1985-01-29

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, January 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens that Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and on the motion of Mrs. Tardif (Charlesbourg) (p. 1708).
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to oppose the motion that was moved yesterday by the Government. The motion in question is intended to choke off debate at a most inappropriate time. Certainly when we are dealing with a measure of the importance claimed for the Bill to create Investment Canada, by the Government, I would submit that the measure would require the widest and deepest possible consideration, not only in committee but in the formal stages of debate here in the House.
Instead of allowing this debate to continue, instead of allowing Members of the House to have the fullest opportunity to express their views and concerns during the second reading stage, the Government has moved an amendment to have the previous question put, thereby shutting off the opportunity that would otherwise exist for Members of the House to offer reasoned amendments and to bring about a vote on second reading. I submit that this is most inappropriate and most untimely. This motion deserves to be rejected by the House.
Aside from the reason I have already stated, that the motion is designed to choke off debate on second reading before Members of the House feel they have had adequate time to express their views at this stage, another reason to oppose this motion is that the Bill itself has not been shown to be one worthy of the support of the House. The debate that has gone on over the past several weeks, rather than strengthening the case made for the Bill by the Government, has, in my view, done just the opposite.
In proposing to Parliament the Bill to create Investment Canada, the Government has given as a reason for it the notion that the creation of Investment Canada would in itself
cause a massive flow into Canada of the kind of investment needed to create jobs and bring about economic growth. However, it is most interesting to note that after the Bill was presented to the House for second reading, a number of articles appeared in the press examining this very question. The articles all came to the conclusion that the Bill itself would not really do anything to bring to Canada the kind of investment we continue to need in order to create jobs and generally improve the economy.
The articles in question pointed out, as I did in an earlier speech in the House, that what brings investment to a country or community is the view of the potential investor that there are profits to be made and that there are markets to be filled. In other words, investment is brought to a community when there are demands for the products or services intended to be created by the investment, demands sufficient that these products or services can be sold at a profit. The Investment Canada Bill does nothing whatsoever to improve the prospects for investors of making a profit through investing in Canada, whether they are foreign or Canadian investors. This Bill does nothing to improve the conditions in the Canadian economy which would lead investors to believe that they have a reasonable chance to make a profit beyond the situation existing at present.
Let me outline some of these factors and try to relate them to the Bill. One of the factors is the extent of capacity utilization in the Canadian economy, that is to say, the extent to which there are factories which are not being used fully to produce goods and the extent to which there are facilities which are not being used fully to produce and distribute services in the Canadian economy. The facts are clear. There is a very high rate of unused industrial capacity in the country, and this Bill does nothing whatsoever to bring about the increased usage of the unused industrial capacity.
Another factor is the rate of profit which is already being earned, or expected to be earned, by business in Canada. There are many in the business community who feel that there has not been a sufficient recovery in profits from the lows which they reached during the recession to justify vastly increased new investments. There is nothing in the Bill to increase the rate of return, or the prospects of an improved rate of return, for business in Canada which would lead business to decide to make further investments in the Canadian economy.
In addition, one of the problems which business has been given for not being willing to increase investment in Canada is the high rate of debt that has been built up and which clutters the balance sheets of business in the country. It is a hangover

January 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
from the last recession. Until business feels that there is a better ratio in its balance sheets between debt and assets, and until the debt situation is under better control, business will continue to be inhibited when it comes to investment decisions. I reiterate that the Investment Canada Bill does nothing to help the problem of excessive debt which still clutters the balance sheets of too many companies in Canada.
We do not simply want to see more investment from abroad; we want to see more investment by Canadians so that they will have the opportunity to benefit from the development of the resources, capacities and skills which are found in their country. Canadians have the wherewithal to invest more fully in Canada, if one looks at the very high level of savings as a percentage of the Gross National Product. Canada has a rate of savings which is somewhat greater than, and possibly double, that of the rate of savings in the United States. There is nothing in the Bill which would bring about increased opportunities for investment in the economy by Canadians. There is nothing in the Bill to encourage Canadians to use their high level of savings to invest in Canadian opportunities. Although the Bill gives some superficial lip service to the idea of encouraging investment, there is nothing in it to bring about that concrete result when it comes to investment by Canadians or investment by other people.
There has been no indication to the Opposition or to Canadians generally in the speeches of government Members in the debate on second reading thus far that this Bill will bring about the flow of investment which the Government says will result, the kind of investment which continues to be needed to create jobs and bring about an expansion of the Canadian economy. Spokesmen for business who were quoted in the press, including a recent article in the Financial Post, continue to confirm that the level of investment expected in this country will be weak compared to the level at which it was in past years under Liberal Governments.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment before this House should be rejected so that government Members will have a better opportunity to make their case as to what this Bill will accomplish for Canada, because they have not made that case as yet. In fact, they have not done anything to undermine the basic point which I and others have made, that is that this Investment Canada Bill, rather than bringing benefits to Canadians in terms of jobs, investment, research and development, will have just the opposite effect. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, until the Government can persuade us and the Canadian people in this second reading debate that this Bill deserves to go forward, it should not do so. The second reading debate should continue and this motion should be soundly rejected.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with here is a Bill which has been fairly called "a Bill to sell our country out". It is no wonder that the Government is in such a hurry to end the debate with a gag motion. It would rather that Canadians do not hear that this Bill will in effect
help foreign businessmen, especially from the major trading partner, the United States, to come in, buy up our businesses and then shut them down as was done at the Black and Decker plant.
We do not need this Bill. We do not need to weaken FIRA; we need to strengthen it and make it more like the anti-dumping tribunal. We need an opportunity for public representations to be made on the question of a takeover by the company which wants to do so, stating its position and reasons and what it will commit itself to do for the country from which it proposes to make a profit. We need statements from the workers and statements from the communities which will be affected. There would then be an opportunity for new commitments to be worked out or, at the least, an opportunity for the community to know what its future is.
However, this Bill does not propose anything of the sort. Instead, this Bill follows the line taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in the fall and the Minister who moved it, "that Canada needs foreign cash", and there is the unspoken statement that, "we will do anything at all to get it on a short-term basis". The device which is being used now is to make the review more secret, more limited-in fact, limited to one man. That is not what we need, Mr. Speaker. That is how we got into our present trouble.
There has been a great rush of foreign investment into Canada ever since 1945, the end of World War II. I remember that when we came out of the Forces the slogan was "full employment". We all remembered the dirty thirties, we all remembered the hobos riding on the railway cars going east and going west, all of them looking for jobs which were not there. I remember our church collecting pots and pans for a desperate family who were going back to some piece of farm land in Manitoba that was so poor it was empty at the time. I remember my half brother, Bill, working in the Winnipeg soup kitchen. He thought he was lucky to have the opportunity to work the midnight shift as a cleaner, and talked about the men slashing their wrists. I remember my Dad saying to a neighbour, "If war was declared today, I guess you'd have a job tomorrow". In 1945 we did not want to go back to that. So the doors were opened wide to foreign investment which was supposed to be the solution to our problems. During that period, when foreign investment ruled, unemployment rose from less than 3 per cent to about 12 per cent. Unemployment quadrupled in this land during the four decades when foreign investment ruled. It was a short-range solution, or what some people have called a quick fix. It apparently worked for a few years, and now we are having the long-term pain for that short-term gain. Canada was mortgaged to the United States.
This massive increase of foreign investment meant that there was no commitment to keeping Canadian plants open. We had forgotten what happened in the 1930s when foreign owners shut down their plants in Canada, because for a few years Canada and the U.S. were almost the only countries in the world able to sell manufactured products after World War
January 29, 1985

II. Things looked easy. We did not understand what was coming until the late 1950s. Under the Diefenbaker Government, the last Tory Government which lasted for more than a few months, we had tight money, bankruptcies, and rising unemployment. Remember how immigrants were harassed in the name of unemployment? All the while the U.S. was taking over our industries, so that now they own or control 51 per cent of our manufacturing and we have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the last couple of years. They own 98 per cent of the rubber industry and 51 per cent of agriculture. When I grew up in Canada I understood that this was an agricultural country. One thing Canadians could do was to feed ourselves and others. Now we have lost control of 51 per cent of Canadian agriculture and there is nothing to say that we will not be in the position of some other countries some day when the food is grown here but exported while Canadians go hungry.
Some 92 per cent of transportation equipment, 70 per cent of electrical products and 71 per cent of chemicals are controlled by the U.S.
Therefore, the top 50 companies in Canada can be analysed this way. U.S.-owned companies lost twice as many jobs in Canada as Canadian-owned companies during 1982 and 1983. Why? Of firms with over 500 employees it has been found that the Canadian-owned firms spent ten times as big a proportion of their profits on research and development as the foreign-owned companies did. Graduates of the University of Toronto are hunting for jobs, and the reason for the cut-back in research jobs is that the foreign owned companies do not do their research in Canada. Yet the Minister proposes to open the way for more takeovers and he does not want the U of T graduates to know what he is doing in time to protest.
Foreign firms are pumping money out of Canada. The U.S. companies, which represent 36 per cent of all corporate assets here, account for 61 per cent of remittances abroad. In other words, when small business is looking for capital we are being starved by the foreign-owned industries. One third of the tax revenue which should have come to us from the computer manufacturing industry was diverted by companies which played the international pricing game between factories.
We are not, Mr. Speaker, getting what was promised to us in this American takeover of Canadian industries. They are not creating more jobs. For a few years after World War II it appeared to be so, but in fact it is not so, and that is why we have been in such severe trouble for the last three or four years. We do not need an increased takeover of our factories which, as the previous speaker pointed out, are not even operating at full capacity. A foreigner owner would be happy to shut them down completely, probably. What we need is greater protection of the Canadian worker and potential owner of industry who wants to develop industries which will work here in Canada and create jobs for Canadians.
The experience of other countries is just like that of Canada but more intensive. It has gone further because they were weaker to start with. Take a country like the Philippines. In 10 years of this kind of program, foreign control of investment
Investment Canada Act
capital and the import-export policies of their government, they have had their real wages cut in half. Workers with only half the money cannot pay the price for rice, which means that the price of rice going to the farmers was cut in half. The result in the Philippines was poverty, repression, assassination, and riots. We are not close to that in Canada yet. We have only growing poverty and some hints of repression through the secret service Bill of the last Government.
This has not been happening only in the Philippines. The same process was carried on in the same years in South Korea and in Central and South America under the rule of the International Monetary Fund. In all cases there were Governments in place which agreed to allow growing foreign takeovers of industries, either directly or through loans from the IMF and western banks. In all cases unemployment and poverty have grown to desperate proportions. In all cases they are looking at possible bankruptcies.
We do not need this gag motion to end this debate. We need to let the public know what is happening.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, Tuesday, December 11, 1984 will live as a day of infamy. On that day the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) introduced Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada to be read a second time and referred to committee. With those and many other words he set out to dismantle the progress that we have made over the decades to make this country a place where greater control is held by Canadian entrepreneurs and workers.
January 28, 1985, yesterday, will also be remembered as a day of betrayal. On that day the Government and the Tory Party undertook to invoke closure to prevent this debate from continuing so that we would not be able to discuss what was at stake with this most important issue. Some feel that this may challenge the very independence of Canada. Those of us in the Opposition know that it will threaten our independence as a nation and affect our sovereignty. Therefore, a great deal is at stake in this debate.
When the Tory Party was in opposition it was very jealous of its right to debate every Bill at great length. The members spoke of the importance of freedom of information, consultation and dialogue. We now see that that same Tory Party, which was on this side of the Flouse such a short time ago, has already betrayed the promises it made to the electorate of Canada that it would form an open government ready to listen and debate. Unlike the Liberal Government, it was going to take its time and listen to people's opinions. Already, such a short time after the opening of the House of Commons, although we have passed quite a number of Bills, we see on this vital Bill impatience to choke off debate in the House of Commons. It is rather sad to see them try to silence the voice of a small Opposition which is trying to sound a note of caution and concern on behalf of a large number of Canadians who have supported this program for years with their votes
1762

January 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
and views. This is no unimportant matter and therefore does deserve the serious consideration of the House of Commons.
We now discover that we will be unable to carry on this debate. Unfortunately, in the Conservative's presentation on this important subject, they have been misrepresenting the facts about FIRA and the effects of the Foreign Investment Review Act on Canada. We believe that we have ample evidence to show that it has had a beneficial effect on Canada and a beneficial effect on Canadians.
Let us look at the facts as shown by the statistics. In the ten years prior to the inception of FIRA, from 1964 to 1973, new direct foreign investment in the form of takeovers and other transactions flowed into Canada at a rate of approximately $700 million per annum. Since FIRA has been in force, from 1974 to 1984, the average has been about $1.4 billion per year rather than $700 million. This represents a substantial increase in investments since the time FIRA came into effect.
Over the past four years, the new direct foreign investment figures averaged over $2 billion. In 1983 alone, interest rates were seen as being historically high in comparison to U.S. rates especially. As well, larger firms were retrenching and rationalizing and pulling back. There was a long-term net capital inflow into Canada of $2.8 billion in that difficult year. The facts just simply do not bear out this mythology that has been set forth by the Tory Party about the dangers of FIRA.
As a matter of fact, although the Conservatives often refer to $17 billion in equity capital that has left the country since the introduction of the National Energy Program, the truth of the matter is that over this period there was an aggregate net capital inflow to Canada of $21 billion.
Although it is true that there was an outflow of money from Canada as a result of the NEP, it is largely the result of successful takeover bids by Canadian firms for foreign-owned oil subsidiaries, which considerably increased Canadian ownership of the oil and gas industry. Those who are doubtful need only consider the fact that the Canadian ownership of the petroleum industry has increased considerably during that period for a relatively small outflow of funds.
It cost us money to buy back what we believe we deserve to own, and Canadians supported that buy-back as well as the idea that Canadians should exploit their own country and derive a major benefit from the resources that belong to Canada. We do not apologize at all for that reality.
Moreover, since 1974, the Foreign Investment Review Agency has approved 92 per cent of all applications. Procedures were streamlined in the June, 1982, budget and the approval rate is currently around 97 per cent. That can hardly be called a stringent discouragement to foreign investment.
FIRA exists to ensure that foreign investment will benefit Canada and Canadians and it achieves this by considering the potential investments in a number of dimensions, such as the effects of foreign investment on economic activity, the degree
of participation by Canadians, and provincial needs and compatibility with national industrial policies.
All through FIRA's existence, the federal Government has consulted with the provinces on every foreign investment application. Rather than some arbitrary action, it has consulted with the provinces on every application. In the past nine years, the provinces have disagreed with the federal Government on less than 3 per cent of investment applications.
Although most countries do not have a centralized foreign investment review system, they certainly do not have an open door policy on foreign investment. Many countries, including the United States, review investment with legislative provisions and administrative procedures. Canada is one of the few countries in the world that openly outlines investment regulations.
A recent study by the Brooking Institution shows that 35 per cent of U.S. manufactured goods are protected by quotas and buy-American rules and other non-tariff restrictions. It also shows that this protection in the United States has risen by 15 per cent in the last three years of the Reagan rule. While our boy scouts in the Tory Government do their good deeds for the United States and open the door to the U.S. and foreign investors, the Government has had the door slammed in its face by U.S. protectionism.
We regard this kind of debate as vital to our independence, our sovereignty and the interests of our people. We are concerned about unemployment and the fact that foreign takeovers close plants in this country and throw people out of work overnight. We regard this debate as one that should continue and one in which the Government should explain why our anxieties are unfounded and prove to us what it will do to protect Canadians from these dangers. I am deeply disappointed that the Government sees Fit to cut off this debate on one of the most important topics that the House of Commons could consider.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather disillusioning to be taking part in a debate on an issue which Canadians believe their national Government began to address more than a decade ago with the establishment of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. At that time Canadians believed the federal Government was addressing the issue of domination of the Canadian economy, primarily by the United States.
If members of the Conservative Party believe that Canadians are no longer concerned about foreign domination of our economy as well as of other areas, they are entirely wrong. I cannot understand how the Conservatives could have gone through an election campaign without realizing that one of the most important assurances that young Canadians wanted was that Canada will remain an independent nation with its own salience on the international scene. Perhaps they view this Bill as salutory if they think there might be great economic opportunities for them in becoming totally integrated with the U.S. economy and becoming almost entirely a branch plant economy. However, they should also take into account the
January 29, 1985

realization that a Bill such as this will not in fact provide them with the economic opportunities they seek. All our young people feel, and they are right in feeling, that they are in a horrific double-bind. There is no longer any pride in Canada and no longer any hope for jobs and economic opportunities.
When the Foreign Investment Review Agency was set up, there was a feeling that at last Canada would have, at least in theory, a mechanism to ensure that some benefit to Canadians was derived from the domination of our resource industries and our secondary and manufacturing industries by multinationals. It is unfortunate that FIRA was never very clear on how to hold foreign countries to commitments to Canadian economic development. In fact, foreign ownership that FIRA allowed did not, as we know from reading all the statistics, provide very much, if any, real new investment in Canada. It was the case time and time again of foreign multinationals buying out existing Canadian companies and not creating new investment. Often they bought them out with our money, money they borrowed from Canadian banks, and did not create any new investment or any new jobs.
We argued many times over the past several years that there must be a genuine commitment from a foreign company to create real new investment and new jobs before the company is allowed to enter Canada, and that the commitment should be closely monitored. At least with all its failings we did have, and Canadians were proud that we had, a review agency that did not simply say that Canada is totally up for sale to foreign interests. It is disheartening for us in the New Democratic Party to witness the dismantling of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and it is even more disheartening for us to hear the Government, when it tries to justify this measure, which these days is not very often, do so on the grounds that the foreign investment this Bill hopes to attract will somehow, without any controls over its use, provide jobs for Canadians.
As I have said, we know from our own past experience that without any controls or commitments no new jobs are provided for Canadians. If you look at the comments of my colleagues in this party, Mr. Speaker, you will see that they have repeatedly pointed out that of the top 50 companies in Canada the greatest number of jobs lost over the past two years has been from U.S.-owned companies.
One would think that if the Conservatives wanted to put a new face on old economic policies and if they wanted not to be seen entirely as the captives of international capitalism, they would propose something like the joint venture schemes in which we see countries like Sweden, Italy, China, and many others engaged. In those countries very serious and very important controls are exercised over foreign capital. Foreign capital is joined by domestic capital, and the domestic firm usually retains ownership or a significant ownership of the company engaged in the joint venture. As far as I know, the Government has not examined the joint venture operations that now exist in countries like Sweden, Italy, China, and even the United States.
Investment Canada Act
I was looking at developments in the last year in the U.S. auto industry. I found that a large number of U.S. firms have joined forces with Japanese firms to manufacture products and components in Japan. The reverse is also occurring. Honda is making cars in Ohio and Nissan is making trucks in Tennessee. Hundreds of Japanese high-tech companies are entering into supply contracts with U.S. companies, opening plants, building laboratories, and funding research in the United States. This trend is forcing even the U.S. Government to prod companies doing business in the U.S. to invest in complex production using American workers, ensuring minimum employment levels and retaining research and development facilities. Why don't the Conservatives at least look at that kind of operation, at that kind of control of the operations of multinationals in Canada rather than simply giving away the whole shop? The Conservatives could get commitment for real new investment and real new jobs, but there is nothing in this Bill that makes it possible for such commitments to be extracted from multinational companies. The government obviously continues to be a puppet of international capitalism, just as it is of Cold War diplomacy.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I was going to speak on Bill C-15 during the principal debate, but as a result of the closure motion that is not possible, and consequently I will make my remarks, although much briefer, on this closure motion.


Mr. Dick:: It is not closure.


Mr. Allmand:: It is interesting to note that this Bill is the only new significant measure tabled so far by the Conservative Government in this Parliament, and despite that, it is not willing to let the debate take its natural course. This is coming from a political Party that over the years in opposition decried not only the use of closure, but also the allocation of time. In this case we do not even have an allocation of time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Dick) rising on a point of order.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be drawn to the Hon. Member's attention, if he does not know the rules, that closure comes under Standing Order 37. This comes under Standing Order 57-


Roland de Corneille: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East has the floor.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of politics of rhetoric that we have been getting from this Government since Parliament began. I know what the rules say-


Paul Wyatt Dick: You don't.

January 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act


William Warren Allmand: -but in fact the effect of this motion is to close debate. I know that there is another closure procedure under another Standing Order, but this one has the same effect. It does in effect close off a very important debate.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he went to New York after the tabling of this Bill announced that Canada was now open for business. Again, that is a lot of rhetoric. Anyone who looks at the statistics and the record over the last year or two will see that the volume of business between Canada and the United States has been enormous. As a matter of fact, the balance of trade in favour of Canada has been so high that the United States Government is very concerned. We have been selling very strongly into the U.S. market and making a lot of profits, and the Americans have been selling into our market as well. It is not a question of being open for business with the United States. It is, as many people have said and as our Leader has said, a question now of whether we are going to sell out the country to the United States and other foreign interests.
Many government people have tried to give the impression that FIRA, the Foreign Investment Review Agency, was against foreign investment, but that is not the case. The purpose of FIRA was to ensure by review that all investment in Canada was in the best interests of Canada and of the Canadian people.
Why was such legislation necessary a number of years ago? It was necessary because the pattern at that time had been that when foreign companies took over Canadian firms or invested in a substantial way in Canada, they were doing several things that were against our interests. In many cases they were closing down the research and development being carried out by Canadian firms. All that research and development went to their head offfices, whether they were in Chicago, New York or London, England.
I remind members of the Conservative Party from Montreal of the example of Ayerst McKenna, a long-time prominent pharmaceutical firm which was bought by a U.S. company. It went about gradually closing down the research and development area of Ayerst McKenna in Montreal, leaving many highly skilled scientists and researchers out of work. If it had not been for the actions of the federal Government and the Quebec Government last year in setting up research facilities under the reconstruction program, many of those scientists would have been obliged to go to the United States to find work. That is one reason.
Another reason was that many American-owned or other foreign-owned firms shut down the manufacturing element altogether in Canada and did the entire manufacturing in their plants in the foreign countries. They simply kept a sales agency in Canada to sell the U.S.-produced products.
There were many other negative effects. There was the siphoning off of profits into the United States and other foreign countries. The obligation was put on the Canadian subsidiary Firms to follow U.S. national interests in politics.
We had examples of that during the OPEC crisis and also with respect to our relations with Cuba.
In tabling this Bill, government Members have said that this Investment Canada Bill and the dismantling of FIRA will produce jobs. It will have the opposite effect. If there is no way of screening the foreign investment, no way to negotiate with the foreign investors in Canada and no way to oblige them to ensure that the investment is in the best interests of Canada, they will close down the research and development and the manufacturing and simply use the shell in Canada to sell their products. Therefore, there will be fewer jobs instead of more.
A good thing about FIRA was the way it operated to negotiate a better deal for Canada. As many debaters have pointed out, 92 per cent of the applications were approved. It was not that a large number of applications for investment were turned down. It does not show up in these statistics, but many of us know because we were part of the process over the years. Because FIRA was there, the investing company knew that its proposal had to contain elements which would be in the best interests of Canada. It was always conscious of the fact that it could not buy out a Canadian firm or invest in Canada without considering what was in the best interests of this country. There was a deterrent effect in the law which obliged it to consider those factors at all times.
If a foreign company did not do that, rather than turn down the investment proposal altogether, very often the Government would negotiate with the investment applicant and say, "We do not think your application does enough for Canada. We want some assurance that you will buy your supplies from Canadian suppliers. We want some assurance that you will keep research and development in Canada. We want some asssurance that you will maintain the manufacturing element". Very often through the negotiations they would make a commitment to do that, and the application would be approved. In the statistics on applications approved and rejected that was not always shown, but it was a very important element in the operations of FIRA which provided benefits for Canada and for Canadian jobs.
Bill C-15 is only one part of a Conservative government program to weaken considerably Canada's economic, political and cultural independence. When you look at the cut-backs with respect to the CBC and the cultural agencies and when you see how this Government has been kowtowing to the United States with respect to the defence and external affairs policy, simply going along with the star wars research and so on, you see that in the long run, this country is in for some great difficulty. We will not have the institutions or the laws to maintain those things that we as Canadians think are important.
Over a hundred years ago we decided to be a country on our own. We did not want to be American or British. We recently adopted a new Constitution. We want to be Canadians, despite the fact we are only 25 million spread along thousands of miles of border, next to a huge giant with over 200 million people. If we did not have special laws and institutions like the CBC, national railways, national airlines and FIRA, we would be
January 29, 1985

completely taken over and submerged by the massive U.S. economy, political system, culture and so on. That is not what Canadians expect or want.
We do not have the numbers on this side to defeat or amend this Bill, but through debates such as this we hope to influence public opinion outside this House so that that public will approach the 211 Conservative Members of Parliament and tell them how they feel about Canadian sovereignty, economics, culture and politics and that they will put pressure on them. We also hope to stimulate Canadian groups, individuals, professors and writers to appear before the parliamentary committee once this Bill gets there and let us know what they think about this measure.
My time is up. This is a very short debate because of the closure motion. I urge the Government to reconsider many of the elements of this Bill and give heed to common sense in what is a very important matter.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise a second time on Bill C-15, the first time on the closure matter. I wish to mention some of the fundamental principles, not only of the New Democratic Party but also of business that I feel are being ignored and even violated in Bill C-15.
There is no inherent hostility or hostility per se on the part of the NDP toward the United States or U.S. capital. There is no inherent fundamental quarrel with some of the practices that American companies bring to this country, practices which have been successful in their country and within their business environment. There is no quarrel with U.S. methods of marketing, although I am sure that Members on both sides of the House have felt that techniques that were being imported, particularly as they relate to politics, were somewhat overstated and excessive, given the Canadian environment and our traditions of moderation and caution. Nevertheless, our neighbours to the south have, in general, produced things that work. When they find something that works, they stick with it.
I would emphasize and re-emphasize that we are not seeking in this debate today to present some sort of front or attitude of antipathy toward U.S. capital, corporations or management practices. We are seeking to affirm and re-affirm Canadian economic traditions. It is our belief that in proposing Bill C-15, the Government has been seduced by U.S. propaganda at both the political and the business levels. That propaganda is aimed-and here again we allege no great conspiracy, but merely a community of interests that did not need the specific mechanisms stated-at enabling our neighbours to the south to buy Canadian resources, companies and assets at a price more in their interest than in the interest of Canada. That, Mr. Speaker, is of course a familiar business technique. It is not one that is inherently, essentially or fundamentally immoral, but it is nevertheless a business technique and it is one which is being aided and abetted by the present Government.
We did not find that the Foreign Investment Review Agency was an unusual mechanism. If we look at the legislative
Investment Canada Act
structures and commercial regulations of such countries as Japan, for example, we find that there are mechanisms in place which provide for a much more extensive and thorough review and analysis of attempted foreign investments than did the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
One of my colleagues made a good point yesterday, and it is one that should have been taken to heart by the Government. He stated that the United States itself very definitely does have a foreign investment review agency which goes by the style and title of the American Congress. The American Congress is accustomed-and who would deny it the right to do so-to reviewing foreign presence in its economy, but not only foreign presence in the sense of foreign investment or foreign purchases of U.S. companies but also, and perhaps more insidiously, foreign presence in the matter of imports. Let there be no mistake. The commercial regime under which the United States operates is far more invidious in both a qualitative and quantitative fashion to the Canadian economy and Canadian business than the Foreign Investment Review Agency, the National Energy Program and the national policy ever were to U.S. interests operating in Canada.
In tabling this legislation, the Government is sending a message to the marketplace and it is a very unfortunate message. It is a message that is being sent in conjunction with the planned sale of Crown corporations. It was only partly with tongue in cheek that I characterized that planned sale in my maiden speech last week as an attempt to set up a fire sale of Canada. We saw the spectacle of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) snapping eagerly at an initial tentative approach made by the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation to take over a couple of Crown corporations that were on the block. I characterized that apparent interest by the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation as a logical step off a tall building. The proposed purchaser did not have the assets, the commercial background or the track record to take on the Crown corporations in which the Hon. Minister supposed it might be interested.
The Government has not given any assurance to the House that the Crown corporations that are put up for sale will be available only to Canadian investors or Canadian corporations. The absence of that assurance along with the legislation that has been put before us will, to my way of thinking, create an expectation in the United States that Americans can indeed bid on Canadian Crown corporations that are coming on the block and that they will be able to pick up those Crown corporations at a price which will serve their interests better than the interests of the Canadian taxpayers.
In tabling the Investment Canada Bill, the Government is discarding an honourable and historical tradition of Canadian economic nationalism in which the Progressive Conservative Party and its predecessors have indeed participated. Why is there today a railway that does run from sea to shining sea? Why was the last spike driven at Craigellachie in 1886? The railway exists and that last spike was driven in order to tie together a country. It happened because the predecessors of the present Government at least had the wisdom to believe and

January 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
know that a government that did not control the economic links which held its country together was a government which would not be able to plan adequately for the economy and would not be able adequately to influence, guide, mould and direct the future economic development of its country.
I believe that the facts speak for themselves. We saw that the national policy was indeed a successful one. It is my belief that while the links of our economic fabric today may not be so obvious, tangible and concrete as was the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1886, those links nevertheless are of equal importance today as they were 100 years ago.
This tradition of economic nationalism was not established with blinkers on. It was not established for mere reasons of political expediency. It was not established for the sake of simply being different and using different mechanisms. It was established for very good reasons, reasons of Canadian nationhood and, yes, reasons of Canadian patriotism to which regionalism can contribute as well as operate against. It was established for legitimate reasons and deserves continuation for those same reasons.
The Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia all recognized that only through provincial control of its utilities could the provinces have a real say in the direction, support and development of provincial growth. That is why we have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke on this Bill previously, I brought forward some concerns that had come from Atlantic Canada, specifically concerns in relation to the fishing industry. Since that time, those concerns have become even greater among those employed in the fishing industry. There are concerns over what effect this Bill may have on foreign takeovers, because most fish plant operations are tied to quota licences. In effect, those quotas could be taken over by foreign companies and they could be used in whatever fashion a foreign company decided. For instance, it could close down a plant if it was seen as being in competition with that in its own mother country, it could reduce the operations or indeed, I suppose, in some cases it could even expand the operations, and that would be good. However, that is not likely to be the case.
I have also expressed my concern regarding the management of Investment Canada. I have expressed my concern over the fact that one Minister is responsible for deciding what is good for Canada and what is not good for Canada. I have some very grave concerns about that process. Under FIR A, there was a representative Cabinet committee which made the final decisions. I think it is imperative that all regions of the country including Atlantic Canada, the Northwest Territories and western Canada, should have input into the decisions that are made, and particulary as to how any investment may affect those regions.
In the last few days, we have seen just how Government works. There is no recourse to the bilateral West Coast salmon agreement with the U.S. which the Minister was able to initial. It is very difficult to discuss that openly with the different parts of the industry which are involved. They have no input into that decision. I realize it is sometimes difficult in that governments are required to make decisions, but where is the appropriate consultation which would provide those sectors of the fishing industry-be it the sports Fishery, the trawler associations or whatever-and the people who are directly affected with an opportunity to have an input into this agreement? There is a danger in having a one-man operation in government. I do not think we can sufficiently stress that danger.
If we look at the track record of foreign investors in Canada, we will find that it has not always been good. I believe that Canada has lost in research and development. Most research and development of foreign companies which operate in Canada is done outside of Canada. Research and development creates very important jobs in the Canadian economy. Those jobs benefit our university graduates. We cannot always ship our brains outside of Canada. There must be a way in which meaningful jobs can be created, not just the ordinary jobs which last six to eight weeks. We must encourage jobs of a high-paying nature.
Dangers in the high technology industries are posed with the Investment Canada Bill. I am not the only one who believes that. In the business section of The Toronto Star today, Mr. James Gillies, a professor of policy and director of the Max Bell program in business and government studies in the Faculty of Administrative Studies at York University, who was a long-time Progressive Conservative member of this House, said:
Also contributing to the balance of payments problem has been the inflow of foreign capital. It is imperative that capital flowing into the country be used for productive purposes and not for the transfer of the ownership of assets which does nothing for the economy and simply contributes to the foreign exchange problem.
Mr. Gillies has pointed out very clearly that foreign capital has not always been beneficial to the country. He went on to
say:
Not all foreign investment is productive. It is naive to believe that any flow of capital into the country will move the economy forward. It depends entirely on what it is used for. If it is not invested in the production of new plant and equipment and does not lead to an increase in exports it can have serious negative economic consequences.
Moreover, until the intractable balance of payments problem is solved we must try to limit the borrowing of capital from abroad. No government or government agency should borrow in foreign markets under current conditions. If a government has a function that it believes must be performed either directly or through a government agency, the capital should be raised domestically or the proposed operation should be postponed.
Mr. Gillies-and I am sure we all have a great respect for his views-is saying that this is not necessarily a good thing. However, the Party to which he used to belong is bulldozing this piece of legislation through the House.
January 29, 1985

It is one thing to create a job-and we want to create jobs in Canada-but we should not do that by sacrificing the jobs which are already in the economy. What is the benefit if foreign investment enters Canada and takes over a company which will put other companies out of business? That is what worries me about the structure of this Bill.
Again, with respect to the one-man operation of the Bill, how will it provide proper input for other businesses in order that this can have an idea of what is going on? It is similar to a closed shop. There should be an amendment which requires the decisions to be made public. Canadian investors virtually could be wiped out overnight by the decision of one person, a decision which is in direct competition with their operations.
I mentioned previously some of the problems in the fishery in the Atlantic provinces. The National Farmers Union is very concerned about Investment Canada because of the development of mock products and certainly the new products which are made from whey milk. It is very detrimental to the dairy industry of Canada. The same thing is happening in the fishery with the introduction of mock crabmeat.
I see that my time is running out. Ten minutes is not long enough to put forward our views on the Bill and the seriousness with which this Bill should be taken by the Government and by Members of Parliament.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explore the whole question of how we approach investment capital in Canada as it relates to foreign investment. If there is a company which requires human capital and that company wishes to go outside of Canada's borders to get that human capital-in other words a worker-this Government, as did the last, requires the company to do a job search. In other words, the company must search for that human capital from sea to sea to ensure that there is no out-of-work Canadian who could perform the task for which there is a vacancy. We should take the same approach when it comes to out-of-work capital. If we are in need of an infusion of capital into a business concern in Canada, whether it is partial or total, a capital search throughout Canada should be required. I believe the Government's role is to facilitate that.
I raised that idea with the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) in the finance committee meeting last night, in the context of whether or not that was the role of the Federal Business Development Bank. While he indicated that it was not its role to work with FIRA to search for capital, when FIRA receives a request from a Canadian firm to allow it to sell to a U.S. company or other foreign company, he thought it was a good idea that perhaps we should consider.
In order to highlight that, I would like to refer to the recent announcement of approvals which were made by the Foreign Investment Review Agency which appeared in The Globe and Mail issue of today. It was indicated there that 38 proposals were approved. The article gives some indication of the kind of things which we are allowing foreign money to be used for. We are allowing a company from Rockford, Illinois, to acquire control of a Canadian business which imports, distributes and
Investment Canada Act
services air compressors. Surely Canadians can do that. We do not have to have someone from Illinois come and do it for us. We do not need anyone from Hartford, Connecticut to acquire control of a Canadian business which imports and sells thread and mill rolling dies and machines. We can do that. We have the skills and the knowledge. Obviously, a Canadian company was already doing it and, for whatever reason, it found itself in need of capital whether because the owner was retiring and wanted to get out of the business or because its capital needs were beyond its capabilities. We should be going to that company and saying, "What can we do to help you? What can we do to ensure that your company can remain Canadian-owned?"
A company in Dallas, Texas, was given permission to acquire control of a business in western Canada which sells prescription eye glasses, contact lenses and related eye care products. A company from Portland, Oregon, was given permission to acquire a Canadian company which manufactures band saws for the wood products industry. The last thing we should do, Mr. Speaker, is to let another foreign interest get involved in our manufacturing sector. We have the skills and the capacity to produce our own machinery for the harvesting of our own wood and for the mining of our own ore. We do not have to go outside our borders to find capital. We should work within our borders.
We in this Party have freely admitted that from time to time there are needs for foreign capital to come in to start up new enterprises, because sometimes there are just no Canadians who are prepared to take the risk, for whatever reason. However, one case just boggles my mind. Can you believe, Mr. Speaker, that permission has been given to a company from San Antonio, Texas, to come into Canada and operate a cattle ranch? That is beyond reason. Surely there are Canadians who have the wherewithal to do this. We have been operating cattle ranches in western Canada for years. We do not need Texans coming in to do it for us. Perhaps that is an indication of the lack of support given to the farming and cattle raising communities.
The rationale, Mr. Speaker, is that we should not be opening our doors through Investment Canada and allowing foreign dollars to come in at will. We should be looking at our rules with regard to foreign investment and asking ourselves how we can ensure that Canadians are safeguarded, that there is no unnecessary acquisition, and that there will be no investment in areas where Canadians have the wherewithal and the financial ability to do it themselves. On the other hand, we should make sure that when there are investments, they do bring about real benefits, not just to the investor but to the workers and to the community. We must make sure there is some protection. I admit that FIRA was not the best of vehicles. It certainly was not put together the way we would have liked.
In my own riding and in the riding of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), FIRA approved the acquisition by Canada Safeway (Ltd.,) I think it

January 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
was, of Dominion Stores Limited, and one of the conditions was that the store in Thunder Bay must be closed. It is wrong for the Government to tell a business to rationalize, and the better way is not to do so through Investment Canada. We should not just throw the doors wide open. We have to ensure that there is control over our own destiny and that whatever dollars are spent are used for the benefit of Canadians.
The Federal Business Development Bank has an excellent program of equity investment which allows it to take shares in companies which are in need of some extra financing but are unable to deal with the burden of a loan situation. The Government is then allowed to sell the shares back to them. In fact, it is required over a period of time to sell the shares back to the company. So in that way the company is given some bridging, some time to get on its feet and become a profitable operation once again. I think that is what we should be doing, Mr. Speaker. We should be using tools like the FBDB to help Canadian entrepreneurs survive and develop so that we can grow as a country and make sure that our prosperity is our children's prosperity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Grand Bay-White Falls-Labrador.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, you came very close and I congratulate you. It is Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. I know that was an inadvertent slip on your part.
I am pleased with having the opportunity to rise and speak on this Bill once more, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it is important to put on the record some of the same points and possibly a few more than I did last time. I feel that the people in my province should know that the legislation we are being asked to deal with now is not of paramount importance. It has no urgency, and we should be dealing with other far more meaningful legislation. The fact is that there is really no need for this Bill at this time. It is fluff, cotton candy, smoke and mirrors, public relations. FIRA, indeed, was working. If one checks The Globe and Mail one will find that over 90 per cent of the applications which came before Cabinet and before FIRA were approved. So we do not need this legislation in order to keep out or bring in United States capital. It is really not going to make any difference one way or the other.
But suppose this Bill did attract foreign capital to Canada? What is more important, it seems to me, is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) to tell us how he is going to target that capital, whether from outside or inside of Canada, to the various regions of the country. I feel that that is the greater challenge. How can we ensure that the East, the West and the North get this capital? That is what the Minister has not told us. Are there going to be tax incentives? The Minister has changed the DRIE program already. He said, for example, that the tourist industry will no longer be eligible for grants and loans under DRIE, the regional industrial development program. What incentives of any kind is the Minister going to bring before us to make sure that investment, whether foreign or Canadian, goes to the various underdeveloped regions of the country? That is not what is before us and that is what should be before us now.
The Minister should tell us how regional development is going to be carried out. What is his policy with regard to regional development? We only know so far from this Government that what it does want is for the private sector to replace the public sector. We have no quarrel with that. It is a laudable objective. But how do you ensure that it happens? The only thing my area of the country has received from this Government so far as proof of its good will and as proof of the effectiveness of its policy, is cut-backs in funds which we have depended on for years, for decades and possibly even for generations. I say that not out of pride but because it is realistic.
The whole thrust so far of government policy in the east has been to take away things we have. Let us look at what has been cut back. For example, there has been a reduction in expenditures in the fisheries infrastructure. There were wharves, breakwaters, haul-outs and facilities on land for fishermen in Newfoundland, in Labrador and in the Atlantic Provinces, which were supposed to go ahead but which did not? Spending has been reduced on the fisheries infrastructure.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a commitment to the forestry industry in Corner Brook during the election campaign. Yet that public sector spending has not gone ahead. Mr. Crosbie is suggesting that a minimum-medium security prison which was committed to central Newfoundland, in my own riding, may not go ahead. He says he cannot find the money for it although the money was there. Mr. Crosbie is now saying that possibly the Government will renege on that commitment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that the Hon. Member, who used to be a Minister, would address his fellow colleague from Newfoundland by his title of Minister of Justice.


Bill Rompkey: I will take that advice, Mr. Speaker, thank you. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) should be interested in justice. There is no justice in cutting out something we have had for years before putting something in its place. We do not put the cart before the horse. If the Minister of Justice were truly interested in justice, he would see that justice is done in my riding and in my province. That is the whole point.
We have not seen that justice has been done up until now. There have been cut-backs in the CBC, particularly in the northern areas. I said before and I say again that if the Government really wants to do something about our cultural heritage, it will see that those cut-backs are cancelled. Grants for pure research and applied research have been cut back. We are going to lose expert scientists from the only university we have in Newfoundland because of these cut-backs. There is no way that applied research can flourish unless pure research
January 29, 1985

flourishes. The two go hand in hand, and these cut-backs are going to have an immediate effect on job creation. Even more, they will have a serious effect on long-term job creation because the new technology will not be there. There have been cut-backs in unemployment insurance at a time when unemployment is at its highest. That is the record so far and the only thing I have to go by.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we know that ferry rates in the Atlantic area have been raised. Of course this has the effect of driving up all prices. Whether it is the producer or the consumer, there is an additional financial burden on people in the Atlantic area.
What is going to replace the public sector spending which has been cut? Is there going to be new private sector capital coming from Japan, the United States or Great Britain? We do not really care where it comes from. Is it going to the forest industry? The record so far of British capital in my area is a sorry one. British capital is letting plants go to ruin, not allowing them to keep up and be competitive. That is the record of British capital in Newfoundland. Are we going to see new capital in the fishery? We have not seen it so far. Indeed, the Government has had to step in and provide the needed capital. Have we seen it in mining? No, we have seen U.S. capital cutting back, retrenching, causing lay-offs in Labrador City and the whole of the Quebec north shore. There are colleagues of mine on the other side of the House as well as on this side, including the Prime Minister, who know that the record of U.S. capital has been one of retenchment, cutting back and the creation of unemployment. So the record is not good so far.
The Government's proposal, I presume, will be, in terms of my own province, that these new jobs will arrive as a result of the offshore agreement. The Government's response will probably be that it will create jobs in Newfoundland in that way. But we know too little about that because we do not know what is going to be in that offshore agreement. All we know is what the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, said in a letter to the Premier of Newfoundland. We have asked questions but we cannot get answers. We expect that there will probably be up front a development fund for Newfoundland of close to $500 million. A lot of money, but the question is: Will it be new money or simply recycled old money? That is the question I think we have to ask. Is it simply a redirection and recycling of the funds we along with the other Atlantic provinces have been used to receiving over the years as our fair share for regional industrial expansion. Every year P.E.I., for example, has received certain development funds from the Government of Canada, as has Newfoundland. But the point that should be made is that this money must be over and above that. I have asked the question but I have not got an answer.
How will this money be spent? Will it be spent on highways? Is this the money the Premier is going to use to wage his election in April when that offshore agreement is signed? Will there be an election and will this money be used for that? Will it build the highways? Will it be used to continue the trans-
Investment Canada Act
Labrador highway? These are the questions we have asked and to which we have not got answers. How much investment will there be in this offshore deal? Where will it come from? What will the return be to investors? What will the return be to the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland? Who will set the royalties for Newfoundland? Will it be the Government of Canada or the Government of Newfoundland? How much will those royalties be? Apart from the initial fund we are going to get of $500 million, how much money are we going to get in my province and how soon?
If you will just bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I want to finish these questions because I feel they are so important. Will concrete platforms be used? Will there be funds to train Newfoundlanders to take the jobs in the offshore?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but the Hon. Member's time has expired. In fact, I have given him an extra 15 seconds.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I know the Chair will be as generous with me and that I will certainly be entitled to an additional 15 seconds, as will other Members of the House. The generosity of the present occupant of the Chair is well known in this House.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, it does give me some pleasure to get up this afternoon and outlines some of my concerns about this matter. I think probably this is the first situation in which the present Government has imposed that nefarious provision of time allocation in limiting debate, that harsh measure which prohibits the democratic process of debate in this House. Many, many times I have heard the Conservatives in opposition stand up and bemoan the indignity and insufferable contempt of the democratic process which the Liberal Government's frequent use of closure demonstrated to this House. Now we have the Conservative Party imposing the same thing, breaking its electoral promises, breaking its commitment to Parliament to allow openness and fairness in government. If this was the only time that the Government went back on its promises, then maybe we could understand it. Maybe there is something we have missed in this Bill. Maybe there is in it such a tremendous imperative to Canada and Canadian needs that it demands our being sold down the river to the Americans. Maybe we missed it, but I do not think so.
The Conservative Party has now learned that it does not want open government. It has its program, its agenda, and closure will be the order of the day. It would have been nice, Mr. Speaker, if we could have established some type of relationship where we could have discussed these matters even more informally outside the Chamber. But that is not the way of the Conservative Party or of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) and his team of apparatchiks who are setting the agenda. They have laid out the scheme for the next five years and it is a shame.
I recall an incident earlier this week in the House which illustrates the kind of thing I am talking about. The treaty on salmon intervention between Canada and the United States is an example of the kind of contempt for the House of Com-

January 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
mons and the people of Canada that this Government has which is illustrated by the closure motion today. You will know, of course, that in former years there has been an attempt to gain an interception treaty with the United States. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet approved this treaty with an undignified haste, and it has to be pointed out that it was done so against the wishes of many people who live on the coast of British Columbia and earn a living from fishing. They approved this treaty before they gave anyone documents relating to this particular agreement. The people of Canada and their elected representatives in the House of Commons were given the document after the Cabinet had ratified it. When the overseer, the former Liberal Minister of Finance and the grey eminence of the Liberal Party, Mitchell Sharp, came before the committee, he said that he did not really think anyone should be talking about this particular treaty lest the Americans not buy it. Frankly, I think we have given the Americans such a deal that their tongues will be hanging out to buy this particular treaty.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the way in which that treaty came into play makes me think that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) is just an errand boy for the Deputy Prime Minister and that team of apparatchiks that is running the Government, setting its priorities and issuing the marching orders. That treaty is not the kind of thing that the present Minister of Fisheries would be responsible for. That is not the kind of thing that he promised to the people of the area of this country whom he represents. The only way he would have done that is if the Deputy Prime Minister said, "You are going to do this because we have decided what is going to happen to the people in British Columbia". In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and the priorities group were more interested in having something to give away to the President of the United States when he arrives in Quebec City than in protecting the interests of the people on the coast of British Columbia who depend on that fishing industry.
The Conservative Party formed a Government with probably the largest majority in Canadian history. It did so because of the many promises that the Prime Minister and the Members of the Party which is now governing the country made to people from one end of Canada to the other. It is ironic that many of the supporters of that Party who own tourist resorts in British Columbia are absolutely appalled at the treaty. They had been struggling to have meetings with the Minister and to have the issue brought before committee to have it studied before it was approved.
Many of those people have now been stabbed in the back by the Government. Enormous numbers of telegrams arrived on my desk yesterday and today from people concerned about what this will do to tourism in that area and to their businesses. They have had an example of this already. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is now saying, "I will take total responsibility for what happens. We are not going to re-open this treaty. This is a fait accompli. We want it, we are going to
have it, and the Deputy Prime Minister has told me to do it". I think that is the case, Mr. Speaker.
The fishing industry is a good example of the contempt that is being demonstrated in the House today through this closure motion. When the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was supporting Conservative candidates along the coast of British Columbia, including the candidate in my riding, he talked about a fair buy-back program and about restructuring the fishing fleet in British Columbia in a meaningful way so as to respond to the traditional needs of the people in the industry and the small communities along the coast of British Columbia. Everyone recognized the need for restructuring and realigning that industry, but there were a lot of people who wanted the Government to recognize the traditional nature of that industry.
The documents that the Minister put before his advisory committee indicate that they are going to buy the banks' position. The banks will wind up being paid off. Everyone here recalls that the banks went through a period of lending enormous amounts of money to fishermen to buy new vessels and new technology to keep up with the industry on the West Coast. As the Government allowed interest rates to rise, many of these people found themselves in great financial difficulty. The banks found themselves with many loans which could not be paid off.
The present Minister intends to bail out those banks. Fishermen are going to lose their vessels. Communities along the coast of British Columbia are going to lose thousands of jobs. Many businesses such as ship repair operations in those communities are going to shut down. I think that even Members of the House of Commons will be directly affected by the way in which this industry is going to shrink on the coast of British Columbia because of the way in which the Minister is going to restructure this fleet and promote a buy-back program to bail out the banks. We are going to lose thousands of jobs and we are going to lose businesses. The traditional approach to fishing which people have enjoyed for many years is going to change dramatically on the coast of British Columbia.
This Minister has his marching orders from the Deputy Prime Minister and his apparatchiks who said, "Never mind what you or the Members of the Conservative Party who represent that area would like to do, we have the solution in mind to stop this problem". The present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is on the coast of British Columbia right now selling British Columbians down the river in order to bail out the banks. He is going to make fishermen pay $200 million to the federal Government to promote a $100 million buy-back program. The federal Government is going to sell $100 million worth of vessels for $40 million. In short, through this buyback program, for which the fishermen must pay, the Government is going to make a neat profit of $160 million. It is going to bail out the banks, lose several thousand jobs on the coast of British Columbia, close down businesses, and change the traditional way of life along the coast. It is going to sell out the fishing industry to the Americans and put that business in serious difficulty.
January 29, 1985

I would like to thank you for your generosity in allowing me the time to speak an additional 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, I would like to call it one o'clock.


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


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I have had an opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-15, and at this point, we must ask ourselves why this Government decided to move the previous question in connection with this Bill, a motion that will have the effect of blocking any further motions by the Opposition on second reading, thus in fact closing the debate on second reading on Bill C-15.
The question is particularly relevant since there is nothing of any substance on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. There is no important legislation that this Parliament would have to consider after the debate on Bill C-15. Sometimes I wonder whether the Opposition is not doing a favour to this Government that has been in power in September 4 of last year. Parliament has been in session since last fall, and since then no important legislation has been tabled. This from a party that claimed, when it was campaigning in Quebec and across Canada, that it had the answers to all Canada's problems. On the subject of employment, they said they were going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs as soon as the Government was sworn in, and now we see that during the months they have been in power, there has been less job creation than during the first three months Prime Minister Trudeau was in office and, on a monthly basis, fewer jobs than during the two months when the present Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was Prime Minister of this country.
We might expect a political party that has been in the opposition for a number of years to come to power with specific solutions and draft legislation and policies, but all we get is blue, yellow, green or white papers setting up endless consultations. This is a Government that had no policy and no specific programs to put before the Canadian people.
It is indeed surprising that with its comfortable majority of 211 to 70, this Government should impose closure. Its slogans are consultation and dialogue, but it will not let Opposition Members, even though their numbers are relatively small, debate the only worthwhile Bill before the House. One wonders why they want to put the previous question at this time and why they want to choke off debate on Bill C-15. There are a number of possibilities, but it is a fact that since last fall, the Progressive Conservative Government has tried to make Canadians believe that because of the Foreign Investment Review Act there have been no substantial trade relations between Canada and the United States. As this debate continues it is becoming increasingly clear that the Prime Minister's speech in New York was entirely out of touch with reality.
Investment Canada Act
To prove this I would like to refer to a very interesting article by Michel Vastel in Actualite, which gives some revealing figures on the trade relations that exist between Canada and the United States and clearly demonstrates that the statements made by the Prime Minister of Canada in his New York speech did not reflect the actual situation. If we consider his statement that Canada is now open for business, I suggest we consider as well the figures quoted by Mr. Vastel in his article. He said that the Americans buy 72 per cent of our forestry products, 65 per cent of our petrochemical exports, 59 per cent of our metal production and nine-tenths of our energy exports including gas, oil and electric power. Conversely, Mr. Vastel goes on, Canadians purchase three-quarters of all their industrial imports from the United States. Thanks to the Automobile Pact, Americans provide 89 per cent of our car and spare parts imports, while 98 per cent of Canadian automobile production goes to the United States. Canada-U.S. trade is worth $35 billion more than trade between the United States and Japan. Mr. Vastel concludes that Canada is the United States' most important customer and that Ontario alone trades more intensively with the United States than does Japan. How could the Prime Minister of Canada say in his New York speech that now the Progressive Conservatives are in power, Canada is open for business, unless he was trying to deceive public opinion or send a message that went well beyond Bill C-15?
Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-15 on second reading, I have indicated these contradictions between the Government's rhetoric and the proposed Bill. I have the impression that this Government is putting the previous question because as Canadians are becoming better informed, they realize that Bill C-15 might have a disastrous effect on the Canadian economy and Canada's autonomy, not only vis-a-vis the United States but also internationally. They realize it may be wise to think twice before passing these measures. We on this side of the House intend to propose, at the committee stage, a number of significant amendments to this Bill to reflect these views. We would have preferred to propose a number of amendments to the principle of the Bill at the second reading stage, but the previous question, which has gagged the Opposition, has prevented us from doing so.
Mr. Speaker, were it not for the previous question, perhaps we would have had a chance to hear some of the backbenchers speak to this important legislation. I would very much like to know what some of the Members from Quebec think about this Bill. During the election campaign, they were making very emphatic speeches and asking their government to intervene to protect Canadian jobs, especially where the multinationals were concerned. I understand why some Hon. Members must be frustrated. On the other hand, I was not surprised

January 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
to read letters in the newspapers, which referred to this Government as a "gouvernement de deux de pique", a term readily understood by those familiar with the French language, especially with expressions peculiar to certain regions in Quebec.
But instead of writing letters, those Members ought to take the floor in the Elouse and say exactly what they think, for perhaps some jobs in their ridings are likely to disappear if there is no longer any review of new investments. These might be in direct competition with Canadian companies operating in the various regions and creating jobs. Those companies might find it impossible to stand up against unfair competition on the part of investors anxious to compete on their own turf.
The central issue here is nothing more than the old debate on the national policy of the founder of the Conservatives and that reference to Canada's national policy. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is logic in everything. Here we have Bill C-15, this open invitation to the Americans, and we hear various remarks about free trade zones, even though the words have yet to be defined. I can hardly wait to see the contents of the document which the Minister for International Trade is expected to make public this afternoon. I would have liked the Minister to table it in the House, but apparently it will be made public outside the House. All those pieces are part of a puzzle, and the Government wants us to pass Bill C-15 without showing us the other pieces of the puzzle.
I see that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for your attention. I do hope that Government Members realize that the closure motion they are forcing upon us today flies in the face of every speech they made inside or outside the House.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a few minutes before one o'clock and some time after Question Period to make some comments regarding the muzzling motion brought in by the Government. I presume that the Government does not want the Canadian public to know too much about Bill C-15.
Rather than talk about the problems created for Parliament as a result of closure motions such as this, I want to alert Canadians once again to the problems with Bill C-15 and why the Investment Canada Bill should be hoisted and sent back for redrafting. Although the Minister responsible for the Bill wants Canadians to think that this provides a new means for cutting red tape and eliminating the hindrances to the investment needed to create jobs in Canada, the facts are clear about what FIRA did. The Foreign Investment Review Act was a toothless monster and did not really do anything in the interest of Canada. I believe we should have a much tougher FIRA Bill than what the Government now proposes.
It is interesting to note that few government Members are getting up to applaud the benefits of Bill C-15. I believe that many of them, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, will probably notice that there are some tremendous flaws in Bill C-15.
Let me deal with some of the problems in terms of foreign investment coming to Canada to buy corporations or buy land and become involved in speculation. The first problem that was identified is that foreign-controlled companies do not spend nearly as much as Canadian-controlled companies on research and development, which is the key source of economic growth and productivity increase.
Let us look at some examples taken from studies by the Economic Council of Canada in 1983 and the Science Council of Canada in 1984. With respect to research and development, Canadian companies with less than 50 employees spent 11.2 per cent of their capital on R and D while foreign companies spent only 3.3 per cent. Canadian companies with 50 to 100 employees spent 10.1 per cent on R and D while foreign companies were still at only 4.3 per cent. Canadian firms with 100 to 200 employees dropped R and D spending to 9.1 per cent while such spending by foreign controlled companies plummetted down to 3.7 per cent. Of those corporations with more than 500 employees, Canadian companies spent 10.3 per cent on research and development while foreign companies spent a measly 2 per cent.
It becomes quite clear where the larger corporations, particularly foreign-owned corporations, conduct their research and development, which is one of the most important processes within our economy for the creation of new jobs. Those jobs occur outside the country, principally in the United States. I will expand on that at three o'clock, with your permission, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member has seven minutes remaining after three o'clock.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, the proposals dealing with the universality of social programs announced yesterday by the government are entirely unacceptable. For example, the reduction in family allowances considerably affects two groups already facing financial problems: women at home as well as families with low and medium incomes.
January 29, 1985

1 would like to state a few facts. Family allowance cheques are too often the only money paid to women at home. Families with low and medium incomes are affected by this government measure. Families with less than $10,000 a year receive less social benefits than those with $50,000 a year.
Where are the fine promises of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who wanted to tax bankers with $500,000 incomes? With such a reform, those people will still travel in a limousine paid with the money which in all fairness should be redistributed to the most needy.



CHILD TAX EXEMPTION

Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, tax reform can be just only if we distinguish between tax deductions and tax exemptions.
A tax deduction is something optional. It may be given or taken away according to government policy. A tax exemption is essentially different. It is not optional. It recognizes there are parts of a person's income that do not come under the authority of the state.
The child tax exemption is a good example. It should not be seen as a benefit conferred by the state. It should be respected as a right. If parents have a natural duty to support their children, parents have a natural right to the income they need to give that support. That income should be exempt from the tax collector by right.
I speak of this because it is one difference between a socialist philosophy of taxation and a conservative one. Socialists presuppose the state has a right to take whatever part of a person's income it chooses to take. Whatever a person is left to enjoy he has simply by a decision of the state. A conservative philosophy of taxation says: "No. There are parts of a person's life that belong to him or her", and a person has a right to say to the tax collector: "No trespassing. Keep out. This is mine".



OIL COMPANY PROFITS

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Conservative Members, the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne), and the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce), for joining me and the NDP in speaking out for the ordinary Canadian consumer of gasoline who, frankly, is being hosed by the big oil companies of this country and tax greedy provincial and federal Governments. There is lots of talk about having independent Members of Parliament and Members of Parliament speaking out. When they do that, I think the media and the public should support them.
I have two down and 209 to go, Mr. Speaker. I tell the other 209 Conservative Members of Parliament to look at the report
today from Imperial Oil. It just announced its profits were up from $332 million to $533 million.
Paul Joseph from Burns Fry, energy consultants, expects Imperial's profit will be even higher in 1985. Imperial Oil is 69.5 per cent owned by Exxon of New York. What other country in the world would allow its major oil company to be foreign-owned, then give it tax breaks and so on to transfer money from ordinary Canadians at the pump to the oil company so it can buy more assets in Canada? Already the industry gets 52 per cent of the pie, or $11.6 billion, it wants more, and this Government is prepared to give more. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, that is more of the same.

It need not be that way. We once had a national dream, and we can have a dream again in which the ordinary Canadian consumer can have a break, and the big oil companies and tax-greedy provincial Governments will not benefit.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of this House the concerns expressed to me by many of my constituents as a result of the recent propaganda film on abortion entitled "Abortion: Stories North and South".
The National Film Board provided funding for this film to pro-abortionist Gail Singer to present her one-sided view of this matter, which she had the audacity to call enlightening.
The only way to describe the misuse of public funds by the National Film Board to promote the pro-abortion view is outrageous. This abuse of public funds and trust cannot be tolerated.
I, as well as many other Canadians, believe that life begins at the moment of conception, and from this moment on the unborn are entitled to the same rights and privileges as we enjoy.
It is my opinion that we must stop using buzz words, such as "termination of pregnancy", and recognize abortion for what it really is, the murder of an unborn child.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my disappointment with respect to the proposed changes to the family allowances and the other child benefits provided to families.

January 29, 1985
The paper outlines two options which are in fact disguised as income tax increases for the middle class, without any substantial benefit for low income families. The Conservatives once said that they were aiming at the bank president, but they are hitting his janitor.
According to Option 1, families with an income lower than $10,000 would receive only 98 cents more per day, and families earning between $10,000 and $20,000, would have an increase of only 68 cents.
Option 2 is still worse. Families with an income lower than $10,000 would only get 48 cents more per day, and those earning between $10,000 and $20,000, 36 cents per day.
Moreover, the paper refers to family income, while in our Canadian tax system, the concept of family income is not recognized for general taxation purposes.
This means that if the Canadian government wants to implement either one of the two options outlined in the program tabled yesterday, surveys will have to be made covering a large number of families. After much dilly-dallying, this is all the Government could come up with. Quite simply, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has lost the battle he himself has started.
The Government is trying to hide the Minister of Finance's loss of credibility with some kind of cosmetic change that brings in significant tax increases for the middle class, but no substantial benefit for lower income families.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, last week, the city of Montreal, COPEM, the Cham-bre de commerce and the Montreal Board of Trade endorsed and submitted to the Horner Committee the Bombardier Corporation proposals. I agree with them that Montreal should be a transportation centre of Canada and that the policy of governments should be to contract work out to the private sector rather than leaving this field of endeavour to the responsibility of the public sector. However, I do not understand how they could have overlooked other Montreal companies, such as versatile Vickers in my constituency, which has been in operation for 74 years, which built the first subway in Montreal and which already has, which is not the case of Bombardier, the facilities needed to build and repair passenger cars, its physical plant extending over 205,000 square feet with a working capacity for more than 500 workers. This company has the equipment, the expertise and the technology required.
I would therefore like to ask the City of Montreal to reconsider its position and the Horner Committee to take these facts into account. One of its members should not be favoured to the disadvantage of others, especially since Bombardier has joined with the Urban Transport Development Corporation to put in tenders for the contracts of the Federal Government and Ontario to build new trains for VIA Rail. Maintenance could perhaps be left to another company.



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, due to a price war on bread which is currently raging in Saskatchewan between the two major suppliers, Westons and McGavins, smaller bakeries across the province are being forced out of business. I have had appeals from many small bakeries requesting that action be taken on their behalf so that they will not go under as a result of excessive price cutting.
Their complaints are fully justified. These are important small business people who are major contributors to the wellbeing of local economies. If they do not survive this price war, the unemployment lines will continue to grow even longer, and bread prices will quickly rise to above the old price level as soon as the local bakeries are out of business.
Bread which has been sold at $1.05 a loaf retail will not remain at the 58-cent a loaf retail currently in place. Once the small bakeries are pushed out and McGavins and Westons take over, $1.05 will look cheap by comparison.
I urge the Government to take immediate action through the Combines Investigation Act so that these small businesses can continue to remain open. This will provide customers with a choice, and will allow local bakeries to continue to play an important role in their local economy. Surely a Government which claims to be open for business cannot stand idly by while giants in the bread industry shut down small bakeries in their bid for total control of the bread market.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, last year was a tragic one for India. We saw the assassination of Prime Minister Gandhi and large scale communal violence in the events leading up to and following her assassination. These and other events in India have seen Indian pitted against Indian, and sometimes members of one religion have attacked members of another religion solely because of religion. Other events, such as the recent tragedy in Bhopal, have
January 29, 1985

cut across religions. These events have, to some extent, spilled over into Canada. Relations between Canadians with Indian backgrounds of different religions have sometimes become strained.
That is why last month, in Toronto, a group of Canadians, primarily of Indian background from the major religions in India, formed the Indo-Canadian Assistance Society. This non-profit society was formed to aid victims of communal violence in India regardless of religion, as well as to aid victims of the recent chemical accident in Bhopal. The president is Christin, the treasurer is Hindu, the secretary is Sikh, and the first vice-president is Moslem.
Already two Members in addition to myself, the Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner) and the Member for Edmonton Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), have agreed to become honorary presidents of the Society. Hopefully all of us can work together to bring aid to those suffering in India and, by working together in Canada, ensure that religious differences between Canadians are minimized.



DISASTERS


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, as most Members are aware, the town of Glace Bay and the surrounding areas suffered another serious economic setback this past Saturday due to a fire which destroyed the Highland Fisheries fish plant, throwing another 350 persons out of work. This is the second economic blow within a year to a community which was devastated by the fire at the No. 26 Colliery, leaving 1,200 miners unemployed. The unemployment rate has now soared to 55 per cent.
As I was meeting with town officials and the owner of the fish plant yesterday to discuss the situation, I was unable to be present in the House yesterday, but was heartened by the assurance of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to assist the town with whatever the Government can do.
There are many initiatives which the Government can take. It is this Minister who has the responsibility to move on them. First, the Government could sign a federal-provincial subsidiary agreement on infrastructure projects for the town of Glace Bay. Second, it could initiate a pre-retirement plan for older miners, thus enabling the younger ones to obtain jobs and plan for the future. Third, it could make a firm commitment on new coal developments for the town of Glace Bay. I urge the Minister to take action forthwith.



FORESTRY


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Montreal the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association inaugurated its 72nd annual meeting. The Canadian industry is feeling somewhat optimistic and is looking forward to increasing its production to 68 million tons by 1995. To achieve that goal, the industry is ready to invest from $3 to $5 billion per year to update its pulp and paper facilities to bring about an era of increased productivity, more competitive prices and wider profit margin. It should be emphasized that 1984 witnessed an increase of 6.2 per cent in production over the previous year.
Here is the case of a thriving industry, thanks to the consultations and agreements we have had with the provinces in the area of forest husbandry. We believe in the future of the forest industry in Canada in general and of the pulp and paper industry in particular, and we want to demonstrate our support and commitment to the industrial corporations and associations which are helping in the recovery of our country.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) has indicated that the approach of the Government with respect to acid rain from here on in will be to emphasize the bilateral nature of the problem as opposed to the international nature. I suggest to the Minister that while she should continue to emphasize the international aspect of it, with respect to the bilateral relationships on acid rain, and particularly with respect to the United States, she should do two things.
First, she should really restore the Herring Gull egg program to show that we are concerned about the environment. We could then be appropriately self-righteous with the United States when it comes to the environment. Second, she could ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to bring in reduced auto emissions immediately, which also have to do with acid rain. Then, when we approach the United States with respect to acid rain, we will have cleaned up our own back yard, first on the wider environmental issue of Great Lakes water quality and, second, with respect to auto emissions. The Minister of Transport should do something now about that.

January 29, 1985
1776______________________________________
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to direct this question to the Prime Minister since it affects his Government's policy on social programs. If I may, I will put it to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's $500,000 a year bank president did not suffer too much under the document called a Consultation Paper yesterday, but a bank teller with two teenagers certainly did. After two months of provoking uncertainty and confusion as a result of conflicting ministerial and prime ministerial statements on the universality of our social programs, this document was supposed to have relieved that uncertainty.
On page 11 the Minister says that the options he put forward "do not constitute specific proposals for change endorsed by the Government". On page 15 he says they "are not intended as statements of preference". Why did the Government provoke and instigate this debate on the social programs of the country without knowing where it is going, and without having any concrete proposals? Why did the Government yesterday only compound the problem by adding to the confusion and the uncertainty for millions of Canadian families? When will the Government let us know where it stands on tax reform and on our social programs?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Right Hon. Member that what we have said from the beginning, and it came from the November 8 statement of the Minister of Finance, is that we intend to consult. Surely that is a valid approach. If we had not done that, he would have been the first to get up in this House and ask why we were not asking Canadians what they want in their social programs. That is exactly what we are doing.


MIDDLE-INCOME TAXPAYERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, after having provoked this debate, the Minister should be in a position to exercise with his Government some leadership on where he wants to take the country with respect to social programs. Let us look at one of his preferred options-apparently the preferred option. The second option would give 48 cents a day to poor families, a lousy 48 cents. At the same time this apparently preferred option would attack millions of modest-income families, and others. Take a family with two teenagers. The family allowance is cut, the taxes are raised, and there are no summer jobs. Why did the Minister of National Health and Welfare choose to attack modest-income families? Why is he attacking those making as little as
$23,000 a year? Why do only middle-income taxpayers have to bear the burden of tax reform?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman made a number of statements which are not factual. For example, he referred to no summer programs. That is not the case. My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, clearly said that in this House. If he wants the exact answer in terms of middle income-


Ms. Copps:: It is a means program.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East again does what she does best. She does not listen, and does not think. She just squeaks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I say to the right hon. gentleman that in terms of the second option it is not a matter of a preference.
Regarding Option 1, in most cases people have put forward that the most regressive part of the system is the child tax exemption. As I am sure the Right Hon. Member knows as a former Finance Minister, in a progressive tax system the greatest benefit goes to those who have the greatest income.
In most cases people have indicated that that is the one area that should be re-examined, and that we should redirect some of those savings to the needy. We have done that. In fact, if the Right Hon. Member looks very carefully at the tables, he will find that even with middle-income earners the statement he makes does not stand up to the light of day.


PROVINCES' TAX SHARE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, before putting the question I would like to suggest to the Minister that the real winners yesterday were the provinces. The real losers were modest-income families with children.
Under one option the provinces receive an increase in tax of about $330 million, and under the other option they receive an increase in tax of $150 million. Compared to that, the average poor family in the country receives 48 cents a day, and two million modest-income families must bear the burden of this tax grab in favour of the provinces.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the right hon. gentleman knows that the options that were put forward were consultation options. He might not like that, but that is the approach that is being taken by the Government.
January 29, 1985

The second point I would make to the Right Hon. Member is that those would be the savings, the federal Government having said that any savings would be redirected to those in greatest need. That is an accepted fact, and I am sure that the Right Hon. Member now accepts that that is the purpose of the federal Government.
Additionally, the present established programs financing arrangement, and the present equalization arrangement, and other fiscal arrangements between Ottawa and the provinces are arranged by consultation and agreement, and as a former Finance Minister he knows that. Unfortunately, it did not quite happen that way the last time. However, that has been the plan and the process in Canada. Under the present arrangements, that would be the result. The paper does not indicate in any way that those savings would automatically go to the provinces. Some of us believe that we can talk to the provinces.


TAX EXEMPTION FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and is related to what he said this afternoon.
On December 20 of last year, I asked the Right Hon. Prime Minister the following question: Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether it is his Government's policy, or whether his Government intends to reduce gradually over the years the tax exemption for families with children? The answer given by the Prime Minister was as follows:
No, Mr. Speaker. That is not what the Government intends to do.
My question to the Minister is as follows: Why did the Prime Minister of Canada, from his seat in this House, inform us and all Canadians on December 20 of last year that he did not intend to reduce tax exemptions for families with children, while yesterday, the Minister tabled two options, the first being to eliminate tax exemptions entirely and the second to reduce them by two-thirds? Mr. Speaker, when are we to accept the answer given by a Prime Minister in the House of Commons as valid?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, yes, the Hon. Member should accept the Prime Minister's statements. He should also accept the Prime Minister's statement that universality would remain. The paper does that. He should also accept the Prime Minister's statement that there will be no means test. The paper addresses that. He should also accept the Prime Minister's statement that it would not be used for deficit reduction.
What he should now accept is that this is a consultation paper. These are some options. I am sure the Hon. Member has read the paper. It also says that there could be other
Oral Questions
options, or variations of those options, and I make that proposal to the Hon. Member as well.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION TOWARD QUEBEC
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate during question period, this was the only specific answer the Prime Minister gave us, and now the Minister of National Health and Welfare has made a complete about face in his document.
My supplementary is as follows: Considering the fact that the Province of Quebec is the only province in Canada that provides provincial family allowances instead of these exemptions, how does the Minister of National Health and Welfare intend to compensate Quebec for the resulting loss of revenue?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member has asked that question. If he reads the paper very closely, he will find identified what has been seen by some as an $80 million federal saving. As I said yesterday, and as I have said right along, I do not want to fall into the same trap into which the former Liberal Government fell when it made changes to the family allowances and the social programs. The Liberal Government got into trouble with the Quebec Government at that time. Because there is no tax collection agreement with Quebec, that $80 million has obviously been identified for that purpose. I will not fall into the trap into which former Liberal Members in Quebec fell, and that is why that observation exists in the paper.


CHILD BENEFIT PROGRAMS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Before Chirstmas the Minister of Finance said for all of the country, save one gentleman, to hear, that the people of Canada could no longer afford social programs for middle-income Canadians. This was denied at the time by the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare brought forward a document that changes the priority emphasis of the Government completely by proposing, in two alternative models, reductions in income benefit programs related to children, for over one million middle-income Canadian families. Why is there this complete reversal in the priorities of the Government? What happened to the $500,000-a-year bank president as a serious target for social reform?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member for Oshawa regarding the point he made about the bank president, that that option obviously remains for the Minister of Finance. I am saying to the Hon. Member that if he would return to the very com-

January 29, 1985
Oral Questions
ments he made during the Christmas break, he would find that he put forward an option which is basically Option 1. I am saying in the paper that Option 1 has some adverse effects. I am sure the Hon. Member thought these things through. I would just ask him to be consistent.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there is no problem with this Party's consistency on social policy. I will be happy to send-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Conservative Members are obviously a little concerned by the hypocrisy of bringing in a program that whacks away at middle income Canadians to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but leaves untouched thousands of Canadians earning $50,000 per year who do not pay a penny in taxes. That is why they are embarrassed.


FUNDING OF SOCIAL PROGRAMS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, why did the Minister put a ceiling on the amount of money the Government is prepared to put into social programs? One of the documents released with yesterday's paper, as the Minister knows, indicates that the Government is not prepared to spend any more money on the social program side of the ledger. If the Government is concerned about the poor and wants to leave our programs as they affect middle-income Canadians alone, why did it not say that it is prepared to allocate more money for the poor today, and get that money from the rich who are not paying their share of taxes?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, these are consultation options, and I repeat consultation options, including one not dissimilar to the one the Hon. Member put forward. If the Hon. Member for Oshawa were to look at the very argument he is putting forward, he would find that, in Option 1, 70 per cent of the money redistributed would come from Canadian families that earn $40,000 per year or more. In option 2 it goes up in fact to over 80 per cent redistribution from families that earn $40,000 per year and up. When the Hon. Member says that it is the middle class that is affected, he should analyse his statements very carefully before he gets himself into a situation which just does not bear out according to the facts.


FAMILIES EARNING BETWEEN $30,000 AND $50,000 ANNUALLY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I in turn would advise the Minister to treat with some care what he says. I listened to what the Minister just said and I want to ask the Minister if he will deny that the proposals, in either of the two options which he has put before the people of Canada, represent a major reduction in income for over one million middle-income families who are earning between $30,000 and $50,000 a year. Will the Minister confirm that the Government is prepared, in either of those options, to reduce the benefits for one million families in that income category, and that at the same time it is unwilling to change the tax system to ensure that those very wealthy Canadians who are not now paying taxes will pay their share? Will he admit that?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would first say to the Hon. Member for Oshawa that a number of the statements which he made are incorrect.
First, in terms of upper incomes, that option remains. He should be careful what he says about that. Second, if he takes a look at the incomes of $10,000 and less, Canadians get more. If he looks at the option of $20,000 and less, Canadians get more. This Government has also said-because he said we are going to freeze social spending-that above that we are going to do something for widows and widowers. If he puts that altogether, it is a good program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECT OF OPTIONS ON GOVERNMENT REVENUES
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I must say that I am impressed he had the courage to come into the House. That is more courage than the Prime Minister has demonstrated. He is understandably embarrassed. Even the Deputy Prime Minister is flushed.
This document is pathetic. It is ludicrous in the extreme. Worse than that, it is a bad joke. Even worse than that, it is a massive tax grab at the expense of the social programs-this is my question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am outraged. It is at the expense of the social programs and middle-income Canadians.
Will the Minister of Finance confirm that, under the first option, 58 per cent of the amount which is taken away from the programs is retained by Governments? Under the second option, will he confirm that 60 per cent of the amount which is taken away is retained by Governments? Will he confirm that, at the expense of the social programs?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one thing clear. It says "Consultation Paper" on the front of the booklet. It is for consultation. They are not proposals. They have been presented to draw out comments from various people who are interested in this matter and who want to enter into the debate in a reasonable and responsive way. That is the approach we will take over the next few months, after which decisions will be made in the course of preparing the Budget.
January 29, 1985


USE OF SAVINGS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the Budget will have "consultation" marked on it as well. In any event, what I would like the Minister of Finance to do today is to guarantee to the House, and to Canadians, that every cent which might be taken away under either of the proposals will go back into supporting family benefit programs.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that matter is addressed quite clearly in the document. It says that the savings which will be made will be redirected into the social envelope.


EFFECT OF OPTIONS ON FAMILIES WITH $25,000 INCOME
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I would ask the Minister is it fair that a secretary who earns $15,000 a year, with an unemployed husband who perhaps brings in $10,000 in unemployment insurance, should lose benefits under the proposed options? Is it fair that the working poor, who are struggling to remain off welfare, should be penalized?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Hon. Member that the purpose of the exercise is to try to make the system more fair.
I say to her in all frankness that, if we took a look at the child tax credit, obviously any Government, society, and people would like to see the very best benefits go to those who need them most. Obviously, one also has to be restricted to the financial ability of the country and its citizens to raise money.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member for Oshawa may not understand that, but some of us do.


John Edward Broadbent: We understand it very well.


Mr. Deans:: We understand it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: So, what I am saying-


Ian Deans: Tax the poor. That's always been your policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. member is very familiar with the social policies of Canada. She will notice, for instance, the turning point in the child tax credit. It is at $26,330, after which the benefits diminish up to $41,000. One could argue that that figure could be higher. Right now it is not indexed. Obviously, year by year, even that turning point, in terms of real dollars and disposable income, is reduced. We could argue about levels. That is the purpose of consultation. But I would tell the Hon. Member one thing. When we look at these programs, we look at them not only at how they can best benefit Canadians, but also, realistically, that when we redis-
Oral Questions
tribute money, it is taxpayers' money and not the largess of the Canadian Government.


BANK PRESIDENT'S SITUATION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about human beings who are trying to raise kids at a time when the incomes of young families are going down and the costs are going up. Now their family benefits are being cut back, and even the family allowance in one option is being eroded, following the Liberal policy.
The Minister has called for objective discussion. How can people be objective about this when a bank president who earns $500,000 will be asked to give up only a paltry $345 a year, and will be able to keep all his tax shelters and loopholes, while a family which is struggling on $25,000 a year will lose $120 in family benefits? How can he possibly say this is fair and progressive social policy?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would agree that it is fair and socially progressive that families earning below $20,000 would get more money, under the options which have been put forward for consultation, than they would under the present system.
What she constantly forgets is that there can be more than one program in place than just this paper. Obviously the point which she has put forward is the terms of a budgetary item. Just for once I would like her to think about more than one thing at the same time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Hon. the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In the document on social programs made public yesterday, the Government does seem to entertain misconceptions about the economic reality of Canadian families, particularly singleparent families, 65 per cent of which are the responsibility of women.
Considering the ever-rising cost of the grocery basket, housing, transportation and education, and knowing that the proposed increase ranges from 48 to 98 cents a day, would the Minister indicate to the House what he intends to do to bring genuine relief to those single-parent families, and particularly to those women for whom every day is a reminder of their precarious financial status?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has put forward a very valid point. If she takes a look at the paper she will know that with

January 29, 1985
Oral Questions
respect to single-parent families in the situation she raises- and obviously in a consultation paper I can only give examples-the benefits that go to those who are in greatest need are even greater when applied to single-parent families.
[ Translation]


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, since the proposed increase does not even enable them to buy a litre of milk, I would like to know what kind of answer the Minister can give us to reassure those women who keep phoning us. What can we tell them to prove that the Government is indeed concerned about them?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, what I would hope the Hon. Member would tell those women is exactly the answer I gave. Second, I would like to put it in the largest perspective. The Hon. Member knows social policy. I perhaps know a bit of social policy, and that is that the best social policy for the country is to get the economy going again so we can afford the programs. The worst social policy is always developed when you have bad economic policy. So we have to look both to good social policy and to rejuvenating the economy. When we do those two things, we will get the very benefits the Hon. Member looks for.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, HON. ROY McMURTRY
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to point out to Hon. Members the presence in our gallery today of the Attorney General of Ontario, Hon. Roy McMurtry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question will be addressed quietly, and not in a loud voice which may be unsettling to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday in the House the Minister denied that she has seen and agreed to a program called SELF, which would supposedly supply jobs this summer for students, but fewer than last year. High level officials in the Minister's own Department have now confirmed the legitimacy of the document which I said yesterday she had seen. Someone surely is misleading the public. Someone surely is not telling the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: Someone surely should put a question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Is the Minister in a position today to repudiate the statements of her own officials?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when I finally had a chance to see the document to which the Hon. Member referred, I recognized it, Sir-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Wait for it. I recognized it as a preliminary document to which I had agreed there should be given further consideration. That consideration was being given, along with a number of other proposals-


John Edward Broadbent: Another policy change in the works.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -which had been put forward by my officials. I can tell the Hon. Member that that consideration is ongoing, and out of it will come the decisions which govern the Canada Student Summer Employment Program. I would hope that when the Hon. Member hears those decisions announced, he will stand up and applaud them.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I would look forward to applauding a good program but I hope it happens before the robins sing and the snow melts in Ottawa, and students are not completely frustrated about the unavailability of jobs.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF PROGRAM
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Is the Minister going to assure this House, and the students and young people of this country, that she is going to bring in a program this week, because if it is delayed any longer than this week it is going to put thousands of students in a very difficult position this summer?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, when I announced last fall that there would be new programs for the Canada Student Summer Employment Program, I had determined the Government's schedule for that. It was not determined by leaked documents, and it was not determined by the hysteria of the Hon. Member. It was determined by a planned approach to this very important issue. I would just like to tell the Hon. Member to stick around and he will be able to hear what is announced.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Will the Minister advise us if he anticipates any substantial or serious delays due to the management shakeup at the Saint John shipbuilding yard in Saint John, New Brunswick? Can the Minister also advise if he has any information why the com-
January 29, 1985
pany has decided to hire an American firm to assist in the construction of the frigate program?


Hon. Robert C. Coates (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for indicating his concern about possible delays in the frigate program. I want to tell the Hon. Member that I met this morning with the Chairman and President of the Saint John shipyards. They are presently meeting with my officials. Discussions are under way, and I hope to be able to make a fuller report to the Hon. Member tomorrow in relation to the discussions which are going on at this present time.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance is no doubt aware that the Prime Minister misled the people of Canada last December-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: - when he said in this House that there would be no reduction of a tax exemption for families with children. Was the Prime Minister also misleading the people when he answered a question put by the Hon. Member for Sudbury, which is found at page 1198 of Hansard, and I quote:
In light of the Minister of Finance's interview with La Presse yesterday, can the Prime Minister tell us whether Canadian families who earn $35,000 a year or more are to expect cuts in their old age security cheques and in their family allowances?
The answer of the Right Hon. Prime Minister was, "No, Mr. Speaker". Can the Minister of Finance expect the Canadian people to believe this kind of "bulroney"?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, again I remind the Hon. Member that this is a consultation paper. We are looking for the reasonable observations which she and others might make as to the merit of the proposals which have been put forward.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: I should remind the Hon. Member that under one of the options - it is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, how the people who have the least amount to say make the most noise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Under option 1 there will be no change in the cheques which are received by Canadians. That is clearly an option, and we welcome views on it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I might say that in this Government it is the Minister of Finance who appears to have the least to say.
Oral Questions


STRUCTURAL TAX REFORM INQUIRY
Sheila Maureen Copps: In that light, I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. When his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, instead of defending the rights of middle-income Canadians, including families earning $23,000 or more a year, is instituting family tax grabs, why is the Minister of Finance not prepared to table a similar discussion paper this week in this House to deal with the kind of over-all structural reform we need in the tax system, to ensure that social policy is not going to pay the price, that it is not going to be the area-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -in which Canadians are expected to pay the price for our national economic situation?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that I am very open to the suggestions of Hon. Members on changes which we might make to corporate taxation as well as to the taxation of individuals. I have demonstrated up until now that I am prepared to make changes, and I will continue to make changes. However, most of those matters will have to wait until the Budget. In the meantime, I will ask the Hon. Member to send her views to me.


ALTERNATIVE TAX MEASURES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Given that the Government since it came into power has already increased taxes on middle-income Canadian families by about $500 per family, and given that in addition to that it has indicated that, as a result of its new initiatives in social spending, it intends to establish a ceiling at or about the present level of expenditures in social programs, why did the Government not look at alternative ways of raising the money necessary to pay for the needs of those who are in need, by taxing those who are not now paying their fair share?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain that these are not initiatives. This is a consultation. I hope the Hon. Member can understand that. Second, the matter he raises in terms of taxation still remains open for the Minister of Finance.


TAXATION INQUIRY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will acknowledge, I am sure, that in the discussion documents the Government indicates that it intends to maintain the ceiling at or about the present level. Why, then, in the consultation document was there not a section referring to alternative ways of raising the money necessary to provide for the poor? Why was there no reference made to a discussion on whether or not we could, in fact, tax those who do not now pay



January 29, 1985
Oral Questions
their fair share, as an alternative to the measures presented in the document?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to make the point to the Hon. Member that, when he talks about a ceiling, we are talking about the envelope as against an individual. I think that is the first point which should be made.


Ian Deans: That's okay. I understand that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Fine, as long as we understand, because I don't want words out there that people do not understand.


Ian Deans: They don't understand it anyway.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Well, possibly you would like to help-


Ian Deans: We are trying.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -and not confuse the issue with things that are not correct.
I am saying to the Hon. Member that there are families, should the Government accept either option, or a variation, below a certain income who get more. That is the first point that was made. I have also mentioned the spouse's allowance.
The third point I make, and I hope he can understand it, is that I think every Member of this House, regardless of Party, would like to do more for Canadians at the lower end of the income scale. Obviously. Just a minute! The point I make is this. To be able to do that, the economy obviously has to generate that kind of growth, and that has to be our purpose.


Ian Deans: You are not talking about that. You are not even referring to that.


FAMILY SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I assume everyone heard what the Prime Minister said about getting at bank presidents with salaries of $500,000 and up who were receiving family allowances, but I think the Minister will agree that after reading his pot-boiler, one is left with the impression that the bank's janitor and not the bank's president is going to suffer.
I would like to ask the Minister why he lacks the courage the Minister of Justice showed in defending the judges' salaries-poor souls, they only get $100,000 a year. Why did he lack the courage to defend this country's policy on the family
and make it a priority for consultation purposes? Why are some more equal than others? The Minister of Justice does not consult anyone about the salaries he gives his judges, but the Minister feels he has to consult everyone about what he is going to give low-income families.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I say to the Hon. Member, with all the gentleness I can muster-


An Hon. Member:: That is not much.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That might be your view. I say to him that, if either one of these options were adopted, families earning less than $25,000 would have more disposable income than under the Government of which he was a member.


Mr. Ouellet:: Forty-six cents.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Why did he not defend them like we are?
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I think he knows perfectly well this means an increase of forty cents a day. He knows what it costs to raise a family.
My supplementary is as follows: In the Throne Speech-I am not talking about election promises here, this was in the Throne Speech-the Government made a commitment to improve its social policy for families. Did it mean the Government was going to destroy its family policy?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I say to the Hon. Member that, whatever the increase is, it is more than he offered, first of all. Secondly-I say to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East to be careful because, when his Government brought in a program, it reduced the family allowance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just be consistent. You reduced family benefits.
I am saying to the Hon. Member that if he has a better view I am willing to listen to him, but do it on the basis of what we can do to improve the situation rather than say that when they get more at the lower end that is somehow worse than what he was doing.
January 29, 1985


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nicket Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In the light of the fact that the criterion of benefit to the community seems to have been minimized in the SELF program, could the Minister give the House the assurance that she will revise the program in such a way as to clearly include this criterion?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member does not expect me to give him the details of a program today which I will be announcing in due course. However, I can assure him that the program for summer students, when it is announced, will certainly be fair, equitable, and it will see that the students involved get meaningful jobs this summer.


EMPLOYMENT LEVELS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about great consultation. Members of Parliament and others were never consulted and we were forced to make these representations in the House. Can she assure the House that the levels of employment in the Employment Development Branch in effect in 1984 will be held to when this program is announced for 1985?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the consultations were undertaken beginning-


John R. Rodriguez: That is not for the summer program.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -beginning in early December. I have been sitting here every day waiting for some words of wisdom to come to me-


John R. Rodriguez: You just got them.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -from the Hon. Member. I do not know why he has not been in touch with me, has not written me, has not sent them, but he has had two months to do so.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
William (Bill) Gottselig: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Last December 14 I made a statement under Standing Order 21 regarding a problem a constituent of mine was having in getting an interpretation under the Pension Act. I ask the Minister,
Oral Questions
through you, Mr. Speaker, if this interpretation has been made and, if not, how soon can we expect to receive it?


John Napier Turner: Order Paper question.


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that question is under consideration at the moment and an answer is expected within the next few days.


John Napier Turner: Attaboy, George.


Mr. Speaker:: Just for future reference, may I say that is coming awfully close to an Order Paper question.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and also refers to the consultation paper released yesterday. The second option in that paper would reduce by one third the family allowance paid to families with over $20,000 of family income. Does the Minister think that two working parents with a combined income of $20,000, and three children to support, can afford to lose any part of their family benefits at this time?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I agree with the Hon. Member that families in that circumstance cannot afford to lose any of their benefits. I say again it is a consultation option. If she takes a look at it, they would in fact have more disposable income. What I think we have to look at is that if there were a monthly reduction in the family allowance and an increase in the child tax credit, does that better meet the needs of families who need disposable income month by month? I will raise another matter, that of the child tax credit where the money comes to the mother, in most cases, at the end of the tax year. We then get involved with tax discounters. Those are the kinds of questions which are totally valid, and I look forward to her views on those things in consultation.
1981 CENSUS FIGURES


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, according to the 1981 census, there were 7,900 families in my constituency with two to four dependent children and an average family income of $21,346. These families are hard working, thrifty, and good citizens. They buy homes and educate their children. I sincerely hope that the Minister can find some way of helping the poor without it being at the expense of these families.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is very responsible and I say to her that that is the point of the exercise. I have no intention,

Petitions
and this Government has no intention, of going after the families which she has described.


Mr. Axworthy:: Read your paper.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just a minute. What we are saying-


Lloyd Axworthy: Doublespeak, that is what you are saying.


John Napier Turner: Read the document, Jake.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What we are saying in the paper is: Are some of these options or derivatives thereof a better way to help those in greatest need? That is the point we make.


EMPLOYMENT
Édouard Desrosiers: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration on taking such a challenging initiative and preparing new programs to create lasting jobs for unemployed youths, a new summer employment program. However, is the Minister considering appropriate mechanisms to help a group of unemployed whom I call "the forgotten people", those aged 40 to 60 who are left to fend for themselves? Will her Department soon have proposals to come to their assistance?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the interests of the Canadians mentioned by the Hon. Member, and I am convinced that the Government will meet their requirements.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, January 28, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report, Statutory Instruments No. 29, of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, in both official languages.


TABLING OF DISCUSSION PAPER ON ACCESS TO EXPORT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I take pleasure in tabling, in both official languages, a discussion paper, How to Secure and Enhance Canadian Access to Export Markets.


CULTURAL PROPERTY
Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I have the honour to table in both official languages the annual report on the Cultural Property Export and Import Act.


PETITIONS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table a petition on behalf of a large number of my constituents. Very briefly, the petition relates to the Alaska boundary dispute. On October 17, 1903 the Alaska Boundary Tribunal permanently established a line between the mouth of the Portland Canal, Cape Muzon and westward to serve as the international boundary between Canada and the United States.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to enshrine the A-B line into legislation as soon as possible. I have listed the large number of communities that have signed the petition.
January 29, 1985

MEASURES TO COMBAT PORNOGRAPHY Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents in the Thessalon area, who are expressing their concern about the availability of hard core pornography. They are petitioning the House of Commons to tighten the security at the border to stop these publications from coming into Canada and to exercise a more strict control of the licensing of video tape production and distribution which have an adverse effect on the young people in this country.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 135, 170 and 178.


Mr. Boudria: With reference to the answer to Question No. 6, in each case, what was the (a) market value (b) purchase price (c) name of the dealership from which the car was purchased?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Make	Model	Year	Market Value	Purchase Price	DealershipOldsmobile	88	1985	$19,328.00	$18,171.00	Myers Chev Olds Cadillac Ltd., OttawaOldsmobile	88	1985	21,500.00	19,000.00	Atomic Auto Sales, Saskatoon, Sask.Oldsmobile	88	1985	18,513.40	16,214.00	Colonial Chev Olds, Newmarket, Ont.Pontiac	Parisienne	1985	18,497.25	17,150.00	Turpin Pontiac Buick Ltd., OttawaPontiac	Parisienne	1985	17,096.45	15,492.00	Jack May Pontiac-Buick Ltd., ManotickBuick	Le Sabre	1985	18,455.30	17,455.30	Surgenor Pontiac Buick (1975) Ltd., OttawaChevrolet	Caprice	1985	17,092.95	16,081.00	Myers Chev-Olds Cadillac Ltd., OttawaMercury	Grand Marquis	1985	20,626.00	16,930.49	Fairview Mercury Lincoln, Pointc-Claire, QuebecOldsmobile	98	1984	22,327.35	18,380.00	Lalonde Chev Olds Ltee, Ville de Laval, QuebecFord	Crown Victoria	1984	19,575.00	18,599.00	Campbell Ford, OttawaOFFENCES COMMITTED WHILE	PERSONS FREE ON BAIL	mates	are available for 1981 and 1982 from Statistics C


Mr. Stackhouse: da's annual Survey of Consumer Finances:
In 1983, how many men and women were charged with offences said to have been commited while free on bail?


Harvie Andre: Statistics Canada reports: Data currently collected by Statistics Canada which provides information on individuals who are charged with offences, does not currently provide information at a level of detail which distinguishes between offences committed while free on bail and offences committed under other circumstances. This information is not available elsewhere.
Average family income ($)
1981	1982
Families	30,440	32,981Single Parent Families	18,182	18,683
2. In 1982, it is estimated that there were approximately
664.000	single parent families. Of this number approximately
98.000	single parents were male.


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


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	In (a) 1982 (b) 1983, what was the average annual income for (i) families (ii) single-parent families?
2.	How many families were headed by single parents and how many single parents were male?


Harvie Andre: Statistics Canada reports:
1. Average incomes for families and single parent families are not yet available for 1983. However, the following esti-


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


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary could indicate to the House exactly when the Government intends to respond to question No. 131 which stands in my name. It is a very short question involving political patronage. I see that those kinds of questions on the Order Paper seem to take a very long time to get answered by the Government. They are being ignored.

January 29, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. Deans


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that as of the thirty-fifth sitting day of this session we have answered 26.5 per cent of the questions, whereas-


Mr. Speaker:: No, no.


Paul Wyatt Dick: -whereas in the Thirty-second Parliament they had answered only 18.3 per cent of the questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is in the form of a question to the Government House Leader, if I may. It has to do with a procedure which has developed that I think would prove to be disruptive if not at least brought to the Government's attention. He may be aware, and I am sure that you, Sir, are not aware, of the fact that yesterday and today the Government chose to hold lockups and press conferences on matters of considerable importance to the public of Canada and the House of Commons during the Question Period. That effectively excluded Members of Parliament from participating in any briefing or any press conference that was held with regard to two vitally important matters.
I would ask the Government House Leader in a friendly way if he would look at that practice and direct, or attempt to direct, that Ministers of the Crown do those things in times other than during the Question Period, which is the time when most Members are required, out of necessity, to be in the House.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the same point of order, if I may, on the practice that has now been adopted of presenting documents for consultation without any reference to Parliament. As part of the Government's own mandate it said that it was the great defender of Parliament and was going to use Parliament in a new, effective and broader way. Yet we see Ministers of the Crown presenting documents for consultation without any reference to the Commons or to committees and without any reference within the Chamber of the House.
We saw an example of that today when the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) said that Members of Parliament could consult on training, but we did not even have access to the papers. The policy was announced
during the Christmas holiday when the House was not even in session. Could the House Leader indicate to us what the intention of the Government is with regard to referring those consultation papers to committees of this House?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Member please tell me what his point of order is, there not being a point of order with regard to the admissibility or inadmissibility or tabling of a document? We have a tradition that we use a point of order procedure, which we really call a question on the business of the House, to allow the House Leaders to have a small conversation in the House. I am not inclined to allow bootlegging on that issue for other issues that are in fact not points of order. I am therefore in some difficulty. If the Member has a point of order I would be glad to hear it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is clearly based upon your own definition. The point of order has to deal with the business of the House. We are saying that the business of the House is being frustrated because reports are not being tabled in the House.


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


Lloyd Axworthy: Well, I think you should redefine it then.


Mr. Speaker:: The Speaker does not define what is a point of order. The rules of the House define what is a-


Lloyd Axworthy: How do we get answers from these guys?


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the Hon. Member is trying to obtain an answer from the Government House Leader with regard to a matter that concerns him. I suggest to the Hon. Member-


Lloyd Axworthy: It concerns this House.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say to some Members that it is bad enough when they do not listen to answers from people they put questions to, but when you put a question to the Speaker and do not listen to his answer, I find that very difficult.


Lloyd Axworthy: We would like to get some answers.


Mr. Speaker:: It is very difficult. I beg your pardon?


Lloyd Axworthy: We would like to get some answers.


Mr. Speaker:: I will give the Member the answer to the question he seeks, I take it. That is, if he has a question on House business, then he should put it to his House Leader, who in turn should put it to the Government House Leader. That is the tradition of the House. If the Member believes that the order of the House has been violated, then he can rise on a point of order in the House of Commons and put his point of order.


Lloyd Axworthy: That's exactly what I did.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not heard a point of order raised yet.
January 29, 1985


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: On what point of order does the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry rise?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order considering what I believe to be a violation of the orders of the House in the sense that major documents are not being referred to this House by Ministers of the Crown. We would like to know from the Government House Leader why and how he intends to change it.


Mr. Speaker:: Could the Member quote to me please the rule or order that has been violated, the rule of the House of Commons, the order or the tradition?


Lloyd Axworthy: The tradition of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Oh, no, the Member is rising on a point of order.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Member wish to cite a rule of the House?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that perhaps you and your Clerk examine the traditions and procedures of this House considering the responsibility of Government to refer to the House major documents of Government policy and to refer them so that Members of Parliament, who are elected by their constituents do deal with such matters, have the opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member to read the rules of the House of Commons. For the sake of the Hon. Member, I will read the citation that perhaps would be of interest to him. I quote from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 233(1). It reads:
(1) Point of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any
departure from the Standing Orders or the customary modes of proceeding in
debate or in the conduct of legislative business and may be raised at virtually
any time-
I am sorry that I have to educate the Hon. Member. I invite the Hon. Member, if he has a point of order at any future time, to raise a point of order.


Lloyd Axworthy: I intend to.


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the Member when he raises a point of order, and I respond, to listen. I ask him to do that out of courtesy to the Chair.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on the same point raised by my colleague, I certainly do not wish to be disputatious with the Speaker-
Investment Canada Act


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a point of order?
I have already indicated that the point raised was not a point of order.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On the basis of the plain rules of natural justice, I would hope that the Speaker would at least give me an opportunity to be heard before he makes premature judgments with regard to the business of the House.
First, I believe my colleague has raised an issue which is of concern to me and other members of this Party.


John Edmund Parry: He already said it is not a point of order.


David Charles Dingwall: When we want to hear from the cattle, we will rattle your horn.


Mr. Speaker:: Excuse me if I am being disputatious. May I ask the Hon. Member to come to whatever his point of order is, recognizing, with respect to the Hon. Member and to the Hon. Member who raised the point previously, that I have already indicated that the point raised by the Hon. Member who spoke previously is not a point of order. Does the Hon. Member have a separate point of order?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, you asked a specific question with regard to a section of the House orders. I tell you that I thought it was the custom and tradition within the House with regard to the publication of documents-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Member now having a conversation with the Speaker, or does he have a separate point of order? If he rises to make a representation to me on a separate matter that is a point of order, I will hear him. If he does not, I would ask him not to rise on the same point of order on which we have already ruled.



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 second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development: and on the motion of Mrs. Tardif (Charlesbourg) (p. 1708).
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume debate from before the lunch break with regard to the muzzling order that has been brought in by the Government with respect to the so-called Investment Canada Bill.
In resuming my remarks this afternoon, let me touch on the key points of which I think Canadians are aware but which they do not often think about in relation to the new legislation

January 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
that was introduced by the Minister. Let me go through some of the features of the old Foreign Investment Review Act and cite questions which would be asked of major foreign takeovers, according to the Act.
The first question is if it will provide jobs for Canadians. I suggest that this is a very appropriate question to ask about foreign capital coming into Canada. One can only wonder why the new Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) would not want that test to apply.
Another question is, will it improve Canada's export performance? Again, one would assume that such a test is one that ought to apply to foreign capital coming into the country. Will it contribute to having more of Canada's raw material processed within our own borders? I suggest that that is a test spoken about frequently by all political Parties during federal elections but one which seems to have been bypassed by this new legislation.
Will the applicant provide new investment within Canada? I believe that question is inherent in any foreign investment, whether we are talking about the old Bill or the new Bill.
Will the applicant buy supplies in Canada, provided they are competitively priced? I intend to expand on that point in a few moments. A key consideration for a foreign enterprise coming into Canada is where it buys its inventory and raw materials. That is crucially important.
Will there be new opportunities for Canadians to be shareholders, directors and managers of the enterprise? That is a crucially important test in order to determine if Canadians will have an opportunity to give direction to a corporate entity without provincial or federal government involvement so that the enterprise will operate in the direction in which the country wants to go.
Will it improve Canada's access to new products and processes? One would hope that that kind of test could stay within the legislation, but again we see that the new Minister has removed it. Will it improve Canada's industrial productivity? One would hope that that test would be applied, but the Tories have decided that it is inappropriate.
Will it increase the level of competition? Surely one would hope that the opposite would not be the case and, therefore, one must ask why the Conservatives would want to remove such a test from a Bill related to foreign investment.
Is it compatible with the Government's industrial and economic policies? That seems to be a basic and fundamental test that is applied in every industrial country around the world, whether democratic or not. One would expect that test to be applied.
Let me expand on the shortcomings of this Bill. Even the Toronto Star on December 9, 1984, described the foreign investment proposals of the new Government as being "Stevens' shortsighted gamble". The article states:
The danger in Stevens' approach, consequently, is that it risks long-term pain for short-term gain. If he does succeed in attracting an influx of new branch plant operations without any requirement that they operate in Canada's best
interests, we may see some short-term increase in jobs-but what will our economy look like 10 years from now?
The peril is that we could end up with an economy with an even higher degree of foreign ownership than at present, a diminished capacity both to export and to innovate and hence to make our own way in an increasingly competitive world- and therefore, in the long run, with fewer opportunities to create good jobs for Canadians.
I think a few facts are important in this debate even though we could spend the brief time that we have discussing why closure on this Bill is so inappropriate. I think it is important to raise some facts about why this legislation should be redrafted. Despite the FIRA approval rate over the past two years, which was up between 95 per cent and 98 per cent, less than one-half of those approved foreign takeovers intended to increase investment or provide any new jobs. Since the beginning of 1984, 15 per cent of those approved promised neither new jobs nor new investment. It was simply a case of a big fish eating a Canadian fish.
Second, Canada has more foreign ownership and control per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world and more than many developing countries.
Third, Canada imports more duty-free, finished manufacturing goods, even excluding automotive goods, than do the United States, Japan and the European Economic Community combined. That fact comes from the Science Council of Canada.
According to Canadian Business, of the top 50 companies in Canada, the greatest number of lost jobs over the past few years has been from U.S.-owned companies.
In 1983, Canada had a deficit of S9.4 billion in interest and dividend payments. Since the record was begun in 1926, Canada has been a net exporter of interest and dividend funds.
Foreign investors used Canadian found capital to further expand and take over inside Canada. That has been demonstrated time and again. Foreign capital comes in and acquires either a branch plant or a mine within Canada and then uses our money, banking and credit union system to buy up more and channel more dividends and profits to the foreign country.
Foreign corporations take resources home to create jobs in manufacturing in the parent country. I gave some statistics with respect to that this morning. The amount of resources that are distributed back out of Canada to the parent country is devastating. Seventy-two per cent of all imports into Canada were designated for foreign-controlled firms, which deteriorates our balance of payments. That fact comes from a Statistics Canada study in 1978.
Canada's trade deficit in end products was $14.9 billion in 1983 and, to the end of October, 1984, it stands at $15.5 billion.
According to the U.S. Senate committee, in 1981, "Much of our trade with foreign countries originates with orders placed by subsidiaries of U.S. companies located overseas. For example, 75 per cent of our exports to the 300 largest companies in Canada originates from the subsidiaries of U.S. firms".
I am pleased to have had a chance to say a few words on this Bill that is in dire need of redrafting.
January 29, 1985


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the specific motion of closure. I believe as a Member of Parliament that I have a responsibility to indicate to my constituents who elected me on September 4 where I stand on issues. I believe it is the obligation of each and every Member of this House to do that so that their constituents may determine how a Member feels about issues of concern to the nation.
1 note with respect to this particular Bill that very few government Members have spoken. There are 211 government Members, yet only a handful have deemed it necessary to express their points of view. It seems to me that either Members do not care, they have nothing to say, or they were instructed not to speak. I suspect the latter is the case. I suspect that the House Leader or the powers that be in the Conservative Party have advised Members not to speak on this Bill in order to have the Bill become law as quickly as possible.
It is interesting to note that a special parliamentary committee has been established to investigate the role of the backbencher in order to advise Parliament and the Government on how the role of the back-bencher can be enhanced. It seems somewhat hypocritical of the Government to embark on this parliamentary investigation while, on the other hand, effectively muzzling Government Members from speaking.
I submit, your honour, that government Members as well as opposition Members do a very serious disservice to their constituents by not standing up to express their points of view and give Canadians some insight and information on why they support or do not support the particular piece of legislation before the House. I concede that it may be important for government Members to support the legislation because it is a government initiative, but that does not stop Members from standing up in this House to explain why they support a particular Bill. Once again, it is my respectful submission that constituents, and Canadians as a whole, have to know where a particular Member stands.
The Government talks about enhancing the role of the back-bencher. How hypocritical. One recognizes that the opportunities for a government back-bencher are somewhat limited. Opportunities to ask questions during Question Period are limited and, because of the sheer numbers, opportunities are limited with respect to Standing Order 21 statements, and with respect to contributions to deliberations of standing committees of this Parliament opportunities are limited. Yet here is an opportunity for government Members to stand up and say, "I support the Bill for the following reasons," or, "I do not support the Bill for the following reasons," or, "I am suggesting possible amendments or alternatives to this legislation".
I challenge government back-benchers to speak. By not doing so they are not doing an effective job. A farce is being made of this special parliamentary committee and its deliberations.
With respect to the motion before the House, I want to indicate my very serious concern and chagrin at the method by
Investment Canada Act
which this motion was introduced. As a result of parliamentary trickery, a Government back-bencher introduced this closure motion. It is my submission that the closure motion we are presently debating is an abuse. It is an absolute abuse of the majority which the Government holds in this House today.
Canadians were fearful after the reality of September 4 because of the lop-sided majority of this Parliament. Their fears are well founded, Mr. Speaker. In my view this is but the beginning of how this Government intends to abuse the overwhelming majority it has.
The Government, by introducing this motion, is effectively denying any further opportunity for any more substantive motions. It is unhealthy for a democratic system that the Government in its wisdom has decided to introduce this amendment. The Opposition, as is obvious, has some very serious concerns with respect to this legislation. It is a major piece of legislation. It is the Government's first major piece of legislation. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that a full and complete debate occurs on this legislation because it is serious and important and it will affect Canadians from coast to coast.
This is a marked departure from the policies of the previous administration. It is a departure from the way we deal with foreign investment. On that basis, the Government is obligated, not only by the huge majority it holds but also by respect for Parliament and respect for this House, to ensure that a full debate occurs.
This Government has decided to invoke this form of closure. I concede that the Opposition will have other opportunities to express its point of view on this Bill. The Bill will go to committee and the Opposition will have the opportunity to speak at committee and to introduce amendments considered necessary and advisable in the best interests of Canadians.
This Government has set a very dangerous precedent for the remainder of this Parliament by deciding to invoke closure. It is but the beginning. I pray that the Government recognizes the importance of respect for Parliament, for the right of the minority, the right of both minority Parties, to be heard. By invoking this drastic measure of closure, this Government, in my respectful opinion, has shown disrespect for this Parliament and disrespect for the traditions of Parliament.
It seems to me that nothing would be lost except a few precious weeks or months if the Government were to allow the Opposition to have a full debate. It appears that this Government is bent on ramming this legislation through without consideration. It claims that it is a consultative government. During Question Period today, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) indicated they wanted to consult with respect to social programs, that they wanted Canadians to have input with respect to these major changes. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where was the input with respect to this piece of legislation? With whom did the Government consult other than the rich boys on Bay Street and the oil barons in Calgary? What about others? Were others consulted? Were options put forward as were the options concerning universality and social programs?

January 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Were options given to Canadians? The answer is a simple no. The Government decided there would be no option.
I recognize that my time for speaking has expired. I simply wish to reiterate my very serious concern with respect to the Government's actions to effectively end debate. In my respectful opinion, it does not bode well for the future workings of this Parliament and democracy per se.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I have to speak on what in effect is a closure motion. It was interesting to listen to the last speaker, the representative of the Liberal Party, talking about how a closure motion hurts Parliament and how it is undemocratic. In your many years in the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you remember that quite often various members of the Liberal Party introduced various forms of closure or motions to restrict the ability of the Opposition to debate and raise issues in the House of Commons. When the Liberals are on this side of the House they say one thing, but they say and do the exact opposite when they are in government.
The hypocrisy is not only to my right; it is also across the way. When you were in opposition, Mr. Speaker, you were joined by people who are now part of the Government Party who would rant and rave against motions of closure. For that matter, you probably remember an incident where the Conservative Members actually charged the Speaker on a matter of closure. I am not recommending that as a course of action to be taken, but it reminds us that when the Conservatives were on this side of the House they were completely opposed to any limitations on debate in the House of Commons.
I recognize that from time to time there is a need to limit debate in the House of Commons, but this is not one of those occasions. This Government came to power last fall. It did not introduce this Bill until December and it is now toward the end of January. We have had only a few days of debate on the Bill. Most of the country does not know what is in this legislation. One way that Members of the House of Commons have of getting information to the public is by making speeches in the House of Commons. The closure motion before us today means that within the next day or two debate will come to an end.
As a result of this legislation, we are again hearing about a group which had died two or three years ago, the Committee for an Independent Canada. As a result of the actions of this Government, this legislation in particular, that group is talking about re-emerging. Unfortunately, if we rush through the passage of the second reading of this legislation, send it to committee and the Government again forces closure at that stage, groups concerned about the economy and the ownership of the industries of our nation will not have a real opportunity to protest this legislation. That is a serious concern for all of us.
A number of speakers from the New Democratic Party stated that we in this nation have one of the highest percentages of industries owned by foreign people and corporations. Others from our caucus have pointed out that most of our natural resources are not owned by Canadians. Member after Member has given examples of where American owned firms have applied American law in their dealings rather than Canadian law.
I am glad to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in the Chamber. He will know that on occasion firms operating in Canada have not followed the policy of this Government. They have followed the policy of the American Government or their home nation. Jobs are lost in Canada not because of Canadian policy but because of American policy.
I spoke on this legislation last week. I did not read quotes from labour movements, socialists or Canadian nationals. I did read some quotes from the Science Council of Canada, a government agency headed by a former leader of the Liberal Party for Ontario, Dr. Stuart Smith. I referred to a study done by Frank Longo for the Science Council of Canada on the history of research and development by foreign-owned firms in Canada in comparison to Canadian-owned firms. Mr. Longo's study found that by and large foreign-owned firms did less research and development in this nation than Canadian-owned firms. On average, therefore, a foreign-owned firm will do less research and development in Canada. I repeat, that study was done by the Science Council of Canada.
Even with the weak legislation that exists at the present time, we do not get the same amount of research and development from foreign-owned firms that we get from Canadian firms. For the Government at this time to look at further weakening those very limited controls on foreign investment will result in our having less control and less say about our future.
Mr. Longo's study also looked at what happened with money supplied by the Canadian Government with regard to foreign investors. It is interesting to note that Canadian firms by and large, though not everyone, took the money they received from government grants and matched it dollar for dollar in order to do research and development in this nation. Not so with foreign-owned firms. There were exceptions and some foreign-owned firms did a good job of research and development in this country, but on average they did not match and only used the federal Government supplied money. Not only do we have less research and development done by foreign-owned firms, but they do not even match the money they receive from the federal Government in order to do research.
I referred that study to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). I have a letter here from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion in which he admits that he does not know what study I am talking about. I referred to the author and that it was done by the Science Council of Canada. If a Minister has a study that affects legislation before this House, he should read that study. That study was paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. It looked at how our economy can be developed and the Minister has not even considered it.
January 29, 1985

I recognize that as a result of the closure motion before us, I have only one more minute to speak. I plead with the government back-benchers, the silent majority in this House of Commons, to consider their role in the House of Commons. Consider what will happen to research and development, what it will do to the opportunities for our young people, our opportunities for economic development in the future, and vote against this legislation. Members have a duty. I ask them to please carry out that duty for the benefit of their constituents.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in participating in this debate. I must say at the outset that when I read the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif), I was quite surprised, particularly in view of the fact that the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) is present in the House. I can recall with great clarity that when he was on this side of the House, he vigorously opposed any limitations on debate which came before the floor of the House of Commons. I also recall, as I am sure you do, Mr. Speaker, that occasion one evening when Members of Parliament from the Conservative side rushed the Speaker's chair.
The limitations that are being put on the debate today, at a time when the whole substantive issue of foreign investment has not been thoroughly discussed by Members of Parliament in this Chamber, seems to me to be a bit unfair. It seems to me that the Government, very unwisely, is rushing its legislative timetable. When the Bill was initially tabled in the House of Commons, I thought it was a mistake. I would have thought that this Bill would have come forward after some consultation with the Canadian people and the Members of the House of Commons. After all, were we not told by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that consultation would be the key, operative word for the new Government? Instead, we saw two incidents. One was an arbitrary cutting of $4.2 billion from the Canadian economy; the other was an attempt to pass a piece of legislation dealing with foreign investment without any meaningful consultation with Canadians. That seems to fly in the face of the arguments made so eloquently by Conservative Members that there ought to be consultation. Nevertheless, this piece of legislation is now before us.
I am a bit saddened to see that government Members, for whatever reasons-I can only assume they are good reasons- do not wish to join one after the other in debating the substantive portions of this particular Bill. To try to perpetrate this piece of legislation on the Canadian people in a limited amount of time flies in the face of what members of the Conservative Party did while they were in opposition.
Investment Canada Act
I think it is very distasteful that we as Members of Parliament, at a time when a committee has been appointed by the House to review the role of Members of Parliament, are now confronted with a piece of legislation which we must pass within a limited period of time. That is totally unacceptable, particularly if we are to change the way Parliament works and the way Parliament ought to work.
The substance of the Bill that is before us leaves a great deal to be desired both for Members of the House of Commons and, I am sure, for Members of the other place. Equally so, there are other legislatures across the country that have some grave concerns about the substantive parts of this Bill. I recall that the present Minister of Development for the Province of Nova Scotia, a member of the provincial Conservative Party, has expressed some serious doubts as to how far this Bill will go in terms of attracting investment, particularly to Nova Scotia. It is frustrating to see the Government trying to rush this Bill through very quickly, but it is even more frustrating to see that those of a different political stripe than I have legitimate concerns about this piece of legislation.
Second, Mr. Speaker, Canadians from all regions of the country are concerned that the lack of foreign investment review, which would be the pith and substance of the Bill, will allow for investment from abroad which has no regulatory control. I think Canadians in all regions of Canada are concerned about that. I would have thought that Members opposite would have wanted to have the opportunity to debate that matter on the floor of the House of Commons. Apparently the exact opposite is the case.
I was also disappointed that the Minister responsible, in speaking to the substance of this Bill, failed for whatever reasons to place before Parliament a document which would clearly spell out the jobs that he would anticipate as a result of the passing of this legislation. Members of Parliament were told that if this piece of legislation were to be passed, it would create wealth, jobs and prosperity. We were told it would open the doors and give our young people, women and minority groups an opportunity to have meaningful employment. I think all Members of Parliament would applaud that objective. However, the Government went a step farther; it indicated that that would happen forthwith.
All I have asked of the Minister and of his officials is to provide the documentation regarding jobs here on the floor of the House of Commons so that Members of Parliament who may have different ideologies, philosophies and approaches to the running of the economy can debate what those numbers mean. Unfortunately, the Minister responsible has not seen fit to comply with that very reasonable and objective request. I suggest that that would make one a little suspicious of the Government's intentions.
First we had a Government that talked about jobs, jobs, jobs. Then it talked about consultation, consultation, consultation. There have been no jobs. With regard to this piece of legislation, there has been no consultation and the Government is trying to slam it through. Time and time again, both in the House of Commons and through the news media, I have heard

January 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
that the Government is concerned with creating confidence in the Canadian economy. The Government said that the way to do this was to consult with people from coast to coast. There has been no consultation on Bill C-15. I do not see any outpouring of confidence as a result of the tabling of this legislation. In fact, I find that what exist are fears, apprehensions and a suspicion of the Government's intention incoming forward with a document like Investment Canada so early in its mandate.
If one wished to be political, one would believe that there is a rift between the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), and that one is trying to outdo the other. Perhaps the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion really wants to be the Minister of Finance and that is why he has jumped the gun on his colleague, the Minister of Finance. I hope that is not true, but some have argued that that may be the case. I hope there is no disunity on the other side because those on the other side have a major mandate to carry out for the Canadian people.
The changing of the Foreign Investment Review Act, as we know it today, to Investment Canada is not supported by any evidence put forward by the Conservative Party that states unequivocally that jobs will be created in each of the provinces of Canada. Job guarantees are very important. I have had experience with foreign investment. We welcome foreign investment, but there must be some restrictions on where that foreign investment goes and how it will operate within the Canadian economy. I suggest that the Prime Minister went to Washington prematurely. He went to New York and to Washington and gave them all that they requested without attempting to obtain reciprocity with regard to the things which we were seeking in Canada. I think that is a pretty immature way of running the country and improving the Canadian economy.
I hope that other Members will join in this debate and express their thoughts as to how we should proceed from here.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to join in this debate which has imposed closure on Bill C-15. It is with sadness that I note it is the first motion of closure which has been introduced by the new Conservative Government. There is a little voice in the back of my head which suggests that it will not be the last which we will see. In fact, it is probably the first of many to come.
It is also sad that a Party which was so eloquent in opposition in denouncing the motions of closure which the former Liberal Government introduced, on numerous occasions and
many times for no justifiable reason, now committing exactly the same sin. It is amazing to see, in the men and women who sit across the aisle, the type of conversion and mind change which has occurred. Indeed, power corrupts. What amazes me is how soon and how quickly power corrupts.
It is also somewhat discouraging that so few government Members have risen to explain and justify this legislation. We have heard some very simplistic statements and slogans which government Members like to put forth. This legislation is essentially based on simplistic premises, the major one being that the problem which exists in Canada today is that there is not enough foreign investment. They say it is because those naughty Liberals were really socialists and closed the door to foreign investment, and that that is why we have an unemployment rage which is so high in Canada. So all we need do is open up the gates and foreign investment will come in and create the jobs and prosperity needed to put Canada back on the road to economic recovery.
I appreciate that Members in the House-who after all are politicians-give political speeches, and that often those speeches contain simplistic notions. What concerns me is that this is not just speech material but the actual policy and thinking of the present Government. It scares me, because if this is the policy it is simplistic, and it will not bring about the desired solutions. However, it will create more problems in the future.
First, I would like to deal with the notion that FIRA and the former Liberal Government which introduced and administered FIRA were made up of a bunch of socialists who stopped the flood of foreign investment. We could not get further from the truth. If we consider that 95 per cent to 98 per cent of the applications in the last two years were approved by the Liberal Government, we begin to realize that FIRA was indeed a toothless tiger. It did not hold back foreign investment. If we consider that Canada has more foreign ownership and control per capita than any other industrialized nation, we begin to realize that most of this occurred under previous Liberal Governments. So to make the charge that it was FIRA and the Liberals which stopped the flood of foreign investment does not make sense.
Second, the simplistic notion which has been put forward is: Let's get rid of FIRA and foreign investment will come into Canada. I suggest that that will not happen because in the past FIRA has not been effective and there are no great globs of foreign investment waiting to come into Canada after this legislation is passed. The Globe and Mail did some background checking with investors and bankers in the United States-mainly in New York-which showed that very few had any expectations of new investment flowing into Canada. I think the Tories are suffering some disillusionment. They believe that because they were elected and because they are bringing in this legislation, all of a sudden foreign investment will come into Canada. Foreign investment occurs when there are certain economic and social conditions; mainly the condition that there is a profit in the investment. Investors already have enough investment in Canada and see no reason to open
January 29, 1985

new branch plants. For the moment they have enough; there is no need for them to establish new centres of production in Canada.
Much of what we have heard during this debate is frivolous and has no basis in terms of reality. When we hear the odd Conservative spokesman say "Pass this legislation and new investment will come in", I believe it is a phoney statement. When we hear Liberal members stand up to proclaim the evils of foreign investment, that too is phoney. The fact that this country, on a per capita basis, is owned by more foreigners than any other developed country in the world is the result of the actions of Liberal Governments.
The simplistic idea that if we bring forth more foreign investment it will cure all our ills is dangerous. It can create on a short-term basis some jobs and development in Canada; there is no denying that. But people invest in something because they expect to get more out than they put in. Eventually, a day of reckoning must occur. The money going out, in terms of dividends and interest payments, is greater than the new investment money which is coming in.
The day of reckoning occurred in Canada some time ago. Canada has a greater outflow of capital in the form of dividend payments than it has in new capital coming in. Therefore, in order to cover our deficit in the balance of payments, we try to encourage more new capital to come in. It is like digging a hole in order to get the dirt to fill up the hole which was dug some time ago. But in the process a deeper hole has been dug. That means that the future must be mortgaged in order to service the debts of the present. The Conservatives have not given us a change in Canadian Government policy but a continuation of the policies which existed in previous Liberal Governments. It is an attempt to get more foreign capital to come into Canada in order to pay the deficit resulting from the flow of capital which is leaving the country. It is stupid economic policy and it will not work. We are only postponing serious problems with which future generations will be forced to deal.
There are numerous studies which show that foreign investment is not necessarily the solution to a country's problems. We have seen studies which suggest that research and development suffers when most of the country's major industries are branch plants of foreign multi-nationals. We have seen, in such an economy as we have in Canada, that the employment rate decreases when a vast majority of the plants are foreign-owned. We see that there is a negative outflow of capital funds. We see that the social, economic and political independence of a country gets eroded when a good hunk of its economy is foreign controlled.
Something I also find discouraging in the Government's economic policy is that it is one which is backward-looking. 1 had hoped that with the election of a new Government with new faces, some new outlooks would be introduced. We are moving into a new social and economic age. By all signs it seems that in this new age, production should be small scale,
Investment Canada Act
that there should be community, country and regional self-sufficiency, and that the new products coming on the market should be intensive in information and technology. It is customization versus mass production.
The indications are that this is the economy of the new age. The Bill which is in front of us ties us into an old age of mass production, world-wide mandates and into a type of economy which is owned by multi-nationals and controlled from outside our borders. The encouragement of this kind of economy is a sin.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski);: Order, please. 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 Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson)-Canadian Wheat Board-Request for early pay-out to farmers; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Consumer Affairs-Activities of cheque cashing companies, (b) Request for investigation; the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey)-Banks and Banking-Chartered banks' refusal to cash welfare cheques, (b) Existence of cheque discounters.



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 second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development and on the motion of Mrs. Tardif (Charlesbourg) (p. 1708).
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I admit to being lucky to have this opportunity to conclude the remarks I began last week. As you recall, Mr. Speaker, last week I gave a few examples of the fact the rhetoric we hear from our colleagues opposite is far removed from what they actually do and the policies they advocate here in the House and elsewhere.
1794

January 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
Among other things, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the case of Petromont where the Government wasted about $15 million on a project which we had rejected in the election campaign. But that is only an example. As I explained to you and my colleagues in the House a few days ago, the same thing can be said about the Bill under consideration-more rhetoric, nothing concrete. They change the name, they do something else and invite foreigners to invest in this country. The same invitation is extended to Canadian investors. That is why I ask the question, Mr. Speaker: What for?
Incidentally, I have just read in two different papers today-Le Devoir and La Presse-the remarks made in Toronto yesterday by our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and I quote:
Shortage of investments-Wilson denounces businessmen
And again:
Private sector not fully behind economic recovery, Wilson claims.
And it goes on to say:
Federal Finance Minister Michael Wilson said Monday that certain businessmen do not seem to realize that they are just as responsible as the Government for the economic recovery.
So here is my next question, Mr. Speaker: Will he take a similar approach with our foreign friends? Will the Minister of Finance also denounce foreign businessmen because they are not here in Canada to invest? Simply more of the same rhetoric, Mr. Speaker. And again I stress the point: Canadians do not realize that the rhetoric we hear day in and day out in the House has precious little to do with what the Government actually does.
Here is another example, Mr. Speaker. Conservative spokesmen have always maintained that certainty in tax matters is altogether indispensible if we are to instil confidence among investors, create jobs in Canada, and what have you. I am sure no one will disagree, but, Mr. Speaker, one of the first measures taken by this Government with respect to fiscal policy was to stop the practice of handing down certain advance rulings. This particular measure has caused instability and uncertainty, while at the same time disrupting negotiations on major transactions. Where were the critics, Mr. Speaker? I ask you, where were the critics? Here in the House, among my Opposition colleagues but aside from the general public, hardly a critic to be found.
Another example, Mr. Speaker. When the Progressive Conservatives were in the opposition, they criticized the Minister of Finance's plan to raise the sales tax because according to them, it was the most repressive federal tax ever, collected by hypocrites, cynics, manipulators, rogues and slick operators.
I shall quote a few comments by some Progressive Conservative Party critics. They asked Mr. Lalonde, who was Minister of Finance at the time, to postpone or cancel this plan. Mr. Mulroney, then Leader of the Opposition and now our Prime
Minister, had urged the Minister of Finance, Mr. Lalonde, my colleague at the time, to reconsider his decision to raise taxes, in order to, and I quote the Prime Minister:
In order to correct these appalling policies that have drained the country and the economy.
After these practically hysterical attacks against a one per cent increase in the sales tax, what did the present Government do when it got a chance, Mr. Speaker? What did it do? Did it reverse the previous Government's decision? It did not. It confirmed that decision. And this time the critics grumbled a little, but not much.
Another example, Mr. Speaker, again in the tax field, and you people opposite better listen, because this is what your Government is doing.
Some Hon. Members . .. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.
Here are a few more examples I would like to mention, still in the same field. For a long time, Progressive Conservatives maintained that the Petroleum Compensation Charge was a considerable and costlyobstacle to economic growth. The critics said: Terrific, they are going to abolish this tax as soon as they come to power. That would make sense.
It would have made sense, but what did the Progressive Conservatives do? They made another about-face and decided to maintain the tax as a source of general revenue.
I could go on for the rest of the afternoon, Mr. Speaker, giving examples to prove that the credibility gap on the other side is widening every day. It is unbelievable!
Another example. The budgetary cutbacks announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his economic message, his so-called mini-budget of November 8, 1984, included a reduction of $150 million in funding for research and development, an activity essential to economic growth as the Progressive Conservatives have been saying for many years.
This is another obvious contradiction in policy between, on the one hand, the rhetoric we hear in this House and elsewhere, and on the other hand, the initiatives taken in fact by the government.
Finally, let us look at defence expenditures. Our friend from Winnipeg, who is in the House today, is very interested in this question.
Mr. Speaker, who in Canada does not believe that the Conservatives were planning on increasing defence expenditures? But what did they say during the campaign? Then in his economic statement, the Minister of Finance announced that he would cut the defence budget by $154 million.
The debate must continue so we can emphasize this point, Mr. Speaker, because I want to close by saying something.
January 29, 1985

Personally I think that this bill is extremely dangerous because we are giving the Minister of Industry the discretionary power to decide by himself whether a foreign investment should be accepted in Canada. Is this not a fact? How can we vote for such a bill which will place in the hands of a single Minister the power to make the final decision on such important investments for Canada?
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is shocking to give such discretionary powers to anyone. An amount of $500 million or $100 million could be involved. It could be any amount according to the legislation. A single Minister will still make that decision.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that, if we approve this bill, it will mean that the Cabinet has totally relinquished its responsibilities.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the Government's insistence on dismantling the Foreign Investment Review Agency is based on the premise that by doing so Canada would somehow manage to generate hundreds of thousands of jobs overnight, and that much of the problem of Canada's lack of productivity and high unemployment at present stems from the very fact of FIRAs existence. In my view, Mr. Speaker, the mismanagement of successive Liberal Governments is hardly a reason for blaming FIRA.
The experience of this country with FIRA is that it has not prevented foreign investment. The figures show quite the contrary. If FIRA can be blamed for anything, it is for perhaps being overly bureaucratic in its decision-making process and for unnecessarily delaying investment decisions by foreign investors. Certainly the figures clearly indicate that foreign investment in Canada has not declined to any degree at all since FIRA was established. I believe the figures show that 98 per cent of all applications to FIRA were approved. Therefore, to make an ideological argument that FIRA somehow destroys investment opportunities in Canada is seriously misleading the public.
If indeed the Government is making that kind of ideological decision because it does not like public agencies, that is something else, and the Government should come out and clearly say so. That would be better than saying that if we get rid of FIRA we can create all kinds of jobs overnight. I would like to see this Government come forward with some figures which would clearly indicate that. Perhaps if it did so Members of the Opposition might look more kindly up on what the Government is trying to do. However, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you from my own personal experience that FIRA, its decisionmaking process, and Government policy towards FIRA, have done nothing to protect Canadian workers or the Canadian market-place.
This is a serious situation, Mr. Speaker. For example, Canadian General Electric is a part of the branch plant economy and whether or not that corporation has provided a direct benefit to Canadians can be seriously questioned. In a plant in Toronto called the Radio Valve plant which later became the Canadian General Electric plant, the company was
Investment Canada Act
involved in production of vacuum tubes for televisions and radios. That plant was closed by CGE around 1969. The argument was that it was no longer a viable operation. In fact, the company closed that plant as part of an international rationalization program. They decided that plant was not profitable for the purpose of continuing to supply the Canadian market with vacuum tubes for television sets. Perhaps they may have had an argument there, but they moved production of that plant to a plant in the United States and continued to import exactly the same product into the Canadian marketplace. In the process they threw 800 Canadians out of work. Some of those people had seniority with that company in excess of 40 years.
That, Mr. Speaker, is not the kind of investment that I or other Canadians want to see. Surely if we allow companies to come into Canada to exploit our market-place and Canadian workers in order to make a profit, then they have an obligation to prove they will make a significant contribution to Canada and Canadians. From my experience that has not taken place.
If you look at the major industries in our country, Mr. Speaker, you will find that most of them are dominated by foreign companies. I think it is also safe to say, and many people would agree with me because I have heard it expressed, that Canada is probably the only country in the world in the process of de-industrialization. Most countries are industrializing. One of the major reasons for that is the large degree of foreign control of investment in this country. We have no say at all about how that is controlled, and we had none even with FIRA. I predict it will be even worse once we get rid of FIRA and end up with this new agency the present Government wants to bring out.
I want to mention two other instances more current than that of Canadian General Electric which I spoke about. The first is the Black & Decker plant closure in Barrie, Ontario. That company received approval last year to buy into the CGE operation in Barrie, and less than a year after receiving approval they turned around and are now closing that plant to consolidate it with another operation of the company. They are now laying off some 500 workers, I believe.
That, too, is not the kind of investment we think this Government should be encouraging; or if it is going to encourage it, make sure that when that corporation establishes itself in the country it is not going to do the kind of things that Black & Decker is doing in Barrie, Ontario.
I would like to discuss, as another example, what is happening in Toronto between the Pepsi-Cola company and 7-Up. In that particular case Pepsi-Cola has taken over 7-Up's production in Montreal while 7-Up has taken over Pepsi's production in Toronto. More than half of the 260 employees at Pepsi's Weston plant in Toronto will lose their jobs when the plant closes, which is scheduled for next month. The union in that plant has been told that 7-Up will build a new plant in Malton, which is outside the union's bargaining territory, to handle the

January 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
increased work, rather than taking over the existing facility in Toronto.
We do not need another American corporation coming into this country on a union-bashing spree either. If they want to come into Canada to exploit our markets and receive a fair return on their investment, which no reasonable person would argue against, we at least expect them to act like responsible corporate citizens rather than a bunch of hoodlums coming in to smash a union which has been in that particular facility for many years. They then turn around and destroy 260 jobs when many of the employees had up to 30 years of service with that corporation.
Surely while we are attracting investment to Canada we can at least take the responsible attitude of telling the corporations that we need to protect the jobs in this country. I do not believe that we do not have the investment funds in Canada, because most of these corporations use Canadian money in the first place to buy up Canadian corporations. Very few of them come into Canada to start a new enterprise. Then if the competition is too stiff, they close down their operation in order to exploit the Canadian market-place from their home base.
Mr. Speaker, I see my time is up. Thank you very much for your patience.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure, but also with a feeling of disappointment that I rise to speak on the amendment moved by a Member from Quebec who, as her first mission, is willing to do the dirty work that the Minister did not want to do himself. I do not think that the Hon. Member realizes that in doing so, she becomes the first one to introduce a motion aimed at muzzling the opposition, at shutting up those who should speak for the Canadian people. I am very disappointed that this should be done by someone from the same province as I am, someone who is satisfied with earning an extra $9,000 simply to carry the bag for the Minister and allow him to be somewhere else during this debate.
Mr. Speaker, we can see that the government ... If the Conservative backbenchers have anything to say, let them have the guts to speak up! Let them rise! Your colleague from Champlain (Mr. Champagne) was the one who said that the small fry should express their views and your colleague for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) was the one who said publicly that he does not understand his colleagues who are quite content to go on trips and nothing else. Those are not the words of Liberals, but of two Progressive Conservatives Members of Parliament speaking about their Quebec colleagues. If you have something to say ... Mr. Speaker, I invite them to speak up instead of remaining in their seats.
I was saying that the government has introduced a motion of closure. In the meantime, we have learned that, even if the bill is not approved, the Americans are certain that Canada now belongs to them. We only have to look at what is going on in the industry concerning the frigate program. We are going to have not only American investments, but also American workers. Not only will the Americans or people from other countries be able to invest in Canada, but at no time did the Minister or any other Conservative Member give evidence that this would create employment. If it did, I would agree with it. No one-
If the Hon. Member who just made a comment has anything to say, he can now rise and do so! He has not risen to speak in this House yet. In my opinion, the former Member for Lac-Saint-Jean had more guts than this one. He had some backbone. He was able to rise and speak.


Mrs. Mailly:: That is why he was defeated.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Therefore, Mr. Speaker . . . You, the Member for Gatineau, just wait, it will not be long, your turn is coming!
Mr. Speaker, I can see this so-called Government which has developed two sets of policies, one for its own citizens and one for the oil corporations, boasting about consulting people. Then when the time comes for making decisions on gasoline price increases, this Government meets with oil company bosses to hear what their instructions are and complies with them immediately, without even consulting its own Members. That is not important. They are just porters, or so said the Hon. Members for Champlain and Duvernay (Mr. Champagne and Mr. Della Noce), both Progressive Conservative Members themselves.
Mr. Speaker . . . You too, the other fellow from Lac Saint-Jean, when you have the guts to do so, you rise and make a speech!
Mr. Speaker, when the time comes to make decisions affecting all of our citizens, whether this has to do with humane provisions such as the spouse's allowance for single people between age 60 and age 64, when the time comes for reforms, so-called reforms to improve family policy in respect of family allowances, then it is something else. They bide their time. There is no hurry. And then they make all kinds of rules behind closed doors to try and get money back from middle-and low-income citizens.
Mr. Speaker, it was not I, it was the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne) who said that Ottawa does not have much money to help the young. Do you understand that, young people? You were promised all that. But that is over. They knew of course. There was one minister of the Crown, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) who was quite outspoken during the election. He told the truth. But not the others, Mr. Speaker. I do not blame the Progressive Conservative back-
January 29, 1985

benchers. I hear them howling. I know this hurts. I appreciate that you do not like to hear the truth. I see the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) who is supporting me on that.
So, Mr. Speaker, I know you are disappointed with your colleagues! I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that being humane as you are, if you were in Cabinet you would not tolerate the kind of things that are now going on on the Government side.
Mr. Speaker, what we find is that as soon as the Americans are involved ... we may recall that the Prime Minister accepted to be the hatchet man for a multinational corporation named-
The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) is quite in a hurry to speak. Stand up!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to say to the Hon. Member that when the Speaker is in the Chair he is in a very neutral position. He is a referee or umpire. I just do not like the statement or inference that the Hon. Member made during his speech. I would hope that he would not imply that type of statement in the future.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I always have much respect for the Chair, and especially for the present Speaker. You have shown your qualifications in all areas.
Mr. Speaker, if only Hon. Members would let me speak . .. As I was saying our Prime Minister agreed to act as a hatchet man for the Iron Ore. He accepted, and I think Quebecers will very well recall that. He agreed to quietly shut down an industry, and a town.
Mr. Speaker, it will be remembered that the Prime Minister, as soon as he was elected, went south of the border to meet with big finance in the United States and with the American President. Very early, he went to get instructions, and very soon he will be forced-


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, according to the rules of the House, it seems to me that speeches should be dealing with the subject being debated. Up till now, I have not heard a word that is related to the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think that is a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) has just shown her ignorance. We are not dealing now with the Bill, but with the amendment calling for closure. I suggest it is about time the Tory Members were briefed in their caucus and knew that the House is now dealing with the amendment moved by the Hon.
Investment Canada Act
Member and that it is a motion to close this debate, Mr. Speaker.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: I think the Hon. Member is wrong, Mr. Speaker. I think also that we are dealing with the previous question, which is Bill C-15. Is it not so, Mr. Speaker?
I should like you to shed light on this matter. I think-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please! This is not a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the question is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order! Just a minute, please.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The matter of closure. I can understand why Conservative members keep interrupting, since they do not want to hear the truth, even though they know exactly where they stand, as evidenced by their disappointment reported recently in the press.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will meet with Mr. Reagan, the President of the United States, and show that he has delivered the goods and carried out the orders.
I think that is why the Hon. Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif) has accepted this assignment-I admire this person who is both nice and competent-but I think she should not have accepted an assignment which is below her.
Mr. Speaker, we must realize that we will be faced again with a similar motion when the House is called upon to deal with the spouse allowance, which is an injustice with regard to 80,000 senior citizens in Canada, 85 per cent of whom are women who are excluded from this social program merely because they are single, separated or divorced.
The Government will again move a similar motion to end the debate.
Mr. Speaker, when the time comes for us to deal with such important issues as the amendments to family-oriented programs, I only hope it will not be another Quebec Member who will do the dirty work and move a motion to prevent Opposition Members from-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry-

I am sorry, the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, because the Government has moved a motion to terminate this debate, this is my last opportunity to speak on the Bill at this

January 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
particular stage. My next opportunity would be at third reading stage if the Government is indeed so short-sighted as to pursue its initiative that far.
I believe that if the Government listens to the concerns of Canadians, and if they are able to appear before the committee, it will see the problems that it is creating for Canadians and our economy. Hopefully it will decide to stop pursuing this legislation at that point.
Let me remind the House of the roots of this particular legislation. As has already been stated, the old Foreign Investment Review Agency was essentially a toothless tiger. However, it was part of an over-all policy upon which the Government at that time was attempting to embark at the request of many people across the country some ten or fifteen years ago.
I am sure Members can recall the advice of the Committee for an Independent Canada and some of the work done by Mel Hurtig at that time. The results of the post-war decision to open up the country for investment by multi-national companies was clearly pointed out. By the middle 1960s we had essentially become a branch plant economy. While that is no longer so much the case, there is a branch plant economy still existing in some sectors. The implementation of the policy for investing in Canada forced a change in that existing attitude. Of course, that attitude was formed in part by the investment community and the manufacturing sector in Canada at that time.
I think one problem was that the existing institutions did not want to be threatened by other Canadian challenges. Therefore many companies did not issue shares for expansion purposes but chose to finance through banks, trust companies or insurance companies. As a result, there was a small club of the large investment community that was operating within itself. This prevented an opportunity for small investors to become a part of the over-all expansion of larger plants and industrial processes.
A recent example of this is Nova Corporation, which is essentially an Alberta-based corporation. That company came to Ottawa to explain its activities and talk about some government policies it had experienced in past years. I believe its comments are pertinent to this debate on the Investment Canada Bill as a result of which there will virtually be new rules regarding the importation of foreign capital into the country. Their comments also pertain to how the large investment community acts within itself.
Businessmen face difficulties when they attempt to build a company and attract investment by issuing new shares. This is the course which Nova Corporation chose to take but that company and others like it do so at some cost. If it issues new shares to accommodate the new investment, the value of its shares will remain relatively flat. It was competing in a market-place which chose to hold the same amount of shares and finance internally through the banks or trust companies rather than to issue new shares. Therefore the value of those shares would escalate quite quickly.
I remind the House that most of the investment funds in Canada are being held by insurance companies or trust companies. They tend to look for shares that have a history of increasing in value very rapidly on a consistent basis. That type of money is attracted to companies which are borrowing but not enlarging the shareholder base, not paying dividends or taxes. It is a combination of our tax policy and investment policy which has been determining the kind of new investment that takes place in the country.
A company like Nova Corporation which was attempting to expand by issuing new shares and new stock was at a distinct disadvantage. I think the activities of the Committee for an Independent Canada and other like-minded groups helped to draw attention to this sort of thing and I think to some extent were partly successful in getting some of our tax policies and some government policies beamed away from relying totally on that very powerful little clique of investors that have been guiding investment decisions in this country and not making the benefits of those decisions available to ordinary Canadians.
I mentioned the attempts that were successful by Nova Corporation which took advantage of the national energy policy to expand its corporation into a number of areas involving oil and gas. It had very good results, growing in size by three or four times in the course of a mere eight or nine years.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the House some of the options that were experimented with at the same time as those kinds of corporate experiments were going on. There were also experiments by some of the provinces to become involved in attempting to buy back control of their resources and to buy back some industries in control of foreign owners. One of the well-known experiences, at least well-known in my province, is that which Saskatchewan had in taking back control of the potash industry. About 50 per cent of the potash industry came back into Saskatchewan's hands as a result of a Crown corporation being set up with that particular mandate in mind.
What were some of the benefits of gaining that industry and having it held within the province? First, the head office was in the Province of Saskatchewan. It was not in Albuquerque or Chicago, it was in Saskatoon. This meant management decisions were made in Saskatoon. The second and third levels of management tended to be made up of Saskatchewan people and there was a clear decision on the part of the board of directors to attempt to operate that particular industry in a way that would be of benefit to Saskatchewan and create jobs for Saskatchewan residents.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that I should come to the end of my remarks. I think these experiments have shown there are other methods of creating investment within the country and that they have clear advantages over relying on foreign investment. I wish the Government would look at some of those before pushing this legislation to the exclusion of these ideas.
January 29, 1985


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Minister of State, Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn), is rising on a point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have just had a meeting with the Opposition House Leaders. I thought it would be appropriate for me simply to indicate the business for tomorrow. We are making such great progress on this legislation that I think what we will try to do is to carry on with the same order of business tomorrow as we have today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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 second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development; and on the motion of Mrs. Tardif (Charlesbourg) (p. 1708).
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before I honestly do not see why this Bill is called Investment Canada. It should be called the Foreign Investment Act. Canadian investors will not receive any benefit from this Bill. It will do nothing for investment in Canada. The benefit will go to the foreign investors. It will certainly not be of benefit to Canadian industry or Canadian employees. I fail to see how the Government can tell us that this Bill will be good for the economy or that it will create jobs and stimulate the economy.
What we are going to become more and more in this country is a branch plant economy. We are going to have more of our industry taken over by American corporations. The tendency will not be for Americans to invest in Canada. They have said they will not invest in Canada. Even following the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in New York they have said that they will not be increasing their investment in Canada at this time and for us not to expect American investors to be waiting at the border, as they call it, with bags of money to invest here.
In light of that, what can we expect? I maintain we can expect very little. In fact, there will be a negative result. For instance, if we have this branch plant economy that I predict, what will the future be for research and development in Canada? Corporations controlled in other countries will not maintain a high level of research and development in Canada in branch plants. They will reduce research and development in Canada. More and more what little research and develop-
Investment Canada Act
ment we have here will filter back to the head offices in the countries of origin of multi-national corporations.
What is the position with respect to exports, Mr. Speaker? If a company has a branch plant in Canada, that branch plant cannot export the product of the parent company. The parent company does the exporting. The branch plant sells the product in the country in which it is located, in this case Canada. What we will have is not only a branch plant but merely a store front where the product of a parent company will be sold in Canada without any avenue or vehicle whatsoever to export that product to other countries. If this Government would put some energy into developing Canadian industry, to fostering research and development to a much larger extent than it has, to fostering and developing Canadian products that we could export, we would be much, much further ahead.
What about the question of parts, machinery and equipment? If these branch plants are part of foreign corporations, then the obligation and the incentive will be to import parts, machinery and equipment from either the subsidiaries of a company in other countries or from the parent company itself.
What will be the situation if we have a downturn in the economy, Mr. Speaker? Which areas will be the first to suffer in the event this transpires? It will be the countries where the branch plants are located. The impetus is to maintain a strong parent company, to maintain the strength of the company in the country of origin where the principal activity is located. It will be the branch plants and the store fronts that will suffer. Here in Canada we will lose our employment and we will be the first to suffer as a result of any further downturns in the economy.
I am not saying all foreign investment is wrong. I do not maintain that in any sense. However, it has to be developed and monitored within a certain framework. The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) stated that the former Liberal Government was too lenient, that too many foreign companies were allowed to operate in Canada. The Government is saying that we were too strict, that we are rated among our trading partners in the western world as the most inhospitable to foreign investment.
Obviously, with those two polar positions we must have been doing something right. The position that the former Liberal Government took was the correct one and FIRA was the proper way to go. That is not to say FIRA operated perfectly. There were things that had to be modified and should have been modified. Decisions were too slow. There was a dialogue and a consideration that was just not pertinent to what was intended as far as the Canadian economy was concerned.
That is not to say that the vehicle itself did not work. It in fact did work. Even though the Foreign Investment Review Agency did not turn away that many investment prospects in the last few years, the agency was there and everyone knew what it stood for. Before an application was made, it was believed that there had to be some work and some attempt to

January 29, 1985
Investment Canada Act
meet the requirements of FIRA. This was done. By doing that, it provided a very useful service to this country.
Where I see a major problem arising and where the greatest difficulty may be is in the energy sector. At the present time we have very depressed stock prices in certain sectors of the energy industry. If a marketing multi-national or a major company in the marketing field needs a resource base, then we have Canadian companies that are ripe for takeover and purchase. That may be good, it may be not so good. That is not to say that we can disregard that possibility. This Government said it is projecting as a major objective of the Government's energy policy enhanced Canadian participation. If so, how can it reconcile this danger of takeover of Canadian ownership in the energy field? FIRA looked at this and all other possibilities.
The Minister says there will be no Government intervention, no review of takeovers of companies with assets of $5 million of less. I say that there will be no review, period, with this Government. This Government has gone to the United States and said that the door of investment in Canada is open. It said: "Come in, buy our industries, do what you want if you have the money. Just come in and we will look the other way". I fail to see how this Minister, with his attitude for foreign investment and disregard for Canadian ownership, will offer any kind of hindrance or review of the potential but major takeover of Canadian industries. I predict this will be a source of regret by this Government in the not too distant future.
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, I made a few remarks in the House to say just how important we think this measure is. I must admit that I was rather pleased to have been quoted by the Hon. Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif) who, as you know, is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister who introduced this Bill, the sponsor of the Bill. I knew that I would manage to draw some applause, at least from the Conservatives. She deserves my full admiration for the excellent speech she made. I do not know whether my admiration stems from the fact that she quoted me, but she did say, and I quote, Mr. Speaker:
As one of their own, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), said, the real work on a Bill does not take place in the House. Let us therefore proceed and go to committee right away.
What I would like to stress, Mr. Speaker, is that I am wondering whether we have really been all that slow in the consideration of this Bill. In fact, as the Hon. Member was speaking, 31 Liberals, 25 New Democrats and 13 Conservatives-13 of her colleagues out of 211-I can appreciate just how impatient they are to proceed with the study of this Bill in committee. I admit that what I said is true: the real work is done in committee. But on the other hand, I am surprised that only 13 out of 211 members spoke on this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to stick to the bill because I do not want to annoy the assistant whip of the party, the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) but I am going to deal
with the bill and the motion because a double motion is involved. The Hon. Member for Charlesbourg introduced a motion raising the previous question under the Standing Orders. The previous question is a pleasant way to avoid the word closure because in effect it is exactly what this motion is all about ... and I am glancing at our advisers at the table who are impartial, to see if I am right or wrong. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected, but the previous question is equivalent to a motion of closure since we will be unable to continue to speak in this House, we will immediately have to vote on the bill and refer it to the committee for consideration.
I have said and still maintain that my NDP friends, and I do mean friends, are always suspicious of anything that happens in the United States, which is not the case where my Conservative friends are concerned. I now welcome the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). I feel fortunate today because he is accompanied by his distinguished Minister of External Relations (Mrs. Vezina). Frankly I did not expect so much, but there will certainly be something special at five o'clock. I am sure that they are not in this House to hear the members discuss that bill. However I said that it was a motion of closure on a quite important bill.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that I still have four minutes left. I could be very partisan and say to the Hon. Member for Charlesbourg: You should have been here during the many years when the opposition, now the government in this House wasted so much time.
Remember that we also had to impose closure for a thing as simple as the setting up of a committee on Constitution. For the information of the older members as well as the younger ones who are now working in this House we had to deal during nine months with an issue as important as the Canadian flag. It is almost incredible but it is true.
Since we are discussing a bill which is so closely related to our Canadian identity, as I was saying last week, our young people and the Canadian public are entitled to know what will be its implications. My party whip and all those who have taken part in this debate are well aware that the implications of this bill are not yet known to the Canadian people. Anyone who knows the workings of Parliament realizes that, very often, it will take many days of debate before the Canadian public becomes aware of what is going on in the House of Commons.
If I may, and I say this without wanting to sound paternalistic, I would like to explain why a piece of legislation should sometimes be debated for a longer time in the House of Commons. It is, because, if a bill which is considered very important is debated only for a short time, it does not have a chance to reach the public which might then want to express its views. We may have been wrong. Obviously, the debate is drawing to a close. I do not think that the procedures of the
January 29, 1985

Constitution Act, 1867
House have been abused. 1 can even say that the debate is certainly coming to an end because of a lack of participants. It is probably ending. It will do so eventually, but not too quickly.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order, please! The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.\nJanuary 29, 1985"]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all orders and notices preceding No. 24 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, December 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Isabelle: That Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (national capital of Canada), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) had the floor.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I asked to be recognized in this debate because of some comments by the Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on the proposed legislation. The Hon. Member for Gatineau had given the Bill her approval in principle. I merely wish to comment briefly on the Bill and suggest that-


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I do not recall having given my approval in principle to this Bill, quite the contrary!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, but the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has the floor. If the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) is willing to participate in this debate, perhaps she will have an opportunity.
[ Translation]


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I may not because I have already spoken to the Bill. However, I think that if the Hon. Member is making statements that do not reflect what was said, perhaps he should be called to order. I never approved the principle .. .


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate and if it comes to that point, I will call him to order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in any case, it is not a point of order if the Hon. Member has a loss of memory. I intend to read exactly what she said as reported in Hansard at page 1032 later on, but the debate this evening is on Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (national capital of Canada), tabled by my friend and colleague the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle).
Mr. Speaker, I suggested earlier in the course of this debate that since we practically had approval in principle of all Members of the House, it would probably be preferable to deal with the Bill by referring it to a Committee of the House for study and consideration.
In the course of her comments, the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) said, as reported at page 1032 in Hansard of December 7, 1984:
So, although we do approve in principle the Bill-
Those are her very words. I did not make them up.
-presented by the Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), we do not think that it is well enough structured to initiate the very serious discussions-
And so on. So she did approve the Bill in principle, and that is what I said, nothing more.
Mr. Speaker, with the consent of my colleagues and considering we have already had one hour of debate on this Bill, I move, seconded by Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques), the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (national capital of Canada) be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), seconded by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), has moved a motion regarding the subject matter of this particular Bill. We are looking at the motion at this moment. At this time I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).

January 29, 1985
Constitution Act, 1867


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to comment both on the motion that has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and also on the idea contained within this Bill. In fact, the proposal which the-
[ Translation]
-by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) in December, to have the subject matter of the Bill referred to a Standing Committee of the House, without referring the Bill itself, is a proposal I accept and support as a Member from the National Capital Region. I could not agree to have the entire Bill with the specific proposals made by the Member for Hull-Aylmer referred to committee.
Since it was quite clear, for instance, from the tone of the comments by the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) that there are some reservations on the other side of the River and also since, in the course of my consultations today, I spoke with the Office of the Mayor of Ottawa and personally with the Mayor of Hull, and they both have serious reservations about this Bill and the way it was proposed, especially since apparently, the Member for Hull-Aylmer did not really consult with the municipal authorities and the two largest municipalities in the region, namely Hull and Ottawa-

In commenting on the proposal of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, the principle of referring of the idea that we should find some way of expanding the constitutional recognition of the capital of Canada to include Hull or the Quebec side of the national capital region is something of which I am in favour and at which I am prepared to look. However, I have very severe reservations about the Bill itself and the manner in which it has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle).
I believe the Bill reflects an evolutionary process which has been taking place for most of this century and particularly since the formation of the National Capital Commission some time after the War. De facto but not de jure, the national capital region of the country exists on both the Quebec and the Ontario side. The national capital region is as large or almost as large on the Quebec side as it is on the Ontario side. Substantial numbers of members of the Public Service of Canada and a number of important government departments have now moved to Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere and the other government office buildings which have been built in the last 15 years in the centre of Hull. It is no longer the case that Hull is the poor relation while Ottawa has all of the priority as the capital of Canada. I welcome that.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good step forward that over the last 15 years, we have actually started recognizing de facto, the fact that the National Capital is not simply Ottawa, but Ottawa and the Hull area. There is an increasing recognition of the fact that we are a bilingual, a bicultural nation, and this
is why we have a Capital that extends to both our largest provinces and that encompasses two cultures.
I spoke earlier today with the Mayor of Hull, Mr. Michel Legere. He told me about his hope that the City of Hull be seen, in his terms, as a showcase for the Quebec culture, the Francophone reality of our country, a complement to Ottawa, which would presumably be in his view a showcase for the culture, for the Anglophone and perhaps the multicultural reality of this country.

I certainly accept that, Mr. Speaker, but I have reservations. I support the idea of referring only the subject matter of the Bill because of the manner in which the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer put forward this particular Bill.
This Bill provoked a great deal of concern when it was debated in the House of Commons in December. I share those concerns because the intentions of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer are in fact greater than those of the Bill itself. The Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer made no bones about his view that this Bill should be the first step toward the formation of a federal district for the national capital of Canada which would apparently be comparable to the federal district of Washington, the District of Columbia, in the United States. He said this quite explicitly. This was not a hidden agenda but an agenda that was very direct and overt. In debate on December 7, at page 1028 of Hansard, he said:
-it would be a first step towards the establishment of what many people wish to see, a federal district.
On page 1029, he went on to say:
Moreover, if we consider what some politicians have said during the years, the best way to administer the national capital region would be to establish a federal district.
Later on in debate he said:
-the Government must have the necessary tools in the decision-making process.
In other words, he was discussing a federal district which, I suppose, would be along the lines of that proposed by Mr. Douglas Fullerton in his report on the national capital of 1973 or 1974. In that particular report, Mr. Fullerton proposed that there should be some form of amalgamation of municipalities and that there should be a supra-national or supra-governmen-tal authority that would take in the municipal officials, perhaps the provincial officials and the federal Government. That would provide government for close to a million people who are living in the national capital region. I do not know who all these people are.
Frankly, I do not know those people who so enthusiastically seek and promote the establishment of a federal district similar to Washington's Federal District in the United States. I do not know them. I have been a politician in this area for close to fifteen years yet, during all that time I do not think I have ever met one citizen in this area who supported the idea of a federal
January 29, 1985

district, with the possible exception of Mr. Fullerton who is one of my constituents in Ottawa Centre.

On the other hand, I have heard a great deal against such a position. The negative opinions against a federal district have been voiced whenever the issue has surfaced. For example, that negative opinion surfaced in response to the proposal which Mr. Fullerton brought forward in the early 1970s. There was a parliamentary committee established to study the Fullerton report. The municipalities of the region either boycotted the committee or when representatives came forward they were not prepared to say anything constructive because they felt- and I think correctly-that it was wrong to deprive the people of this region of access to the kinds of government which they had had for decades upon decades, both the municipal and provincial authorities.
Many of my constituents in Ottawa Centre work in high-tech industries. Others work at Loblaws or the Bay. Others are trying to organize because they work at Eaton's. Some of them are consultants or people who have brought a business to Ontario because they like the ambiance of Ottawa. Those people may have nothing at all to do with the federal Government, except that they happen to live in the city where the federal Government has its headquarters. Many people who work for the federal Government share the views of those who have nothing to do with the federal Government. They do not want to incur the risks of losing provincial medicare, the system of law and the priorities which they have had for a long time through the creation of a federal district. They fear a form of government-a national capital commission or a group of commissioners appointed by the Cabinet or the Prime Minister-which would sit on a co-equal basis with the Mayor of Ottawa and the Mayor of Hull. Possibly there would not be a Mayor of Ottawa or a Mayor of Hull.
The people I have talked with about this issue over the course of many years have grave reservations about that kind of venture. They see it as something which is unknown. I believe they would also resent some of the comments which were made by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) in his contribution to the debate. For example, he indicated that he was very disturbed by the municipal planning which had taken place. In his view it had the effect of blocking out the House of Commons. He said:
Beauty is not the only issue but Parliament must be "at home", as they say, except that in this case the Ottawa municipality has control over it, which is a nonsense, if I may say so.
I think the Hon. Member ignored the fact that in the planning of the City of Ottawa, which came after the Greber report, and when the downtown area was planned in the early 1960s, specific regard was had in trying to recognize the pre-eminence of the Peace Tower and the House Commons. We, in our wisdom today, may judge that wrong, but nonetheless anyone who examines downtown Ottawa will discover that the height limits have the effect of creating a saucer, so that the House of Commons and the Peace Tower remain the pre-eminent buildings in this part of the downtown core. The
Constitution Act, 1867
buildings are only allowed to get higher as they get farther away from Wellington Street and the parliamentary precinct. Today that may be seen as naive planning, but it was clearly designed to take account of the fact that Parliament Hill is an important national symbol and should be given that pre-eminence.
The planning of the City of Ottawa in those days-and I was a member of the municipal council for part of that time- was carried out in close conjunction with the National Capital Commission. That remains the case to this day. I could cite the example of the location of the new courthouse which is being built in my riding at the corner of Laurier Avenue and Elgin Street. In that particular case the National Capital Commission played a very strong role. When the city said that the building should be oriented toward Elgin Street, the National Capital Commission, acting on behalf of the citizens of Canada, said no. The National Capital Commission felt that it was an important building and a symbol of the presence of the Province of Ontario in the national capital. They decreed that the building should be oriented toward the canal and the National Arts Centre rather than toward Elgin Street. The NCC won. So it is hardly the case that the control of the City of Ottawa is making a nonsense of the respect for this community, which is also the national capital.
What I am concerned about is that if one pursues the concept of the Bill, one must be aware of the kind of sensitivities which were reflected in the debate in December. [Translation]
I have in mind for instance the comments made by the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly). She said that the population of the City of Gatineau exceeds by 20,000 that of the City of Hull. Even if Hull is the core of the urban population on the Quebec side of the National Capital area, there is now a sort of competition between Gatineau and Hull and this must be recognized.
Frankly, I do not know how to react to that. Are we to establish a national capital to be called Ottawa-Hull-Gatineau or, since Nepean's population is almost similar to that of Gatineau, should it be Ottawa-Hull-Gatineau-Nepean, or are Gloucester or Cumberland going to have their day? I do not know.
Clearly there are problems and they can be studied if the matter is referred to a committee of this House. However, a referral of the Bill as such would do two things in my view, Mr. Speaker. On the one hand, it could give rise to reactions from certain people from both sides of the river who would suggest for instance, as we say in English:

"The capital of Canada was always meant to be Ottawa". They are rednecks who have not understood that this country has changed since Confederation. Perhaps at that time the Fathers of Confederation did not understand that our country should be joined together; two equal and kindly peoples who should come together. They were not prepared to recognize

January 29, 1985
Constitution Act, 1867
that. There is no question that in the capital of Canada les Quebecois et les Hullois were junior partners for a long time. That has now changed.
To name Hull in a Bill and to send the Bill forward and attempt to bring it back to the House for third reading without having considered some of the alternatives seems to me a bit short-sighted. It would be very provocative as well if we were to send a Bill forward with the connotations which have been given it by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer, and specifically his suggestion that this was the first step in the creation of a federal district. I would be extremely uneasy about that, and so would my constituents. I would also suggest that the constituents of the Hon. Member would be uneasy. I would place on the record the fact that in the election of 1980 the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer had a majority of 17,500, but his majority shrank to some 1,500 or 1,600 in the 1984 election. Perhaps that suggests that he does not have that many constituents who are keen on this particular suggestion, which he has put forward on numerous occasions, particularly in view of the lack of adequate consultation with a number of people-municipal leaders and others-who deserve to be consulted on this subject.


Paul Wyatt Dick: What about your majority?


Michael Morris Cassidy: I have a much smaller majority, but I was coming up, not going down.
In closing, I would remind Hon. Members that I believe the feeling was that the Fullerton report was dead letter, after the cool reception which it got from the Province of Quebec. Quebec is not prepared to surrender any territory. Regardless of what happened at the PQ convention a few weeks ago, I think any political leader or political party in Quebec would share that view. They are not prepared to give up territory. They want to add Labrador to the Province of Quebec. Certainly they do not want to give anything up, whether it is to a national capital district, the Province of Ontario or anything else.
That would be the view, Mr. Speaker, of the people of the Province of Ontario. In my riding we consider ourselves Ontarians, Ottawans and proud residents of the national capital. We have succeeded for a very long time in having those three concepts co-exist, and be proud Canadians as well. I do not think that can be changed-I do not think it should-by the kind of proposals or extensions to the proposals which are coming forward from the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer. [Translation]
Therefore, for the above reasons, I would support the comments of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier): Let the subject matter be referred to a committee, but not the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I have examined the amendment and I find it in order. Therefore, the
Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), seconded by the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault), moves in amendment thereto:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (national capital of Canada) be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa West, I am pleased to rise to address both the motion and the Bill. I, in fact, am the only Hon. Member on this side of the House whose constituency is entirely within the boundaries of the City of Ottawa. I am therefore particularly pleased to participate in a debate which has become something of a tradition in this House, the debate initiated by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), perhaps not every year but most years, on the subject of Canada's national capital. The Hon. Member has been introducing such a Bill on a regular basis since 1967, and if there have been years when he has not introduced such a Bill, he has compensated for that lack by offering it twice, as he did in 1984. In fact, one year ago this month, during the second session of the Thirty-Second Parliament, a not dissimilar Bill was introduced by the Hon. Member and it is a tribute to his consistency and resilience that he persists with his proposal.
The theme is always the same, Mr. Speaker, but contains, however, its variations. On this occasion we do not have a proposal to change the name of the capital of Canada from Ottawa to "the national capital region" or to some such anonymous equivalent but, as I understand it, it is proposed to call it "Ottawa-Hull" instead of "Ottawa".
This theme of renaming or reorganizing the national capital of Canada did not, of course, originate with the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer, although after 17 years I think he might be forgiven for thinking that he has acquired squatters' rights on the territory. The argument for creation of a federal district to serve the national capital has recurred on a regular basis for many years. One local observer wrote in 1962 that it was only a matter of time before such a district was created. He was quite sure, in fact, that it would be established before the centennial celebrations of 1967. That deadline having expired at the time the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer began his own introduction of motions and Bills on this matter in this House-perhaps as his own centennial project-the question now is whether such a district will be created before the centennial anniversary of the Hon. Member's efforts.
The arguments on this subject predate all of this, however. They go back to Confederation itself. Ottawa was not, contrary to a popular and inaccurate impression, chosen on a whim of Queen Victoria as the capital of Canada. Careful study was made of competing sites, such as Kingston, Toronto, Quebec City, Montreal and Ottawa, before a decision was made. Ottawa was chosen because it offered many advantages which it continues to offer today. Its people and its culture were a hybrid of our two founding peoples. It was located on the border of Upper Canada and Lower Canada. It had, and
January 29, 1985

still has, of course, great natural beauty. Those Hon. Members who will be participating in tonight's parliamentary hockey game in connection with the Winterlude celebrations will attest to the fact that it has an exhilarating and bracing winter climate, which we all enjoy!
The debate on the location of Canada's capital was heated and continued for many years prior to Confederation. Debate has continued since, not, I am happy to say, on the location but on the administrative organization of our capital. The Bill of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer is a continuation of a debate which is as old as our country. In 1872 one of the fathers of Confederation, John Hamilton Gray, had this to say on the issue:
At the time of the convention, one mistake occurred: no provision was made for creating a federal district for the capital and withdrawing it from the exclusive control of the local legislature of any one of the provinces.
That which was designed to be the capital of the Confederation might fairly rest its claim for support upon the people of the Dominion. Its order, well-being, sanitary arrangements, police regulations, adornments and improvements are essential to the comfort and security not only of the representatives who attend Parliament, but of all those who are compelled to resort to it as the capital of the country in the discharge of the various duties attendant upon the administration of public affairs.
In language reminiscent of that of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer Mr. Gray went on to say:
Its reputation should be national, not provincial. It belongs no more to Ontario than it does to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec or any of the provinces constituting the confederation.
He then went on to say, and it is something with which the residents of Ottawa would probably agree.
The expenses incident to its civic control must necessarily be far greater than would evolve upon it if merely an ordinary municipality. It is no answer to say that increased value and property is sufficient consideration for the increased burden put upon its inhabitants.
Since then the debate has continued, Mr. Speaker, always with the same basic arguments; first, that the national capital should not be part of any one province and, second, that the capital itself would be better administered by eliminating the jurisdictional overlap which now exists between varying federal, provincial and municipal authorities in the national capital region.
The Hon. Member has not suggested, at least not in this particular Bill, that a federal district should be created. He just suggests that Hull be included in the national capital. However, I think I agree with my friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), that it is obvious that the creation of a federal district is what the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer has in mind. He has certainly supported this idea in the past. Last year, in fact, during a debate on a Bill in the last Parliament, he discussed the difficulties of administration in the national capital region, concluding, and I quote:
This is why over the years I have always advocated a federal district, in order that the federal Government be at home here.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that after 117 years the federal Government has made itself quite at home in Ottawa. The arguments in favour of the creation of a federal district, particularly the administrative arguments, do have some merit and perhaps we should be studying such a pro-
Constitution Act, 1867
posal. But we have to ask ourselves-and I am sure the people of Canada would ask us this question-whether the creation of such a district would be worth the trouble it would take to do so. If we think we have jurisdictional problems now, they would be nothing compared to the problems we would have in trying to persuade the Governments of Ontario and Quebec to cede territory to a new federal district.
Is this, after all, the most important issue on the national agenda? Are constitutional questions at all of prime importance to the Canadian people at this point in time, particularly after years of acrimonious constitutional debate and at a time when questions of national and international economic problems, issues of famine and world peace might reasonably be expected to be on the minds of parliamentarians? And of all the possible constitutional questions which might be discussed, is the creation of a new administrative entity for the national capital something which should take priority? Should it take priority, for example, over the question of Quebec's participation in a constitutional accord? Should it take precedence over creation of new administrative arrangements for the people of the north who have been living, really, under a quasi-colonial administration for years? Is the question of administrative reorganization of the capital more important than resolving important constitutional issues and questions of human rights concerning the native peoples of this country?
I do not think we would find much support throughout this country if we were to devote much of our time to this issue right now. It would take time, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer and other Members of this House were involved some years ago in committee deliberations on this issue, deliberations which took months of work and the energy of many people. It is a complex issue which cannot be resolved by a quick debate in this House, not if we wish to do justice to it. It would again take deliberation and some delicate constitutional negotiations. The fact is, and I say this as someone who is not without sympathy for the efforts of the Hon. Member, and as someone who, having lived in Ottawa almost half of his life, is familiar with the problems of living here, that I think we are reasonably well off in this area.
The situation is not perfect; there are administrative overlaps. Jurisdictional issues can be confusing, as anyone who has dealt with three or four different police forces in a day can attest to. But things work. Life goes on. We manage to make this city, this whole region, work, and it works well enough to be considered a desirable residential area for many people. It could be improved and a federal district, properly structured, could be a positive change. But the return on our investment of energy and time would be insufficient to justify undertaking such a reform at this time.
How would the different legal systems of Quebec and Ontario be reconciled in one new territory? I assume that the Hon. Member would want Hull to be included in such a territory. What about local self-government, Mr. Speaker? We would not want to turn the capital into another domestic

January 29, 1985
Constitution Act, 1867
colony, disenfranchising the people of this area who, whatever the complications, at least now have many opportunities to vote for various elected bodies. We would not want to restrict the political activities of people residing here. A large proportion of our local population has already suffered that infringement on their political rights-public servants who are denied the right to speak out on important issues concerning their lives.
What political system would a new national capital have, Mr. Speaker? Would territorial councils be created to do the essential work now done by municipal councils on both sides of the river? Would there be one territorial council for the whole area or two? If there were only one, and it seems logical to have only one, if one of the arguments in favour of creating a federal district is to reduce jurisdictional confusion, then what protection would there be for the minority residing on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River?
How would federal and local interests be resolved under a new political system, Mr. Speaker? Presumably voters in the district would not be disenfranchised federally any more than they would at the municipal level and would continue to elect Members of Parliament. It is clear that a territorial legislature would not have the same independence as a province, because the whole raison d'etre of this proposal is to remove the capital from a province and facilitate treatment of what are viewed as national concerns in the administration of the capital. Would federal representatives be appointed to a territorial council, and what balance would there be between elected and appointed officials?
The questions go on and on, Mr. Speaker, and resolving them would take years of negotiation beforehand, and years of conflict, compromise and adjustment during implementation. The fact is that no matter how simple a policy or plan may seem to be, it is never simple in implementation. This is one plan which would be complicated in its development, and undoubtedly acrimonious and unpredictable in implementation. In a perfect world, a federal district serving as the capital might be worth while; but in the real world, the world we live in, we look for the best workable solution. In an imperfect world, we establish priorities, weigh our resources, and apply them to the urgent problems before we deal with what is merely desirable. This type of administrative and political reform for the capital might be desirable, but it is certainly not urgent.
The Hon. Member might then say well, why not just proceed with his Bill today, as an interim measure, to amend the Constitution, and include Hull as part of the national capital? The Hon. Member's Bill would go further than that. It would permit Parliament also to prescribe in the Constitution other surrounding areas as part of the capital of Canada. And in fact, if the name of the capital is going to be changed to Ottawa-Hull, why not, after all, include Nepean, Gloucester, Vanier, Aylmer or Gatineau? What is the magic barrier, the invisible demarcation line which would prevent other areas from also being so included? The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the capital does draw its character from the people beyond the
bounds of the City of Ottawa. Thousands of people who work for the Government of Canada reside in areas outside the City of Ottawa and, as the Hon. Member has noted in the past, many of the people who do reside in Ottawa work in government buildings in his constituency as they do in mine.
No one denies that there is interaction and that the interaction between Ottawa and the surrounding areas of the national capital region is important to the culture and character of the city. The interactions which form our characters as individuals, as groups, as cities, have virtually no limit. Today the capital of Canada is Ottawa. Tomorrow the capital would be Ottawa-Hull if the Hon. Member's wishes were realized. The day after, who knows? We might speak of the capital as Ottawa-Hull-Nepean-Gloucester- Vanier-Aylmer-Gatineau.
The next move would be to return to the Hon. Member's earlier suggestion to rename the area "the national capital area", or something similar. Such a name would be easier on the ears than a hyphenated melange, but oh so gray, so soulless, so boring!
It would always be possible to substitute an Indian name for this bleak administrative title; Algonquin, perhaps? Asticou? How about that variation on the old Indian word, Ottawa? It has a certain ring to it, it has all of the historical connections, the roots and tradition of this country, that a national capital should have. It is not an imported name; it is a proud local name, recognized throughout this country and throughout the world as the home of our Parliament and the capital of Canada.


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon on behalf of the constituents of Nepean-Carleton to share their concern over the Bill before us and the amendment related thereto. I want to preface my remarks this afternoon by complimenting the two previous speakers and conveying to the House the fact that I endorse the concerns they presented to us in the course of this afternoon's debate.
National capitals around the world are governed in different ways. Many systems are in place in Washington, Canberra, Moscow, London and others. There are advantages and disadvantages to the different types of government which exist in the various nations around the world. However, the bottom line is that no perfect system has yet been identified for national capitals.
The Bill before us obviously has merit in many respects, but the thing that raised my real concern was when the sponsor of the Bill indicated that this was really a first step towards the creation of a national capital district. It is that aspect of it, Mr. Speaker, that concerns me more fundamentally than any other aspect. I agree with the Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), relative to the earlier studies into the creation of a national capital district for the capital of Canada, that there is no local support for this type of approach to national government. We have had this debate many times but most recently in the early 1970s when this community had a dramatic and heart-rending debate on the particular issue. The consensus that came out of that was that there was no heart, no desire,
January 29, 1985

no will and few advantages to be gained by that type of a national government system for the nation's capital.
Ottawa, the nation's capital, is situated at the confluence of the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers. It is a sight that has tremendous natural beauty. The area is underlain by pre-Cambrian rocks which are a billion or more years old. Sitting on top of the pre-Cambrian terrain which extends for many hundreds of kilometers is a thin veneer of Ordovician rock, roughly 580 million years old. Those pre-Cambrian and Ordovician rocks are the basis of the local physiography of the area.
As the millenniums moved on this area was covered by a thick ice sheet 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000 years ago. We are unable to tell how thick this ice sheet was locally, but it was sufficiently thick and sufficiently heavy to cause the local area to be depressed as much as 180 to 260 feet. As this ice melted the rebound associated with it was very low and the area was inundated, 16,000 to 20,000 years ago, by what we now refer to as the Champlain Sea.
The invasion of the Champlain Sea was a god's blessing, if one can put it that way. The sediments that were deposited out of that sea, known as the Champlain sediments, have provided us, in the St. Lawrence and Ottawa River valleys, with the tremendously good agricultural lands which exist locally. If it was not for that invasion of the sea not so many years ago, this would be a barren pre-Cambrian terrain with no capability of food production.
Once the rebound was complete and the Champlain Sea withdrew 12,000 to 16,000 years ago, a tremendous forest developed locally. It was one of the prime pine timber forests that the world was ever to see. It was in that environment that the Algonquin and Iroquois families and communities developed and grew and fought with one another and others. In the course of time, in the early 1600s, Champlain moved through this terrain briefly, I believe in 1600 and 1602. The next white person to move through the community was Nicholas Gatineau Duplessis. He came down what is now the Gatineau River and named the area of that great valley.
Many, many years were to go by before there was much inluence on the Algonquin and Iroquois communities. It was not until 1798 and 1799 when a man by the name of Philemon Wright, who was then living in Woburn, Massachusetts, came on two exploration expeditions into what is now called the Ottawa valley. He was a farmer, a cattleman, a puritan in faith I am told, and Kentish in extraction. In the winter of 1800 and 1801 he moved with his family and five other families from Massachusetts into the Ottawa Valley and settled in what is now the City of Hull. He was the first of the timber barons and farmers to settle locally.
Perhaps the next highlight of our local history was the arrival of Colonel John By in 1827. He arrived on behalf of the Government of England to build the canal between Kingston and Ottawa. On his arrival the village on the south side of the river became known as Bytown, named after Colonel John By. In 1847 Bytown was incorporated as a town with a mayor and
Constitution Act, 1867
a council. Its first mayor was a man named John Scott. In the course of time he became a federal Member of Parliament for this particular area. It was not until 1854 that the name was changed from Bytown to Ottawa through an Act passed by the Legislative Assembly of United Canada. In this period Ottawa was chosen by Queen Victoria to become the seat of government for the new country of Canada.
In 1860 the Prince of Wales, then 17 years of age and perhaps better known as the Duke of Newcastle, visited Canada. During the course of his visit in 1860 he laid the cornerstone for the Parliament building of Canada. That is something we should be aware of. From that date forward what we now know as the parliamentary precinct in Ottawa has grown.
In the years that followed the National Capital Commission and the national capital district was formed. In 1969 we had superimposed on our local area a form of regional government which was created by the Province of Ontario. The Ottawa-Carleton regional Government was the first such system of regional government to be developed anywhere in Canada.
In the greater Ottawa community we have three tiers of government at the moment. We have that tier which relates to the activities of the National Capital Commission, we have that tier which relates to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and we have that tier which relates to the local municipalities such as the City of Nepean, the City of Ottawa or the Township of Rideau.
The National Capital Commission is responsible for many activities in the national capital district. We must make this distinction clear. It is responsible for certain aspects of planning. It is responsible for the development of parks, for certain national driveways, and for certain educational activities on the south side of the Ottawa River. It has other responsibilities which are partly different in the Province of Quebec. It is responsible, of course, for the well-being, planning and management of the parliamentary precinct in addition to the things I have just mentioned.
For a short but precious period in my life I had the privilege of being a councillor in the regional government to which all of the local municipalities belong. That regional level of government is responsible for all health care locally. It is responsible for sewer and water and for the upper level of planning. It is responsible for the regional road system, for public transit and for everything associated with the local welfare system. It is a reasonably democratic system of government. It is locally, awkwardly expensive. However, I believe the quality associated with what the region does is beneficial for the greater Ottawa community.
That has been its track record and involvement. Its activities are very long lasting. Many of us do not realize this locally, but we have incorporated in our sewer and water system in the regional municipality some of the most advanced technologies that exist anywhere in North America.

January 29, 1985
Constitution Act, 1867
While some of us may debate this issue in the winter months, we have a splendid public transit system. Few of us realize that currently over 70 per cent of the work trips into the core of the Ottawa area are made by public transit. The goal of our local public transit is to have 80 per cent of the work trips into the core area by public transit. I am sure that with the creation of the new bus ways and related features, that goal will be accomplished.
The municipal system of government, such as those in the Cities of Ottawa, Nepean, Gloucester and Vanier and in the Townships of Osgoode, Rideau, Goulburn and the City of Kanata, was set up originally in 1851 and 1852 and amended at various times in the interim period. However, it involves the election of a mayor or reeve and a council to their respective corporations.
Within that local system of government to which people are now elected for three-year terms, one of the tremendous advantages is the ability of the ordinary citizen to interface with that level of government. It is possible to call one's local councillor this afternoon and tomorrow evening at the council meeting the matter can be resolved. Matters move very quickly. Many of the activities related to this lower tier of government is related to voluntarism. This is something that is very precious.
For instance, in the south end of my riding the fire protection service is provided by volunteer fire departments. They are people who are willing to give freely of their time at any hour of the day or night to respond to a local emergency. All of the recreation activities in those communities are provided on a volunteer basis. The library system is run on a volunteer basis. Most of the recreation is supervised and organized on a volunteer basis.
At the same time I think it is also fair to say that most of the planning is developed locally and on a volunteer basis. Therefore, it is a splendid system of government that we have, with volunteers and elected councillors working together in a community for the over-all benefit of its citizens.
Quite apart from this type of regional and municipal government that those of us who live locally find so valuable and precious is a tremendous educational system. In this instance it is associated with the Province of Ontario but that is not terribly important. Most of the local educational system has been developed by local input in which we have daycare centres, French immersion programs in primary and elementary schools and public and separate school systems. The community is integrated into one of the best educational systems which I believe exists anywhere in Canada. Perhaps few places around the world would excel in comparison to it.
The citizens of the greater Ottawa community have developed this tremendous system of local education with local input, pride and opportunities. In this milieu over the years we have had the creation and development of two great universities, the University of Ottawa and Carleton University, as well as Algonquin College. If we should proceed in the direction anticipated by this Bill, would these universities lose their local identity? Would they, by necessity, have to become the national universities of Canada? What would their relation be to the Province of Ontario? What would their relation be to their local community? How would they be governed and financed? As national universities, would their responsibilities be to the local community or to citizens from St. John's to Vancouver? One wonders about that.
As a local Member of Parliament and a person who has been involved in this community for approximately 25 years, there are many concerns associated with the potential creation of a national capital district and the government that would be associated with that. If we had a national district created here, one could imagine that the form of government which would be superimposed upon it would probably be identical to that in which the National Capital Commission is presently governed. There would be a chairperson who, while chosen because of their qualities, would probably also be chosen for political reasons. There would be councillors chosen for political reasons. According to the present constitution of the National Capital Commission, I believe only three or four of that group are from the local area.
In that system there is no way of influencing these people. They are not accountable to the local population in any way. They do not need to listen because they have no reason to. They have another master. There is nothing in the system that makes them accountable and keeps them attuned to the local needs. Naturally, as Canadians they would have pride in the national capital, but beyond that their interests would be much different from the ongoing interests of those of us who have the privilege of living in the lower regions of the Rideau valley and along the south shore of the Ottawa River.
While I am sure the intent of an alliance between Hull and Ottawa as part of a nation's capital is well intended and those of us who have come to learn the value and traditions of the two cultures locally could think of nothing but having the opportunity of strengthening those relationships, the animal that this Bill might lead us to is not the way that the residents of Nepean-Carleton want to go. Nor do I believe it is the direction in which the residents of Ottawa-Carleton want to go. I would urge Members of the House not to proceed with this Bill for the reasons I have given.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please! The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
January 29, 1985



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I put two questions to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) arising out of a report in my own City of Winnipeg that one of the cheque cashing companies-not a small company, one with 20 branches across the country-on Christmas Eve charged a mother who was on welfare $76 to cash a cheque for $466. The cheque was dated December 28. The company charged this woman $76 to cash her cheque four days early that is, on December 24. The interest rate was 21 per cent. When one talks about interest rates, one talks about interest rates for a year. The annual rate, therefore, would have been 21 per cent. This company cashed the cheque on December 24 and was able to get the face value of the cheque, namely $466, four days later. That 21 per cent interest was in fact calculated on an annual basis, more than 2,500 per cent.
It is not Members of Parliament, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, or even skilled workers who have to go to one of these cheque cashing companies to get money a few days before the cheque is legally cashable, it is poor people, native people, and people on welfare. These companies are ripping off people who are in most desperate situations. These companies are victimizing people. What they are doing may be legal, and I shall come to that in a moment, but it is certainly highly immoral.
In the office of this money cashing organization is a sign which reads that it charges from 10 per cent to 21 per cent to cash post-dated cheques. There is a provision in the Small Loans Act which reads:
"criminal rate" means an effective annual rate of interest calculated in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practices and principles that exceeds sixty per cent-
That is 60 per cent a year, I presume.
I asked the Minister to investigate what happened. This was not an isolated case. If we believe this company to which I refer was breaking the law it should be prosecuted. If the company is not breaking the law, then there is something wrong with the law.
What we want the Department to do after investigation is to come back and bring legislation to the House. If legislation is not needed, it should tell the House what will be done to stop this kind of completely unacceptable rip-off. This is not the first time this matter has been brought to the attention of the Government. The National Anti-Poverty Organization brought the matter to the attention of the former Liberal
Adjournment Debate
Government. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) brought this to the attention of the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs last March, almost a year ago. At that time the then Minister said:
Unfortunately it is too late to do much this year, but I can assure the Hon. Member that a new system will be in place by the next taxation year.
The new system obviously is not in place. The present Minister said:
I would like to reassure the Hon. Member and say that we are closely monitoring the situation. There is no law forbidding such uses and we shall bring in appropriate solutions in due time.
I want the Minister and the Department to bring in those appropriate solutions now, or in a very short period of time, not at some time in the future. I urge the Minister to take action quickly on behalf of the poorest people who have to go to this kind of company.


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on January 28, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) asked two questions, the first regarding cheque cashing services offered by certain businesses, and the second regarding tax rebate discounting services. With respect to the Hon. Member's question on cheque cashing operations, I wish to advise the House that this matter is under consideration.
The Hon. Member has suggested that we investigate these businesses. He has raised this matter before, and I appreciate it being brought to the attention of the Ministry and this House. As he indicated, these companies been established quickly over the past few years. Then cash various types of cheques for a fee. I understand that the fees range from 2 to 10 per cent for most cheques, although they may range from 12 to 21 per cent for post-dated cheques. This fee takes into account that services are provided during non banking hours, usually from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days per week and sometimes on Sundays.
On reviewing the Act, it is not clear that the fee for these services can be interpreted as a rate of interest. If this were the case, it would be up to the Attorney General of each province to prosecute, if indeed there was a rate of interest charged that exceeded the maximum rate permitted under the Criminal Code. Currently under review is the rate of 12 to 21 per cent and whether it is a charge or a rate of interest. These businesses offer a service for which many Canadians are prepared to pay. Their reason for doing so may derive from such legitimate interests as greater convenience. As stated previously, the Department is aware of the Hon. Member's concerns and we appreciate him bringing them to our attention.
With respect to tax rebate discounting services, the Hon. Member can be assured that discounting transactions are monitored to ensure that they comply with the federal legislation. Indeed, there have been prosecutions under the Tax Rebate Discounting Act.
I wish to remind the House of the purpose of this Act. It is to protect the interests of taxpayers who give up the right to their anticipated tax refund in exchange for a minimun of 85

January 29, 1985
Adjournment Debate
per cent of the value of the refunds in order to receive immediate cash. The statute was enacted in 1978 at the urging of provincial governments. The legislation appears to have successfully addressed the problems it was intended to remedy. New firms have entered this market and there are indications that competition is beginning to push rates down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Parliamentary Secretary that his time has expired.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-REQUEST FOR EARLY PAY-OUT TO FARMERS
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this question is further to my question yesterday which was erroneously listed under the heading of the Canadian Wheat Board, while it in fact related to the Western Grain Stabilization Act.
The difficulties in western agriculture are obvious, 1 believe. There is a very serious cash flow problem resulting from two factors, the first being the cost-price squeeze and the second being the credit squeeze. The cost-price aspect of it is evident. On the income side, the price of grain has dropped over the past few years and producers were making it on volume; they produced more and more grain. The 1984 drought and the consequent short crop has exacerbated the problem. On the expense side, fertilizer, chemicals, equipment and fuel costs and the cost of money or interest rates all continue to add to the farmers' burden.
In response to this, last July at Prince Albert the Progressive Conservative Party announced a number of commitments to western Canada, undertakings that were designed to emphasize the inclusion of western Canada as a partner in Confederation. After 20 years of exclusion, we in western Canada feel that we are now doing quite well.
Already a number of promises have been horoured. We are represented by some 13 Cabinet Ministers. We have reduced the price of fuel to producers, including western farmers, by some 28 cents a gallon. Interest rates have gone down some 2.5 points since election day. Some rail lines that were destined for abandonment have been restored and revitalized. Farm Credit Corporation loan interest rates have been reduced for a certain category of borrower.
I also recall that at Prince Albert, we indicated that we would amend legislation to permit quicker government reaction time on such legislation as the Western Grain Stabilization Act in order that it be more responsive to economic trends and to the immediate needs of the producers. There are clearly a number of reasons why this Government should follow through with its commitment to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act to allow for an interim payment this spring. I would like to elaborate on these reasons and to ask the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) to reply.
The overwhelming reason why an interim payment is needed stems from the drought which ravaged the prairies last
summer. At least five million tonnes of grain were lost. With a potential value of $200 per tonne, that represents a direct loss of about $1 billion to Canadian farmers, and indirectly to all of the companies which provide input and services for them. In addition to the losses due to drought, many farmers in northeastern Saskatchewan and in central Manitoba suffered grain losses due to excessive moisture. These losses come on the heels of the losses of previous years.
Last year, western farmers spent some $1.4 billion on direct crop inputs including seed, fertilizer, pesticides and other supplies. Most of this was required in the spring. This year the costs will be even higher. Statistics Canada indicates a projected increase of about 5 per cent. What is more, the price of grain which was poor last year is expected to drop slightly in the coming year.
A considerable amount of publicity was generated by the announcement in December that Canadian farmers' realized net income rose by 14 per cent in 1984. That figure is quite misleading in view of the fact that realized net income, the cash that farmers actually receive, does not take into account inventory changes. The gain which amounted to 15 per cent on the prairies was only achieved through a very considerable reduction in inventory. Farmers delivered most of the grain they had in storage.
If one looks at real net income from last year's crop, one sees that it is down by over 50 per cent on the prairies. Saskatchewan's real net income was down by some $400 million, Alberta's by some $220 million and Manitoba, rebounding from an impossibly bad previous year, had a gain of only $140 million.
It would be foolish to suppose that the money paid out by the federal Government for crop insurance, stabilization, final Wheat Board payments and drought assistance will carry farmers through the planting season. In a great many cases, the money has already gone to creditors for last year's crop.
It is true that most of the young and beginning farmers are the ones who are most deeply in debt. These are also the people on whom we will need to count to produce our future food supplies. These young farmers have a heavy debt load as a result of land purchases which were made at high prices. Over the last couple of years, through rising expenses and falling grain prices, there has been a turnaround in land prices. Land prices have fallen dramatically and the lending institutions-the banks and the credit unions-have moved their attention away from asset values as a basis for lending, and now, quite properly, look at cashflow. I say, "quite properly" because without cashflow there cannot be repayment. One wishes that as much attention had been paid by borrower and lender alike to cashflow when land prices were rising as is being paid to them as the prices fall.
Many institutions which loaned money on the strength of fair market value of assets see their security eroding and consequently are calling in their loans. Many are now refusing operating credit to those producers who are in bad shape.
January 29, 1985

Those caught in this credit squeeze will have trouble borrowing operating funds for spring seeding. There is now a very urgent need for an interim payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Plan. I do not mean the kind of payment that the Liberals made. That was a cynical offering made in August, two weeks before the federal election. That was the kind of manipulation which we in the West came to expect and know so well. 1 am talking about a sincere and timely response to a western problem; the kind of response which was contemplated when the Prince Albert declaration was formulated. The Government should be looking at making an interim payment to help farmers meet the heavy financial commitment of spring seeding. 1 would ask the Minister to move swiftly to present amending legislation which would permit an interim payment in time for spring seeding.
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat
Board)): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member opposite for giving me a chance to respond to his concerns. I assure him that the Government shares many of the concerns he has expressed. We have taken some steps, not only on behalf of western farmers, but on behalf of all farmers in Canada.
In the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on November 8, we significantly reduced the tax on farm fuels. Admittedly, there is still a considerable amount of tax on farm fuels, but the federal Government recognizes that there is a problem and it is taking steps to improve that. Last week the Government introduced legislation to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act. That will allow for a voluntary tripartite red meat stabilization program in Canada. Just before Christmas we announced for the first time the invoking of the meat import quotas under the provisions of a Bill which was passed by the previous Government.
I would like to mention another item which will benefit western farmers. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) has frozen the seaway tolls, in response to the concerns of farmers over rising costs.
Let me directly address the question of the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson). We certainly anticipate being able to make an interim payment. We have legislation which will be introduced very shortly. As I said yesterday in response to his question, I very much appreciate the co-operation-as I am sure do western farmers-which has been indicated from both opposition parties in assuring us that they will pass the legislation very quickly.
The larger question is: What do we do with the Western Grain Stabilization Act? It has been roughly ten years since that legislation was implemented and I think that is a sufficient period of time to know how the Act works. There is good evidence that the Act should be reviewed. The Government will look at it as quickly as possible.
I have heard representations that the Government should take into account more individual records of producers, so that there will not have to be a major crop failure on the Prairies in order to trigger a payout. I have also heard concerns that there
Adjournment Debate
should be provisions in the Act which would allow people who grow and feed their own grain to contribute to the plan.
The Government will be acting very quickly to allow for an interim payment in time for the spring seeding. We fully recognize the cash shortage problem facing prairie farmers, and we also very much appreciate the contribution that they make to the national economy.
We will also be looking as quickly as we can at what can be done, and I have already had some input from some provincial Governments. We welcome input from other people on what we should do with the Act on a longer term basis to make it more responsive so we do not have to ask for legislation to make an interim payment. The Act will be there. It will be responsive, and we will not have to make amendments in order to make payments to producers who are in need of cash.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey).


BANKS AND BANKING-CHARTERED BANKS' REFUSAL TO CASH WELFARE CHEQUES. (B) EXISTENCE OF CHEQUE DISCOUNTERS
Bill Rompkey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate you on your memory. I also congratulate those who are stage managing the late show because we are able to have a debate on what I consider to be a very important topic. I rise on the same topic as that put forward by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), that is the disgraceful situation which is taking place in this country whereby low-income Canadians are being forced into the hands of loan sharks because the chartered banks in Canada are refusing to cash their cheques. These loan sharks charge horrendous rates of interest, rates which are way out of line and, I think, beyond the law. In any event, they are immoral, disgraceful and should not be allowed to continue. The banks are refusing to cash legitimate government cheques and those loan sharks are taking advantage of that particular situation.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North mentioned tonight the latest instance of this, a case where the interest rate may be as high as 2,500 per cent, if one projects the rates on a daily basis. This must not be allowed to continue, Mr. Speaker.
I raised the subject on December 3 and I was very disappointed to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say tonight that it is still under consideration. It has been under consideration for almost a year now because this Party, when we were the Government, undertook through the previous Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to do something about this situation. Still we find that nothing has been done.
What can be done? First, the Minister of Finance could use moral suasion on the Canadian Bankers' Association in Toronto. He could say to the bankers that what has been going on in their banks must not be allowed to continue. They must be told that they must cash government cheques and must

January 29, 1985
Adjournment Debate
allow people on welfare and low-income Canadians who receive these cheques to get them cashed for nothing.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) could also look at the law which came into being in Quebec in 1980. It states that no one can require fees from a consumer for cashing a cheque issued by the federal, provincial or municipal Governments. There have been some difficulties with that particular law in Quebec, but none, I feel, that cannot be overcome. Another possible solution, Mr. Speaker, is that government cheques could be directly deposited into people's accounts at the banks. In Great Britain there is another way of doing this whereby savings operations are attached to the Post Office and, therefore, anyone with a postal address has a savings account. Whatever course of action the Government chooses to take, this is a situation which cannot be allowed to continue.
The Parliamentary Secretary also said previously in answer that this situation arose quickly. Well, it has arisen over the past few years and that is hardly quickly. It is time now, I believe, for the Government to stop considering this matter and to take action so that these low-income Canadians can be treated fairly and justly as full Canadians in every sense of the word. The chartered banks of Canada are making good and healthy profits, Mr. Speaker, and it is not right, just or fair that these horrendous rates are charged to those who can least afford to pay that burden. It is a situation which should no longer continue to exist, and I call upon the Government, and upon the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to see that this situation is rectified right away.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, no existing legislation compels
chartered banks to cash cheques issued by the Government of Canada. The only obligation of banks operating under the Bank Act is that they may not collect service charges for cashing Canadian Government cheques.
As a result of the ever-rising number of frauds, banks and other financial institutions are wary about cashing any kind of a cheque for non-clients. A few financial institutions do have mechanisms to help people who regularly receive payments from Governments or social agencies, but those mechanisms have not always given the expected results. Certain institutions have therefore specialized in cheque-cashing operations, but they may impose service charges since they do not come under the Bank Act.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) can understand why some of the financial institutions such as banks, trust companies and credit unions are hesitant to offer services to people who do not do business with them, and that is due to the prevalence of fraudulent transactions. However, he firmly believes that if the bearer of the cheque provides adequate identification and everything indicates that he or she is the legitimate owner of the cheque, then the financial institutions ought to honour the cheque, as they are required to do under their mandate.
The Minister will soon raise that important issue for poorer Canadians with spokesmen for banking institutions, and he will eventually recommend to the House or to the Government that appropriate steps be taken, as our colleague has just suggested, at least for moral if not legal considerations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.27 p.m., the House adjourned.

Wednesday, January 30, 1985