the New Democratic Party will be meeting the group in Montreal.
As New Democrats, we challenge the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp)-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his 90 seconds have expired. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, during the last three years more than 1,400 families lost their farms, while in 1979 there were only 25 foreclosures. Why the difference? Well, in 1979 Canadian agriculture was prospering, with good crops and good prices. As a result, in order to widen their base and increase their productivity, ambitious farmers borrowed capital from banks anxious to lend. Then came 1981 when the prices for wheat and cattle dropped below the break-even point.
During 1982 and 1983 prices stagnated and interest rates soared, pushing up farmers' debts. Some banks foreclosed, and now there are some 50,000 Canadian farmers experiencing serious Financial difficulties. Unless something positive is done, some 1,700 more may go under, and the banks will own a lot of land.
Why do the banks expect repayment when a farmer has no crop? Farming is a long-term business, and not a one or two year operation. If the banks would make their loans over a 20 or 25 year period, most of the farmers would survive. We cannot afford to lose these farmers. Surely when we can send a man to the moon we can solve this problem. Remember, the land will not be moving away, and I do not want the farm families to be moving away either.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the plight of over 600 CP Rail pensioners and over 400 pensioners' widows in my riding. We learned last week in Moose Jaw that tentative contracts signed by CP Rail and three of its national unions included agreements which eliminated VIA Rail passes for CP employees as well as for pensioners or their widows.
The present employees of CP Rail have the union bargaining team to represent their concerns and have supposedly received something in exchange for the elimination of the passes. While this may not be acceptable to the rank and File of the brotherhoods, they can now vote on whether or not to ratify this agreement. However, what choice do the pensioners have? Who speaks for them at the bargaining table? These pensioners worked hard for many years, often under adverse conditions, with low salaries. They now receive low pensions without the benefit of indexing and, to add insult to injury, they are now to lose their rail passes.
I call on all Hon. Members of the House to contact CP Rail and union officials in their areas, to indicate total disapproval of this agreement. I further call on CP Rail to take leadership in this area, and immediately reinstate the VIA Rail passes for all pensioners.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, with the exception of accountants and tax lawyers whom small businessmen will have to hire to understand the entire implications of the new budget, very few Canadians will take advantage of those measures allegedly meant to create jobs. This

June 6, 1985
was acknowledged by the Panel sponsored by the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corporation that met to consider the Budget.
The task force which included two accountants and two lawyers stated and I quote:

The capital gains exemption will do little or nothing to stimulate investment, because it rewards investment decisions that would have been made without the tax benefits.
[ Translation]
The capital gain exemption is a $125,000 gift to the rich.
The Budget was supposed to set a climate of confidence for investors in small- and medium-sized businesses but according to an expert on the task force:

-that confidence just isn't there. Everyone has taken the attitude that you've got to take advantage of some of these tax breaks right now because the rules could change very easily.

Rather than rewarding investors for investments already made in the country or abroad by giving them a capital gain exemption, such exemption should be restructured to stimulate investments made in Canadian concerns after the Budget. It would be more effective to stimulate investments in small- and medium-sized businesses and thus to create jobs.



FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked and disappointed to learn that the Conservative Government has decided not to assist any more multi-sport events in Canada for the rest of this decade. The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) admits that this moratorium on financial support will impede cities from seeking such events into the early 1990s. The new policy in fact requires Canadian organizations holding the franchise for specific multi-sport games to secure a statement of support from the federal Government before beginning the process of selecting a Canadian host city, if they hope to receive federal funding.
This interference by the Conservative Government in Canadian amateur sport is part of one more broken Conservative election promise. The Conservative Party committed itself "to maintaining the highest level of federal support for amateur sport in Canada". The Conservative Government now
plans to channel its "limited financial resources towards the funding of our high performance athletes".
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Conservatives have forgotten how important international sporting events in Canada are in inspiring young Canadians to become high performance athletes. They have now given the boot to organizations and cities across the country, including London, Ontario, in its bid for the 1991 Pan American Games, and Thunder Bay, Ontario, in its hopes for the 1991 Nordic Games. At the same time the Charitable Donations Tax Credit, also promised by the Conservatives last summer, has not been included in the May 23 Budget.


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



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, how distressing it is to hear day after day in the House Liberal Members blame the Progressive Conservative Government for everything under the sun. Among other things, they rake this Government over the coals with respect to pension indexation, yet when they were in office they capped the indexation at 6 per cent, which was a loss of 50 per cent in inflation.
Another admission they never make either, Mr. Speaker, is that they never told widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 that the Liberal Government forgot all about them when it was in office. Well, we did think about them. Liberal and NDP Members alike mislead the elderly by not telling them the whole truth. They do not repeat the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the Budget speech, so I will quote them for the Liberals:
The Government will review the adequacy of payments in light of future circumstances and will increase them as resources permit.
This week, Mr. Speaker, I held a conference for senior citizens in my riding and all of them did understand because I gave them a fair and positive explanation-I repeat, fair and positive.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are up against a negative Opposition. They were bankrupt of ideas, so nothing has changed for them. When they sat on the Government benches they could do no wrong. Now that they are in Opposition, nothing doing, they still want to be in the driver's seat as if theirs were the sole and only Party entrusted with the truth. How pitiful and regretful!
June 6, 1985



PARLIAMENT


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, it gave me great pleasure as a delegate from the Canadian Parliament to attend the 13th Annual Meeting of Canadian and European parliamentarians.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were cousins, and today we have become friends. After having attended the workshops and the discussion meetings together, we will be in a better position tomorrow to understand the wishes and needs of one another, and to work together at reaching solutions that will be profitable for both groups.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give all Members in this House, and to you too, Mr. Speaker, an idea of the monthly budget of senior citizens from whom the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is requiring a sacrifice.
To start with, they get $605.20 a month. Their rent is $240 per month; hydro $21.47 per month; heating $57 per month; telephone $17; fire, theft and life insurance $20.83; water tax $5; food $216.50 per month, or $50 per week, or $2.40 per meal.
All that is left after deducting the above items is $27.40 per month. Out of those $27.40 per month they must buy clothes, drugs that are not covered by health care, dental care, glasses, household maintenance, appliance repair, transportation, newspapers and recreation.
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would tell senior citizens where they are going to cut their costs. Will they be cutting on meals, will they cancel their insurance?
Mr. Speaker, I feel it is invidious to ask our senior citizens, who built this country, to make still more sacrifices.



SITUATION OF GASOLINE RETAILER

Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, a very special case has just been referred to me. The owner of ten gas stations in Hamilton, Guelph, Oakville, Mississauga and Kingston, a well-established independent distributor who has
Oral Questions
been operating for eight years with 120 employees and a volume of sales of over 14 million gallons a year, has been in a very precarious situation since 1982. After being forced to close seven of his stations over the past three years, he has been dealt an even harder blow. Even though this might seem hard to believe, this distributor must purchase gas for his business from the Sunoco company, his main supplier, which sells him this product 1 V5 cents more than to its own gas stations.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must say that this operator has already suffered heavy losses and is just about ready to simply close down. In his own words, and I quote:

It is inconceivable that such a thing happened in a country supposedly supporting individuals' rights and freedoms. There is no control, and independents have their heads under the guillotine.
There is a grave problem in southern Ontario. At the moment majors can lower their selling price, or otherwise provide their subsidiaries with special support of some kind, and independents are left hanging there in the situation where they are losing their shirts, not their shorts.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for some time to ask a question of the Prime Minister relating to the Budget. It is a question that has been put to him before in this House, to his Minister of Finance, and to the Minister of National Health and Welfare repeatedly.
Last July 26 in Sherbrooke the Prime Minister swore that he was totally committed to:
-reinstate complete indexing of old age pensions to the actual cost of living.
Those were his words.
Why has that promise been broken in the Budget? He must have been listening to what our senior citizens and, indeed, what the country have been saying, from one end to the other, about this broken promise to our retired people and the elderly in Canada. Will the Prime Minister use this occasion to confirm his promise that he made to the people of Canada last July, and reinstate indexation of old age pensions?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, one of the serious problems facing the elderly, and all Canadians, is the state of the public finances.

June 6, 1985
Oral Questions
Ten years ago we were spending approximately $1 in every $9 of revenues to service the debt. It is now $1 in $3. The debt has gone from $18 billion to $190 billion, and built into the system is a possibility of a $400 billion deficit. Where would the elderly be if, to service this debt, it required 40 per cent and 50 per cent of government revenues? That is exactly the tragic heritage we were left by the Liberal Party. Everybody knows that we must begin to deal with it, beginning with the senior citizens to whom we owe so much.
We will be conducting ourselves in such a way as to bring down inflation and to keep it down, to make sure jobs are created, that new strength is brought back to the economy so we can do not just what we have been doing for our elderly and others but more, because the elderly are entitled to everything that a grateful nation can provide.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is not the language the Prime Minister was using during the election, either about the deficit or about our senior citizens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The fact remains he has left another broken promise on the floor of the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance have been telling senior citizens living in poverty, in defence of this Budget that they have to suffer in the name of some grand new job creation strategy.
I have in my hand a secret document entitled "Communications Plan-Labour Market Development Strategy". This plan is a plan for announcing a job creation strategy on June 18. The Government plans, apparently, to implement six programs. This document was signed three days ago by the Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration, who said that we have to be careful here because these programs-I am using his words, Mr. Speaker-"look very much like the old approach to programming".
This Government in the Budget-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. This is a very long preamble. Does the right hon. gentleman have a question, please?


John Napier Turner: I do, Sir, and I hope to the response to this question you will apply the same evenhanded treatment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Apologize.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Why does that Budget parade a new series of job programs when the Deputy Minister in the document says, "We have to try to dress them up because they are the same old programs?"


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the document to which my right hon. friend refers. I will tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, that we do not have to dress up because it resembles in no way what transpired before, and that is the 201,000 new jobs that have been created since this Government was sworn in-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -including the 89,000 new jobs created in April alone, which represented the largest single monthly job creation initiative in almost five years in Canada. That is brand new compared to what the Liberals were doing. That is solid job creation, which means the beginnings of a return to sustained prosperity in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUDGET STATEMENTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this document makes clear that the Conservative Government is still coasting on old Liberal programs and, what is more, the document relates to jobs which will last for only 16 weeks. In the Budget the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister talked about a long-term private sector strategy. Why does that strategy conflict with the document which the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration will table in about a week? What an extraordinary gap in philosophy as paraded in the Budget and revealed in the Minister's own document!


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the Hon. Member Finally got around to recognizing that there is a new labour market strategy in place. May I tell him that the very first program coming out of that is Challenge 85, which was put together for young people, or students, this summer. Some
67,000	young people have benefited from that program so far, as against the 50,000 last summer who did not have career-related jobs-67,000 as against 50,000.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I can also tell the Hon. Member that this labour market strategy puts into effect something which the previous Government never did, that is, the provision of multiyear funding for the labour market strategy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
June 6, 1985


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO DEPUTY MINISTER
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I remind her of her statement in the House on April 16 that the whole plan moved away from short-term, job-creation dead-ends which used to be in effect. Does the Minister agree with her Deputy Minister who said in this secret document: "Individuals should be therefore expected to spend a reasonable length of time on projects, at least 16 weeks". Does she think that 16 weeks is long-term job creation?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am really so pleased, after all this period of time, to see members of the Liberal Opposition taking some interest in jobs and training. Day after day I have been sitting here waiting for them to ask about it, and they have not opened their mouths.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We have not gone the route of the Liberal Party in trying to bypass the provinces and the private sector in developing this new strategy. We have worked with the other economic and social partners to put together a strategy which will provide training and job creation for some
400,000	Canadians.


OPINION OF DEPUTY MINISTER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately that opinion is not shared by her Deputy Minister who indicated in the same document, signed three days ago: "There is a risk of serious misinterpretation if these terms and conditions of the new employment programs are read in isolation. They look very much like the old approach to programming". Her own Deputy Minister is now on record as telling the almost two million unemployed Canadians that the Government has failed to bring in new ideas. Will she admit that the eight months' hoax on Canada's unemployed is up, and that she should table the programs in the House today, instead of waiting until June 18 to bring in a gussied up version of "Second-hand Rose"?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member always thinks that she can dish it out, but I have not noticed that she has been able to take it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: One of the things which the Government has done, so far in eight months in office, was to put $2 billion into job creation and training; $2 billion in eight months. It has been able to do something which the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry could not do during the time that he was Minister of this Department. He could not get long-term funding. He had to go on ad hoc measures, one after the other, because the previous Liberal Government did not believe in anything but ad hoc measures. It would not take a long-term
Oral Questions
view of the need for training and job creation. That is what is different. The question is one which deals with job creation and training, and already some-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Answers are becoming long, too.


FINANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Government proposes to raise some $245 million from its proposal to deindex old age pensions. Yesterday the Minister said that if there had been any other way to meet the deficit needs, he would not have supported such deindexing. Would the Minister now be prepared to recommend to his Cabinet colleagues that an interest charge should be placed on the deferred taxes of corporations? If so, would he do so in order to protect the needs of pensioners, who would therefore not have to pay the additional amounts, and to raise for the Treasury of Canada in excess of $500 million?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance to announce any changes to the tax structure. I return to the position which I took yesterday in the House. When we look at the structural debt of the country and the effect of that debt load-the cost of the debt, the servicing of the debt on a day by day basis, and its effect on social programs-we realize that that is money which could have been better used had we not had that debt. That is the issue with which we have to deal, not only to preserve the programs but to get the matter turned around.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not recognize that the deferred taxes of the major corporate sector are indeed a debt to the country? Does he not, therefore, think that it would be appropriate to ask those who owe the country many billions of dollars at least to pay interest on the money they owe, in order that the costs to senior citizens do not have to be raised?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the Hon. Member that those credits have been earned over the years by companies. In earning those credits, those companies have created the jobs which I think the Hon. Member is pleased have been created. I should remind him that the major thrust of the Budget is to create more jobs by encouraging the private sector, and by reinforcing the clear record of success over the past nine months, wherein 201,000 jobs have been created by the private sector which is responding positively to the new direction of the Government.

June 6, 1985
Oral Questions AMOUNT OF DEFERRED TAXES


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, recognizing that a deferred tax is a tax which one might presume should be paid at some point, is it not more reasonable that those who owe the country billions of dollars in deferred taxes should, at the very least, pay a reasonable interest for the deferral so that we do not have to reduce the incomes of those who worked to create this country by reducing their pensions, and thereby reducing their ability to purchase and provide for themselves?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if we follow through with the direction in which the Hon. Member wants to go, if he wants to wipe out the forest products industry, the mining industry, and the steel industry in Hamilton, an industry which supports many workers in this riding, we will see fewer jobs in those industries, and that will be on his head.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Mr. Speaker:: 1 should like to indicate to the House the presence in our gallery of Mrs. Eva Gredal, Member of the Danish Parliament, who is the leader of a delegation from the European Parliament. The delegation is in Canada for the thirteenth annual meeting of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OLD AGE SECURITY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, to hear our new Robin Hood, 1985 version, who takes from the poor to give to the rich, he wants to get rid of the elderly altogether. My question is directed to the Prime Mnis-ter, Mr. Speaker.
The day before yesterday, six national organizations denounced the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in Quebec City, the three main organizations that represent over 200,000 senior citizens asked me to put the following question to the Prime Minister: Will the Prime Minister undertake today to restore full cost of living indexing for Old Age Security Pensions, as he solemnly promised to do during the election campaign?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the Hon. Member to what he said on November 30, 1982. I would also refer him to what the former Minister of National Health and Welfare said in the House, that is, that if the deficit is allowed to continue, then the very money we are spending on the debt load is money that we cannot use for social programs. In fact the Hon. Member said he supported that type of approach in his speech in 1982. It is strange that he does not support the same approach now in 1985.


SITUATION OF ELDERLY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the lack of an answer from the Right Hon. Prime Minister is an insult to Canada's 2,500,000 senior citizens, and shows a blatant lack of courage.
Does the Right Hon. Prime Minister have the courage to ask the elderly when, after they have already paid their rent, telephone bill, food bills, $50 a month, they have only $27.40 per month left to buy clothes, toothpaste and soap which have now been taxed by the Minister of Finance, does he have the courage to ask them to make one more sacrifice?
Does the Right Hon. Prime Minister have the courage to rise in the House and tell them what they will have to give up?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Hon. Member was saying in 1982. Two years ago he was saying the exact opposite of what he is saying today. This is one of the most hypocritical and most typically Liberal statements ever heard in the House of Commons.
Shoemakers have the worst shoes.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Jean-Claude Malépart: -I would like to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his words.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


WESTERN ACCORD-OIL COMPANIES' REVENUES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Just a minute ago the Prime Minister said that the elderly are entitled to what a grateful nation can provide. I wish to offer the Minister a second option in this regard. Considering that the oil industry has received a windfall, according to them, of

June 6, 1985
$600 million a year as a result of the Government moving to world oil prices, is the Minister prepared to recommend to the Government that it take at least one-half of that $600 million back, in terms of a windfall profit tax, so that the elderly will not have to pay for job creation in Canada?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to protest the Hon. Member's continual misrepresentation of the facts in terms of the Western Accord. He constantly ignores the fact that all benefits from the Western Accord are to be channelled into new jobs and job creation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, because 1 believe the Hon. Member to be sincere in his duties as energy critic, I wish to draw to his attention to a recently released study by Informet-rica. I have a rough copy in front of me on my desk. The study indicates that, compared to the pre-Budget base case it uses, the Western Accord would generate a cumulated total of
405,000	person-years of employment in the period 1985 to 1990.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: The issue is jobs and job creation. I wish the Hon. Member would take notice of that.


REQUEST FOR TAX CHANGE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I invite the Minister to return to her riding of Vancouver Centre and tell her constituents why she is giving money to the oil companies and taking it away from the seniors.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, since he is the one who is responsible here. I will give him a third option, if he likes.
Is the Minister prepared to recommend to Cabinet that it take a piece of the Petroleum Gas and Revenue Tax back in the form of a revised taxation in order that seniors will not have to pay for this so-called job creation? In effect the Government has given to the oil companies what will amount to $5 billion over the next five years.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the premise on which the Hon. Member bases his question is entirely wrong. Jobs have to be created. Jobs create wealth. Jobs create for all of us an opportunity-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why do the seniors have to pay?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Jobs create wealth, which allows us to put our social programs in place. The Hon. Member knows that. He has told us to spend more and more, even if we do not have it. That is why we are spending more money today, for
Oral Questions
debt servicing for bankers. He is supporting the bankers who have said that we should raise the debt.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am not. I am supporting the seniors, not the bankers.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member wants the bankers to have more. He would have us take it away from the old age pensioners.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is wrong, and you know it.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It, too, concerns the secret communications plan for the labour market development strategy.
I was deeply chagrined when I read in this document that Conservative Members of Parliament would be receiving more detailed information with respect to the proposed programs than Opposition Members. In fact the communications plan calls for a more specific and distinct information kit for Conservative Members of Parliament. This is an abuse of the privileges of the Members of the House. It is a blatant politicization of the Minister's Department.
Why does the Minister propose to give preferential treatment to Conservative Members of Parliament? Why is she discriminating against Members of the Opposition? Will she give the House her personal undertaking that, when the program is unveiled, each and every Member of the House of Commons will be given the same information to bring back to their constituents?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have all the pre-publicity for the labour market strategy. I hope we will continue to talk about it every day until it is formally announced. I tell all Members of the House that it is my intention to bring all the details with respect to this worthwhile project before all members of the Canadian public.


MEDIA INTERVIEWS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the document says. The document signed by the Minister's Deputy Minister says that there will be a separate, more detailed kit for Conservative Members of Parliament. This is a serious matter. It infringes upon the rights of each and every Member of the House.
In view of the fact that the document not only discriminates against Members of Parliament but also against the media, since it speaks of selective interviews with The National and Canada AM, and since it also speaks of a plan to-

June 6, 1985
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John V. Nunziata: Is this the Minister's idea of openness and fairness, or is it just another example of the Conservatives' cynical manipulation of the media?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the promotion. I really do. If the Hon. Member wants to go beyond The Journal, beyond Canada AM, and beyond some of the other national programs, to invite the participation of all those in the Press Gallery, I would certainly welcome requests for interviews. I will be glad to explain to the press all the details of the labour market strategy, a strategy that is designed to put hundreds of thousands of Canadians to work, something that the previous Government ignored and overlooked for far too long.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister is aware of recent statistics showing that the increase in the number of elderly people will be greater and faster in Quebec than in Canada as a whole. The people of Quebec will therefore be more severely affected by the impact of the deindexation of old age pensions. My question is this: Why did the Minister choose to withhold $245 million from retired people by deindexing old age security pensions when he had a fourth option-he could have collected $600 million by maintaining the capital gains tax?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The philosophy that underlies that question is one which has been held by members of the NDP for a long period of time. That philosophy is that those who create wealth, who have property, who farm, and who run corner grocery stores, do not create jobs. I say give those people a chance. Let them use their investments. They are the ones who create jobs and build the country. As they create wealth, we will have money for social programs. That applies to Quebec as well as to every other part of Canada.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Minister had four options but has chosen to go with the 4 per cent of rich Canadians who claim capital gains taxes. When will the Minister start standing up for those who rightfully fall
within the jurisdiction of his Department, the senior citizens, rather than for the small percentage of rich people who rip off the taxpayers?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, who are the rich the Hon. Member is trying to identify? They are farmers in our ridings. They are fishermen along the coasts and in the inland fisheries. They are the men and women who own small businesses across the country. They are the blue-collar workers who can now invest and hold stock in Canadian companies. Those are the ones he says are ripping us off.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He will turn right around to claim that we should create more jobs when we do not even have the wealth to do so. I am saying that we should start creating some wealth in order to protect the programs we have.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I would like to ask the Prime Minister to put aside the insults, the bombast, and the stonewalling that we have heard from Ministers for the last few days about the appointment of the Crosbie sons by their fathers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Fathers?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would also like to ask him to put aside the protestations of good character-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I ask Hon. Members to let me hear the question?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would like to ask the Prime Minister as well to put aside the protestations about the good character and integrity of the Minister of Justice because that is really not the issue. How can the Prime Minister justify these appointments within the clear language of the guidelines against conflict of interest which clearly prohibit precisely what the Minister of Justice has done?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the need for balance and reasonableness must intrude. In regard to guidelines I would point out to my hon. friend, who was a Minister of the Crown, the following comment:
I would remind you of our decision not to apply the requirements of these guidelines to our spouses and dependent children. The notion that husbands and wives may wish to pursue careers and activities independent from each other is
June 6, 1985

increasingly prevalent in our society and I believe we are agreed that it is unfair to impose restrictions considered unacceptable to society as a whole.
That was a letter issued to Ministers by the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, on April 28, 1980, in regard to those guidelines. 1 think what the former Prime Minister was trying to say was that there is a degree of-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: What about these guidelines?


Martin Brian Mulroney: You can send it to me, but 1 have a copy of it, if that is the case.
There is a need for balance and reasonableness in this entire matter. The Minister of Justice is a man of unimpeachable integrity. He has made a statement to the House which severs any relationship that may have come about through his Department with his sons in this case. I think that the explanations provided by the Minister are reasonable and appropriate.
Having said that, 1 would like to acknowledge that the guidelines are very much in effect and force, and that all Ministers are obliged to respect them in all ways, including appearance. We must seek to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, that portion of Mr. Trudeau's letter was meant to excuse wives and children from following the guidelines. It was not meant to excuse Ministers from following the guidelines. Ministers are obliged to follow the guidelines. If their wives and children want to get into businesses of one kind or another, Mr. Trudeau was telling them that the guidelines did not necessarily apply to them. However, the guidelines certainly apply to the Minister of Justice. He has appointed his children as legal agents in the Province of Newfoundland, something which is clearly contrary to the words of the guidelines. The exculpatory language indicating what children and spouses can do has nothing to do with what Ministers can do. The integrity of the Minister of Justice is not directly the issue; it is his conduct.
How does the Prime Minister get justification for these appointments out of such clear language? Is he telling the Canadian people that these guidelines are a farce?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, not at all. We view the guidelines with the utmost of seriousness. They must be honoured by all Ministers, not only in reality but in appearances to the contrary that might emerge, inadvertently or otherwise. That is why the Minister of Justice, whose name has been synonymous with integrity in Newfoundland for 100 years, made the statement that he did.


John Edmund Parry: Even when he was a Liberal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Even when he was a Liberal.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: But that was provincially.
Oral Questions
I think that the explanation given by my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, was both human and proper. May I say, recognizing that my hon. friend has every right to put the question, that I think the question diminishes the value of his efforts and he diminishes himself in the eyes of Canadians by persisting in this line of attack.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of Dominion Stores' sale of its subsidiary General Bakeries Ltd. to the food industry giant George Weston Ltd., resulting in the loss of still more jobs for Dominion employees and even less competition in the food industry, will the Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs instruct the Combines Investigation branch to assess this acquisition and ascertain if it offends against relevant legislation?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Director of Investigation and Research systematically reviews all large-scale transactions, and he will be reviewing this one as well with a view to determining whether or not the merger may have implications for the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. I am sure he will be carrying out his statutory duties as he has an obligation to do so under the Act.


PENSIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In defending the Government's position to cut full indexation of old age pensions, which will affect the mothers and grandmothers of Canada, by $4.2 billion between now and 1991, the Minister said that he had no option. I would like to give him a fifth option.
Would he not admit that if his Government had reinstituted the higher levels of income tax which were paid by the rich, and cut by the Liberal Government in the MacEachen Budget, it would have brought in $1.7 billion, and his Government would not be known as the purse snatcher of the nation?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again, I do not believe that the premise on which that question is based is accurate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Jake's a fake!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You said you did not have any choice.

June 6, 1985
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He has the same message. He just keeps on yapping and he is not even speaking from his own seat.
The point is to create jobs. We need jobs in Canada for the young. We need jobs to create wealth. Surely that has to be the first point of consideration. The other point which I would make, and I made it yesterday in a speech, so he can see it in the debates which were held yesterday, is that he has left out, throughout the entire debate, when he speaks either in the House or to seniors, that the minimum tax which the Minister of Finance said clearly in the Budget would take effect in 1986 is the same period of time when the matter of indexation will take place. I would ask him to take a look at the Budget, at both sides of the issue, and to be fair about it on both sides of the issue.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. During this Question Period we have given the Minister five options. He has risen and defended those who make their money from capital gains. He has defended those who make their money from windfall profits. He has defended those who are not paying their fair share of taxes. Who, on that side, will defend the old age pensioners?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will, and every one of my colleagues does.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The reason I have rejected every one of his options is that they are based on the same principle. That principle is: create a larger debt; take more money in tax dollars and pay it out in debt servicing. That was included in every one of his options. Those are options which have not worked. We have got an annual $35 billion debt. We have an accumulated $190 billion debt. It has not worked. Despite all that spending, there are 1.4 million unemployed people. Those are the reasons why we had to change the course.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is my understanding that in the recent Budget, by virtue of expanding the definition of disabled, 120,000 Canadians will receive additional social benefits. I would like the Minister to explain how many of the 120,000 are senior citizens.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange, when a question of that nature is asked, that the Liberals do not want to hear the answer.


Mr. Lapierre:: We know the answer.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Under the present tax provision the definition for disability, namely, that a person can reduce their taxable income by a certain amount because of a disability factor, was based on what has sometimes been referred to as traditional disability criteria, such as a person who is bedridden, in a wheelchair, or blind. We thought it should be expanded to include, for instance, families who look after members of their family who are mentally retarded. We expect that an additional 120,000 Canadians, and their families who are fulfilling that responsibility, will be eligible. I will have to get back to the Hon. Member on the number of seniors whom it will affect.


QUESTION PERIOD-ATTENDANCE OF PRIME MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the Conservative campaign booklet, "PC pocket politics", during the election campaign the Conservative Party said:
Government must be accountable to the people of Canada ... accessible government begins with respecting the role of Parliament... We will return Parliament to the forefront of legislative activity-
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Allmand:: If those promises mean anything at all, they mean that the Prime Minister must be here to answer questions which only he can answer with respect to violations of the conflict of interest guidelines and promises which he made with respect to patronage during the election campaign.
Has the Prime Minister introduced a new system, or has he given instructions to his staff whereby he will attend Question Period only two or three days per week? Does his staff set his schedule in accordance therewith? If he has, will he give the House the memo which sets out the instructions for attendance at Question Period?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think it is widely known that I stay away from the House because I am terrified of the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: You would not answer the senior citizens, would you?
June 6, 1985


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member has never gotten over her feeling of sadness that, when she leaves Queens Park, something good happens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Foster:: What have you got against Frank?


Mr. Nystrom:: Would Bill Davis like that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I was away for about 15 business days in Europe, Regina, Moscow, and elsewhere. My attendance record, adjusted for government business, is approximately 65 per cent. The attendance of the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP is just about the same. He should make the allowance that I had to travel.
When the NDP get into it, with what they're doing in Toronto their new slogan must be: "If you will be my valentine, I will be your concubine".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE ADMINISTRATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer my question. As a matter of fact, his flippant answer to my serious question is a clear violation of what was said in the Speech from the Throne, when he said: "The purpose of my Government is to renew the confidence of Canadians that Parliament is truly the voice of the people and that Government is their servant". Is the Prime Minister serious about his priority on Parliament? He did not answer the question which was put to him by my hon. colleague. I will put the question to him again, and I will quote from the conflict of interest guidelines. They state:
Ministers shall not accord preferential treatment in relation to any official matter to relatives or friends or to organizations in which their-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Members who are yelling and telling me that that is not a supplementary question are making it impossible for me to tell whether it is supplementary because I cannot hear the question. Would the Hon. Member please come to his question?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, if one closely examines that item in the conflict of interest guidelines, how can the Prime Minister justify the Minister of Justice appointing his sons for legal business-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Now that I have heard it, the question is clearly not supplementary.
Point of Order-Mr. Allmand FISHERIES


FISHING BY FOREIGN VESSELS OFF WEST COAST
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who just stepped behind the curtains. The Minister expressed serious outrage at the time when he found out that the East Coast fisheries were being abused by foreign fishing fleets. Yet on the West Coast there are no observers for the foreign fishing vessels, there is no monitoring of the interception by Japanese and Asian fishermen, and there is certainly no research, or high seas tagging program. Would the Minister care to explain to this House why on the East Coast there can be studies, investigations, monitoring and observers, and there is nothing on the West Coast?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker. It has something to do with the 200-mile limit.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Raymond John Skelly: I wish the Minister would take some time to inform himself exactly on what the difference is. His officials in committee indicated there was not one dollar for observers, monitoring or research, and high seas tagging. How can the Minister justify being the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and failing to fulfil completely the responsibilities he has to the West Coast fishing industry?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the interceptions to which the Hon. Member is undoubtedly referring are well out into the Pacific and beyond our 200-mile limit.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of four petitions, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, June 5, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Certain petitions presented by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINTS OF ORDER


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, during the Question Period when I put my first question it had to do with the seriousness with which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) considered the Question Period. When he gave me an answer to that question, I wanted
[Stage Direction]
June 6, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. Kaplan
to test the answer he gave to the first question in my supplementary question because he had not answered questions we had put to him previously. I do not understand how you, Mr. Speaker, could say that that second question was not supplementary to the first which had to do with the Prime Minister's attitude with respect to questions in this House relating to matters about which he can only answer.
I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to explain to me in the House how you ruled that that second question was not supplementary to the first?
An Hon. Member:: You don't question rulings.


Mr. Speaker:: It appeared to me that the question which was being put as a supplementary question was not a supplementary question.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENT

Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, during the Question Period the Prime Minister quoted at length from a letter of the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau. I would like to ask that the letter be tabled in accordance with the usual practice.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am not one to peer over the Prime Minister's shoulder, but that was a separate document altogether, with an extract. It was not a letter.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Well, then, table that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I saw, as the Speaker, the Prime Minister referring to a document.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It was not a letter.
Mr. Speaker I am prepared to reserve with respect to the "blues", but the question has been put as a point of order and relates to the rules in Beauchesne with regard to the tabling of a document which is referred to in the House. However, I am prepared to reserve and look at the "blues".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think that there is clear precedent with respect to the types of documents which should be tabled, and they are of an official nature, clearly, to start with. I would like to have an opportunity of addressing this matter so we can have a precise ruling. If an Hon. Member, for example, brings in a set of notes from which to refresh his memory, with an extract from another document, I hardly think that that is the kind of document which would be contemplated by Beauchesne, or under our rules. But I would like to address that whole question at a subsequent time.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that he was quoting from a letter from a former Prime Minister. He gave the date. In accordance with the rules of this house that letter should be tabled now so we
can see the total relevance.
Also, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the House Leader, I would ask if the Prime Minister would also inform us whether he has discussed with the Clerk of the Privy Council whether it is in order to table a letter from a Prime Minister of a former administration.


Mr. Speaker:: The second half of that document creates a greater difficulty for me. I take it the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is asking me to defer making a decision so that he can prepare an argument. I have heard a case put with regard to the citation which claims that a statement was made in Question Period in which a letter was quoted. The only way that 1 know of that I can test that is to wait until I see the "blues". I think perhaps, in the circumstances, all I can do is to wait to read the "blues", but I am open to representations on that, I suppose.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give notice now that if you hear argument on this point from the Government House Leader, I intend to offer an argument on the same matter, with your permission.


Mr. Speaker:: l accept that as well.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has not finished his point of order?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I was misled by what was said into believing that there was a letter from which the Prime Minister was reading. If he was reading from a document, I want my request to apply to that document from which he was reading, letter or not.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept that. I think that under the circumstances I will have to reserve and try to determine what was said in Question Period, whether there was a reference made, on the understanding that both House Leaders will make representations.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, the document was quoted today. It is that document we want to see. It is not a document which may be produced tomorrow. The rules are very clear. You have said that yourself, Mr. Speaker. I would rather that you do not, Mr. Speaker, go and see the "blues" which will be published within an hour or two. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has left the House, and that is his privilege. He probably left with the document, but it is that document we want to see. When someone refers to a document in this House, he has to produce the document, if a request is made. We do not see why we should wait until tomorrow to see the document. It is that document we want to see.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the point that the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) is making. Since, I take it, the document has left the House, or the letter or whatever it is,
I do not think it makes any difference at this moment whether I reserve my ruling until I review the video tape because, I
June 6, 1985

take it, the point the Hon. Member was making relates to whether the document should leave the House once it has been put under appeal. There is no way that I know of that I can make the document magically reappear.


An Hon. Member:: Why can't you?


Mr. Speaker:: There are limits to the Speaker's authority and powers, I assure you, and one of them is making papers appear.
I will, therefore, reserve and come back to the House with a judgment on this matter as quickly as I humanly can. It will be this afternoon some time.



ALLEGED INACCURATE STATEMENTS

Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, on June 3, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand) made a completely inaccurate statement-and I refer to Hansard at page 5325-alleging that I had appointed my chief campaign organizer as a legal agent of the Department of Justice in matters involving, I think he said, drugs at approximately $200,000 a year. That statement was completely untrue and incorrect. This person, Mr. Pittman, has never done any work for me of a political nature at all.
The Hon. Member further worsened these false statements in the House yesterday, on June 5, when I was out of the House. I am back in the House today, Mr. Speaker. I rushed back from Toronto to be here for the Question Period, but there were no questions asked by the hon. gentlemen opposite. They haven't got the backbone, of course, of an India rubber man.
At page 5439 of Hansard of June 5, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East admitted he was wrong. He said that Mr. Pittman never worked in my campaign. He said he checked with sources in Newfoundland and was told that Mr. Pittman was not the campaign manager, but a Mr. Finton Aylward, senior partner in the same firm-and I quote:
-was a senior campaign manager in the Minister's leadership campaign, and the firm Aylward, Morris, and Pittman was awarded legal business by the Minister.
That was his statement. But let me correct the record, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Aylward was not a senior campaign manager in the Minister's leadership campaign, although he certainly was a supporter, as was, reportedly, just about everyone in the Province of Newfoundland in that campaign. I therefore say that these are false allegations and I want to point out that the firm of Aylward, Morris and Pittman was on the list of legal agents even in those days, so long ago, when the Liberal Party was in office. They somehow got on by mistake.


Maurice Brydon Foster: That was when you were a Liberal.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, could I point out to the House that Mr. Paul Dicks received $120,329 in 1983-84 while he
Business of the House
was President of the Liberal Association of Newfoundland. A supporter of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: -Mr. Ed Roberts, got $75,000 during the period that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: He was a friend of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, but none of this was pointed out by the hon. gentleman from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Minister resume his seat?


John Carnell Crosbie: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Deeply, I can tell.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling in both official languages copies of a document entitled Canadian Position With Respect to Conventions and Recommendations Adopted at the Sixty-eighth and Sixty-ninth Sessions of the International Labour Conference produced following the Geneva Conferences of June, 1982, and June, 1983.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader to tell us his plans for the business of the House over the next several days in light of the rather extensive discussions he has been having with myself and the NDP House Leader today and for some days previously.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. As you know, we will conclude consideration of third reading of Bill C-15 this afternoon. Tomorrow the business of the House will be item No. 20 standing under the heading of Government Business on the Order Paper. That motion relates to an amendment to the Constitution of Canada with respect to the consideration of legislation in the Senate. The business for

June 6, 1985
Petitions
Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week will be Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Indian Act, followed by Bill C-51, an Act to provide borrowing authority. I hope that the House will be able to conclude consideration of both these Bills by the end of Wednesday.
Finally, I would like to announce that I am designating Thursday of next week as the final allotted day in the current supply period.


PETITIONS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of the Community Coalition on Immigration, an organization representing the Chinese, Filipino, Portuguese, Latin American, Caribbean and South Asian communities in the city of Toronto. The petition requests that amendments be made to the immigration regulations as they relate to family reunification. The petitioners beseech the federal Government to expand the current definition of the family reunification classification to include sons and daughters, brothers and sisters over the age of 21, regardless of their marital status.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present once again a petition from hundreds of elderly people protesting their being used as fodder in the war on unemployment and for the benefit of the rich in this country.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to rise in my place to present a petition on behalf of a group of citizens from British Columbia. The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security program in Canada.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, for the third time this week I have the honour to present a petition signed by Canadians from all parts of Canada indicating that they are very upset with the fact that the Government broke its election promise to index old age pensions to the actual cost of living on a quarterly basis. They ask that this House make sure that the Conservatives keep that election promise.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of more than 150 people, mostly from the Province of British Columbia, protesting the cutting of the indexation provisions of Old Age Security. They demand that full indexing be restored, as was promised by the Conservatives prior to the last election.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions from citizens primarily from Vancouver and environs who protest the fact that the May 23 Budget imposes undue and unfair hardship on pensioners by deindexing Old Age Security pensions. The losers will be the poor, the unemployed and women. The petitioners humbly pray that the House of Commons reinstate full indexation.


Steven W. Langdon: I, too, have a petition from a number of Canadians who call upon the Government to change its policy regarding deindexation. They make very clear their opposition to these serious policy changes in the Budget.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present to the House a series of petitions, mostly from the Cities of Coquitlam, Vancouver and Burnaby, in which the petitioners request that the Government reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security program in Canada.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition from some 1,724 Canadians, mostly from Toronto, requesting that the Immigration Act and regulations be changed so as to allow sons, daughters, brothers and sisters, regardless of their marital status, over the age of 21 years, to immigrate under the family reunion program.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from a number of people in Canada who are protesting the deindexation of pensions. They point out that the erosion of their pension rights will occur at a rate of $100 for 1986 up to $680 by 1991, and they request that full indexation be put into effect.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and privilege of presenting a peititon from many residents of Vancouver who protest the cruel and insensitive action of deindexing old age pensions. They call upon the Parliament of Canada to restore full indexation for old age pensions.


Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed by 1,700-odd households of the City of Mercier, in my beautiful riding of Chateauguay, asking the House to make representations to Canada Post for door-to-door mail delivery in that community. Those citizens maintain that as taxpayers they are entitled to the same services as those provided for all other Canadians.

June 6, 1985


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to present a petition signed by many residents of the City of Vancouver in British Columbia. The petitioners are against the Government's proposed deindexation of old age security pensions, and they point out in their petition that the people most severely affected in Canada are the poor, the unemployed and the women.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to present a petition signed by numerous people in New Westminster and Burnaby, British Columbia, near my area of Vancouver-Kingsway. They ask that the House of Commons reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security program. I can tell your Honour that my office is literally flooded with phone calls with respect to this particular issue.



CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS RETURNS ACT


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-242, an Act to repeal the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, this Bill will save money for employers and employees, indeed the entire private sector as well as the Government. In my view and that of many others, this Act is redundant and an unnecessary burden on business and individuals generally.


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

Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I request that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Investment Canada Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: When we adjourned, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) had been given the floor for a comment. I will therefore recognize the Hon. Member for a comment, but, in the circumstances, will end the period for questions and comments after that time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I guess we will have to read our rules some day to find out exactly what happens when a Member is not in the House following an adjournment and the question period has to be followed through. I would love to have the Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) here to address my questions to, but I will just make a short comment. We all understand the difficulties of trying to be in two or three places at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on some of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly). In a speech which, I assume, was intended to be constructive, she made a few statements which surprised me somewhat. She said, for instance, that Opposition Members had painted a terrifying picture of the legislation before the House, in other words, of Bill C-15. Maybe terrifying for her, but I can assure her it was in an attempt to be constructive, to amend the Bill and to make some important changes, that we proposed some 94 amendments, most of which, 92 in fact, were rejected by the Government.
The Hon. Member, as I said before, made some rather surprising comments. If I understood correctly, she said that the foreign companies in her riding re-invest just as much as Canadian companies do. I would ask her to review the figures she gave the House, because if Bill C-15 applies to Canada as a whole, then we are not talking about Gatineau or one particular area, we are talking about the whole country, and foreign companies certainly do not invest as much as Canadian companies. That is the whole point. I am not talking about the question of foreign investment in Canada. We have always said they were welcome. What we do not want is foreign control of our companies, our industry and our trade. We want to try and be masters of our own house and our economy, in order to be able to compete internationally.
The Hon. Member also stated that foreign companies in her riding were doing as much research and development as Canadian companies, if not more. It may well be that in Gatineau a few foreign companies are doing research and development, but generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, in Canada,

June 6, 1985
Investment Canada Act
and we only have to look at the official figures provided by Statistics Canada last year, and we have the figures for the years 1973, 1975, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1982 and 1983, 1 have them here, the table has been published ... It is false to say that foreign companies do as much research and development as Canadian companies. Not much is done in Canada, and that is the problem. We would like to see more.
The Science Council has said we will have to tackle this problem and try to do at least the bare minimum of research and development to provide incentives and create jobs. It is absolutely false to say that foreign companies in Canada do more research and development, and I would ask the Hon. Member to remove her blinkers and take an objective look at the situation here in Canada.
The Hon. Member also claims that foreign companies do not export Canadian profits and funds abroad. Mr. Speaker, I submit that we would need only look into the Canadian entity, the business which multinational firms are doing in this country to realize that they are not here out of the kindness of their corporate hearts or because of our expertise, but to make money, something for which I do not blame them, but we, on the opposition side, would like to encourage Canadian, American and foreign firms to come here to create jobs which would benefit Canadians and possibly help us recover the control over our economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I thank you very much for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker. I am somewhat bitter as I rise today because I had hoped that the government would have shown more patience, indulgence and comprehension during this debate on Bill C-15, and would have made possible for both government and opposition members to express their views concerning this important piece of legislation, the purpose of which is to establish an agency called Investment Canada.

Bill C-15 is indeed an important piece of legislation. It may be the only important piece of legislation which has been before the House in the last seven or eight months. We in the Official Opposition have considered Bill C-15 at second reading, committee stage, and for the short time we were able to debate it, at report stage. We have put forward our arguments and suggestions in a forthright and responsible manner. We see an impatient and sometimes arrogant Tory Government which is deaf to all improvements. We see a Tory Government using its huge majority to stifle debate and put a halt to the normal democratic process in the House by allowing only one more day of debate on third reading. This is the day. We have only one day to discuss third reading of a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-15. I regret that, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, what the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) has said and done here clearly demonstrates that there is no room here for a constructive debate, that there is no room according to him for constructive criticism or for the submission of valid alternatives. I find this deplorable, Mr. Speaker. I truly regret what the Minister has done, what the Minister imposed on the House and what the Opposition has tried to improve. The Minister has decided not to continue. The majority obviously wins in a democracy, but it is still deplorable, and I, for one, suggest that the Minister would have been well advised to be present and listen a little more during the debate. Even his Parliamentary Secretary would have benefited by being present in the House to listen to what the opposition had to say.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I feel somewhat bitter as 1 rise to deal with the third reading, because I think it is important that all those who have been involved at the various stages of debate on this bill... I think it is of paramount importance to let Canadians know that the Liberal Party of which I am a member, the Official Opposition which has tried to improve this bill, is not against foreign investments. Quite the contrary! We are and will continue to be in favour of foreign investments, and to work very hard to persuade international financiers to consider Canada and to invest in our country. What we reject and will continue to fight against is foreign control over our economy.
In my opinion, there is not a single Canadian who does not understand that if we want to take our rightful place in this world, in this industrialized and, in many cases, post-industrialized world, if we want to take our rightful place on this planet, it is absolutely essential that we first gain control of our economy.
Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that Bill C-15 will do nothing to help us achieve this objective. This Government, which is seemingly rudderless and which abdicates any form of leadership in an area such as investment so important for job creation, has imposed closure, and told us that, no, it does not want to allow a proper and thorough screening of foreign investments and prefers to put its confidence in businessmen, and to say: Come, Canada is for sale. Mr. Speaker, we say that this is not the right thing to do. What we must do, and let us hope that this Government will see the light, is not only to promote foreign investments, but also to ensure that such investments are in the best interests of Canadians.
In an area as important as foreign investment, the Tory Government is telling us: Let us trust foreign investors; it is not up to us to ensure that their investments will benefit Canada! I deplore such an attitude, Mr. Speaker, which lost us technologies and skills in the past, for instance in the famous AVRO case, where an aeronautical company closed down
June 6, 1985

under a Conservative Government during the 50's, as Hon. Members will recall, causing the loss of an important aeronautical technology and Canadian researchers left Canada because they could not find jobs in this country at the time.
This same attitude is being shown today by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). We have only to look at the case of Mitel. They brag that they got a British company interested in investing in Mitel, a Canadian company. That is all very well, but the difference between myself and the Minister is that I am quite willing to welcome foreign capital, but only if it is invested in a company which remains fully owned and controlled by Canadians. Exactly the opposite happened in the case of Mitel, Mr. Speaker. We have witnessed a foreign takeover of a Canadian company which admittedly had management problems, but was one of the most important high technology companies in the world, credited with fantastic breakthroughs in its field in the last ten years.
Mr. Speaker, the second reading debate on Bill C-15 was relatively short. As we know, what is discussed at the second reading stage is the principle of the Bill. At the report stage, we believed in the good faith of the Government and we really thought that we would be allowed to make constructive amendments to strengthen the Bill. But no! What did we see? We once again saw the Minister and the Government who were afraid of debate and of constructive suggestions. As I said earlier, we introduced nearly 94 motions, only one third of which were discussed. The rest were shelved because of closure. The Government said: No, we are not interested. When imposing closure, the Government gave no valid reason for its arrogant decision, and to add to the insult to Canadians, the Tory backbenchers have been rather idle during this debate. They have not taken part, but then they rarely do so. They are like obedient sheep, and I find this very unfortunate because they represent 211 constituencies and millions of voters. However, their voice was not heard during this debate. This is not democracy, Mr. Speaker.

We on this side of the House have participated in this debate in good faith. We put forward our ideas at second reading and at committee stage. We tried to do it at report stage. As I said, before closure was so rudely introduced, we thought that we would be able to discuss and amend this Bill constructively. We are attempting to have, at least during third reading, some semblance of constructive viewpoints put forth by the Government, but we have not had that.
We heard the Minister this morning tell us about net outlays of cash and gross outlays of cash. He talked to us about many, many things in a way that is probably confusing to many Canadians and to many of us in this House. In fact it comes down to what the purpose of this legislation, be it the old FIRA which will disappear with the passage of this Bill, or the new Investment Canada Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to try our damn best to interest foreign capital in Canadian development, but with an objective that would be in the interest of Canadians. First there should be notice and review
Investment Canada Act
of the supposed takeover and then a follow-up to make sure that it is in the interest of Canada and the interest of Canadians and that there will be from this inflow of capital jobs and other benefits to Canadians.
We did have the satisfaction of finding the Tories somewhat, if I could use the words, "asleep at the switch" on Tuesday last when the question on Motion No. 24 was put to the House. We were pleased, I must say, to have obtained this important change in the Bill. I think it has a very strong impact on the rental housing market. I sincerely believe we will have a better protected market for rental properties. The experience in this field, of course, brings to one's mind the notorious SeawayTrust and Greymac affair in Toronto of several months ago when we saw inflated transactions carried out by numbered companies affecting some 13,000 apartment renters which caused havoc and undue anxiety. If it had not been for the FIRA legislation at the time and the provincial government which intervened, I think some people would have been hurt unjustly.
I recognize the good in the FIRA legislation as it existed. I think this amendment of ours, Motion No. 24, will make it possible for rental properties when they are the object of takeovers to be reviewed as to whether they are in the best interest of Canadians.
This Government has claimed that consultation is to be the cornerstone for its dealings with Canadians, that it cares, that it will listen and act accordingly. This is not the case with Bill C-15. Not a single Opposition suggestion was accepted willingly by the Tories. I bet senior citizens and middle-income Canadians are glad the Tories listened to them in putting forward what I call the purse-snatcher Budget which they brought in. What about the indexing reductions senior citizens will have to face in the years to come? I am sure those ordinary Canadians wanted to pay more taxes and get smaller pensions. It is totally irresponsible, unwise, and without precedent that a Government breaks its word so much on a so-called sacred trust.
Sometimes I wonder whether the Government has any credibility, whether one can believe its word. In my view it goes along aimlessly, day by day. We could quantify very easily the measures which it has taken over the last months in committing, for example, patronage scandals, left and right, without giving the country any real leadership. Bill C-15 exemplifies the lack of direction on the part of the Government.
I should like to address some aspects of the Bill, one of which is its impact on research and development.

Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that there are jobs in research and development. Research and development with respect to new products in Canada generate many jobs. On the other hand, the screening agency and the change that is proposed by the Government could, at least in my humble

June 6, 1985
Investment Canada Act
view, be considered from a somewhat more critical viewpoint. 1 think there are three major consequences to the change in the screening agency as we knew it, and to the establishment of the agency known as Investment Canada.
Over the last two decades, Mr. Speaker, without exaggeration, we have experienced a significant acceleration in the interdependence of countries as involved in the global economy. Foreign trade has been a factor of growth, both for us and the others. To be a full partner in the global economy network, a nation must control its economic base, from which it will derive its strategy at the world level. And where the economic base of a nation is owned by foreign interests, that nation's power of decision at the international level is displaced and significantly reduced. Recent economic history, the oil conflict in particular, the global debt crisis, the protracted recession of the 1980's, show without a shadow of doubt that the interests of creditor nations always outweigh those of debtor nations.
Foreign control may also result in a loss of national identity. This also affects the international economic policy, especially where a nation's most sensitive sectors such as the cultural and the communications sectors, are controlled by foreign interests. But although the domestic production of certain activities may be more costly in terms of net economic costs than their importation, regulations favouring Canadians may be the only real means of checking such activity.
There are also consequences with regard to technological progress. This is my second point. As we know, Canada has been striving for a number of years for an international presence in the fields of research and development. We all know about the space arm, developed in this area, which is one of the very successfully innovative developments this country has made in the space industry.
It will be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that the National Science Council has often stressed the point that Canada was not a great performer in that important area of research and development. We were often reminded that foreign multinationals had a tendency to concentrate their research and development activities in their own countries, and because of that they ignore the scientific potential of Canadians.
The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) pointed out this morning that in her constituency, things were different. She said: "Oh, at home, you know, CIP is a company that does a lot of research and development". I am not sure, I will check, but generally speaking most countries . . . CIP is a Canadian company but, as a rule, foreign companies do less research and development than Canadian companies.
All we need do is refer to Statistics Canada. My source of information is simple enough, a Statistics Canada publication entitled "Industrial Research and Development", Catalogue No. 88-202 of June 1984, the most recent. We see in the table that Canadian companies invest 1.4 per cent of their sales in research and development. American companies here in
Canada spend less than 1 per cent-.9 per cent to be precise. The same is true of other countries, and that is where the problem lies. Foreign companies are inclined to do technological research and development in their own country and import it in other countries where they have branch plants. It stands to reason that foreign companies would prefer to import their new technology and do little if any research and development here, be it in car manufacturing, high technology, space research, ordinary mechanics, engineering and so on.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that we must promote-and try to enforce, if necessary-basic respect for Canadian initiative. We are trying to make them understand that investment is welcome in Canada, and it is. But come here in the interest of Canadians, do your research here, develop new products of international quality which we can sell on world markets, and help us develop our natural resources. But do not try to buy Canada, it is not up for sale!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mrs. B. Tardif).


Mrs. B. Tardif:: Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed to hear my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) suggest that the government imposed closure when a bill has been considered for over 80 hours in the House and in committee and when the opposition has resorted extensively to filibuster tactics. As we know, on the second reading to which the member for Ottawa-Vanier just referred the opposition introduced a motion for a six-month hoist and rather than debating the philosophy of the bill, they carried an aimless series of discussions. When the bill was sent to committee, the opposition once again tried to delay the consideration of the bill with its numerous amending motions. In the House, we saw what the approach of the opposition was. It is somewhat surprising but we know precisely what has been the behaviour of the opposition up to now.
On the other hand, I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about the results of a poll published on Monday last in the newspapers especially in a fine one, Le Soleil de Quebec under the headline: "A majority for foreign investments in Canada". Two Canadian out of three hope that Prime Minister Mulroney will promote foreign investment rather than discourage it, with only 19 per cent. A small minority, that is 9 per cent, is satisfied with our present policy and an equal number are undecided.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, both questions of the Parliamentary Secretary puzzle me somewhat. In the first place, when the debate began on December 7, 1984, we had four days in the House. This is not much when we consider that the Tories held some bills for months when they were the opposition. It cannot be said that four days are too much. In January, the bill was debated for six days in committee and there were 14 sittings, two of which with the minister. This is
June 6, 1985

not much. There was surely no exaggeration. A large number of witnesses could not be heard.
That is not consultation.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, this Bill has not been the subject of an in-depth study by the House. That is the Government's fault. The Government imposed closure.
As to the second question of the Hon. Member, namely whether Canadians want foreign investment, of course they do. There is no problem there. I always said so. I doubt if there is a Member of the Official Opposition or anybody else here who ever claimed that we are against foreign investment. Quite the contrary, we have always said: Welcome here, but we are not for sale. And when we hear that Canadians are satisfied with the previous legislation-Yes, I know, a recent poll shows that Canadians are satisfied with foreign investment controls. I agree with you that we started off with a major percentage held by foreigners. There is no denying it, we became buyers with the help of the FIRA legislation, the review agency which admittedly has been extremely useful to Canadians by enabling them to buy back their own economy, in many cases, and to develop it as they saw fit.
For me, the problem is not there. The problem is that we have to keep trying to attract foreign capital to this country. If we read the same newspapers-Le Soleil, Le Droit, the Globe and Mail and other outstanding Canadian newspapers-we see for instance that American bankers are not interested in investing money in Canada because profits are hardly worth the trouble. We all know the American monetary policy, the basic policy of very high interest rates. What do you expect, the Hon. Members knows I have often said that foreign investors go where they can make a profit, and that is quite normal. I say that there is nothing wrong with profit, I am all in favour of profit, but it has to be to the advantage of Canadians and Canadian jobs. We agree on that, I do not think there is a problem. What I am saying. Mr. Speaker, is that the Bill under consideration will not accomplish more than the previous legislation did, and it might even accomplish less if only because we will no longer have adequate power to control, review, scrutinize and sometimes screen foreign interests that are not particularly favourable to Canada. That is the main issue of this debate, the main point we have been trying to make throughout. Again I would like to make Hon. Members understand that I am not against foreign investment. I am against take-overs by foreign interests.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments.
A supplementary for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mrs. B. Tardif).


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what was said by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.
Investment Canada Act
When he says that we will no longer be reviewing investments to be made in Canada, he may have overlooked the fact that Investment Canada will review a certain percentage of such investments, namely those over $5 million if they are direct investments and those over $50 million for indirect investments.
I think it is most unfair of my hon. colleague to say in the House that we shall no longer be reviewing foreign investment.
Furthermore, in the first part of his speech, the Hon. Member said that we had cut off debate. He forgot to mention how they proceeded to cut off serious debate on the second reading of a Bill in this House. When the Opposition moved a questionable motion in the House to postpone consideration of a Bill for six months, I think that was the first motion that prevented us from giving serious consideration to this Bill. And the situation the Hon. Member is complaining about today was in fact created by the Opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, regarding the first point made by the Parliamentary Secretary, she is right and I apologize. There is a review when a direct take-over worth $5 million or an indirect take-over worth $50 million is involved. That I overlooked. I thought I knew everything there is to know about this legislation, but I acknowledge my mistake and if I did not already say so before, I apologize.
As far as closure is concerned, the Government proposes and we are trying to dispose of the legislation here in the House, and when the Government proposes certain things and does not have the patience to let Members take the time to discuss them, I am sorry, but I refuse to believe that 40 Liberals and 30 New Democrats are in a position to scare 211 Progressive Conservative Members. That is just not true! The Government proposes often and it disposes as it wishes, and I can talk here until I am blue or red or purple or whatever in the face, but it will not make any difference at all and it will not change history, because the future of this legislation is already of foregone conclusion: at 4.45 p.m., the bells will ring and we will vote whether we want to or not, because the Government has so ordered. The Government does not want any more debate. It has imposed closure and it has said: We have had enough, we are going to vote. I do not blame them. That is what a majority is for and I should know, but I say it is not right.


Mr. Angus:: I have one question for the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. First, I would like to congratulate him and his Party on getting the one amendment through, even though I suppose we might all agree it was through the back door.
Does the Hon. Member suggest that this Government will use the same approach as the last one and approve 95 per cent, if not more, of applications which apply under the real estate

June 6, 1985
Investment Canada Act
section? Alternatively, does the Hon. Member think this is a provision which will be ignored, just as FIRA provisions were in the last year or two of its operations?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, of course, I hope not. I hope the Government will see the light and use this chance to screen, if that is the proper word, foreign investment takeovers of rental properties. I believe we have added some teeth to the provision, although they are not the tiger teeth I would have liked to see.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Not a full set!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is right, not a full set. Rather, it is just a small tooth in the Bill which will probably be useful at the right moment in order to prevent foreigners from speculating and inflating real estate prices in Canada to their multinationals or corporations. I believe the Government should take advantage of Motion No. 24.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the reality we face today is that there are far too many Canadians who do not have jobs. We need to create jobs for Canadians. We have said this many times in the past. Bill C-15 certainly honours my Government's commitment to this end.
Foreign investment can stimulate our economy. The Foreign Investment Review Agency only hindered our participation in the competition to attract foreign companies to invest in Canada. One must ask why. Why for over 10 years was the previous Government content to abandon the goal of attracting the necessary equity investment to our country? FIRA put a severe crimp in the important of equity capital. This is an economic tragedy. Canada is rich beyond belief in land, materials, natural resources and the ability of workers. However, we find it very difficult at times to raise sufficient capital to take advantage of our magnificent and abundant investment opportunities.
Canada needs equity capital. We need it desperately. Some
600,000	jobs were lost due to the hostile ideology of the previous Government toward a toothless monster called foreign investment. That is not what my Government is about. We fully recognize that Canada needs, in real terms, nearly $100 billion over the next six years to create the opportunities necessary to create new jobs. We are firmly committed to doing this. Bill C-15 is one of the mechanisms by which we can achieve our goals. This Bill fulfils an election promise made by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) on behalf of the Conservative Party on July 18, 1984. Then on September 4, the Canadian people sent a loud and clear signal to Ottawa giving us a new mandate for change. We were elected to make positive changes for Canadians because the Canadian people were tired of the same old, empty promises made by a tired, old Government. We campaigned hard on a promise of change, and Bill C-15 is proof of our sincerity and our determination to fulfil our mandate.
Members of the Opposition have tried everything to stall this change. We must ask ourselves why they insist on preventing positive and productive legislation. Undoubtedly it is
because they never wanted to keep a pledge or a promise, and perhaps this is the reason they do not know how to deal with a sincere Government, a Government dedicated to change.
Foreign investors felt harassed and unwanted by FIRA. Merely the name of the agency was enough to disinterest many companies wanting to build a solid Canadian-based company. FIRA became an over-zealous, meddlesome nuisance which subjected prospective investors to a tangle of red tape, delay and frustration in the screening process. The irritant for businesses was going through the process, and the agency was perceived by some investors to be so burdensome that they did not even bother to apply to invest in Canada.
In June 1984, the Development Minister of Nova Scotia said that FIRA deprived Nova Scotia of foreign capital needed to create jobs and that foreign investors had contributed substantially to economic growth and job creation in that province. He added that Canadian investors cannot match the economic boost Nova Scotia received from foreign-based employers.
A West German ambassador has said that FIRA tended to inhibit German investment in Canada and had a deterrent effect on smaller industrial firms which shied away from the expense and bother of the red tape of that kind of agency. The British Trade Minister said that FIRA is an irritant and a barrier to foreign investment and that it is much easier for a British company to invest in Seattle than in Vancouver.
It is sobering to guess how much further ahead we would have been in job creation and output if we had not been forced into the narrow economic nationalism of the last 20 years. Canada lost many potential gains in the world markets of technology, investment and trade. This decline must not be allowed to continue.
Investment Canada eases the regulations facing corporations whose shares are publicly traded. A corporation in which the majority of voting shares are owned by Canadians, by Canadian-controlled companies or by Governments which meet the requirements will be considered to be Canadian under this Bill. Under FIRA, at least two-thirds of the voting shares had to be Canadian before a publicly traded corporation could be allowed to acquire firms without government interference.
Bill C-15 strengthens the incentive for publicly traded firms to increase Canadian participation and autonomy. Bill C-15 dissolves much of the oppression felt by much of the business community about FIRA and in its place it establishes an effective Act that protects Canadian interests but protects them in a positive and constructive way. Investment means jobs. Investment means more choice for the consumer. Investment means a better standard of living. Investment means faster growth.
Bill C-15 is not just of benefit to those of us on this side of the House. Each and every Member and their constituents will
June 6, 1985

see the positive and real benefits that will come from the jobs that will be created by the foreign investors who will bring new capital to all areas of Canada.
One of the largest contributions from foreign investment is its contribution to Canada's economy through new job creation. As Canada began to recover from the recession, foreign-controlled firms contributed more to job creation than Canadian-controlled firms in some sectors. In 1984, in the manufacturing sector, foreign firms accounted for proportionately more new spending than Canadian firms.
Based on the estimate of the World Bank, $100,000 in new investment is required to create one new job in an industrialized country such as Canada. That translates into roughly
74,000	jobs being created by foreign investment in one year alone if $7 billion is invested. We cannot afford to snub this kind of investment. Our jobless cannot afford and will not accept going without meaningful work simply because of false fears and hysterical paranoia that we will lose our Canadian identity solely because we are encouraging foreign investment. The 1.4 million unemployed want to be put to work and it does not matter if they work for a Canadian or a foreign-owned firm. A job means work and an end to unemployment.
Foreign companies that invest in Canada are good corporate citizens. Located in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton is a very large industrial base for the petrochemical industry which contributes much to the economy of the riding. Imperial Oil has established in Sarnia its largest research and development centre in Canada and is firmly committed to continued R and D in Canada and the rest of the world. This company is committed to Canada, committed to employing Canadians and committed to contributing to a growing economy.
According to a poll recently conducted by the University of Waterloo's Laurier Institute for Business and Economic Studies, fewer than one-third of Canadians consider the issue of foreign investment in Canada to be a serious problem. A survey of 3,000 people across Canada revealed that at the beginning of the year, Canadians were positive about foreign investment in Canada. As recently as June 3, a headline from Ottawa's The Citizen indicated that more foreign investment was OK and that according to a national poll, 62 per cent of Canadians are positive about it. As a matter of fact, a similar poll indicated that of political supporters, 70 per cent of Conservative supporters, 62 per cent of Liberal supporters and 51 per cent of New Democratic Party supporters were positive about more foreign investment in Canada.
On May 6, an article in The Globe and Mail indicated that the British felt that the best news to come from Canada this year was the impending replacement of FIRA with Investment Canada. The Canadian-U.K. Chamber of Commerce in London believes that the new Act will allow potential investors to resume normal business rather than having to enter FIRA offices armed with corporate lawyers to do battle. British companies have contributed more than $6 billion to Canada, equivalent to 9 per cent of all foreign investment.
Investors from all countries are caught in the absurd vacuum of having to deal with the old Foreign Investment
Investment Canada Act
Review Agency while waiting anxiously to see what will be the final outcome of this legislation. We are confident that all investors will be pleased and will respond positively with new investments in Canada with the passage of Bill C-15.
Bill C-15 will erase the previous decade of hostility toward foreign investment. In 1980, the National Energy Program and the tough, regulatory FIRA actively encouraged foreign companies to consider other alternatives to investing in Canada. In the years following the introduction of the NEP, we witnessed an outflow of capital which sadly characterized the investment climate in Canada. After these devastating outflows of direct foreign investment funds of $1.4 billion in 1982 and $4.6 billion in 1981, Canada is now returning to a positive balance.
Contrary to what some would like to believe, Bill C-15 does not abandon our wish to develop a truly Canadian industrial strategy. However, we refuse to be bound by the tight, restrictive practices of the NEP and FIRA. Bill C-15 aims to bring together many different types of investors. We recognize that there are Canadians who wish to enter into a business relationship with non-Canadians to develop a business, industry or other activity. These non-Canadian investors will bring with them new technology, new equipment and new ideas with a view to serving the whole of the North and South American market as well as meeting the needs of Canada.
Investment Canada recognizes that there are many needs to be served and that we can no longer afford to treat Canadian needs in isolation. We tried that for over 10 years and we watched in desperation as the unemployment rate rose from 5 per cent to over 11 per cent.
Bill C-15 is fully cognizant of the many diverse yet similar interests of both the Government and the investment community. Clause 5 of the Bill recognizes some of the positive aspects which we perceive for Investment Canada. First, we need to encourage business investment which is deemed to be appropriate by the Minister. Second, we want to assist Canadian businesses to exploit opportunities for investment and technological advancement. Third, both interests are served with research and development and analysis relating to domestic and international investment. Fourth, we will assist each other with an exchange of information services, with the aim of facilitating economic growth in Canada. Fifth, it is the aim of the Minister to develop an industrial and economic policy for Canada. Last, we will ensure that the notification and review of investments will be carried out in accordance with the legislation. I assert that those six principles will provide the most positive and secure investment climate. We have not thrown caution to the wind. We have become realistic and in tune with the needs of the 1980s.
Bill C-15 provides a suitable review process of non-Canadian investment over certain thresholds. With respect to direct acquisitions, the Bill will review those applications which involve an investment over $5 million. It will mean that if the investments involve $5 million or more, there will be a review

June 6, 1985
Investment Canada Act
which will involve 90 per cent of the investment in dollar terms, and 80 per cent of that which was previously reviewed will be exempt. We feel that a $6,000 price tag attached to reviewing little corner stores is too high a price and is not productive for the Government. Instead, the Government proposes to review indirect acquisitions of $50 million or more and direct acquisitions of $5 million or more. That will allow us to review those bigger ticket items which possibly need to be reviewed, while leaving the smaller acquisitions alone. We are eliminating the wasteful ways of the previous Government. We are putting our own house in order and making productivity a number one priority when a government process is involved.
I think the past Government lost sight of that with its many years in office. It is still unable to shake that attitude in opposition. We are proposing from the very start to perform like any private sector business and to make ourselves concerned with productivity and cost.
Another major change which we are proposing is to introduce some sensibility and reasonableness with respect to the amount of time which will be allowed for the review process to be completed. We have simplified and streamlined the procedure. There will be a 45-day limit for notice of acceptance or non-acceptance. The Minister should be able to contact all interested parties and come to a decision within that 45-day time limit. However, in cases which are detailed and intricate, or if the Minister needs more time, we propose a 30-day extension. If the Minister still has not made a decision after 75 days, the application is deemed to have been approved. That is a positive amendment to the very ambiguous and drawn out review process which was associated with FIRA. We believe the applicant deserves fair treatment and should not be strung along waiting for the Government to make up its mind. If the business community were to operate in such a fashion, very little would be accomplished. Government should be no exception.
I have spent my time during the debate dealing with the inefficiencies of the past legislation and the positive amendments which we have put forward in Bill C-15. I feel I must now turn my attention to the one reservation which has been put in place. For any proposed investment which we have deemed to be of a cultural nature or of a national identity nature, we feel that there should be a review process, regardless of the size of the investment. We realize that many businesses involved in cultural activities do not have their importance judged solely by their balance sheets. We cannot and should not attach a dollar figure to such companies. We feel that firms in economic activities such as book publishing, media-related businesses, film production and distribution, deserve special attention. We propose that if an investment falls within a prescribed specific type of business activity which is related to Canada's cultural heritage or national identity, a review should take place.
Few people would reasonably suggest that Canada should heedlessly ignore our cultural autonomy or sovereignty. We certainly do not suggest that. We merely want to encourage foreign investment by creating a better climate for investment.
That means an end to the policing, the regulations and the red tape. We also recognize the need to protect the national sovereignty in energy, banking, the communications media, telecommunications, film and book publishing industries. We have implemented that with the addition of the cultural policy component. That also shows our appreciation of the special consideration which must be given to the culturally-related industries.
In closing, I would like to say that I am honoured to have participated in the debate today on Bill C-15. I would also like to say that it is the commitment of the Government to adopt an approach of consultation rather than confrontation in our attempts to develop an economic strategy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has stated that "the Government is there to assist-and not to harass the private sector in creating new wealth and the new jobs that Canada needs". That new attitude is incorporated in the Bill respecting investment in Canada. It is the beginning of instilling a new confidence in all sectors of the economy.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) has made the usual contradictory speech which government Members have been making on this legislation. On the one hand, we hear about all the reasons for which we must have foreign investment and, on the other hand, we hear a variety of points being stated as to the way in which the Minister will supervise the matter. That suggests to me that members of the Government are not sure that the route which is being taken is the proper one. In spite of their protestations about narrow economic nationalism, 1 believe they fear that foreign investment might not do the job. The Member has evinced the supine and dependent attitude that we have seen time and again from government Members that they hope to get in on good things in the United States, or that foreign investment will bring us what we do not have the ability to do in this country. The Member has evinced that attitude perfectly well.
What evidence does he have that foreign investment has brought us prosperity in the past, or that it has, in a national sense, created the kind of employment which we need. What evidence does he have that it has not closed the door in the past to Canadians who would like to exploit high technology in the country? Is there evidence that it has not closed the door to investment opportunities for Canadians by filling markets with companies which are completely controlled by outsiders so that it is not possible to buy stock in those companies? Has it done anything for Canadian exports when foreign interests have established enterprises in Canada which explicitly are not in the export business? They end up exporting only one thing- the profits which they make selling their products at high prices to Canadians.
There are several matters which one can cite in criticism of foreign investment. They are ones which government Members, in supporting Bill C-15, have not addressed properly. We have not had a real demonstration of the values of foreign investment against these critical observations. So I challenge the Hon. Member to provide evidence for his claims that poor,
June 6, 1985

desperate Canadians who have not been able to find work- thanks to the policies of the last Government and this Government-are going to get anything better from foreign investment of the sort the Hon. Member is calling for and that which the Government has proposed in Bill C-15.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, certainly I do not think there is any sort of contradiction at all. We are saying, as a Government, and Investment Canada is saying, that we are very interested in foreign investment coming here, investing and starting up industries which are going to provide jobs. The common argument of the Hon. Member's Party is that foreign investment brings no new technology but simply exports everything, including the profits. The experience I have had in my riding, which is very important to me, is that 95 per cent of the direct employment is from foreign investment. There is a major research and development centre, probably one of the major centres in Canada, in my riding. We have Imperial Oil, with a research and development centre for Exxon. We have Dow Chemical Canada, which is a multinational corporation. Some of these companies employ over 2,500 employees.
It is very difficult for me, coming from the kind of riding I do, to say that foreign investment is not good. A lot of those companies located in the Sarnia area over 30 years ago. So I guess that this is a good track to run on. The concern is how many companies like the Dow Chemicals, the Exxons and so on, we scared away with the F1RA type of legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) for one supplementary question, then I intend to hear argument with regard to the tabling of documents requested earlier today.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 suggest, perhaps in response to what the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) said, that to argue the situation of one riding as opposed to the nation is quite an inadequate case.
Let me turn to another matter. The Hon. Member has also suggested that Investment Canada will provide incentives for Canadian companies to increase their shareholdings. There has been talk at various times about this legislation improving Canadian and foreign investment. 1 am curious to see what the Hon. Member would have us believe in that particular area of encouragement to Canadians.


Kenneth Albert James: 
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members earlier asked me to allow argument to be made with regard to the question of the potential tabling of a document which was referred to in Question Period. Is the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) or the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) ready to make argument?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could start this off. Some days 1 find it rather difficult to understand exaclty some points of order-I shouldn't say "some days", every day I find it difficult to find out what the points of order of members of the Official Opposition are. I try to be as accommodating and co-operative as possible. If I understood exactly what they wanted, and if it were a legitimate point of order, I think we could deal with it. However, there is no question today that reference was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to a letter written by the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, to the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen. The date of that letter was April 28, 1980. As I understood the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was that that document which was cited should be tabled.
I am not quite sure what the point is. The document which was referred to by the Prime Minister has been tabled. It is a sessional paper. It was in fact, as I recall it, tabled on May 1, 1980, by my predecessor, the Hon. Yvon Pinard, and it is now a public document. Perhaps I do not quite understand what the Official Opposition is driving at, but I take it that those Hon. Members are referring to the reference in Beauchesne with respect to citing state papers. There was a reference by the Prime Minister to a document which is already a public document. It has already been tabled in the House of Commons. It is a sessional paper of the previous Parliament.
I simply make those observations at this point, not from the point of view of trying to obstruct the point of order but rather to suggest that perhaps it is not a legitimate point of order, unless 1 have my understanding of the request of the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) all wrong.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, at the time the Government House Leader objected to the tabling of the letter which was read in the House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), he did not say that in effect the request was unnecessary because the document was already a public document.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I said that in my seat.

June 6, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. Kaplan


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: He attempted to argue, when on his feet, that there may well have been grounds for withholding that letter from Parliament and the public. I want to make sure that it is understood that even if that document had not already been tabled in the House on May 1, 1980, it was a document which, under the clear precedents of this House, had to be tabled. The document in question was cited, so that, I submit, Mr. Speaker, under the terms set down in the precedents it would have to be tabled in this House, if requested.


Mr. Beatty:: It is all rather academic at this point.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I just want to make sure that the suggestion the Government House Leader made earlier this day that somehow there were valid grounds for not producing the letter-even if it had not already been made a state paper, as the Government House Leader did not say- would not be a valid argument because the document in question was in fact quoted and was specifically used to influence the debate in the Question Period. I just want to make very clear, Mr. Speaker, that these are circumstances which would require the tabling of the letter, if that request were made.
It may be that this document is already a public document because it was tabled in the House on May 1, 1980. If that is the case, we will request copies of the document so that all can see what the letter is about and the context in which that document was used.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to stress that even if that document had not been tabled on May 1, 1980, the precedents are very clear that once we had requested that document, after it had been quoted at length in the House by the Prime Minister, it would have had to have been presented to the House in response to that request.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I now see what the Hon. House Leader of the Opposition is talking about, so I believe I can now address the point of order. What the Hon. House Leader tries to raise by way of a point of order is, of course, a hypothetical situation. I could not understand how the Opposition could be referring to a document which was already a public document, saying that it had to be tabled twice. So of course I was on my feet, as I usually am, trying to do the right thing. I said then to the Hon. House Leader of the Opposition that we could spend days, months, indeed years, tabling documents over and over and over again.
However, that is not the question. The Hon. House Leader of the Opposition is trying to have you, Mr. Speaker, rule on a hypothetical situation with respect to some document which may some day be quoted from, and to make a blanket observation with respect to documents quoted by a Minister of the Crown. There are a number of different types of documents, and I do not think I have to take any more time of the House on this except to say that in this particular instance it is fair to say that clearly it is quite proper for a Minister of the Crown to quote from a public document. I do not think there is any
question about that. That disposes of a point of order, I submit, with respect to what has transpired. That is precisely the admission made by the House Leader: the document is a public document. I do not think it would serve any purpose to speculate here. We can read Beauchesne's and consider each situation on its own merits, but I do not think we want to make some sort of general rule for the future with respect to categorizing any document which is quoted as being liable to be tabled. I think we have to look at each case on its own merits.


Mr. Speaker:: Clearly the general point is correct. The Speaker can only be asked to rule on whether a particular document quoted from is covered by Beauchesne's. There are precedents on this question, and I am not quite sure that the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) concluded. Is he arguing that the document should be tabled?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is now saying that this document was tabled in 1980 and is therefore a public document, then I will be happy to send, in the appropriate way, for a copy of this paper. But I want to state at this time that that was not what he was saying earlier today. He was raising objections of a procedural nature. It is only later in the day, a few moments ago, that he informed the House that the document had been tabled. If he had said that right after Question Period when the point of order was raised, then we would not have got into this discussion. But I also want to make sure that a precedent is not inadvertently created which undermines the existing precedents concerning the necessity to table documents once they are quoted from in debate or in Question Period.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Certain types of documents.


Mr. Speaker:: As Members would expect, I have reviewed the tape and the statement as well as the precedents. That is what I am supposed to do. There is a very clear precedent from 1977 on exactly the same matter. Mr. Speaker was asked to rule and he said:
Yesterday on a point of order respecting the tabling of documents we dealt with a point concerning a document which was referred to by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during an intervention ... he indicated that he quoted from a document which . .. was a public document and that he was prepared to table it if the Chair saw no objection.
The Chair concluded, and I think properly, that he saw no-
-impediment to tabling a public document... if the Prime Minister is prepared to table it, the tabling will take place at the earliest opportunity.
That was the citation at the time. I think, given the precedents, it would be appropriate to ask that the letter which was quoted from be tabled.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in light of what you have just said, I formally ask that the document in question now be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I already said that this is appropriate. Given the precedents, having been asked to rule on the question, the only ruling I can make is that such a request is in
June 6, 1985

order and the letter already referred to, which is in the Archives according to the references made, should properly be tabled. There is nothing which prevents a document from being tabled more than once, if I can put it that way.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is in the mail and we will have it to you by July.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the people of Canada who are watching this whole process are sitting spellbound in front of their television sets, wondering how Parliament works.
I take great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in tabling for the second time a document which purports to be a copy of a four-page letter dated April 28, 1980. It is from the Prime Minister of the day to the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, now of another address, and I hope it will satisfy the curiosity of the Official Opposition.


INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be read the third time and passed.
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, this may be a hard act to follow.
I rise to end the debate on Bill C-15, third reading of the Investment Canada legislation, and I do so with regret. I think this will be a day that will go down in history as the start of at least an uncontrolled sell-out of this country. The principle of the Bill is not whether there should be foreign investment, but how foreign investment shall come into this country. Shall there be some kind of control? Shall there be a mechanism to ensure that whatever dollars are brought in to create wealth, it is done for the benefit of Canadians?
I want to start by giving you and this House, Mr. Speaker, an example of the negative side of uncontrolled foreign investment. A number of us in this House spent many hours this morning learning about the impact of one such foreign company on the livelihood and lifestyle of some Canadians. I am speaking of the foreign owned company Reed Paper. That company came to Dryden, Ontario, purchased a mill and extracted what it could from the forests. It did not reinvest in the mill but it did dump 20 tonnes of mercury into the English-Wabagoon River system. This legislation once again opens the doors and removes the controls which would prevent this kind of thing from happening again. These companies have as their prime motivation the extraction of profits from our country. They do not come in here with goodwill and good faith to help a community. They come in here solely for how much money they can make and take back to their shareholders.
Investment Canada Act
It is this kind of attitude that we are concerned about. That is why we want legislation which will provide effective control. We do not want to say that investment cannot come in, but we want to be able to say, "Here are our rules and here is what you must do in our country. You must provide job guarantees. You must meet our environmental laws and regulations. You must protect the communities you invest in. You must not arbitrarily decide to close your company because you want to regroup in your home country". We saw so much of that in the Province of Ontario a number of years ago. We heard about the legacy of those kinds of decisions this morning. We heard how we as a society contributed to allowing a company to destroy the livelihood of two native bands in northwestern Ontario. They were self-sufficient. They had full employment. They were not on welfare. But today, as a result of the decisions by that company, 80 per cent of those people are on welfare. Disease and alcolholism is rampant. It is a shame what we have allowed to occur in the name of foreign investment and laissez-faire. We must ensure that we learn from the past for a change. Let us not open the doors again. Let us ensure that we have a say in what happens, in how money is spent for the betterment of society as a whole.
I compliment my colleagues who put forth many amendments on this legislation in an attempt to make this Bill somewhat better. Admittedly, some of the amendments were an attempt to reverse the direction of the Bill. We need to work within Canada to create a climate that will encourage people to invest at home. This week we heard from one of the major employers in my riding as well as in the ridings of my colleagues the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) and the Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry), with regard to the company's attitude toward Canada. It indicated clearly that it did not have the confidence necessary to invest in Canada. It is going to the United Stated because its partners in the United States did not have the confidence in Canada to invest here. Changing the rules will not mean that more dollars will flow in. Something else must happen.
A report on entrepreneurs was tabled in the House yesterday. The Government is trying to bring money in from foreign lands by allowing immigration on the basis of worth and willingness to invest. The Government defines an entrepreneur as someone with money rather than someone with an idea who will work hard and create wealth. The Conservatives have taken the same approach as they have accused the Liberal Government and the NDP of wanting to take, that is, to throw money at a problem. The only difference is that they accuse us of wanting to throw public money whereas they want to throw private money. They do not want a strategy for the investment of money to create jobs and wealth.


Mr. St. Germain:: There is no public money left. We're broke.


Iain Francis Angus: 1 grant that in terms of the current state of the Treasury there may be some shortfalls. However, if we started to ensure that the oil companies and multinationals paid their

June 6, 1985
Adjournment Motion
fair share, the money would be there to make some sound investments on behalf of the people of Canada rather than to sell them out as the Government is doing with this Bill.
This is a sad day for Canada. The Government does not want to lead, it wants to respond. It does not want to take the initiative to say that foreign investment by itself is not good. The Government does not want to admit that public opinion sometimes has to be translated into the proper perspective and plans. Eighty per cent of Canadians want greater control of our economy by Canadians. The Government should be working on getting the savings out of the bank. That will not happen through capital gains and RRSPs. The Canadian population is much too-if you will pardon the expression- "conservative".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iain Francis Angus: That is small "c" conservative as opposed to big


An Hon. Member:: Back to parks and recreation.


Iain Francis Angus: It has been suggested that I should go back to parks and recreation. At least we knew how to plan for the betterment of Canadians.


Abram Ernest Epp: They are busy privatizing that too.


Iain Francis Angus: That is right, they are busy privatizing parks and recreation these days.
The clock is moving forward to the end of what little gains were made over the last 10 years to control our own destiny. In conclusion, I will be proud to stand up as a Canadian to vote against this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being 4:45 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, May 23, 1985, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the Bill now before the House.



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 Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker)- Fisheries-Codfish-Size of West German catch, (b) Government position; the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger)-
Consumer and Corporate Affairs-Closing of Patent Office- Government position; and the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap)-Refugees-Report on method of determining status, (b) Minister's position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is the following one. Mr. Stevens, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be read the third time and passed. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour of the motion 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 yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Call in the Members.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering whether you might inquire of the Clerk, of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), with respect to this matter. I believe the Hon. Member came into the Chamber after the vote was well under way.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Sore winner!


Paul Wyatt Dick: It is against what we call the customs of this place to enter or leave the Chamber while a vote is being taken.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I did arrive after the vote had started. I was not certain whether or not I would be permitted to vote.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I did stand up to vote when my name was called. Had I been here on time, I would have voted with my Party in the negative.
Air Transport


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. However, one of the recorded votes will have to be unrecorded, given the honesty of the Hon. Member.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Member's Business has now expired."]
Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 133?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq) moved:: That the Standing Committee on Transport be empowered to study and report on:
(1)	design and implementation of a direct subsidy program on passenger and freight air transportation in the Northwest Territories in an effort (a) to allow residents in remote areas access to affordable air travel (b) to encourage professional, business and tourism development throughout the area (c) to improve intercommunity development and trade throughout the area;
(2)	adoption of the recommendations of the Air Transport Committee report on the adequacy of air services in northern and remote areas, to eliminate where applicable federal sales tax, excise tax and airport fees;
(3)	design and implementation of venture capital program to enable air carriers operating in northern and remote areas to acquire appropriate aircraft for northern and remote operations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to propose my first Private Members' motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Suluk: My motion addresses the matter of northern air transportation services, an issue of grave importance to my constituents in the riding of Nunatsiaq and, indeed, to all residents of the Northwest Territories.
Before I go on, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the wonderful people of Nunatsiaq who have sent me to Ottawa to represent them.
The Northwest Territories occupy a vast geographic area of 1.3 million square miles, approximately the size of India. With its rugged terrain, unpredictable weather conditions and lack of a developed transportation infrastructure, it is not difficult to see why the evolution of transportation services in the Northwest Territories has been slow. Its population is sparse in relation to the land mass it occupies. Some 47,000 residents are scattered throughout the Territories, with many located in small remote communities with little or no access to year-
5506

June 6, 1985
Air Transport
round road, rail or marine services. Just over one-half the population lives in small urban centres, such as Yellowknife, Fort Smith and Frobisher Bay, while the other half lives in isolated settlements in the rural outreaches of the North.
My riding of Nunatsiaq is characterized by these small rural communities. There are 33 communities ranging in size from 35 to 2,700 people which make up the riding of Nunatsiaq. Of the 17,000 who inhabit my riding, over 85 per cent are of native descent, the majority Inuit.
Large distances exist between communities in my riding and in other regions across the North. With little, if any, road access, and infrequent marine services limited to the brief summer months, air services have assumed vital roles in northern development. There is a heavy reliance across the North on air transportation services for the movement of goods, foodstuffs, materials and people. As the transporter of necessary supplies, the air industry has assumed an essential role throughout the Northwest Territories.
Political, social, economic and cultural development are all perilously dependent upon the fragile transportation network of the North. However, problems abound when a fragile transportation system is linked to such community development, and the price northerners pay for this dependence is high. Personal travel costs are often prohibitive. The cost to import goods from other parts of Canada is also very high.
Air fares are costly and unaffordable to most northerners. Goods and foodstuffs reflect inflated prices, with the cost of transportation a prime factor. For example, a 10-pound bag of potatoes sells for about $15 in the northern community of Pond Inlet, while the same bag of potatoes can be bought for just over $3 at an Ottawa grocery store. Among other factors, the price difference is attributed to the cost of transporting the food product to the North.
Most northern communities face similar high costs on all food items. Northern food costs are usually more than double the price paid for similar items in the south. Yet, most northern residents earn incomes well below those of our southern neighbours. The personal freedom to travel throughout the North and to other parts of Canada is considered to be a luxury limited to business and government and employer-subsidized travellers. Air travel in the North is costly and air fares are as much as 15 per cent to 40 per cent higher than air fares in the south for similar distances. For example, the one-way economy fare between Regina and Winnipeg, a distance of 331 miles, is $121. By comparison, the fare between Rankin Inlet and Repulse Bay in the North at a similar distance is $233. A ticket from Resolute Bay to Frobisher Bay, a distance of 1,000 miles, costs $355, while a fare between Montreal and Winnipeg is only $254.
To fly from Cambridge Bay to Pelly Bay, a distance of 388 miles, costs about $486, but a flight from Calgary to Vancouver at a slightly greater distance is only $139. I could go on comparing fares but inequalities are too numerous to mention. Suffice it to say that intra-regional and North-South air travel
is costly and the further North one travels, the more obvious the discrepancies become.
Freight rates are slightly more equitable, but they still prohibit importation of a large amount of goods without a substantial cash outlay. Most communities in the North, therefore, rely on the annual re-supply by ship and barge to import large quantities of dry goods at more equitable prices. This activity generally occurs during the brief summer months following the break-up of the ice. Most communities receive only one re-supply annually. As well, inadequate docking, port and unloading facilities exist in many northern communities, and spoilage and loss of goods due to damage is often high.
Sea lift is also considered to be a less efficient mode of transporting goods to the North. Not only are the risks greater but the time required to prepare for marine re-supply is lengthy. It generally takes eight to twelve weeks to prepare sea lift orders and an additional eight to twelve weeks before the orders are delivered to the communities. The requirement that all orders must be prepaid also limits any benefits to Government, private businesses, co-operatives and individuals.
Generally the transportation of goods across the Territories comes through three corridors. The western Arctic is served by air, road and barge out of Edmonton. The central Arctic is served through Winnipeg by rail, ship and air, and the eastern Arctic through Montreal by ship and air only.
For eastern Arctic residents, the reliance on air transportation is most apparent. If one lives in Grise Fiord, Canada's most northerly community, for example, all of one's food, goods, construction materials and supplies come through or from Montreal. At a distance of over 3,500 kilometres, it would be similar to living in Montreal and having all of one's essential supplies coming from Paris without benefit of jet service for most of the route. Just imagine the logistics, costs and inconveniences such a venture would generate. Add inclement and unpredictable weather conditions and you will have some idea of the harsh realities facing many northerners, Mr. Speaker.
The high cost of transporting goods and the high cost of personal travel to and within the North is prohibitive to many northerners. This becomes especially significant when we stop to assess the economic profiles of northern communities and particularly those in the Riding of Nunatsiaq. High unemployment and low-wage economies across the North are among the many factors that inhibit the use of air transportation services. Extra cash on hand for air travel simply is not available to many northerners and particularly to low-income earners.
The Territories have one of the highest unemployment rates in Canada and were at 17 per cent in December 1984. In my riding, this percentage fluctuates from a low of 5 per cent in one community to a high of 41 per cent in another. As well, the smaller, more isolated communities of the North, characteristic of my riding, usually lack a modern economic base and have low monetary incomes.
As well as high unemployment, residents in the North face some of the highest costs of living in Canada. For example,
June 6, 1985

Keewatin residents in Central Arctic communities face living costs ranging between 50 per cent and 79 per cent higher than those of residents in their supply base of Winnipeg. Yet the most recent average income reported for Keewatin residents was only $11,521.
Kitikmeot residents in the more northern semi-western Arctic region face even higher costs, ranging from a low of 70 per cent more than Edmonton prices for Cambridge Bay residents to a high of 139 per cent more for residents of Pelly Bay. Yet Kitikmeot residents earn an average annual income of only $8,324.
High transportation costs impact on many other areas of northern living as well. They not only directly affect the cost of living by inflation the costs of goods but also indirectly affect it by forcing employers to pay higher salaries to compensate for higher employee living costs, thereby increasing the costs of local goods and services.
Because few can afford it, intra-regional and North-South travel for pleasure is severely curtailed. Traditional family ties are threatened when family members living in separate locations cannot afford to visit and interact with one another. The affordability factor contributes to the sense of isolation and sometimes imprisonment felt by northerners who have no alternative travel opportunities to air travel.
Tourism and business development are also directly affected by high transportation costs. Substantial capital is required to begin new businesses and to expand existing ones. Most often the supplies and construction materials needed to begin or to expand such businesses are ordered from southern Canada. This is a costly venture creating high operating costs which are generally passed on to consumers in final prices.
The northern tourism industry experiences similar difficulties. An important economic industry in the Territories, it is heavily reliant on the transportation industry for the movement of people to and within the North. In 1983, between the months of June and September, an estimated 44,000 people visited the Northwest Territories. Over 29,000 people visited the Fort Smith region in the western Arctic, while less than 10 per cent of those who visited the North visited communities in my riding. Of that number, 66 per cent were travelling on business and not pleasure-related duties.
A number of factors can be blamed for the lack of tourist traffic throughout my region. It is less well developed as a tourist region than the western Arctic, air fares and travel distances are greater, accommodation costs are high, and travel schedules are often less reliable.
An informal survey of some hotel operators in my riding showed that the bulk of business generated by accommodation facilities comes from Government, business travellers and construction crews working on community projects. Of course, there are exceptions of this, but the majority of operators questioned said that incentives such as cheaper air fares are needed to attract more tourists to the region.
Very few northerners appear to be travelling in the North for pleasure. An informal survey of passenger profiles at
Air Transport
northern airports in the riding showed a high percentage of the travel being generated by Government, business travellers, individuals attending meetings and people travelling to medical facilities. Another survey showed that during the summer months, only 15 per cent of all travellers in the North are local residents. Based on the relatively essential nature of air services to these communities, I find this percentage to be quite low.
Most northern communities with which I have corresponded argue that cheaper air fares and freight rates are necessary if renewed economic vigour is to be realized across the North. Such incentives are needed to stimulate multi-development of the Territories and to allow individuals access to the personal freedom of travel.
Who, therefore, is travelling in the North? My research indicates that one of the biggest financial supporters of northern air services is the Government of the Northwest Territories. It estimates that approximately $31.5 million will be spent on air transportation alone for business-related travel by all of its Departments in 1985-86. Singular costs include $800,000 for circuit court travel, $4.8 million to transport patients from remote communities to regional hospitals in the North, and $3.1 million to transport patients to facilities outside of the Territories. Last year an additional $4 million was spent on air charters. Freight costs for all modes of transportation is put at an additional $20 million. If the Government were to withdraw its use of northern air services, the industry would in all probability be jeopardized.
Research also indicates that a number of what could be called inequitable or discriminatory factors influence the eligibility of northern travellers. While exact figures are not available, some northerners, especially those employed in the public sector, receive generous northern allowances designed to reduce living costs and to enhance northern living. Approximately 44 per cent of those employed in the North work in the public sector and are eligible for those types of benefits, which include vacation travel assistance, settlement allowance or isolated post allowance, and a non-taxable accommodation allowance.
A number of private businesses, especially southern-based companies, also offer similar incentives to bring employees to the North and to keep them there. However, for many northerners such benefits do not exist. They must shoulder the full burden of northern living costs without any of the special allowances which are accrued by northern public servants.
In light of all the complicated yet inter-related factors, I am proposing that the Standing Committee on Transport be empowered to study northern living and air transportation costs to see if federal subsidies on air passenger and freight transportation would improve the current situation and stimulate northern development. I believe such subsidies are necessary if northerners are to enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of their southern neighbours. They would have the effect of reducing the costs for food and goods, and would

June 6, 1985
Air Transport
encourage travel, business development and other economic opportunities throughout the North.
The air industry would benefit from increased utilization, and air services would undoubtedly be enhanced.
Southern Canada currently benefits from generous federal subsidies which are designed to improve transportation services across Canada. The air subsidies, while currently under close government scrutiny, appear to be designed to encourage the development of air services in areas where carriers are unwilling to undertake services. As well, surface carrier subsidies seem to be aimed at decreasing transportation costs to a point where regional economies are competitive in the export of agricultural and manufactured goods. Northern transportation concerns do not fit either criteria, and it is argued by northerners and the Government of the Northwest Territories that some special consideration should be given to northern residents and to their unique situation.
I have tried to highlight some of the positive effects such subsidies could encourage, and it appears that they are necessary, if not essential, for the enhancement of northern living. It is my contention that until such initiatives are undertaken, many northerners on restricted incomes will remain unable to afford the air services on which they are so dependent. As well, other initiatives should be undertaken which are designed to reduce the operating costs of air carriers serving northern and remote areas. Any economies realized would be passed on to the consumer, who would benefit from reduced air fares and enhanced services.
While subsidization would, in all probability, continue to be a requirement for some northerners, amounts could lessen over time as air industry costs decline.
Most carriers serving the North are readily able to identify cost pressures unique to serving the northern environment. Those costs are generally included in the fare structures. The factor with the greatest significance is fuel costs. Fuel accounts for as much as 30 per cent of the total operating costs of northern air services, and those costs are generally passed on to the consumer.
In light of the limited time which I have, I would propose that what I have recommended, and what might be tabled later, be sent to the Standing Committee on Transport in order that the recommendations be studied in more detail to see if, indeed, the cost of air travel in the North could be subsidized. The subsidies would then, in turn, lower many of those costs which Governments, such as the Government of the Northwest Territories, pay for services from the south.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member who introduced this Private Member's motion. 1 recognize that it is his maiden speech and I would like to pay my respects not only to his presentation, but also to the importance of the issue which he has raised. However, I regret that he was forced to bring it forward because, in fact, what he has recommended was in
place last fall, in early September, but was wiped out by an act of the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). That is unfortunate. It means that we have lost a full year's time in which to deal with the very critical and serious matters of northern transportation. We are having to start all over again.
I would point out to the Hon. Member that he has recommended a number of steps which run totally contrary to steps that were announced in the Budget. Those steps substantially reduced the budget of the Department of Transport and substantially increased the requirement of the Department to raise user fees, fuel taxes, and other things which will add to the costs of northerners as well as to those of other people in the country.
I would like to comment on the history of this matter. Last year we brought in a new domestic airline policy for Canada, after holding extensive hearings across Canada. It had, as its primary objective, the introduction of a much higher level of competition in the air industry. The announcement which was made last April recognized that northern Canada had special characteristics. At that time, the Canadian Transport Commission did not have a full opportunity to examine what would be the exact specifics of the requirements of northern Canada. As a result, when I introduced the policy, we set up, on a temporary basis, a demarcation line which separated the country into two zones. There was a southern zone in which the new competitive airline policy would be applied, and a northern zone was established to provide time for further study. Last April, I referred these matters to the Standing Committee on Transport. Almost a year ago, the same reference was given to the committee. However, when the new Government came into power on September 4, it did not carry through with the reference. Unfortunately, those important matters have lapsed for a full year. That time could have been effectively used to pursue the matter of northern transportation. Because the present Government would not have anything to do with nasty Grits, it simply put it on the shelf. Now it is up to the Hon. Member to revive the matter. I agree with his objectives and goals, but, unfortunately, it is unnecessary because the matter was previously before the standing committee.
Furthermore, at that time there was a venture capital program to help airlines in northern parts of Canada, the remote areas and small communities in buying new equipment. We did not need a new program. There was already a program which was introduced last April. That program had a $10 million allocation. It was not money which was newly brought from the Budget. I reallocated money which was already in the budget of the Department of Transport. We set aside those funds. We started working in places like northern Manitoba, the Atlantic provinces and the northern parts of Canada. We were working with local communities and local airlines because we recognized that one of the primary problems in providing a new deregulator-or, as I used to like to call it, a "more liberalized air environment" in Canada-was the very poor equipment, and that is still true, I believe, in the northern parts of Canada. I have found, as I travelled, that there are a
June 6, 1985

lot of 40-year-old DC-3s flying around, and that situation does not give adequate, proper and sometimes safe care to northern travellers.
We introduced that capital program. It was in place. But it was wiped out in the November statement of this Government.


Mr. Forrestall:: It was an inadequate program.


Lloyd Axworthy: It was a very effective program because the communities and the airlines were beginning to negotiate as to how they could use it. I know there is a tendency in this House for Hon. Members on the government side to stand up and say, "Boy, everything you guys did before was all wrong", but I simply point out that we did some things right and the present Government did some things wrong when it came to power. It wiped the slate clean, and now the program has to be reintroduced by means of this motion.
I have no argument with its being reintroduced but Hon. Members opposite should recognize that their Government was responsible for eliminating what in effect is asked for in this motion. I think it is very important to take note of that history, although we have now acquired the remarkable facilities in this House to rewrite history. It is said that everything started on September 4. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when it came to deregulating the airlines, it started several months before then. I would like to say to Hon. Members that I only wish the Government had the same interest in pursuing that policy. In fact, I find it wonderfully ironic-and I find many things ironic about this Government-that it can give us this rhetoric about getting Government off the backs of private enterprise and getting rid of all of the government regulations when in fact the Government has slowed down the deregulation process which we put into place. The steps we introduced last spring have in effect been put into limbo.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if we had the power to amend, I would have been very happy to provide further amendments to this resolution. For example, the Transport Committee should make a full examination of the role and responsibility of Air Canada under the new airlines domestic policy. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in one of his off-the-cuff, shoot-from-the-hip policy statements said that they could not look at Air Canada. It was very clear, when we introduced the new domestic airline policy, that we could not have a proper deregulated atmosphere when we have a Crown corporation which has 65 per cent of the business. Yet this Government has in effect eliminated the opportunity to pursue the matter of how we deal with a more advanced and expanded deregulated atmosphere. It cannot deal with that properly until it comes to grips with what to do with Air Canada. The Prime Minister, as is his wont, has again forestalled that opportunity.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member had provided even further terms of reference for the Transport Committee to look at how we can continue to develop the second phase of the new domestic airline policy which was brought in last
Air Transport
spring. There are a number of things which could be done. I mentioned Air Canada, for one. There have to be major amendments to the National Transportation Act on the whole question of public convenience and necessity, again giving consideration to the proper exit and entry of airlines into these areas, and there has to be proper attention paid to the labour relations side of the problem, because we will not have a more effective airline policy until there are proper policies put in place.
I make the case personally that there should be a much higher level of employee participation or ownership in companies like Air Canada. When we sold Nordair off last year we gave the employees 10 per cent of the ownership, which has provided a very substantially different set of labour-management relationships in that company. So my point is, Mr. Speaker, that I think the Hon. Member has brought to the attention of this House a very important item but he has not gone nearly far enough.
Let me also address something else which I deeply regret. The Hon. Member talked about the impact of high prices and cost of air travel in the North. I would say that it is an extreme case in the North, but the same problem also affects travellers in the south. Perhaps there is no area of the economy which is more price-sensitive than air travel. One can almost have a direct inverse relationship between price and volume of use. Yet, from the time this Conservative Government came into office, it has substantially increased the cost of air travel. It increased the airport fees, the fuel tax, the landing fees, and even last week it brought in a motion rescinding my decision not to charge for the carts which people use to carry their baggage around airports. This has to be the meanest minded group of people in the world. But I know why the Government did that. It has been recaptured by that Department, which has the notion that everything has to have a name tag and has to be charged for. But there are all kinds of travellers coming into Canada. They arrive with their shillings or their pfennigs, and when they arrive at the airport and try to get a baggage cart for all of their luggage, they will not have the 50 cents to buy the baggage carts. But this Government, in a very dominant, nonsensical move, has reintroduced that charge.
My point is that the Hon. Member should recognize that these are the very things he has asked for in his motion. He says, "Let's have subsidies to offset the higher cost of fuel, landing fees and other things". Well, Mr. Speaker, it is his Government in the last eight months which has substantially increased those costs.


Gerry St. Germain: We had to increase them because of all the money you squandered in Manitoba.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that if there is any place which deserves to have a lot of money spent on it, it is the Province of Manitoba. If Hon. Members want to get into debate about that, I would just say that, unfortunately, this Government is now taking away all the money which was used to provide jobs in Manitoba and it will reap the conse-

June 6, 1985
Air Transport
quences, but that is the problem of the Hon. Members opposite.
There is one basic fallacy in debating this motion. The Hon. Member is asking for direct subsidies. I would point out to the Hon. Member that the Department of Transport has had $800 million reduced from its budget between now and 1990.


J. Michael Forrestall: Where is that from?


Lloyd Axworthy: From the Budget papers. It is $150 million per year plus a few extra tag-ons. I would say to the Hon. Member that he had better watch out for those freight subsidies in the Atlantic Provinces because they are on the list of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) for examination as well. He had better read those papers because he is going to be in trouble in his area, just like many other Hon. Members, because of the prying and poking of the Deputy Prime Minister.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the budget of the Department of Transport has been substantially reduced. The Government has increased the cost of air travel, and now we have an Hon. Member from the government side asking for direct subsidies. I would say to those Hon. Members that it is not consistent, that there is a contradiction in this respect. I would also say to the Hon. Member that, in addition to putting his reference in front of the committee, I would strongly recommend that he use his place in caucus to make arguments to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is in charge of the slashing, hacking brigade, and to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). These Ministers have been responsible and are responsible for substantially restricting the ability of the Department of Transport to provide its services. At the same time, they are slowing down the deregulation efforts which would have provided a more competitive atmosphere.
I would like to make one further comment, Mr. Speaker, which I think has to be carefully examined when the matter does go before committee. To what degree can we permit and expand the role of competition in northern travel? When the hearings were held last spring during the time when we were developing our new air policy, there was a natural fear and anxiety on the part of many northern residents that the one source of air travel that they now experience-I will not say "enjoy"-might be lost if there was more competition brought in. I was surprised, however, at reading the transcripts of the CTC hearings-because we had sent the CTC off to do further study-how many representations were made in front of that committee to the effect that there really was a requirement for further competition, that the monopoly situation which is enjoyed by many air carriers in that province was being used as a way of jacking up prices and at the same time providing lousy service. I would, therefore, express some question, really, as to why it is that the Hon. Member's motion, in dealing with the matters of northern transportation and air services in particular, did not raise more effectively the role of competition in that area.
I think one of the focal points of committee examination should be how the CTC can substantially reduce its regulatory control of northern air transport services without at the same time abandoning its responsibility to protect those areas where it is an essential service. I suggest that perhaps a better way of doing it would be to use the test of whether air transport is the sole means of transport for the community. That might be a better test of whether it should be a competitive or non-competitive environment rather than using the geographical demarcation line which is based on airline policy. As I said to an Hon. Member, I would be more than happy to give some testimony to the committee on this matter of the allocation and use of resources.
History is catching up with this Government. It now has one of its own Members having to recommend to the Government that it do something that it had undone about nine months ago. For that I applaud him, his courage, wisdom and judgment. He is recommending what a Liberal Government had already introduced, and it is too bad we had to lose this much time. I hope that when the committee has the opportunity to study this reference more carefully, it might want to broaden the reference because there are many questions not contained in the resolution on how to achieve a more effective form of air service in the North.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, there are three or four comments I would like to make at the outset. I want to join with the former Minister of Transport in congratulating the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) on bringing forward the resolution in front of us at this time. I also want to acknowledge the fact that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), in his former role as Minister of Transport, did pursue some of these areas. While we as members of the Opposition at the time agreed that he was headed in the right direction, there was some concern that perhaps he was not going far enough. The Hon. Member will be aware that there is on the Order Paper a motion to refer the report of the CTC on northern transportation, particularly that involving remote areas, to the Standing Committee on Transport together with all the appropriate authority and power to hear witnesses and travel, so that it can bring the matter to a conclusion, we hope, this fall.
The points and observations of the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq have been listened to. His representations have been made to the Minister and to others concerned. I think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) would want me to say that he shares, in this particular area, the concerns not only of the Hon. Member who represents the great eastern Arctic but also the views and concerns expressed by the former Minister of Transport. In that sense I am pleased to make those acknowledgements and to join with both speakers in indicating that there is a sense of urgency with respect to this matter.
I might have wished that the CTC, in its hearings, had gone further. Indeed, as we kept abreast of the hearings and
June 6, 1985

representations, we might easily have thought there would be 150 recommendations, but in their wisdom they have left us with three or four. However, in those recommendations I think lie the seeds of the motion concerning the enormous difficulties facing the people for whom the aeroplane is not a luxury at all but an absolute necessity. Distances, times, access to health care, friends, families and businesses, all require adequate air service. I use the term "adequate" not necessarily advisedly; perhaps it is a more than adequate air service and perhaps what we need is a first-class air service. As someone who had operated in the area of general aviation-and lost my shirt, to tell you the truth-I know and understand the difficulties of operators having to use old aircraft and equipment. I also know the cost burden of new equipment. So we in this Chamber have a task in front of us and, hopefully, very soon the committee will be able to undertake precisely that which is recommended in the motion in front of us.
I know the Hon. Member for the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) might want to make an intervention, and while I have acknowledged the role of the former Minister of Transport with respect to the difficulties up North, let there be no misunderstanding about the role played by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the Hon. Member for the Western Arctic, and the former Member for what was then the Eastern Arctic.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Same name.


J. Michael Forrestall: 1 apologize, I have forgotten. This problem has been with us for a long time and the problems are well known to us. I commend the Hon. Member for his motion and I hope that before six o'clock we might call the question and it will be the disposition, I trust, of the entire House to agree to the motion.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that it is almost six o'clock, but we did get started late so 1 would hope that, with the unanimous consent of the House, you may allow me some leeway before you see the clock. However, I am certainly going to be very brief in my remarks.
I support the general intent of the motion. Coming from the riding directly south of the riding of the Hon. Member who introduced the motion, I recognize that there are a lot of difficulties with regard to northern and remote travel. Although this resolution restricts itself to the Northwest Territories, it is my understanding that the other motion which will be before this House very soon will allow us to look at the broader picture regarding the problems faced by the people in the remote and in northern areas.
I had the opportunity to appear before the Air Transport Committee when it was making its study into the adequacy of air service into northern and remote areas. I pointed out some of the problems we face. I think we recognize that a system of deregulation which is quite suitable for communities such as Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and even Winnipeg, perhaps does not make a lot of sense in communities with a total population of maybe 500, 600 or 700 people. At the same time,
Adjournment Debate
I believe that because we do have subsidies, indirect as they may be, for train ad air transportation in the south and for the building of highways, we can therefore look at this in committee to make sure that we are being fair to people who live in these remote areas.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am willing to see this motion go forward. I will have an opportunity to make more recommendations in the committee. I think it is a worthwhile project for us. Even though the Committee on Air Transport has looked into many of these areas in the past, it is of great value for Members of Parliament to find out for themselves what is going on. It is easy to read reports. I, like many Members in the Chamber, have read a number of reports over the last few years. However, it is not the same as listening to people in those areas who are for or against a particular position. In that way one comes to understand the feelings of people in those remote areas and the problems that they face.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Suluk) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Member's 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.

Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the issue we will be talking about for the next couple of minutes is very serious; that is, what is wrong with the Government and the system when there is such drastic over-fishing taking place off Canada's coastline with no action being taken. I suppose it fits in with the general pattern of the Government of Canada.

June 6, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Today, as never before in our history, the United States is imposing quotas on the importation of salt fish. The United States is objecting to Newfoundlanders catching salmon off the north and east coasts of Newfoundland. The federal Government is saying that we may be at fault and it may prevent people from catching salmon. In fact, only 1 per cent of the salmon that are caught are judged to be heading toward American waters.
The West German fleet has come into Canadian waters and over-fished a quota many times. We heard the complaints of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) to the EEC. The EEC told him where to go. He was told that they were not over-fishing any quotas and would not give orders to the West German fleet. That continued month after month. As we all know, the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization deals with over-fishing outside the 200 mile limit. That organization was not even informed of the over-fishing outside the 200 mile limit by the Government of Canada until all the German boats were filled up and had left the area. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stood up and said he was pleased to announce that the boats would be leaving "tomorrow". Of course they had to leave "tomorrow", because they were all filled up.
To add insult to injury, after the EEC quota had been violated the Government of Canada issued further quotas to the English and French fleets. That is absolutely disgraceful. Canadian fishermen are now objecting to this over-fishing. In public conversations everywhere we hear accusations of bribes and pay-offs. This is happening because the Government of Canada has taken no action whatsoever against foreign nations for over-fishing in Canadian waters.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should tell us why the West Germans were not stopped and why he gave the EEC more fishing authority under the same quota that had been violated three times. He should stand up and admit to the people of Canada that there is a standing agreement with the French Government that the French fleet can do no harm on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, that it can over-fish all it wants because of an agreement with External Affairs, that External Affairs is conducting negotiations with the French Government over the territorial sea around St. Pierre et Miquelon thereby External Affairs says to the Department of Fisheries, "No, we can't do anything about the French fleet. The French fleet can over-fish all it wants and will not be stopped".
All this should be explained by the Minister of Fisheries. He should tell the truth, that the Department of External Affairs, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the federal Cabinet are the ones setting the policy. They are the ones responsible for over-fishing. They are the ones now responsible for all the accusations about bribes and pay-offs on the east coast of Canada to fisheries observers and employees of the federal Department of Fisheries. That is the reason for this conversation and why we have fishermen saying that "we are all right.
We are going to fish although our quotas are gone in herring and several other species".
Everyone knows over-fishing is going on. Everyone knows observers and fisheries officers are reporting it. Everyone wonders why no action is taken. Why no action at all? Everyone is wondering why the Minister of Fisheries will not come clean, and why the Government of Canada will not do something. Everyone wonders why the firing pins have been taken out of the guns. People want to know the answers to all kinds of questions, Mr. Speaker.
I conclude that the Minister of Fisheries is being governed in his fisheries policy by the Government of Canada through the Department of External Affairs and by a policy that says we would rather negotiate, we would rather discuss, and we do not want to do anything that will upset our trade relations with the EEC or upset the United States because of free trade, or upset the French because we are negotiating over the territorial limits of St. Pierre and Miquelon.
The Minister of Fisheries should stand up and be counted. The Minister of Fisheries should get out from under that cloak of the Government of Canada. If he does not, we will see fishermen on the east coast of Canada fishing beyond quotas. We will see nets out in the water where nets should not be, because those fishermen know from watching the television news that these serious violations are taking place and that this Government of Canada for several reasons will not do anything about it.


Mr. Mel Gass (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am delighted to hear my friend across the way raising some of these very important issues affecting the fishery of Atlantic Canada.
This was the first year since Canada extended its jurisdiction to 200 miles that FRG vessels fished outside the Canadian 200 mile zone on the "Nose of the Grand Bank". As the area in which they were fishing was outside Candian jurisdiction, and there is no NAFO regulation in place, the view in Europe was that there was no legal framework in place to prohibit this fishery.
As the portion of the NAFO Division 3L in issue is outside the Canadian zone, Canada did not have the right to order the vessels to stop fishing. We were instead invoking what we saw as certain obligations to which the European Community has subscribed in the Long Term Agreement with Canada on Fisheries, in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Convention, and in the law of the Sea Convention.
Canada, through diplomatic and ministerial channels, confronted the European Economic Community and the FRG with its serious concern about the conservation of the cod stock which overlaps into this area, and the impact such overfishing would have on it. Canadian representatives sought the cessation of this fishery. On May 9, the last two FRG vessels left the area.
June 6, 1985

The 3L cod is part of a single identifiable stock located in Divisions 2JT+3KL. The vast majority of this stock occurs within Canadian jurisdication. The total allowable catch for the 2JT+3KL cod stock is established by Canada with reference to advice from the NAFO Scientific Council. The total allowable catch, 266,000 tonnes in 1985, has been fully allocated to both domestic and foreign, including EC vessels. Accordingly, unregulated fishing of this stock, without regard for internally accepted scientific advice, jeopartizes the effective management and future health of the stock.
The Minister raised the issue during his recent trip to Europe. It was at this time that the vessels agreed to leave the area. The Minister emphasized the serious potential conservation problem which this overfishing represented. It was agreed that the issue be discussed at the NAFO Scientific Council, which is presently meeting in St. John's. While we will have to await the outcome of the meeting, I believe we can anticipate discussions with the EEC on this matter.
This is a serious problem and, because of the legal uncertainties, we believe it is best to try and solve it in co-operation with the EC.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS-CLOSING OF PATENT OFFICE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the decision to close the Patent Office or rather to discontinue patent examination in Canada is probably one of the most absurd decisions this Government has been responsible for since coming to power only a short time ago.
Hon. Members will recall that in its first report which was tabled at the same time as the Budget, the Nielsen Committee had suggested that Canada should sign the Patent Co-operation Treaty, also that it should discontinue patent examination in Canada, and finally that the responsibility for researching patents first registered in Canada should be turned over to an international organization. In spite of the many questions I have directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), the Government does not seem to have renounced its project to discontinue patent examination in Canada. We must therefore assume that it is the Government's policy to implement this recommendation.
This proposal has raised the greatest concern among those involved in this area. Last week, I received a letter from a patent solicitor and well-considered lawyer in the Ottage region, a letter which was made public and which dealt with the impact of such a decision. This gentleman, from the well-known Ottawa firm Fetherstonhaugh, explained to me that Canada, through this decision, was in fact renouncing its technological and industrial sovereignty. This would affect
1,000	jobs in the private sector, in other words people now
Adjournment Debate
working all across Canada helping inventors file their patents with the Canadian Patent Office.
It must be understood, Mr. Speaker, that 95 per cent of patents registered in Canada originate from abroad. A foreign investor wanting to protect his invention here in Canada must have it registered and make sure that it meets the standards and requirements of Canadian law. Those people from abroad come here in Canada and hire Canadians to help them deal with the Patent Office. The impact of that proposal to abolish screening here in Canada and to transfer it to an international agency in Geneva or Washington would amount to exporting those jobs, because those people, who pay for services provided by Canadians, would henceforth go to Geneva and hire people in Switzerland to do the work now being done by Canadians. This is absolute nonsense.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it must be remembered that last year, the Patent Office made a $3 million profit. And because of rate increases introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last November, the profit forecast for the 1985-86 fiscal year is $13 million. This means not only that we will be depriving 1,000 Canadians of their jobs, but that we are going to close down an office that in the end is earning some $13 million for Canadians.
Where could such a proposal come from! The answer is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. There has been no consultation of any kind before it was put forward.
The president of the Patent & Trademark Institute of Canada was quoted in The Toronto Star last week as saying words to the effect that neither he, nor anyone he knows who has anything to do with patents, was consulted prior to making this recommendation. I would remind Hon. Members of what is said at page 1 of the report of the Deputy Prime Minister entitled New Management Initiatives. It is stated that the Private Sector Advisory Committee was established to ensure objectivity, and to make consultation an integral part of the process. Yet, here is the president of the patent institute saying that neither he, nor anyone he knows, was consulted prior to the tabling of this decision.
Yesterday, when I put this question to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), he told me, and I quote:

The charges which the Hon. Member makes are totally false.

The information I have presented to the House today is not something I have dreamed up. It is information which was forwarded to me by people at work in this particular field. It is quite curious that the person who wrote to me last week described himself as a frustrated Tory. This is someone who worked for the Conservative Party during the last election, someone who raised funds for the Party, a person who now says that when he calls the office of the Deputy Prime

June 6, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Minister he is told by the secretary that she has instructions not to return telephone calls.
In conclusion, I would indicate that this group from the patent institute, has been trying to schedule a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister for the past week. Appointments have been scheduled. Someone says, "We will call you back." No one calls back. I am simply asking the Parliamentary Secretary to convey a message to the Deputy Prime Minister suggesting that he might meet with some of the people in this particular field to see whether or not a decision which could have very serious consequences for Canada, and Canadian industry and technology, can be reversed before any further damage is done.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, on May 29, the Hon. Member asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) about patents and economic growth in Canada. The Government's efforts for an economic recovery have but one objective-to have all Canadians share, in fairness, our nation's wealth and progress. Therefore, this Government will seek every opportunity to become aware of, and to exploit, the various elements essential to our integration into the international networks necessary to ensure economic growth in our country.
This allows the opportunity to comment on the Government's decision to ratify the Patent Co-operation Treaty, the PCT, an international treaty administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization, a specialized UN agency in Geneva, Switzerland.
Under the PCT, any Canadian may file an international application. The effect of this international application would be the same as if national applications had been concurrently filed with the national patent offices of the PCT member countries which the applicant designates in his application. The international application is then subjected to a search by an international searching authority and the applicant is advised of the results so that he can decide on the basis of the international search report whether or not it is worthwhile to pursue his application in the various countries he has designated.
Under Chapter II of the PCT, it is also possible to obtain a preliminary examination of the application by an international preliminary examining authority and the applicant is then placed in an even better position to decide whether or not to pursue his application further. A Canadian applicant would then designate countries in which he wants a patent and the national authorities then have to decide on whether or not a patent will be granted.
When a sufficient number of applications are contemplated, and that number is approximately five, the advantages for Canadian applicants can be many. These include: another avenue to foreign patenting by Canadians; a simplified and cheaper process for Canadians when filing abroad; a reduction
in agent costs because applicants can file in one format and one language; and an improvement in the quality of the patent searches because of the extensive documentation to be searched.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that by ratifying the Patent Co-operation Treaty, Canada will in many cases give its inventors and innovators a simpler and less costly avenue to foreign patents and will therefore help to put Canada in a better position in international markets.


REFUGEES-REPORT ON METHOD OF DETERMINING STATUS. (B) MINISTER'S POSITION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government has begrudged and minimized its international obligation under the United Nations Convention for Refugees. It has been doing that for years and continues to do so. In fact, it is trying to keep out as many of the people as possible who come to Canada claiming to be refugees.
These people are being slandered by Mr. Best, the Executive Director of the Department, who again and again tells the press and everyone else that many of these people are bank robbers, terrorists or, at best, economic migrants who simply want to get into this land of milk and honey by pretending to be refugees. He keeps saying that only 35 per cent of those who have applied in the past have been found to be refugees, although he knows when he says that that the Supreme Court has ruled that the process of determining the status of refugees is wrong under Canadian law and must be changed.
For years lawyers and churches have said that there should be refugee hearings in front of decision makers. They have said that the people who make the decisions regarding a person's life or death should be able to look that person in the eye and decide if he or she is telling the truth.
There has been no action on this request for the last dozen years by either the previous Government or the present Government. Because of that, sympathy built up for refugees. There were appeals to the courts. The process has gotten clogged up and now there are 14,000 claims, and counting family members that means that the cases of 20,000 people are backlogged.
Two months ago, the Supreme Court said that these people must have the kind of hearing before the decision makers that so many lawyers, church people and other public voices have requested, and which the Government has consistently denied them. What has happened since April 4 when the Supreme Court announced that decision? The Minister has done absolutely nothing. Requests to the Minister from the critics of the two Opposition Parties to discuss this issue with her have been stonewalled. She will not discuss what possible action she might take. She will not consult on her actions. Instead, she is using the Rabbi Plaut Report to stall.
The Plaut Report was supposed to be brought to the House in December. In the fall, the Minister announced in her Estimates that it would come in January. In March she said she would have it in a few days. In April she said she would
June 6, 1985

have it in a few weeks. When I asked a question in the House on May 10 she said it would be published very shortly. It is now June and there is no word yet of that report.
This causes people to wonder and worry about rumours. What is she planning to do? Does she plan a sort of double shuffle of the Immigration Appeal Board? Does she plan to increase its numbers, but cut down its quorum so that it can run refugee claimants through an oral hearing like sausages through a sausage machine, and run most of them out of the country? Is that the plan that Cal Best of the Department of Immigration is forcing upon the Minister as her official advisor?
The Immigration Appeal Board does a good job on ordinary appeals, but it lacks the expertise that the Refugee Status Advisory Committee has in hearing refugee appeals. In fact, it is infected with the bias of Cal Best and senior officials of the Department of Immigration. There is the danger that a series of hasty decisions could be made which would be biased against refugees, sending some of them into very dangerous conditions.
I would urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to give consideration to a resolution which was put forward by the Standing Conference of Canadian Organizations Concerned for Refugees. That organization met last week and recommended:
-that a universal program of special measures be adopted-
That could be done without the delay of legislation. The Minister could declare the programs tomorrow under existing legislation. The resolution continued:
-special measures be adopted by the government to speedily facilitate a humanitarian solution to all persons in the refugee determination process on April 4, 1985. The special measures should apply equally to all people caught by our faulty process regardless of nationality or ethnic origin. It would be unjust to ask people, many of whom have been in our old and inadequate process for several years, to return to the beginning to start over.
I call on the Minister to adopt some just action at the present time. If she cannot think of anything better, then she should adopt the resolution of the Standing Conference of Canadian Organizations Concerned for Refugees.
There are only three weeks left before the summer recess. I urge the Minister not to drag out the matter until next fall, or next Christmas, in defiance of the decision of the Supreme Court.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I would like to expand on the reply which was given on May 10, 1985, by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), regarding the very important matter of refugee determination in Canada.
Adjournment Debate
As most Members are aware, Rabbi Gunther Plaut, a noted humanitarian and scholar, has been conducting an in-depth review of our refugee determination system. The review was made necessary by the severe pressures that have been placed on the process in recent years by increasing numbers of persons coming to Canada and seeking refugee status here. That has created a large backlog of cases which are awaiting consideration.
Obviously, the backlog situation is unacceptable. It means, in fact, that bona fide refugees, who have already undergone traumatic experiences, face an uncertain future when they must wait 18 months or longer until their fate in Canada can be decided. For others who may have made claims to refugee status as a way of trying to circumvent normal immigration procedures, it means that they have bought time in Canada.
It should be explained that refugee claims have been determined in Canada fairly and objectively for about 13 years. Refugee claims are not judged in the Canadian system by immigration officers. The review in the first instance is carried out by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, which is an independent entity within the Commission, that makes recommendations to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The claims which are not accepted can be reintroduced at the Immigration Appeal Board.
In a decision rendered on April 4, 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that all refugee claimants were entitled to an oral hearing. Until now, it was only the exceptional cases which were heard orally. The Minister fully supports that decision. To a considerably degree, the decision is the culmination of a process that has made the refugee determination process in Canada one of the most open and equitable processes of this kind which exists in any country.
However, the blueprint for a new procedure that would give effect to the Supreme Court decision is not a simply thing. The process must be fair, but at the same time it must function efficiently and with a minimum of delay. Once Rabbi Plaut's study is available to the public, the Government will have a better idea of the way in which these diverse elements can be reconciled. Also, because changes to legislation will be required, Members will have an opportunity to debate the issue.
I call upon all Members to support the positive and effective legislative changes which will be introduced, so that Canada will be able to continue to respond generously to humanitarian needs.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 7, 1985