1986-06-05

Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand the Minister is going to make a statement. To the best of my knowledge we were not informed. I certainly was not informed. There is a practice and procedure we have followed here, informal though it may be, that House Leaders' offices are informed of statements in order that we might prepare our critics. I object to the Minister not sticking to the understandings which we have.


Mr. Nystrom:: Arrogant Tories.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the House Leader of the NDP I did check with officials. It is our understanding that the appropriate critics-


Ian Deans: That is not the agreement.


Philip Derek Lewis: Just give me a minute. I used the words "our understanding". I have checked and it is our understanding that the appropriate critics were made aware of the fact that the Minister was to make a statement. Rather than have any unpleasantness on this, I would suggest that with consent we defer the Minister's statement until three o'clock or such time as the Opposition critics have had an opportunity to prepare their responses.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a fine suggestion. I am quite prepared to agree to that. There was no criticism intended of the Government House Leader's office, but we have had this problem in the past. As you can see, the critics apparently are not here to respond or even hear the statement.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to confirm that we agree with the proposal to have the Minister's statement at 3 o'clock, even though we did not receive any prior notice. However, we shall be ready to reply at 3 o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the House will be willing, by consent, to revert later to statements by Ministers.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirty-eighth report of the Striking Committee.


PRICING OF DOMESTIC WHEAT AND ITS PRODUCTS-REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Special Committee on the Pricing of Domestic Wheat and its Products.


TRANSPORT-NINTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Transport in both official languages-

-which relates to transportation services in northern and remote areas of Canada.


PETITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to present a few petitions, six, 1 think-

-from residents of my riding, Ottawa-Vanier, and also from other Canadians who visit the national capital. They are asking the Government to reconsider its decision to close the grounds of Rideau Hall to the general public. They are asking that consultations take place with groups of citizens representative of the large and growing opposition to the closing of the grounds in order that a modus vivendi can be reached to satisfy both the security of the Governor General and the need for Canadians to visit the grounds when they want to.

June 5, 1986
Questions on the Order Paper


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from residents of my constituency of Papineau who wish to express to the Government their profound disagreement with the instructions given by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) about the eligibility of home maintenance projects under the employment planning program. My constituents believe that these projects have been rejected without a good reason and without taking into account the possible impact of this decision on the sick, the handicapped and the elderly.


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that question No. 527 will be answered today.
[ Text]


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the past seven years, what has been the total cost in (a) total tonnage (A) price per tonne, by area, of federal assistance in the development of the northeast British Columbia coal fields?
2.	What employment levels were projected as a consequence of the government's support, and what are the current projections?
3.	What studies were undertaken by the government prior to 1981, and subsequently, to determine the impact of the development of the northeast coal fields upon production and employment levels in the southeast coal fields?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. (a) and (b) Federal financial involvement in the development of the northeast B.C. coal fields took several forms:
(0 Direct Contribution: The federal Government funded 50 per cent of some of the costs of building access roads to Ridley Island. The cost of these roads was originally set at $10 million, of which the federal contribution was to be $5 million.
(a) Recoverable Contributions: Two contributions involved $73 million of federal funds. About $50 million was set aside for site infrastructure costs for the coal terminal from the federal Consolidated Revenue Fund and is recoverable beginning in 1989; and 23 million was provided to Canada Ports Corporation to purchase equity preferred shares in Ridley Terminals Incorporated.
(iii)	Loan Guarantee: The federal Government guaranteed a $200 million loan with a commercial bank for Ridley Terminals Incorporated to cover slightly over 80 per cent of the constrution costs.
(iv)	The federal Government provided $5 million through three government departments and agencies toward research development and demonstration (RD&D) work related to the electrification of part of the new railway spur line between the new mines and the existing British Columbia Railway line north of Prince George.
(v)	Some federal money was also provided for social infrastructure facilities in the new town of Tumbler Ridge which was constructed to house the employees of the new mines.
Total exports from the two northeast B.C. coal mines since their initiation in 1984 and up to November, 1985 were 11.7 million tonnes. The contract tonnages for these mines were set at 69.5 million tonnes for Denison's Quintette Mine and 24.4 million tonnes for Teck Corporation's Bullmoose Mine over an initial 14.5 year period.
2.	The Manpower Demand and Supply for the Northeast Coal Developments study predicted that the Teck Corporation's Bullmoose Mine would require 491 employees and Denison's Quintette Mine would require approximately 1,500 employees upon reaching full production in 1985.
According to the 1985 Coal Association of Canada Review and Directory, employment at the Bullmoose Mine is listed at 450 people and at 1,440 people for the Quintette Mine.
3.	In 1977, under the terms of two Canada-British Columbia subsidiary agreements, a large number of studies were undertaken to examine the impacts of proposed northeast development. Many of these studies consisted of highly confidential information which the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources does not have access to.
However, as part of these larger studies, the demands for and supply of miners required for the new northeast mines were evaluated. These analyses pointed to a potential shortage of miners in some trades and predicted that there would be some movements for the established southeast mines to the northeast. The studies also postulated that, as a result of the development in northeast British Columbia, growth in the southeast mines might be slower than would have been the case had some of that tonnage been purchased in the southeast.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
O)


Philip Derek Lewis: Point of order, if I may.


Mr. Speaker:: To revert to tabling?
June 5, 1986


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, I would like to revert to tabling of documents in order to table the response to three petitions.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there such consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the response of the government to the three following petitions: 331-534, 331-563 and 331-564.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 2, consideration of Bill C-91, an Act to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 7 (Mr. Ouellet) (p. 13875).
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I interrupted my speech last Monday so that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) could make a statement. I was then speaking about an amendment recommended by the Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations of Canada, which feels that the rights of its members have been abused and which submitted to the Parliamentary Committe an amendment which would meet their requirements. During my intervention on Monday, I reminded the House that a U.S. study of the cost of subsidies to rental companies has established that the average unit price of vehicules sold in the United States could have been reduced by $265 in 1985 and $243 in 1984. According to FADA, based on comparable figures for Canada and sales of about 1.3 million cars, the potential total savings would have been about $297 million. These are savings to which Canadian consumers unfortunately did not have any access. Indeed, if the dealers and owners of car fleets have the same benefits, several options would be open to us.
The first option would be to reduce the purchase cost of cars, which would mean a substantial savings for the consumer, or maintain the present cost but allow car manufacturers to install safety mechanisms such as inflatable bags which cost about $273 per unit, which would enhance the safety of motor vehicle users.
Incidentally, I have a particular interest in Bill C-91 because I am also replacing my hon. friend from Saint-Michel- Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens), who, as you know, had a car accident
Competition Tribunal Act
and since then has been unable to come to the House to do her work. I have been asked to replace her in the House as the consumer critic.
If Canadian automobiles had been provided with inflatable bags, the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic would not have had the kind of accident she did and she would not have gone through a period that was very painful, both for her and her family. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for this draft amendment, which is in fact being presented by the Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations of Canada, to be accepted by the House, because the evidence is there that this practice by manufacturers, who are of course in a dominant position in the automobile market, harms customers generally and dealers in particular, who cannot grant all their customers these potential savings.
I hope I have been able to convince my Government colleagues, especially the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Domm) and also perhaps the Minister of Transport (M. Mazankowski), who should certainly be anxious to see the automobile industry treat Canadian consumers in a more civilized manner.
Finally, I would like to read a letter I received from Mr. Dan Donnelly, President of Dan Donnelly Ottawa Ford here in Ottawa. His letter is typical of about 100 letters we have received on the same subject. It is very short. I just want to read one paragraph, and I quote:

There is an insidious disease in the automobile business, and it is called fleet subsidies.
I have been a dealer for over 15 years and worked in Dealerships for 25 years and have never heard anybody praise or agree to the principle of fleet subsidies.
I would ask you to support the attached amendments to Bill C-91. This was prepared by the Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations of Canada, and has the backing of its dealers.
In the Consumer price of the car, he has to subsidize for the free packages that are given to the fleet buyer. The retail customer does not buy or get these fleet packages and this results in a rapid depreciation of his vehicle. I could go on outlining the reason that fleet subsidies is unfair to the Consumer and only benefits few fleets like Budget, Avis and Hertz.
Fleet subsidies are abhorred by 90 per cent of dealers. These dealers who employ over 90,000 Canadians and have tremendous investments in property, equipment, etc. are against this practice because it costs our consumers money.

In concluding, I have read to you what one dealer thinks, who speaks for hundreds and thousands of other dealers, and I hope the Government will accept this amendment.


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to respond to the proposed amendment to Bill C-91 as presented by my friend in the Opposition. I am particularly sensitive to the concerns of automobile dealers since some time ago I owned an automobile dealership. I was also a district sales manager for a major car manufacturer. The proposed motion is designed to address a genuine problem encountered by the automobile dealers in competition with rental companies for the sale of automobiles. It is also a matter that the dealers take quite seriously. I would

June 5, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
like to report to the House that the Government has put a lot of time into studying this issue. Detailed discussions of this matter were held with representatives of the Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations during the consultation process. Moreover, the dealers made their case to and received quite a sympathetic hearing from all members of this parliamentary legislative committee. I personally, and the Government, do not think that amending the abuse of dominant provision, as the proposed motion recommends, is the way to deal with this issue.
The Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations complains that American car manufacturers offer substantial discounts and allowances on new cars to major leasing or rental companies, such as Avis, Hertz, Budget, et cetera. The list is quite lengthy. The franchise dealers do not benefit from the same discounts. As a result they argue that they are put at a disadvantage on the sale of cars that are, in some cases, new or almost new. This practice, which is described in this motion is, however, not an anti-competitive act, as described in Section 50 of the Bill. This is the crux of the problem, how to address what appears on the part of the automobile dealers to be an inequity, and what is concurred in by the legislative committee to be the same.
How do you address it in Bill C-91, the purpose of which is not intended to do anything more than protect competition and encourage competition. The franchising system, which is the one that I think most directly affects this action-the franchising of these dealers and the contractual relations between the car manufacturer and franchise dealer-is where the problem starts. It would be only fair to advise the House that these cars that are sold to the leasing companies are put through franchise dealers. So this is clearly not a case of selling direct to the leasing companies, who in turn receive the invoice and bill it out at whateve price they choose. These cars are sold through franchise dealers.
I suggest that the problem, as unfair as it might seem to a lot of people, consumers and dealers, is really a matter that falls under franchising. Therefore, while I have a lot of sympathy with the automobile dealers' problem, I do not think it properly should be dealt with in the Competition Tribunal Act.
The legislative committee also devoted a significant part of its public hearings and deliberations to the abuse of a dominant position in the market-place. Some changes were made, some amendments were accepted. I am now convinced that this provision contains the scope necessary to prevent anticompetitive conduct without discouraging aggressive and procompetitive initiatives.
The motion before us proposes to add to the list of anticompetitive acts contained in Section 50. However, I would like to point out to everyone, including the automobile dealers, that this list is not restrictive, and is primarily intended to provide guidance to the tribunal. Therefore, nothing prevents the application of the law to any other practice of anticompetitive acts that substantially can be proven to lessen competition.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that another avenue will need to be pursued by the car dealers if they wish to address this particular problem peculiar to their franchising arrangement with the car manufacturers. I therefore ask the House to reject the motion.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate my support for the amendment. When we look at the way that business operates in Canada we see tremendous advantages to the large companies as compared to the small companies. What we are seeing is an increasing concentration and increasing power by large corporations.
What this amendment says, if I understand it correctly, is that in the leasing of cars the practice which the automobile manufacturers have followed of giving special and large discounts to the large companies which are in the automobile rental business, which obviously gives those companies a substantial competitive edge over the large number of small companies, is clearly that the director would have the authority and the power to at least look at the practices which are followed, and if he saw that this power was being used to lessen competition he would have the right to hold an investigation. I can see every reason for supporting this amendment and no real reason for opposing it.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this amendment to Bill C-91. I would like to start off by congratulating the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) for his initiative in moving this amendment.
Yesterday morning I had a telephone call from my constituent, Gregoire Automobiles of 378 Notre Dame Street, in Embrun, Ontario. Of course, I recommend to all Members that if they want to buy a good car they can go to my riding and do so there. More importantly at this point, I want to raise with you the fact that Mr. Raymond Gregoire of Gregoire Automobiles telephoned me yesterday morning to lobby for this particular amendment. I think it is very significant that automobile dealers are concerned about some of the discounting practices that go on. Mr. Gregoire was explaining to me that large automobile rental and leasing firms now purchase cars cheaper than he can as a dealer.
Obviously what you are thinking at this point is that this is certainly unfair competition, and you would be quite right to think that. Mr. Gregoire would agree with that. What he was telling us yesterday morning was that the present practices are extremely unfair. They allow these large fleet operators, leasing companies, Budget, Avis and Hertz, and all those other folks, to purchase automobiles, use them for an extensive period of time and then sell them back and compete both in the used car market, and in the new one really, because they are not purchasing from the dealers, in such a manner that it affects business for everyone else.
June 5, 1986

The important thing here is that we all know that to operate a business, it takes a certain amount of dollars. The dollars that Budget and Hertz and those other big guys are not paying are paid by you and I and our constituents. The profitability for the car companies must be there some place. So for every dollar that they save, it is a dollar more that the average Canadian has to pay in order that those companies get the profit they are going to end up getting in any case.
I know that others have spoken on this before, but I would like to read a portion of the summary of the Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations of Canada that was given to me by Mr. Raymond Gregoire whom I identified earlier. It
states in part:
FADA members are concerned about a special pricing situation which, within the industry, is known as "fleet subsidies". Such subsidies (discounts) are provided by motor vehicle manufacturers on vehicles which go into the lease/rental market; but are not provided for vehicles going into the sales market (for the general public). The lease/rental market is characterized by companies such as Budget, Hertz, Avis, and others, who purchase vehicles for their lease/rental fleets.
The vehicle manufacturers provide subsidies (discounts) to such lease/rental companies of up to a value of $1,000 or more per vehicle.

Mr. Speaker, the question which ought to be raised at this time is whether car manufacturers can afford to give the $1,000 discount. Why should it not be given to Canadian consumers? Why should it not be given to people in my riding who earn only $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 a year and who have to buy new cars? These people could use a bargain a lot more than the owners or shareholders of companies such as Hertz, Budget, Avis and other major car rental companies.
Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) has taken the right approach and deserves congratulations for the proposition he made this morning. Hopefully all Members of the House, regardless of political affiliation, will think about consumers and forget about their own partisan concerns for a few minutes-


Mr. Masse:: The Liberals have never done that!


Don Boudria: -and think about Canadian consumers, the taxpayers who sent us to this House to represent them.
I see the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) over there-


Marcel Masse: I have never seen you not being partisan. There! I have never seen this in 20 years of political life, it is awful!


Don Boudria: I urge him as well to rise above his usual partisan approach-
Competition Tribunal Act


Marcel Masse: Check your facts and consider past history. You will see it never happened.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications is getting all excited about this.
I urged him to rise above such partisan considerations and think in terms of the well-being of Canadian consumers.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is not alone in making this request, the Federation of Automobile Dealers of Canada seeks justice for consumers.
I hope the Minister of Communications will take the floor in a few minutes and support the proposition made by the Hon. Member for Papineau.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) will also support this measure once she has calmed down after losing control a few minutes ago.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying a moment ago-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There is no need to reflect on what is happening in the chamber. The Hon. Member has risen to make a speech. I wish he would give it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member was making a speech but he was disturbed by what was going on in the House. He was just commenting on what happened.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member was disturbed, he could have risen on a point of order asking that the Hon. Minister not disturb him in this debate. That is not what he said. It is the way he reflected on another Member in the House. I would call him to order as I would call anyone else to order in this respect. Therefore, I hope he will just carry on with debate in a quiet and calm manner.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I take note of your comments and, of course, accept them. I am sure the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) also accepts them in the same light.
I support the initiative of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau in his amendment to Bill C-91.1 want to stress to all Members of the House that this initiative has the support of the Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations of Canada because it is a good amendment. I hope that all Members will pass this amendment unanimously because I am sure it would please all our constituents.

June 5, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since I seconded this motion, I think a few comments would certainly be appropriate.
This amendment was proposed by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) in an attempt to correct or prevent a business practice that is unfair to car dealers because it gives preferential treatment to operators of car rental companies.
According to representatives of the Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations of Canada, the FADA, the practice means that fleet purchases are subsidized, which is certainly not in the interests of the car dealers themselves.

I have also been approached by members of the Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations of Canada. I have a letter from Dan Donnelly, who is a friend of mine and also a dealer in Ottawa who owns Ottawa Ford Sales. Let me quote this letter:
There is an insidious disease in the automobile business, and it is called fleet subsidies.
I have been a dealer for over 15 years and worked in dealerships for 25 years and have never heard anybody praise or agree to the principle of fleet subsidies.
The manufacturers are in a web of their own making and are unable to get out of it.
Fleet subsidies are abhorred by 90 per cent of dealers. These dealers who employ over 90,000 Canadians and have tremendous investments in property, equipment, etc. are against this practice because it costs our consumers money.
Therefore, we are talking about jobs and the cost to consumers. The letter goes on:
In the consumer price of the car, he has to subsidize for the free packages that are given to the fleet buyer. The retail customer does not buy or get these fleet packages and this results in a rapid depreciation of his vehicle. I could go on outlining the reason that fleet subsidies is unfair to the consumer and only benefits few fleets like Budget, Avis and Hertz.
I would ask you to support the attached amendments to Bill C-91. This was prepared by the Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations of Canada, and has the backing of its dealers.
Your help with this problem will be appreciated.
It is signed by Dan Donnelly, President of Ottawa Ford.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, obviously, the low cost of acquiring vehicles for fleets, for people who buy in large numbers and especially car rental companies, is actually a kind of subsidy, the cost of which is reflected in the prices charged by the car dealer, who does not have the same volume of sales and cannot offer the same terms. This means, as Mr. Donnelly says in his letter, that the consumer pays a subsidy when he buys a vehicle through normal channels, in other words from a car dealership. And the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Papineau, which proposes to include a provision in the legislation that will prevent this kind of transaction, would seem entirely reasonable and logical, because if we are talking about 90,000 jobs, we are also talking about protecting the consumer, and I
think the House of Commons should come out in favour of both jobs and the consumer.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the car rental operator or volume dealer, the one who rents cars, does not have the same constraints as the dealer. I think Hon. Members are aware that a car dealer has some very high costs, especially his inventory, which come under operating costs and are a major item on the dealer's books.
Inventory is therefore an important item. The car dealer also has personnel working for him, in the various buildings he has to carry out repairs and do body-work, and all this equipment is very expensive, and the car dealer has to finance all this, and obviously, his costs will have to be calculated in the profits he makes and the prices he charges the customer.
Therefore, for the sake of fairness and justice, and to prevent abuses from automobile fleet leasing businesses which get special privileges from the manufacturers, we feel that this amendment is important and should be adopted by the House in order to caution not just car manufacturers against such preferential treatment on volume sales, but also to encourage car dealers to maintain the quality of services and to keep vehicle prices as low as possible by not adding subsidies which of course must be paid in view of the comments made in support of the motion.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I simply wish to remind the House that we are dealing with a trade practice that is not quite acceptable, and although it is not illegal, it does not serve the interests of consumers, and I hope the House will support the amendment.
O)


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 7 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
June 5, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


David Orlikow: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47 by striking out line 36 at page 51 and substituting the following therefor:
"graphs (a) to (c), including the concentration of corporate ownership by one or more individuals to levels which the Director finds excessive,".
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is no greater problem that is necessary for this Parliament to deal with, to study the implications of what is happening and to come up with policies which will meet the needs of the Canadian people, than the increasing concentration and power of conglomerates. The response of the Government and that of the Minister in particular, has been to duck this question.
A number of witnesses appeared before the committee and told us that Bill C-91 does not deal with corporate concentration as it stands now, and it certainly should. We heard as well from persons such as Professor Stanbury, one of the most knowledgeable academics studying the question of competition law. He reminded us of the potential adverse consequences of excessive concentration of economic power. Professor Stanbury quoted the President of Cadillac Fairview Corporation, Mr. Ghert, who listed these potential adverse consequences as follows: first, the ability to misallocate resources by restricting output and raising prices; second, redistribution of income from the firm's customers to its owners; third, firms with excessive power can become inefficient and wasteful; fourth, a high level of concentration reduces the number and diversity of decision makers in the economy; fifth, large concentrations may be unresponsive to regulatory agencies and have the ability to influence public policy; and sixth, corporate 7PAGE 13991 concentration may stimulate greater Government intervention as a countervailing power.
Professor Stanbury painted a rather frightening scenario as to what can happen when large financial conglomerates are dominated by large non-financial enterprises. He pointed out the concern that these large groups will be able to use their power to advance the interests of some customers or suppliers and/or penalize others, undermine the position of rivals in ways inconsistent with maximizing the wealth of one's own shareholders, provide excess rewards, pecuniary or otherwise, to the top management coalition that effectively controls the corporation, or use economic power to influence public policy via the political process, that is, expenditures on lobbying, advocacy advertising, public relations and campaign contributions, and to have the ability to redirect corporate locational decisions. None of these problems are dealt with in the Bill before us.
The question the amendment seeks to have reviewed is not one which lends itself to a handy formula. We recognize that we are dealing with a highly complex problem. The merging of Imasco and Genstar was the merger of two large companies into the tenth largest in Canada with its own captive financial
Competition Tribunal Act
arm that has already been self-dealing on behalf of its parent. Such a transaction should be reviewed. We believe the director should have considerable discretion in choosing the conglomerate merger he wants to bring to the tribunal. The amendment which I am proposing would give a director that discretion.
The amendment I am proposing is not one which comes from the far left. It deals with the type of problem which was raised by a number of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, including Professor Stanbury. It deals with the type of problem that Jack McArthur, who writes on business and financial affairs for The Toronto Star, dealt with in a column which appeared in that newspaper on March 23, 1986. He pointed out in the article that we have multi-company mammoths bidding for more, for example, the Reichmann group and Power Corporation. He pointed out that the Reichmanns seek control of Hiram Walker Resources and its $6 billion empire. We know that that proposal, indeed that control, has now been obtained by the Reichmanns and part of that control is being challenged by Allied-Lyons.
Mr. McArthur also points out in his article that the Reichmann holdings, among others, include a vast real estate operation, Gulf Canada and Abitibi, the world's largest maker of newsprint. He points out that Abitibi and Gulf ranked in the top 50 on last year's list of our largest industrial corporations. He then points to other large conglomerates such as Canadian Pacific, which he says is one of our largest in transportation, mining, forest products, oil and gas, among other things. Bell is biggest in telephones and technology, significant in real estate through its ownership of Daon and Bell Canada Enterprises and large in computer retailing where its Computer Innovations has bought out a competitor. He says that we have the Edper-Brascan Bronfmans who are far-flung in mining, forest products, insurance, trust operations, oil and gas and others. Weston-Loblaw has scores in the ranks, including leading food processors and suppliers of goods to food processors and others. The Thomson conglomeracy has newspapers, insurance, real estate, oil and gas and The Bay, Simpons and Zellers stores. Power Corporation has Consolidated Bathurst in forest products and containers, Great West Life, Montreal Trust and Investors Group. He states:
Most have links with one or more of the others, some, worth hundreds of millions of dollars. This raises the fear that some of the inter-empire competition won't be hot.
That is precisely why I have moved the amendment I have moved. He continues:
All are ambitious for takeovers. Ottawa fuels the fire by showing it will stand for almost anything. It seems to throw cold water only if a case causes enough controversy to be embarrasing politically.
I point to the opposition of some Conservative members of the finance committee to the takeover of Genstar and Canada Trust by Imasco. Mr. McArthur states:
This is an aimless, unprincipled way of proceeding-and can't last, which is why the ambitious are shopping feverishly.

June 5, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
Our judgments should concern: the likely future degree of competition in an industry; the possibility of national dominance by a few multi-billion-dollar pools of capital that inhibit productive variety in decision-making and investing, and intimidate those who deal with them by their very size.
It's vital that strands of ownership linking different industries in the same groups must not now or in the future interfere with normal competitive ways of buying and selling.
When 50 companies from 10 different industries are in the same bunch, will they be inclined to buy and sell their goods and services with blood-relatives? That would discriminate against independents. Plenty of that goes on already.
It has been said that nine or ten corporations control almost 50 per cent of the stock traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange. He states, and I will conclude on this note:
This is not an attack on the empire-builders. They are doing what's allowed and presumably saying what they hope will be their future action.
It simply recognizes that certain promises are not binding or enforceable on management or owners. Owners change too and suppose a "bad guy" takes over?
This is why I have moved the amendment on behalf of the New Democratic Party. We say that the country needs laws which will give the agency the power it needs to monitor business operations and to see that we have real competition which will benefit the consumer. We say that without this amendment the director and the agency will not have the power or the ability to do the job which they are supposed to do as a result of this Bill.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this matter just to take up some of the points made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). At the outset I want to say that my colleague, who is a senior Member of the House, has put an incredible effort over the years, and especially in the last little while, into competition Bills and the competition area. He has proposed an amendment which I think is sensible. It is pragmatic. It grows out of the evidence that was presented to the legislative committee, as I understand it, which is the way amendments should come to the House. I hope the Government will accept it.
He said in his speech that the agency which monitors competition needs some strength. When I was listening to the Hon. Member I thought of an area in which I am interested, that is, the energy area. The petroleum monitoring agency in the energy field could use some strength in order to ensure some real competition in the oil industry, or at least to force some of the oil giants to pass on the savings in gasoline prices that should go to consumers but that are not going to consumers right now.
I see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) is in the House. I call her energy policy "back to the future". That is what the energy policy of this Government is. It is going back to an old system in the hopes of tackling the future which is quite different.
I will give Hon. Members an example with respect to problems concerning the lack of competition in the energy industry which are addressed through this amendment, and similar parallels in general business. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North mentioned the increased concentration of business, and in that vein he mentioned the Reichmanns who
bought Gulf. It is curious to consider what happened in the last year or so. Mickey Cohen, a former Deputy Minister of Energy, made the energy policy for the last Liberal Government. After that he moved on to a more senior position as Deputy Minister of Finance. In that capacity he helped to make the business, tax and economic policies of the Government. He then went on to a better job, a better paying and bigger job, when he went to work for the Reichmanns in the private sector. The Reichmanns bought Gulf with some nice tax advantages. It was called the "Little Egypt Bump" which allowed them to make a deal with Norcen Energy in order to receive some tax advantages.
The key to corporate takeovers today is the taxation system. One has to look at taxes and what are the tax advantages. My colleague in his speech a few moments ago quoted the words of Jack McArthur who said that the ambitious are shopping feverishly for takeovers. Nowhere else is that happening more than in the oil industry in western Canada which is in desperate straits because of the low world price of oil. A great many Canadian companies are tottering on the brink of takeover. They are ripe for the picking. This tremendous danger exists. Of course, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has refused to consider any bridging mechanism for the short term for these Alberta companies and has literally left them on their own. Some of them are not going to be able to survive; some of them will be taken over and there will be increased competition in the industry.
The reason there are high gasoline prices in Canada right now is of the lack of competition. There are 600 sellers in Alberta selling crude oil to four big buyers. There is an incredible corporate concentration in this sector. Yesterday I spoke to representatives of the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada who told me that the Canadian producer is getting the lowest price, in the world. The Canadian producer is getting the spot oil price which in some cases is below world price, while the Canadian consumer at the other end is paying beyond world price. Why is this? I see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is present in the House. I would ask her why this is. No, I will tell her why. It is because there is no proper competition in the oil industry.
I would like to describe the energy policy of the Government very briefly. It is to deregulate and go back to the marketplace. In that way, the Government expects that there will be a lot of investment by the companies and that 300,000 jobs will be created. The motorists, the producers and everyone else would all get a break and everything would be rosy. Instead, we got the worst, not the best, of all possible worlds. One of the reasons for this is the world oil price. Let us be fair, however; there is another reason.
Why are Canadian gasoline prices higher than American prices? One reason is that we have higher taxes, but if we calculate the taxes in we will see that Canadian motorists are
June 5, 1986

still paying more than American motorists. We are told by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that this is because the oil takes a while to work its way through the system. In other words, it takes time to move the crude oil from the West to the East through the pipelines. Do Americans have shorter pipelines for the same distances? The Canadian people are not crazy. They see that there is this difference in prices.
The difference in prices exists because we cannot have a free market energy policy without a free market. There is insufficient competition. There are occasional bursts of competition, like the gasoline wars in Toronto, but the problem is that there are four major companies which control the market. They are simply not passing on the savings and they are making money in the retailing and refining sectors. It is not even the gas station operators who are benefiting from the increased margin, but the retailers.
I hope this amendment will help provide for an agency that will determine whether or not there is competition in the market-place. It is amazing that I should have to make a Conservative argument for free competition, but if Conservative Members are not going to make this argument and are not going to accept the amendment the least they can do is accept a competitive system if there is to be a competitive energy policy. That is completely logical. That is my argument in favour of this particular amendment, Mr. Speaker.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, this issue was raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on a number of occasions before the legislative committee. There has been a great deal of discussion on this matter and we discussed it in the House at second reading stage.
As I have indicated to the Hon. Member, the proposed competition Act deals very specifically with conglomerate mergers to the extent that they raise competition issues. If there is any other aspect of conglomerate mergers which the House believes should be addressed through legislation, such as concentration of individual ownership or corporate assets control of financial institutions by non-financial corporations, they should be dealt with in the context of other appropriate legislation.
I remind Hon. Members that we are dealing with competition legislation and we are prepared to look at anything which lessens competition. That is why we have set up a tribunal and that is why many of these concerns expressed by members of the Opposition will have a chance to be aired before a tribunal. That never happened before. That is why there is a general consensus among organizations and individuals that this competition legislation is long overdue. However, this amendment is not the way to address the situation. Therefore, I recommend that the Hon. Member's motion be defeated.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to support my colleague's amendment to Bill C-91 because I believe it addresses one of the major problems in corporate Canada, a problem that the Bill does not address
Competition Tribunal Act
at this particular time. That problem is the reality of corporate concentration.
When looking at the history of attempts to regulate corporate concentration, and particularly to regulate the rightly perceived ill effects of corporate concentration, there has been excessive attention in the regulations to the formal rather than the real aspects. Because there can be such a variance between the formal appearance of corporate concentration and the actual reality of it, I believe is appropriate to include discretionary powers in the hands of the director, and that is what this amendment is attempting to do.
There has been no calculus developed which can effectively measure and define the nature of corporate concentration of power. We see the way corporate power is concentrated in Canada today. My hon. colleague spoke of the 9 or 10 families involved. We see the way in which interlocking boards of directors have shareholding charts that cover interlocking companies, each holding the other's shares. We see the degree to which the influence of a single individual, a single family or a single holding company can permeate an entire industry and indeed spread horizontally into a number of industries. We see the way in which non-financial, financial, industrial and commercial holdings can be mixed in a corporate network or intercorporate structure. After seeing all that, I believe that any Canadian who is concerned about the way in which economic power is exercised should support a measure which provides for some discretion in the hands of the Government.
The key words are concern about the exercise of economic power. We are talking about the regulation of economic power ?PAGE 13993 by the Government power. Indeed, I am sure that Progressive Conservative Members would argue very strongly that there must be limits on the exercise of Government power over the economic power of the country. That is not a position that I would find untenable on ideological grounds. But I must caution the Government that in rejecting this amendment it will not only be fulfilling part of its ideological agenda but will essentially be limiting the effect of Bill C-91 on the formal basis of corporate concentration rather than assessing and addressing the reality of corporate concentration, and the reality of the exercise of economic power through intercorporate, corporate, conglomerate, holding company and Zaibatsu, to use the Japanese term, practices.
My colleagues, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North, (Mr. Orlikow) and the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), made some very telling arguments and gave some very good examples of the way in which corporate power is concentrated in Canada. Rather than go into the specifics, as they did, I should like to caution the House and lay down some of the ways in which, if the amendment is rejected, companies will be able to treat Bill C-91 with the sort of high disdain and gay abandon they have always been able to address the Government's somewhat emasculated predecessors.

June 5, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
There are situations of corporate concentration in Canada today which are almost like the Gordian knot. It would take a sword thrust at the organizational chart to unravel the reality of intercorporate control. After all, there is no limit under Canadian law. Indeed, it is difficult to see how there could be a limit. However, because there is no limit on the chain of corporate ownership present in the current or proposed legislation-that is, a holding company owing a share in a second company or a second company owing a share in a third company and so on and so forth-we have a situation whereby any mathematical formulae, any calculus, or any written restriction can be and will be circumvented. After all, we have a myriad of examples of the ingenuity of the corporate sector and its legal advisors in circumventing any such control any time it has been proposed in any jurisdiction in Canada or in any other country.
If we do not have some discretionary power, I fear we could see Canada's economy ending up in the sort of situation which is prevalent and indeed very common in Latin American and Central American countries. I am referring to the situation where the control of the economy is divided almost half and half between a small number of foreign companies, almost always American-based multinationals, and a very small number of local families, local trusts, or local combines which control the other 30 per cent or 50 per cent of the so-called domestically controlled economy. By rejecting this amendment we would be essentially subscribing Canada's vote to the sort of system in which corporate power goes largely unfettered. Therefore, it is my belief that there must be some discretionary power.
We require a director of combines control and investigation who could go beyond the mere analysis of mathematical formulae, the analysis of percentages of shareholdings, and the analysis of calculus, whether it be that proposed by the security commission, 10 per cent, 50 per cent, 51 per cent, or the formulae of what constitutes effective control, and could look at reality, the influence of individuals, families, and trusts on the activities, decisions, and investment placements of corporations within the great Canadian market-place. If there are no discretionary powers, the formulized regulations contained in the Bill will soon be circumvented by the ingenuity of the corporations.
I think that was well said in the article from which my hon. colleague quoted, indicating that it was not an attack upon people who build financial and corporate empires. There are people who have the instinct or the urge to control or to bring more and more under their ownership umbrella. On a higher plane, there are those people with the urge to make something more profitable from something which is less profitable, and those with the urge to indulge in the forms of corporate synergy where one can assemble a conglomerate such that the members of the companies of the comglomerate rarely have to deal outside each other. However, let us not deceive ourselves
into believing that those personal or corporate interests will coincide with the public interest.
This amendment addresses the public interest. It is designed to ensure that the people of Canada, through their Government, will have some say in the way in which corporate power is concentrated and exercised in Canada. That is why I urge this honourable House to support the amendment.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in the debate to commend my colleague for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) for moving this amendment. If accepted by the Government, it would improve Bill C-91 significantly in my view. A number of witnesses who appeared before the Committee said, with regret that Bill C-91 did not address in any way the issue of concentration in Canada and the increasingly important conglomerate situation in this country. I would like to quote the distinguished lawyer Gordon E. Kaiser, who had this to say before the Standing Committee, and I quote:

Finally, the Bill, as it stands, does not deal with the large conglomerate mergers involving financial and non-financial institutions which are currently taking place.
He continued by referring to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) and saying:
I notice that Mr. Turner has been speaking to this subject on a number of occasions with success. This proposed legislation provides an opportunity to deal with the matter rather than postponing it for another 16 years.
[ Translation]
I think Mr. Kaiser is absolutely right. It is important that we take this opportunity to address the issue of concentration and conglomerates, rather than waiting I do not know how many years for another legislation, before we discuss the matter.
Someone else, a businessman this time, had this to say in a Toronto Star report. Mr. Bernard Ghert, from Cadillac Fairview, discussed at length some of the dangers we will be faced with if we do not solve the problems of conglomerate mergers, especially those involving financial and non-financial corporations. So here is a businessman, not an academic nor an Opposition MP, but someone directly involved in business, the president of a large corporation, who brings to our attention the increasingly serious problem of conglomerates and concentration in Canada.
Also, Professor Stanbury from the Institute of Political Research, who testified before the Standing Committee on April 29, 1986, suggested, and I quote:
I now wish to turn to the matter of conglomerates. Proposed sections 63 an 64 can only deal with horizontal and vertical mergers because the test incorporated is a substantial lessening of competition. Strictly speaking, conglomerate mergers cannot be touched by Bill C-91, although mergers involving conglomerates-each has a firm in the same industry or they
June 5, 1986

are vertically related-could be addressed under the terms of the bill. But this was not enough, added Professor Stanbury. The purpose of the amendment moved by our colleague the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North would precisely permit to correct this anomaly in the legislation. I cannot help remembering the remarks made by the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Opposition in this House, when he said on April 9, and I quote: "We have witnessed an escalating takeover fever in the last number of months resulting in, we believe, an overconcentration of corporate power in Canada". In his remarks during debate on second reading of Bill C-91, the Leader of the Opposition emphasized that the Government should address this issue immediately and try to find solutions to the overconcentration problem.
The Leader of the Opposition reminded the House that the Governement, in its discussion everywhere in Canada, had claimed that Canadians needed large multinationals in this country to compete with foreign multinationals and that although this argument could be valid to a certain point, it was necessary to have corporations powerful enough to meet the competition head-on both on the domestic and foreign markets. But, according to the Leader of the Opposition, if corporations of this type must exist as the Government claims, this does not mean that the recent takeovers in Canada confirm this argument that it is essential to have large companies on the domestic market.
I cannot help but reflect openly on the extensive concentration which exists in the food industry in Canada and wonder whether the disappearance of our small corner stores and grocery stores and their replacement by large food chain stores have really benefited Canadian consumers. We have only to look at the prices we pay today for food and ask ourselves whether the consumer was not better served by the small corner store than he now is by large chains which make us pay for their big stores, their nice displays and their pretty packaging, because the consumer has to pay a high price for all this window dressing. Of course, the consumer did not shop in a nice environment when he went to the corner store. He did not have nice things to look at as he does today in the large chains, but I think that he left the store with more money in his pockets than he does now.
Because of corporate takeovers, bigger and bigger corporations are forgetting that quality often comes in small packages. We have to wonder about some of the recent takeovers. As the Leader of the Opposition said on April 9: "Where are the new jobs? Will two merging companies be more efficient after their merger and do these takeovers really improve competition in Canada?" And most important, is Canadian technology improved by these takeovers? Actually, Mr. Speaker, we realize that takeovers often result only in a loss of jobs for the workers whose employer is absorbed by the larger company. These takeovers bring about rationalization, and very often, this means, not more jobs and more work, but fewer jobs in a specific area. Very often, it also means a loss of efficiency and technology because big companies, like big Governments, are not necessarily very efficient.
Competition Tribunal Act
We must ask ourselves to what extent the Government is taking the right approach when seeking to promote corporate concentration in Canada and support large and big Canadian companies.
That is why I endorse the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and I think that as far as the director of investigations is concerned there is no absolute rule. Obviously, certain large companies may be in the interest of Canada.
I believe that concentration in certain sectors is essential and necessary in Canada. But I would like independent officials, I would like the Competition Tribunal which is to be established to be in a position to make an impartial assessment of each take-over and say on occasion: No, this is too big and not in the interest of Canada. Even though it may not bear directly on competitiveness, the very size of the company poses an immediate threat and we must put a stop to that.
I conclude by saying that the amendment of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North would improve the Bill and I hope the Government will support it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?
The Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey).


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I want to support this amendment because I think it addresses one of the most serious problems we have in the country at the moment. There is a shuffling of corporate directorships taking place which, I suggest to you, is at the expense of one of the main planks in the Government's platform, the creation of jobs. In fact, rather than seeing the creation of new jobs in Canada we are seeing a closer and closer integration of the interlocking directorships, something which is probably more apparent and prevalent in Canada than in many other countries. That has been adequately documented by people like Peter Newman. Even some people in the corporate world admit that that is going on and that it is not good or healthy for the economy of Canada. I refer particularly to the takeover of financial institutions by other sectors in the corporate world and the conflict of interest which that engendered.
In Mr. Newman's article he quotes Mr. Ghert of Cadillac-Fairview who, in his conversation with Mr. Newman, said:
When one entity is both a creditor and an owner of equity in a company, there is an obvious conflict of interest.
That is probably one of the most dramatic instances of corporate concentration and takeovers acting detrimentally. It is an over-all problem. We are essentially seeing the shuffling of directorships and stocks among a very few people to the detriment of the majority of the population. Rather than that kind of bridge playing or finessing of shares by corporate directors, we need some imagination from the corporate sector.
13996

June 5, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
I read a speech earlier today by the President of the National Research Council. He put out some very interesting statistics comparing Canada to other countries in the area of research and development. The amount that is being spent in this country by corporations and government on research and development is miniscule compared to that which is being spent by countries like Japan and West Germany, our major competitors.
We are moving into a very competitive situation in the world economy. Our relationships are getting more personal and closer all the time. We are heading into a very tough international economy. Rather than shuffling stock and carrying out takeovers, we require some imagination of large corporations in Canada to create the technology and jobs which are needed. Although that is what is required, it is not what is happening.
I also want to make this point. About 80 per cent of all new jobs in Canada are going to be created by small business. I am talking about businesses whose annual income is something like $2 million and employees numbering in the tens. That is the kind of business we have to look to for the creation of new jobs. That has been adequately documented by John Bulloch and any number of other people speaking on behalf of small business in Canada. Yet smaller companies are being squeezed out of the market-place, if not gobbled up, by the corporate takeovers that are now going on.
The real threat as a result of the kind of corporate concentration which is now going on is the threat to small business. Another effect I see deals with the regions. Not only is there a concentration of economic power in a smaller number of companies, there is a concentration of economic power in certain regions, indeed certain cities, to the detriment of most other regions. Those of us who come from rural Canada and represent small communities know the great danger in being at the mercy of a giant corporation. We have seen it over and over again. In my own Province of Newfoundland the giant corporation Bowater saw its mill in Corner Brook as being at the lower end of the chain. It did not do any R and D, reinvestment or retooling. It did not keep up to date with technology. As a result, the mill was not competitive. It did not matter to that giant corporation but it mattered to the community concerned. Then that giant corporation closed the mill down, pulled out and left the city at the mercy of whoever. More and more we are at the mercy of large corporations. We feel it more and more in the rural regions and small communities. The mill was taken over by a smaller company and is operating today, but not under the aegis of that large corporation. That is why I see a real danger here.
I can point to other examples in certain regions where people have been at the mercy of large corporations. They see us merely as a cog in the wheel, an unimportant contributor to their financial success. However, the mill or plant concerned means a lot to its local community.
Another effect of all this concentration of corporate power is the effect on consumers. Obviously in this situation competition is lessened. The incentive to improve service or products is
lessened. That has an effect on prices. Take oil and gasoline for example. Gasoline prices in the U.S. went down much more rapidly than in Canada because there is a great deal more competition in the U.S. Here we have really only four major refineries, Esso, Gulf, Texaco and Petro-Canada. There is less incentive to change because of the lack of competition.
I believe there is room as well as a need for big business. Obviously there are projects which can go ahead only through the use of massive amounts of capital. However, I think the pendulum has swung too far. The situation is too serious and curbs have to be put in place in the interests of the small businessman and the consumer. I support this amendment because I believe it brings a measure of balance to the Bill which is not there now. I urge my colleagues to support this and other amendments which will be forthcoming because they will give us a better Bill, one that is in the interests of all business in Canada, particularly small business and, in the final analysis, in the interests of the Canadian consumer.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments in the debate on this important amendment put forward by my colleague from Winnipeg North. We are discussing today probably one of the most important issues for the Canadian economy, that of corporate concentration. I want to begin by reminding the House of a unanimous motion put forward twice by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs not many weeks ago dealing with the Imasco takeover of Genstar. That transaction also involved the takeover of Canada Trust which was, as a result of expansion, one of the largest financial institutions in Canada.
The concern raised by the committee dealt with a nonfinancial corporation taking over and controlling a financial institution. In other words, a corporate conglomerate now had its own lending institution. At the same time, as we all know, it is planned that trust companies expand their commercial lending activities. Traditionally, of course, they had been very restricted in that area, but I think it is the will of everyone, quite frankly, to bring more competition to this part of the economy.
The committee thought about it for many weeks. We heard from many experts in the field of corporate concentration, and corporate activity generally. While not being quite unanimous, certainly the overwhelming majority indicated that the Imasco takeover was not in the best interests of Canada and Canadians. For an industrial conglomerate to have its own financial institution at its disposal would give it more economic power and, by implication, more social and political power. We have heard many times in this House and elsewhere how the major companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, the TSE 300, the most powerful companies in Canada, are controlled by a handful of families. In other words, we have a sort of economic mafia, in the most positive sense of that term, extneding its tentacles, and more and more power is falling into fewer and fewer hands.
June 5, 1986

We have heard some very eloquent comments today from Members outlining their views and their concerns. All of us have seen the national and international chains coming into our community, large and small, and phasing out the small, independent, family-owned business operations. I am sure we are all concerned about this. I know that someone as sensitive to the needs of their community and constituency as you are would have noticed that the national shoe chains will come in and that the independent shoe operator there in downtown Edmonton, or in downtown Red Deer or Kamloops, wherever it may be, is eventually phased out of business because he buys 400 pairs of, let's say ladies and girls shoe a year, whereas a national chain will buy 50,000 pairs a month.
When you have to meet head to head with that kind of a conglomerate, and you are a family-owned shoe retail outlet, there is absolutely no way that you can really compete in economic terms. You can offer better more personalized service, but when it comes to hard, cold pricing it is almost impossible, if not impossible for that small family oriented business to compete with the national or multi-national chains.
This is becoming a way of life in our country. It is now up to Parliament, that reflects the best interests of our country, to decide what is it that we want for our future Canada? Do we want a Canada run by a handful of families and a handful of large multinational conglomerates, or do we want to encourge the development of small independent Canadian enterprise? That is the issue.
Quite frankly, I am rather amazed that my Conservative friends across the aisle are not all standing in unison wanting to speak to this motion. My colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) said that we want the small independent enterprise to succeed in Canada. We want to see equal competition in the market-place. We thrive as a country when we have independent Canadian businesses working head to head with each other in competition, providing opportunities for Canadians.
I do not think there is anybody in this House who could say unquestionably that it is in the best interests of Canada, the Candaian economy and the people of Canada to have the emergence of large conglomerates getting larger and larger with more power in fewer and fewer hands. In a sense we are taking competition out of the market-place. We are saying if we do not agree with this particular amendment that we do not want to see more competition, we want to see less competition. We do not have to look very far to see lessened competition. Have you noticed, for example, the competition in the banking system, how all the banks offer quite significantly different interest rates? No, you have not seen that. When you get the list out every day you notice that for a deposit of $5,000 that every financial institution, certainly the big five banks, have virtually identical interest rates. Have you noticed when you
Competition Tribunal Act
go down to fill up your car with gasoline the tremendous range in pricing at the pumps across the country? No, you have not, because when you look at the oil or gas production in Canada it is done by essentially four firms. While they do not price fix, while there is not a formal cartel or formal monopoly, it is very close to that. I suspect if you poked and scratched long enough in some of those areas you could almost make a case for the cartel approach to oil pricing, particularly for the retailer.
What I am saying is you do not find competition with gasoline for all of our vehicles. You do not find real competition in terms of the services you get from our chartered banks. You do not find competition in the food area when you see so much of it now controlled, or the country divided up, with one corporation in the food producing area taking western Canada, and somebody else taking eastern Canada, and so on.
For a Government that prides itself, at least in theory, on supporting the concept of competition and fairness in the market-place, I am amazed that my Conservative friends are not in their places today in support of this particular motion.
Some people who know the business well, and I don't have to go beyond Cadillac-Fairview Corporation, a corporation that knows the world of corporate concentration well, when they appeared before the Finance Committee went on at some length trying to point out to Members of Parliament the pitfalls of increased corporate concentration, particularly when that corporate concentration includes financial and nonfinancial institutions as part of the same corporate conglomerate family.
When Cadillac-Fairview stands up and says, take heed of our warnings, Members of Parliament watch very carefully how you proceed on this issue, then it was no surprise to me that the finance committee unanimously-Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats-said we advise the Government, and particularly in the case of the Imasco takeover, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), not to allow corporate concentration in the same family of financial and non-financial institutions. It was unanimous and it was felt very strongly by Members. We debated the issue in the House and I do not think there was a single Member of Parliament who spoke in favour of allowing that particular transaction to take place. It is taking place, because when push came to shove the Minister of State for Finance caved in and allowed that transaction. Some of the Conservative Members in the finance committee, with all due respect to my colleagues, said that this seemed to be a good move by the Minister. I do not think it was much of a move at all. The proof of the pudding has been seen in the last few days; even with restrictions in place the corporations can get around this particular, almost self-dealing type of activity.
I am pleased to stand in support of this motion as an effort to reduce corporate concentration in Canada.

June 5, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I do want to say a number of things about comments that have been made recently by my honourable colleagues on the other side. As they know, I serve on the finance committee and also served on the Committee that studied Bill C-91, the Competition Bill. I do not think this amendment should be passed, and 1 would like to explain why. As you will see from my remarks, I am very strongly in favour of tackling this issue of financial institutions being owned by non-financial institutions. As well, my opinions are very clearly on the record regarding the problems that are emerging in this country as a result of the corporate concentrations of huge conglomerates in the hands of a very few people.
Just to address the first matter, as a member of the finance committee I was very concerned when the Imasco offer was made. Members of the committee were equally concerned earlier when Genstar went after Canada Trust. This is a very well run trust company, one of the best in Canada. It is large in size with intermediary assets of some $22 billion. To all intents and purposes it really is a bank, and I think the Chief Executive Officer of that fine institution, Mr. Lahn, has had that objective all along.
Here we have a situation where we did not have the legislation in place to actually block this move. The Minister of State for Finance, as she explained, was considering many different aspects and many different reports. One of the main reports she is awaiting is that of Chief Justice Estey, and it should be along within a matter of weeks. Then the Department will be in a position to come forward with proper legislation, not only on the issue of financial corporations being owned by non-financial, but other aspects of ownership as well. Our committee in its unanimous recommendation last fall had to deal with a sliding scale of ownership levels; when an institution had assets beyond X level, and I think the top level was $40 billion, the maximum ownership would be at a 10 per cent level, similar to banks. In light of some of the facts that have come to light in the last few weeks and months I think it is fair to say we may want to rethink those exact levels. I, for one, am still in favour of that basic concept. I do not think we should throw the baby out with the bath water.
Many smaller trust companies in this country owe their existence to one or two shareholders getting them started. They also owe their continued existence to some of those shareholders coming to the front when they needed some extra capitalization. Thanks to those original investors we have quite a number of what I call small and medium-sized trust companies? While we must be careful not to over-react, certainly when an institution attains assets of $5 billion or more, we should consider a similar ownership structure.
It is also time to deal with the situation of non-financial companies owning financial companies. This is disallowed in the United States. Many different laws could be drafted to prohibit the abuse of deposits or trust funds, but in times of crisis the temptation may be too great for some management.
However, I do not believe it is proper to include this matter in this legislation. It is a critical matter which the Minister of State will address in legislation some time this fall.
I have a number of views about the question of corporate concentration of power in this country. Our Party supports free enterprise and believes that success should be rewarded. We do not believe that "big is bad". The United States is a leader of free enterprise in the world in many respects, yet that country has found it necessary to introduce legislation from time to time when certain companies through legal means acquired awesome economic power and clout in the market-place and began to block entry into business, which had an impact on pricing. That country has introduced legislation from time to time to break up these huge conglomerates.
We must address that problem, but not in the Bill before us. Perhaps it could be the subject of a royal commission such as the Bryce Royal Commission commissioned in 1975 when there was some concern about the Power Corporation making a bid for Argus. With all due respect to those two corporations, this commission took place 10 years ago and those companies are peanuts compared to the size of the corporations in existence today. The final conclusion of that Royal Commission, which took place between 1975 and 1977, was that there was not a problem in terms of widespread corporate concentration in Canada. However, it is an issue today and Canadians expect the Government to deal with it.
There are many aspects to this problem of corporate concentration of power. For instance, a number of charitable organizations across the country have indicated that the number of corporations from which they can seek donations are declining. Since many of these companies are owned by a larger corporation, the charitable organizations are told that they give at the corporate level. Some might suggest that this is an obscure instance, but I suggest it is very important in terms of the donations required by many charitable organizations throughout the country.
A major concern about corporate concentration of power is the loss of jobs. Let us consider the case of a merger involving a company with a network of branch plants. All too often these mergers result in branch plants being closed, with the loss of jobs. The head office will rationalize that there is no need for two computer departments or a need for two comptrollers. While this rationale may be logical, the result is that hundreds of people are put out on the street. I have talked to many men and women, some in their mid-fifties, who might have been virtually married to a corporation for a number of years and have built strong loyalties, only to find themselves on the street after a reorganization or merger. Given their age, many of them have tough prospects for assuming a similar position.
We should thoroughly examine this situation, perhaps through a royal commission, but it should not be addressed in this Bill. It is too complex an issue to be dealt with quickly. We should deal with this question soon in view of the enormous
June 5, 1986

powers that have been assumed, all in a very legal way. These corporations enjoy some very large tax breaks, as in the case of O&Y which was mentioned today. While that particular loophole has been closed, there are other examples, such as the excessive use of non-voting stock, either common or preferred, which gives some of these groups enormous borrowing power. The major banks in this country have put awesome amounts of money at the disposal of these conglomerates. While these actions are legal, we must address a number of critical questions arising from this whole process.
While large world-scale corporations are essential and desirable if we are to compete in the world market-place in which we belong, we must also consider the pricing impact of these large corporations on average Canadians. If we get to the point where there are too few choices for Canadians this can lead to an insidious pricing network that is not fair, and the consumer will suffer as a result of a lack of choice.
In summary, two very critical issues have been addressed in this last hour. They are the ownership of financial institutions by non-financial institutions and the concentration of power in Canada. Neither of these issues has its place in Bill C-91 which deals with mergers and a number of other important subjects. Those two issues are too critical to be included in Bill C-91. They are most deserving of attention by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), that is, regulations on financial institutions. Perhaps a royal commission or other body should examine these very important problems.
Might it be in order to call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is a disposition to call it one o'clock. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 12:58 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, June 1, Secretary Shultz and Secretary Weinberger repeated, and more clearly stated, that the United States would no longer abide by the 1979 SALT II Treaty, a landmark treaty to limit strategic nuclear weapons which took years to negotiate.
This statement was made two days after Canada and the other NATO allies in Halifax expressed their disagreement with the position of the United States. This unilateral decision by the United States could lead to a massive escalation in the
arms race and significantly threaten the peace and existence of all nations, not just the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
In these grave circumstances I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), with his NATO allies, to make further representations to the United States to abandon this dangerous unilateral adventure.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in El Salvador, Michel Salinas and at least seven other Salvadoran human rights workers have recently been kidnapped, tortured, or arrested by the notorious Treasury Police. On May 31 Michel Salinas is reported to have confessed to being a member of the FMLN and named other individuals and organizations in El Salvador and other countries, including Canada, as being part of the FMLN.
The Canadian Government must act now to ensure an open international window on this situation. We cannot allow the silencing of voices on the gross and systematic human rights violations of the Duarte regime. We must press the Salvadoran Government to give the charges on which these arrested human rights workers are being held and make them public; permit Michel Salinas to meet with a reputable international human rights group to ensure her confession was voluntary and not as a result of torture as has been the case with so many others; release those arrested workers on bail or bond; set an early trial date for the accused and permit international observers, including one from Canada, to attend the trial of the accused.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in Sunday's Calgary Sun, columnist and former Mayor, Rod Sykes, commented on the conduct of the Opposition toward the former Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion. He said: "I've read everything I can find but I can't find a serious accusation of substance". It was, as Mr. Sykes writes, "The volume of general purpose mud thrown at him day after day by the news media and a bloodthirsty and irresponsible parliamentary opposition that made it impossible for him to do his job".
Certainly Mr. Sykes is not alone in realizing that the protracted histrionics of the Opposition have only served to deprive Canada of an exceptionally talented and capable Minister. This columnist is so well qualified that the Liberals selected him as their candidate in Calary East in the 1984 election.

June 5, 1986
S.O.	21 HEALTH



ALS DISEASE-APPEAL FOR RESEARCH FUNDS

Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Friday, June 6, is National Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis flower day. This fatal disease, often known as Lou Gerhrig's disease, still has not had its causes determined. However, medical research is now focusing on whether the disease is a viral one or is of toxic origin similar to lead poisoning.
ALS is a degenerative disease of the nervous system which most frequently strikes men over the age of 30, often beginning with mere weakness in a hand, arm, or leg, and progressing as nerve cells supplying the muscles are lost. For this reason, ALS is sometimes referred to as "motor neuron disease".
In the next two days a blue cornflower, similar to the one I am wearing, will be distributed in shopping malls across the country to those who make a donation to the ALS Fund. I encourage all Canadians to help with donations which will be used to conduct research into the causes of this deadly disease.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: I rise to ask our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to intervene directly with his good and great friend and former candidate for the Progressive Conservative leadership, Mr. Peter Pocklington, in the bitter and escalating dispute with his employees at the Gainers meatpacking plant in Edmonton. It is quite clear that Mr. Pocklington refuses to recognize the rights of his employees who are only seeking parity with other meatpacking workers in companies such as Canada Packers.
Given the great and good relationship between the Prime Minister and Mr. Pocklington, and the fact that Mr. Pocklington withdrew from the leadership race to throw his support behind the Prime Minister, and given the Prime Minister's own alleged record in labour management relations, surely he can phone his friend, Mr. Pocklington, and ask him to back off on this bitter and escalating dispute so that employees of his company can have what is their just due, that is, parity with other workers, and we can back off this escalating history of labour disputes in relation to Mr. Pocklington.



POSITION OF WOMEN IN BUSINESS WORLD

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the position held by women in the business world and the Government of Canada is becoming every day more a significant fact of life.
During the ceremony held to pay tribute to the Business Woman of the Year in Abitibi, Mrs. Pierrette Corriveau, Executive Director of La Vitrerie Mont-Laurier was chosen as the business woman of the year in the Amos area, and Mrs. Jacqueline Tinor, owner of Le Nettoyeur Royal was similarly honoured for the Val-d'Or area.
Mr. Speaker, these business women are stimulating examples for our community and it is essential to emphasize the contribution of women of such caliber, because there is no difference between businessmen and businesswomen as far as the success of their respective businesses is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, the same can be said about the offices of Ottawa Cabinet Ministers. We have very competent women Chiefs of Staffs, like Mrs. Louise Bertrand, from the Secretary of State of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I could continue for hours providing other examples of such value.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a statement with regard to the labour situation in Alberta. I hope it will be a less partisan one.
Labour-management relations in the Province of Alberta are reaching crisis proportions. I feel great regret when I see the anti-union, anti-worker stance that has been taken by the Government in that province. I urge the Government to prevail upon its provincial counter-part in Alberta to rescind the regressive labour legislation and to introduce legislation that will protect workers from ruthless labour practices.
A recent example of the labour climate in Alberta occurred when 160 members of the RCMP appeared at a picket-line outside a struck plant in Fort McMurray on provincial election day. I have written to the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) requesting an investigation into the actions of the RCMP on that day in terms of expense, wisdom, and necessity of this action. With no obvious provocation, why would the Alberta Attorney General bring in 160 policemen, complete with dogs and riot gear? Workers must have confidence that those who write the laws, the laws themselves, and the enforcement of law-
June 5, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, June 1 marked the beginning of Canadian Environment Week, an occasion of great importance to all Canadians.
The recent environmental review of Canada-U.S. border issues concluded by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and the Administrator of the American Environmental Protection Agency has brought new focus to concerns regarding acid rain and Great Lakes water quality. I am pleased to see that the agreement concluded by the Minister recognizes the immediate need for action on this front, and that the joint energies of two Governments will be focused on this problem.
Parkdale-High Park residents are aware of the urgency of these issues and the important impact prompt action will have on the quality of life we bequeath our children. Living on the very shores of Lake Ontario, Torontonians are closely affected by the results of environmental neglect and are cognizant of the need for close co-operation between all levels of Government if we are to achieve an effective solution.
On behalf of my constituents, and all Canadians, I urge the Minister to continue his work and to intensify efforts to provide a clean and safe environment in which to live and raise our children.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.




Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: On May 30, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Tom McMillan, invited all Canadians to do something during Environment Week to convince all citizens of the role they can play individually and collectively to protect, preserve and enhance our common heritage.
This morning, Mr. Speaker, 90 young people 11 to 14 years of age, from College Claretain in Victoriaville, presented Mr. Francis Kinnely, an official from the United States Embassy in Ottawa, with a petition expressing the concern of over
86,000	young Quebecers for the damage acid rains have caused to their environment.
These young people have been responding for nearly two years to the Government's request to exert pressure to indicate their dissatisfaction with the acid rain threat.
A copy of this petition will be sent to Mr. McMillan, the Minister of Environment, whom I invite, together with all these young people, to continue their action in order to improve our environment and preserve our quality of life.



CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, 11 per cent of Canadians in the workforce are employed either directly or indirectly by the forestry sector. It is a renewable resource which, if properly managed, will continue to employ many Canadians in the years to come. To this end the Government announced last fall, as part of its Canadian Jobs Strategy, a budget of $6 million in the 1985-86 fiscal year for the Forestry Sector Job Development Program, a program with the stated objective of improving forest management skills. Funding only became available in January of this year. We forgave the Government as we have come to expect such tardiness.
Without explanation, and only several short months after funding was first made available, the Government abruptly announced that funding for the 1986-87 fiscal year would be cut back by two-thirds. Students in training at the Petawawa National Forestry Institute, for example, will be turned away with their forestry course only half finished. The action of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) displays a complete lack of direction.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Pricing of Domestic Wheat today recommended retention of the current two-price wheat system and an increase to $10 per bushel for that 8 per cent of Canadian production consumed in Canada by humans. The $10 price will represent a welcome shot in the arm for a productive sector of Canadian agriculture which faces an unprecedented world price collapse due to a subsidized trade war between the U.S. and the EEC.

June 5, 1986
The report of the committee, recognizing that a higher domestic wheat price is not in itself sufficient to meet the problem, also suggested that deficiency payments be considered, that Canada seek inclusion of agriculture as a specific item at the next round of GATT talks, and that Canada continue to strive for a new international grains agreement.
I am pleased to have been part of this committee which was formed as a result of my Private Member's Motion of last December. The entire process leading up to the report demonstrates that back-bench Members of Parliament can have meaningful input, input which can and does influence government policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!




Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the worsening farm crisis brought on by falling world grain prices, the House has yet to see action taken by the Government on its promise to provide farm finance review panels. After the election, we saw the so-called Grey-Bruce experiment. A report was presented but no action was taken. Prior to Christmas the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said that he would present legislation with teeth, prior to Christmas, yet again we saw no legislation. In February the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) presented his Budget and promised farm debt review panels, yet no legislative proposals were made and no action taken.
The end of April saw the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) enter the Conservatives' phoney war against farm debt with a promise that farm debt panels would be in place before the end of June. No legislation has been presented and no action has been taken. Today a committee recommended a $10 per bushel price for domestically consumed wheat. Will this recommendation be acted upon any faster than the oft-repeated promise to establish debt review boards?



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of a practice which I would describe as internal patronage on the part of a Crown corporation, namely the Canada Post Corporation, the post office of Pointe-au-Chene in my riding will be operated by the wife of the postmaster of a neighbouring community located roughly 35 kilometres from
this municipality. This lady has gained experience by helping her husband now and then, and she has also carried out minor contracts for Canada Post. She gained her experience indirectly and today she can obtain a permanent commission contract on the strength of the work she has done in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything against this lady but I denounce this system which condones such abuses. In a municipality where jobs are scarce, I deplore the fact that Pointe-au-Chene men and women cannot hope to get this interesting job which might support another needy family. Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister and the Canada Post Corporation president will meet with the union and abolish this conflict of interests practice which sullies the reputation of the corporation and therefore does disservice to postal employees and the members-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The 60 seconds have expired.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, the Government remains committed to the process of the privatization of Crown corporations which are not essential to the achievement of public policy. Several months ago de Havilland Aircraft was sold to the Boeing company of Seattle. Canadians will recall the doom, gloom, and fear tactics used by the Liberals and the NDP about the loss of jobs. As we predicted, the new owners have instilled long-term confidence in de Havilland and new orders are now on the upswing.
Three major sales totalling $410 million and up to 46 Dash 8 turboprops were made this week by de Havilland. Richard Barton of Time Air of Lethbridge, Alberta, whose recent order was worth $110 million, said:
We view the company with more confidence with the Boeing reputation behind it.
Thanks to the healthier order book, 4,850 workers at de Havilland are now secure. More jobs will be created thanks to Boeing's world-wide sales network.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTER OF INDUSTRY AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Speaker:: May I draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in our galleries today of the Hon. Robert McClelland, Minister of Industry and Small Business Development for British Columbia.
June 5, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ZAMBIAN MINISTER OF STATE FOR NATIONAL COMMISSION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Lavu Mulimba, Minister of State for the National Commission of Development Planning for Zambia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF UNITED STATES SECRETARY FOR HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Speaker:: As well, I wish to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in the gallery of Hon. Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., United States Secretary for Housing and Urban Development.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
Secretary of the Treasury are both designated by the President, and that this is about the discretionary powers of the President. Why is the situation not important enough for the Prime Minister of this country to call the President of the United States personally and show him how important the matter is, not only for British Columbia but for the forestry sector across Canada?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the response of the Prime Minister to the decision taken on the shakes and shingles matter a week and a half ago, as well as the representations to which I referred in my previous response, make very, very clear to the President, to the administration, and to Congress, the position this Government has taken. We are very concerned about the decision which is on the table right now and will be following it very closely. We have stated our position very clearly.



PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He knows that Monday will be the deadline for a decision by the Secretary of Commerce of the United States, on behalf of the President, to react to the countervail petition of the American lumber industry against Canadian lumber. Will the Prime Minister be telephoning the President of the United States in order to impress upon him the importance of that decision for the survival of the Canadian lumber industry? Will that be arranged before a decision is taken by the Secretary of Commerce on behalf of the President?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, a number of representations have been made to the United States Government. My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, met with his counterpart, Mr. Shultz, last Friday. As well, I have spoken with Secretary Baker, and there was a meeting yesterday which included Members of Parliament. I think it is quite clear to the United States what is our position on this matter. The decision will be taken in due course, but it will be based upon full knowledge of the position of the Government of Canada. [Translation]


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Minister of Finance knows perfectly well that the Secretary of Commerce and the


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister recognize that the over-reaction of the Prime Minister to the presidential decision on shakes and shingles is no substitute for proper action before the fact? It does not matter how loudly one slams the door after the horses have left the barn. Why will the Prime Minister not act before the decision is taken, before we get another excessive, bombastic reaction to a negative decision?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition will not fool anyone. People are very clear in this country, as well as in the United States, on the concern of this Government about the decision which is in the mill right now. We have made very clear the importance of the softwood lumber industry in Canada to the Province of British Columbia in particular. That has been conveyed very clearly to the United States. Its decision will be taken in full knowledge of the position which this Government is taking.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. The Minister will know that because of the serious nature of the U.S. threat against Canada's softwood lumber industry, opposition MPs will welcome any opportunity to participate in meaningful meetings to formulate the defence of that industry. Yesterday's meeting in Washington was not meaningful; it was high farce. Why did the Government seek to use two ?PAGE 14004 opposition MPs and a Government MP as props for a Canadian media photo opportunity in Washington yesterday, rather than take constructive action to influence American public opinion and American political leaders about the grave nature of the U.S. threat against the Canadian softwood lumber industry?

June 5, 1986
Oral Questions


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member did not have anything to contribute to that meeting, he need not have joined the contingent which went to Washington.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: The Ambassador made the point very clearly that we view this decision with the utmost gravity and are watching it very closely. The administration is very aware of the importance of this industry to Canada and will be watching very closely what happens over the next few days.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the seriousness and importance of the meeting were indicated by the lack of presence of anyone from the Government at the meeting yesterday.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Why has the Government arranged an unprecedented, high-profile, last minute and futile plea by a Canadian Ambassador a few days before, as the Government knows, a high-profile "no" is going to be issued by the U.S. administration? Is the Government preparing to shoot the messenger?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, one of the things which is very important in this issue is for Hon. Members not to play politics and undermine the position-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You played politics yesterday.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -taken by the Government of Canada in defending the interests of those in western Canada whose livelihood depends on this particular industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The position the Government has taken is very clear. It was presented by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to Mr. Shultz.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You should be ashamed.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I have presented it directly to Mr. Baker. My colleague, the Minister for International Trade, has presented the position to trade representative Mr. Yeutter. All of these positions have been stated very clearly, and the Hon. Member knows that.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday in Washington
Ambassador Gotlieb presented legal arguments to Secretary of Commerce Baldrige. Here in the House the Secretary of State for External Affairs made legal arguments on natural justice and double jeopardy. The decision will be made before Monday. This is the last political window which is open. The Minister has made it clear that everyone in Cabinet who has some responsibility has made their position known. Why has the Prime Minister not made his views known on this very important countervailing action?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I have to answer this question. It is very, very clear to the U.S. administration what the position of this Government has been, and it will continue to be stated in the strongest possible way.


David Orlikow: What does Brian say?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Prime Minister did not phone on shakes and shingles and we lost. Will the Acting Prime Minister call the Prime Minister in Quebec City and ask him to call the President? This has to be from the Prime Minister to the President and no other way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I need to respond to that question as it is exactly the same as the first question. I will say to the Hon. Member that the Government has been following this matter very closely from the early days of a possibility of a countervail action being initiated by the United States lumber industry. We will continue to follow this situation. The positions have been stated very clearly to the U.S. administration.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that it is about time we stopped following this issue and saw some leadership from that side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: 1 will tell you that tomorrow afternoon I am not going to go back to British Columbia or northern Ontario and tell the forest workers of the country that the Prime Minister of the country did not have the guts to phone the President of the United States about this issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's comments are out of order. Does he simply have a question?
June 5, 1986


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, will the Acting Prime Minister phone the Prime Minister in Quebec City today and plead with him, beg with him, to phone the President and tell him to get this off the agenda?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate that the Member takes this seriously. I will allow, the answer but that is the same question again.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that sort of bombast is not going to help the matter one little bit. The Hon. Member is looking for leadership. That leadership has been taken by the Government and the Prime Minister-


Mr. McCurdy:: Where is he?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -in initiating the talks with the United States leading to, if possible, a comprehensive trade agreement which will avoid, to the extent possible, this type of situation. If the Hon. Member is looking for leadership, he has got it and he should recognize it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Sell out.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Alberta's Intergovermental Affairs Minister, Mr. Horsman, said yesterday that on Monday the provinces had reached a compromise deal with the federal Government on free trade which included, and I quote, "a ministerial meeting every month with Joe Clark". Would the Minister explain why a federal spokesman contradicted Mr. Horsman by saying, and I quote, "But it's not so". Who is telling the truth, Mr. Horsman or the federal Government?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, who attended that meeting personally, is the only person who can answer that kind of detailed question. However, I expect that what the Official Opposition House Leader is doing, in all probability, is distorting the true nature of the facts.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think what the Deputy Prime Minister is doing is directly attacking, and I regret this, the credibility of the Alberta Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Will he now reconfirm his Government's promise to the provinces to hold monthly
Oral Questions
ministerial meetings with them on the free trade talks? Will he reconfirm this promise which was stated publicly to the press by Mr. Horsman? Why is he trying to contradict it?


Erik Nielsen: I am not trying to contradict at all, Mr. Speaker. I do question the accuracy of what the Opposition House Leader is saying. The Prime Minister has every intention of living up to whatever commitments he made in that meeting.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the President cannot veto anything that happens concerning softwood lumber after this petition is accepted by Mr. Baldrige so this is a crucial three days. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance why the Prime Minister will not use these last precious hours of political leverage personally to contact the person he has called-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steven W. Langdon: -Canada's best friend?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, that is the same question again. I will allow the answer but it is the last time.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have responded to that question. The points have been made on many occasions. This is a quasi-judicial process.


Ian Deans: Not yet.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have made the points very clear concerning the technical and legal elements of the process, so they will be fully taken into account at the time any decision is made. We have also made clear to the administration the importance of this in a political, economic, and regional sense. That is fully understood by the Government of the United States and it will be taken into account when that decision is made.


Steven W. Langdon: The Government is trying to use a legal scapegoat which it does not yet have the right to use.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is the conclusion I must make: Why is the Prime Minister afraid to call the President of the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is simply the same question. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent.

June 5, 1986
Oral Questions



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Mr. Speaker, I must say that 1 was in a state of shock when the April 10 memo, signed by Mr. Lussier and Mr. Edwards, was released. The unemployment rate in New Brunswick is now 15 per cent, and in the Acadian peninsula, according to the memo, it is 23.8 per cent. My question is as follows: Could the Minister explain why her department is prepared to use blackmail, and do so at the expense of the unemployed in New Brunswick, to force the Premier of New Brunswick to sign an agreement? Mr. Speaker, I think this is absolutely appalling.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some facts on the table in this matter. First of all I want to tell you, Sir, and Members of the House, that I did not see the memo in question until last night. At no time have I had a telephone call from Premier Hatfield on this matter.
Second, even though the Leader of the Opposition does not want to hear an explanation I feel that it is proper to give it. I want to tell the House that the planning phase for the Community Futures Program in the Acadian peninsula was signed and was approved in February of this year, well before the memo in question.
Third, negotiations for a National Training Act agreement had been going on since the latter part of last year, and I understand they are near conclusion. At no time was there ever any mention-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister is embarking on a statement.



INQUIRY WHEN MINISTER WILL AUTHORIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS

Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister immediately provide funds for employment development throughout the province, since those funds belong to the people of New Brunswick, and should never at any time be used for political purposes? When will she be releasing those funds?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the memo of April 10 was a suggestion of accelerating the processes in these two negotiations. I want to say I will do that every time I can where unemployment is 24 per cent, or, indeed, with regard to
Community Futures Program the planning stage of which has been approved elsewhere in the country.
I can assure you that what we approved and what we are negotiating at no time involved a proposal for the additional expenditure of moneys other than those which would be contemplated under the Community Futures Program and the regular programs of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. We will see that they are put into effect in the Acadian peninsula because we do understand that with a rate of 24 per cent unemployment there is action that is needed.



CANADIAN LUMBER EXPORTS-UNITED STATES PRESIDENT'S LETTER TO U.S. SENATOR

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On May 8 the President of the United States sent a letter to Senator Packwood indicating a plan to take unilateral action against the Canadian softwood industry if necessary. Would he explain what our Prime Minister did in response to that letter and that indication of intent by the President of the United States?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has distorted the letter that was written by the President to Senator Packwood. He should know that, before he gets an answer to that question.



PROPOSAL THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think the record will speak for itself that the letter the President wrote essentially said, if necessary, he would take unilateral action.
Yesterday in reply to me the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the Government is going to do everything open to it to represent the Canadian forest industry at this critical moment. We have made a proposal today for the Prime Minister of Canada to intervene. Is that not an option open to the Government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a long preamble.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has distorted the President's letter again in his preamble. I am not going to respond to a question where that Hon. Member, if I might use that phrase very loosely, is going to use distortions of that order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. The Chair does not like to intervene during Question Period, but the Hon. Minister is, in effect, imputing motives to the Hon. Member. I must ask him to withdraw the implication that the Member is deliberately distorting something. That is what the Chair heard. I ask you to withdraw that implication.


June 5, 1986


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I did not use the word intentionally at all. I will withdraw any implications, but I let it stand that I will not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for York-South Weston.



CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the memo that was written by one of her Deputy Ministers. This memo was received in her office on April 10, 55 days ago. It reflects the Minister's cynical attitude towards job creation in Canada. My question to the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am going to allow the question, but I am having some trouble with the comments that are going back and forth between the sides personally about individuals. May I please have the question?


John V. Nunziata: Would the Minister not agree that it is improper, inappropriate, and unacceptable for her Department to use federal public funds for job creation in a partisan, political fashion to assist her friend Richard Hatfield?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would agree that is improper if that is what was being done. I can assure the Hon. Member that that is not what is being done.



DEPUTY MINISTER'S MEMORANDUM

John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Minister, in a previous answer, indicated that she only saw the memo last night. Is the Minister suggesting that a memo written by her Deputy Minister 55 days ago and received in her office 55 days ago was not brought to her attention until last night?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the content or the issue dealt with in the memo has been raised a number of times with me. I want to assure the Hon. Member that the action that we have taken in this regard is to move the processes forward. What we are saying is we want to accelerate the process of implementing the full Community Futures Program in the Acadian peninsula, and we want to accelerate the agreements with regard to the National Training Act. Those discussions have been ongoing, and I am hoping that they will very shortly be near a successful conclusion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FUNDING OF JOB CREATION IN NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It deals with the same issue. First we had a
Oral Questions
previous Minister in the same Department who tried to use taxpayers' money to recruit young Conservatives for the Government. Now we have, within the Minister's Department, another attempt to use taxpayers' money to get a Conservative elected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's preamble is too long. Your question, please?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister not agree with me that funding for the unemployed in New Brunswick ought to be on the basis of the need for jobs rather than political greed for office?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the economic region in question, the Acadian peninsula of New Brunswick, has an unemployment rate of 24 per cent. That is the highest of the five economic regions in New Brunswick. We have been discussing with that economic region the implementation of a Community Futures Program. We have also been applying other programs under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. We are doing what we can to alleviate the unemployment situation in that area. We will continue to do so.



MINISTER'S POSITION

John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in light of the seriousness of the unemployment in New Brunswick, why then would the Minister attach the whole need to grant the moneys for unemployment programs in New Brunswick to whether, in fact, Mr. Hatfield will be re-elected?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think that that statement is utterly uncalled for and does not in any way reflect what I am doing. What I am trying to do in the Canadian Jobs Strategy is to ensure that those areas of the country which need the help the most receive it. That is what we have been trying to do.
If Hon. Members know of the operations of either the lead corporations or the Community Futures Program they know that it takes up to the better part of a year to get that program fully implemented in any one part of the country. What we have been trying to do is to accelerate that.



WAR CRIMINALS


Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Recent reports have indicated that the Deschenes Commission has requested a further six-month extension of its mandate with a view to somehow negotiating Soviet compliance with the six Canadian rules of evidence, and completing a written report. Will the Minister advise the House whether he has received such a request, and if so, will an extension will be granted, and for what purpose?

June 5, 1986
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Deschenes Commission did not actually request a six month extension. They wrote some weeks ago, giving us a progress report on the work they have done. They are doing a very thorough job, as the Hon. Member knows. They said they could not finish all of their work as they thought it should be done by the end of June of this year. They then set out certain options. Due to the illness of Mr. Justice Deschenes for some three months, we advised Mr. Justice Deschenes today that we would grant a further three month delay to submit the report by September 30.
As the Hon. Member knows, the U.S.S.R. did not respond to their requests to take certain evidence there. It was five months before they responded and they have not met all of the conditions that were set down. They violated the conditions by giving out to the public and the press the names of two persons who were among those to be investigated. The complete range of conditions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister may want to complete this answer under Statements.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is the position with respect to the U.S.S.R.



CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In a poll released today we are told that only 28 per cent of Canadians are satisfied with the Government's job-creation programs. When will the Minister start listening to ordinary Canadians and stop playing political games with these programs? With the unemployment rate at 9.6 per cent nationally and 24 per cent in the Acadian Peninsula, when will she restore the jobs budget to the same level as last year and release the moneys frozen by her Department all over the country?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we must be doing something right with the Canadian Jobs Stategy because that is reflected in the increased number of jobs created in the last year and a half- some 630,000 jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I want to tell the Hon. Member that, although a number of his colleagues have insisted today that we should not proceed with job creation and training in the Acadian Peninsula-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We never said that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -we will do so, as we will do whether it is in Cape Breton, sections of Newfoundland, or as we did with single industry towns like Sault Ste. Marie, Trail, and other places where unemployment is so high.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We will continue to operate in that way.



PUBLIC OPINION POLL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, when will the Minister start telling the whole truth-
Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Allmand:: -start telling the whole truth-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Once a week, Warren.


John Carnell Crosbie: Out for the day. Queen for the Day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, including the Minister of Justice. The Hon. Member knows that I must ask him, as I asked the Minister of Finance, to withdraw the imputation that is in that statement and simply proceed with his question. The Hon. Member will please withdraw that imputation.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that the whole truth or the half truth was wrong, but the Minister knows-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member withdraw the imputation that the Chair has taken from his comment?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I should withdraw but I will withdraw it at your request. I do not think I said anything wrong. The Minister knows that while many jobs are being created, many good jobs are being lost. The ones that are being created are often low paid, part-time, temporary and non-unionized-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For the last time, does the Member have a question, please?


William Warren Allmand: When will the Minister come clean with Canadians and tell them the whole truth and recognize the dissatisfaction indicated by today's poll?
June 5, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair did not draw the same imputation from that comment that it did from the earlier one, because of the way the Hon. Member put it. I will allow the Minister to answer, but I ask all Members to realize that we get close to personal language sometimes, which we should not do.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Member has suggested that jobs being created in this country are not meaningful. I ask him to go out and talk to some of the people who have received jobs.


William Warren Allmand: I have.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I can tell you that they are very pleased that they now have a Government through which jobs are being created for a change, instead of being lost as they were under the previous Government. I would also say to him that 76 per cent of the new jobs that have been created are fulltime jobs, where people have an opportunity to go back into the job market full-time.



DEPUTY MINISTER'S MEMORANDUM

Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. What kind of political direction has been given to her Ministry that would lead the Deputy Minister to conclude that it would be appropriate to use public funds to assist Richard Hatfield's reelection?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I did not see that memo until last night. I have been in Toronto all this morning speaking to a gathering there. I have asked to see the official in question later this afternoon because I think that there are a number of constructions that can be put on that memorandum. I would like to know the construction that he puts on it. I do not intend to prejudge his activities until I have had an opportunity to speak to him.



MEMORANDUM ADDRESSED TO MINISTER

Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the inner office operations that she does not see a memo directed to her, which states quite clearly, as I read it, that she should use public funds to assist Richard Hatfield's re-election? That memo is signed and sent by her Deputy Minister.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that I did not see that memorandum until last night. I also want to assure the Hon. Member that it was not a question of doing something other than would have been done under the normal routine of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. That is what we were talking about and what was discussed with me, and had
Oral Questions
nothing to do with regard to the memo, elections, phone calls or anything else-none of which happened. We are talking about a situation which was fantasy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I want to tell the Hon. Member that what we have been doing is discussing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister may want to make a statement.



FORESTRY SECTOR JOB DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. A short time ago the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced the creation of a Forestry Sector Job Development Program with the stated objective being to improve forest management skills. Why did the Minister, who only recently announced the creation of this program, change her mind and decide to cut the program funding from $6 million in 1985-86 back to $2 million in 198687? Why the about-face from a Government that has made all kinds of promises to the forestry sector of Canada?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we are funding many forestry projects across the country. I have had representations from members of his Party indeed to cut them back and I have resisted that in many cases. I want to assure the Hon. Member that the projects that we have under way in the forestry sector will improve skills and allow people to practise silviculture, to help with conservation, and in fact to beef up in many quarters the amount of money that is going into forestry.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Maybe we will have another answer on Monday.



PETAWAWA NATIONAL FORESTRY INSTITUTE COURSE

Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. What logic did the Minister use when she decided to cut off, as of July 4, a forest management skills development program involving a large number of students at the Petawawa National Forestry Institute instead of allowing them to complete the course as of the planned date, January 4, 1987? Why such irrational decisions just to simply quit everything in midstream?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we have some 14,000 projects under way in the country which employ people, train people, and provide them with skills. I do not have all the details of each and every one of those projects in my head. However, if the Hon. Member will give me the details of the project in question, I will be glad to look into it for him.
14010_____________________ COMMONS DEBATES__________________ June 5, 1986
Oral Questions CROWN CORPORATIONS



SEQUEL TO PRIVATIZATION OF DE HAVILLAND

Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Despite demands by the Opposition that the de Havilland aircraft company remain a Crown corporation, the Government sold it to Boeing Corporation last December. Can the Minister tell us if there have been mass lay-offs at de Havilland as the Opposition predicted and, I believe, hoped for?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is no. Rather than mass lay-offs, there have been mass sales and an increase in the number of jobs as a result of the announcement made a couple of weeks ago regarding de Havilland building components for the Super-747. That will create some 250 jobs.
Just in the last couple of days we had the announced sales and options for some 46 Dash-8s to Canadian airlines-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -the largest being a sale to Air Ontario. That should silence the critics opposite once and for all.



DEFICIENCY PAYMENT RECOMMENDATION

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, keeping in mind that farmers are in their worst crisis since the 1930s, would the Minister tell us whether or not he would also consider the recommendation for a deficiency payment which was made by the committee this morning? And can he tell us when that decision will be made? The farmers want to know.


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the official record to date would indicate that we have taken some 235 initiatives in providing benefit to the agricultural industry of over $5 billion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A deficiency payment, John?


John Wise: In keeping with the support the Government has provided to the agricultural industry, at the last meeting at which the Prime Minister met the farm leaders across the country he indicated that, indeed, it was a very serious problem, that farmers were facing their most serious financial crisis in 50 years, and that the Government was prepared to do more.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Deficiency payment?


John Wise: The Hon. Member points to two issues, first, a deficiency payment and the other, of course, unless he has forgotten, additional stabilization payments. I must say that those are two options which, indeed-*


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister is being long.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is very important.



AGRICULTURE


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In a rare spirit of unanimity, the Special Committee on the Pricing of Domestic Wheat tabled its report at 11 o'clock this morning. Would the Minister tell us whether or not he agrees with our principal recommendation that the price of domestic wheat be raised from $7 a bushel to $10 a bushel beginning August 1 ?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and since the committee, of course, was the creation of this House, I am sure all Hon. Members of the House would want to join with me in extending our congratulations to that Standing Committee under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Crowfoot. As the Hon. Member indicates, the report was just tabled this morning. We took that undertaking to establish the committee very seriously, and we will be giving very careful consideration to the recommendations of the committee report tabled earlier today.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Could he tell us whether he is aware of an article in the Toronto Sun today which reports:
Frank Stronach, chairman and co-founder of Magna Internationa! Corp., confirmed yesterday "we are committed" to the loan arranged by Anton Czapka, co-founder of the auto parts company?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet read the Sun this morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the supplementary question but I must remind the Hon. Member that on these matters there is a judicial inquiry which has certain customs surrounding it.
June 5, 1986



PROPOSED SALE OF CAN ADAIR

Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, given the admission by the Chairman that Magna is directly involved in the loan, will the Minister agree to suspend all discussions about the sale of Canadair, which directly involves Magna, at least until the Parker Inquiry has been completed?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the Hon. Member would have accepted your admonition and conducted herself accordingly.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am asking about Canadair.



CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In a response to a previous question the Minister said she had not seen the memo from her Associate Deputy Minister for 55 days. Can she explain to the House why a memo to her from a very senior person within her Department was not delivered to her personally within that time period?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the subject in question, that is, whether or not Community Futures should be proceeded with in the Acadian Peninsula and in other parts of New Brunswick, was one of ongoing discussions. Therefore, the question of how Community Futures would be applied, whether in New Brunswick, in the Acadian Peninsula, or in other parts of the country, was a subject with which I was familiar.



TREATMENT OF MEMORANDUM

Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. If anyone in her office believed this memo was in any way different from the policy of the Government, why would they not show that memo to the Minister?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In 55 days?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Because, Mr. Speaker, as I said, the memo dealt with-as I saw it last night-the question of how one accelerates-


Brian Vincent Tobin: How to help Richard.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -the processes in two sets of negotiations which were going on in New Brunswick. We had tried to say to the Province of New Brunswick, "we want to see these negotiations speeded up". We wanted to deal with them more quickly.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Blackmail.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is what we have been trying to do. That was the subject of the memo. I suppose, in looking at it, it
Oral Questions
was decided that because we were already proceeding along that track it was not necessary to give me a memo as well to that effect.



REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF NEW TARIFFS ON BOOKS AND MAGAZINES

Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, some French-speaking media in Quebec have claimed that French-speaking readers will be penalized by the tariffs you have announced on books last Monday, because they would only apply to French-language books.
Could you clarify the situation for Quebecers, and tell us on which books and periodicals those new tariffs apply?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, those tariffs apply to English-language books only. No French-language book or periodical of any origin will be affected by those new tariffs.



SHIPYARDS


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
This morning, there were 50 new layoffs at the Versatile Vickers plant, for a total of 300 in the last three weeks. Can the Minister tell the House whether those job losses are the direct consequence of the request made by the Government to Mr. Saunders to rationalize Quebec's shipyards?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



ALLEGED MANDATE OF MR. SAUNDERS TO RATIONALIZE SHIPYARDS-AWARDING OF CONTRACTS TO THREE SHIPYARDS IN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister says that the answer is no and since Mr. Saunders has said that he was forced by the Government to do this dirty work, would the Minister be willing to cancel the mandate of Mr. Saunders to rationalize the shipbuilding industry? Second, would the Government be willing to give out contracts to provide employment for the workers of the three Quebec shipyards?

June 5, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Fulton


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the mandate is an illusion of the Hon. Member.


John Carnell Crosbie: Of which he has many.



INQUIRY CONCERNING WHICH MINISTER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SHIPBUILDING AND IF GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO WITHDRAW MR. SAUNDERS' ALLEGED MANDATE

Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister. Can he explain the contradiction between the statement of the Minister of State for Small Businesses, who says that there have been no instructions, and the statement made last Wednesday by this same Minister, who then confirmed that the Governement had asked Mr. Saunders to prepare a plan for rationalizing the shipbuilding industry in Quebec?
Which Minister is responsible for the shipbuilding industry? Finally, is the Government planning to withdraw its instructions to Mr. Saunders?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member across the way does not listen to answers. I have said before, and he knows, that there needs to be some rationalization in the shipbuilding industry. That rationlization is being discussed among all the players within the shipbuilding industry itself. That should certainly be clear enough to him. All the players in the shipbuilding industry are involved in the discussions.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is three o'clock.
I have received a note with respect to a desire to raise a point of order by the Hon. Member for Skeena arising out of Question Period.



POINT OF ORDER


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to test the House to see if there is unanimous consent to revert to Motions to consider the following motion:
That this House endorse the view of the Secretary-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How did he get the floor?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member knows that a motion under a point of order is improper. Therefore it is difficult to ask to revert to Motions under a point of order. That is my dilemma. I have to rule that the Hon. Member is not raising a
point of order. He may have a matter he wishes to raise when he has the floor on debate. Does the Hon. Member have a point of order?


James Ross Fulton: Yes. What I am asking for, Mr. Speaker, and I have discussed this with both the House Leaders, is whether or not there is unanimous consent to revert to Motions so I can put a very brief motion to the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there was a discussion but there was no resolution to that discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: The House indicated earlier that at three o'clock it wished to revert to Statements by Ministers. That was agreed to at the time. Therefore, reverting to Statements by Ministers, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise).



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that any of the difficulties which might have occurred this morning have been dealt with. Therefore, that allows me to proceed on behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), to make the following statement on his behalf.
Today is World Environment Day and, as Hon. Members know, it was the intention of the Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Member for Hillsborough, to make a statement to the House marking both the day and Environment Week. Late yesterday, however, the Minister was called home to be with his wife at the birth of their child.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: I therefore have the pleasant task of making the following statement on his behalf.
In the past 10 days Canada has played host to the World Commission on Environment and Development, the Brundt-land Commission, as well as the World Conservation Strategy. Next week the Fate of the Earth Conference opens in Ottawa. Senior politicians, officials and non-government organizations have been discussing vital international problems in the environment. My colleague, the Minister of State for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina), was warmly received by the Brundt-land Commission when she assured its members that Canada is emphasizing the need for environmental awareness in assessing foreign aid projects.
June 5, 1986

The past week has been marked by the presence of people from all over the world, people who have given us new perspectives and a new understanding of the global scope of pollution and of environmental concerns in other countries.
At the national level there can be no doubt that the major polluters in Canada include companies that manufacture, use and dispose of chemical compounds in violation of good sense, good citizenship and good corporate behaviour. They need to be dealt with-and dealt with harshly-through tougher laws and regulations and through more vigorous enforcement of the laws and regulations already on the Government statute books.
However, realistically, if every company in Canada were to become environmentally responsible this very day only part of the equation necessary to improve the Canadian environment would be in place. Individual citizens, through decisions they make daily, have a profound effect on the environment. That is why the focus on individual responsibility for clean air, on the dangers of misfueling and of mismanagement of hazardous home products, is so vital. The sorry fact is that today a million Canadians are using leaded gas in cars designed for unleaded fuel. Another one-half million deliberately tamper with their catalytic converter systems. In so doing they damage their cars, their environment and the health of their children.
Since repeated research has shown that Canadians are firmly committed to a better environment, even if that involves some economic sacrifices, the key to change is education. We do not want to talk to those already convinced, but to the millions of people who may not be aware of how they personally can make a difference in our goals of cleaner, safer air, water and soil.
Therefore, I invite Members on all sides of the House to join me in getting two messages across. First, the most serious international tragedies of our day, for example in Ethiopia, are the direct result of environmental problems. Canadians who have opened their hearts, as well as their purses, should learn more about how the world can avoid future catastrophes. Second, Canadians should be given the opportunity to learn how they as individuals can make their immediate environment better.
I assure Hon. Members that my Department and I stand willing to offer information and assistance to any interested persons or groups on this specific matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) for whom I have the highest respect and esteem, particularly in terms of his courage and action with respect to controlling and banning pesticides where possible, has been given the impossible task of reading what I would describe as a non-statement.
Page 1 is simply a diary of social activities, inclusive of one mistake. The Fate of the Earth Conference does not open next week; it opened this week. Page 2 sets out toothless verbiage
Statements by Ministers
which rambles endlessly. On Page 3 the absent Minister trots into the House the notion that education would be the substitute for Government action. Perhaps he does so in order to justify the $1 million advertising campaign in a manner that creates the impression that advertising will substitute and solve the problem, when the onus is entirely on the Government and not on the advertising agencies. When it comes to day-to-day environmental issues the Tory logic seems to boil down to: "You, the citizens, do the job for us, the Government, while we spend your money on advertising and get the public relations benefits".
With respect to the message that Canadians were expecting, it seems to me that Canadians would prefer substance as opposed to this kind of stuff. They would like to know when the Government will act in putting crimes against the environment into the Criminal Code instead of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) pointing the finger at the culprits and the industries without taking any further action.
I suspect Canadians would like to see an equalization of the price of gasoline at the pump between leaded and unleaded gasoline. That will resolve the problem of misfueling, something the advertising campaign will not do. Canadians would like to see a launching of a real plan along the Niagara River, the one that was promised by the predecessor of the present Minister of the Environment for the clean-up there.
I suspect that the message Canadians would like to hear today would be one with respect to action in reinstating, for instance, the Guelph Toxicology Centre that was wiped out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in November of 1984, thus giving the toxic issue Government support and the scientific impact it deserves.
Canadians would like to see a reinstatement of the Canadian Wildlife Service. They would like to see a strengthening of the environmental protection services which have been weakened in the past two years by the Government. Canadians would like to see an assurance as to the growth and expansion of our national parks system by way of new sites and new facilities. The list is endless.
Since you are pointing to me that I should conclude, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying this. So far with respect to acid rain there has been no U.S. reduction from which we have been able to benefit. With respect to scientific research, there have been retreats and cuts. With respect to scientists in Environment Canada, there has been muzzling. On PCB research, which was promised by the predecessor of the present Minister of the Environment, in terms of the destruction and research, there has been no action at all. On the removal of lead from gasoline, the action has been delayed. I hate to conclude with these remarks but, nearing the end of Environment Week, the Government has shown that it is merely concerned with one thing, and that is public relations.

June 5, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by extending, on behalf of everyone, congratulations to the Minister on the reason for his having to return to Prince Edward Island. I know the birth is imminent; I do not know whether it has happened or not. In any event, we wish mother, child and father well.
Having said that about the Minister, I want to say a word about his performance in his portfolio. I think he had an easy go of it at the start because he followed the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mrs. Blais-Grenier). There was a great willingness within the environmental community and the House to give him the benefit of the doubt for some time. I must say with a great deal of personal regret that that honeymoon is coming to an end.
A pattern in environmental policy is beginning to emerge. This pattern consists of many things, some of which have already been mentioned; including the gag order on the Department, the failure to restore cuts made by the former Minister to the toxicology centre, the wildlife service and others, the cessation of traditional assistance to environmental groups, the fact that we celebrated the anniversary of Canada's National Parks without the creation of a single new National Park, the acceptance by the Minister of no American action on acid rain and the Niagara River, the acceptance by the Minister of positions of which he was formerly critical in this latter respect, and the tendency to lean on advertising as a solution.
We saw $1 million spent on Environment Week itself, something I was reluctant to criticize in principle because I have nothing against attempting to stimulate public awareness of the environment. However, when this is juxtaposed with the failure to spend in other areas where it is very important to spend money, one must be a bit skeptical. A million dollars is being spent on advertising to discourage Canadians from using leaded gas when a simple adjustment to the tax structure might have had a more immediate effect, and might even have raised a few dollars for the Government. In all this we see a disturbing trend of having the responsibility shifted from Government to individuals, and we see this in the statement the Minister just made.
The Government talks about what individuals need to do. I do not quarrel with the fact that all individual Canadians have a part to play, but it would be a serious mistake indeed if during Environment Week, statements that tend to downplay the role of Government in protecting the environment were to go by without comment. It is not simply a question of education and individual lifestyles. It is a fact that if all of the companies referred to in the statement started being environmentally responsible today most of our problems would be solved. However, they are not going to do that until Canada has a Government that is willing to stand up to the vested corporate and bureaucratic interests that are making money out of pollution and are meeting their short-term economic
goals. That is where the fundamental contradiction in the Conservative Party's policy on the environment lies.
The Government cannot have an economic philosophy based on deregulation and on letting business do its own thing if it hopes to meet our environmental concerns. Companies that pollute for short-term economic goals are doing the very thing which, through other rhetoric, the Conservative Government is encouraging them to do.
I believe the position we heard today from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) on behalf of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is riddled with errors. Sure, the Ethiopian example is an environmental problem, but many of the environmental problems in the Third World and elsewhere are related to economic problems. They are related to the things Third World countries have to do because of their debt relationships and the kinds of economies they have developed as a result of investment patterns on the part of the First World. These are fundamental global economic questions which we are not going to solve until Canada has a Government that is willing to resist the way the market-place works both here and abroad. That is not the kind of Government we have now.
If Canadians, as a result of this week and perhaps even as a result of the advertising campaign, are concerned about the environment and want a political solution to that concern, I say to them that they are not going to find it on that side of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House that because of the Ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 14 minutes, beginning at 5 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-91, an Act to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 8 (Mr. Orlikow) (p 13991).
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate, I would like to make a few comments about the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, motion No. 8 asks the following:
That Bill C-91 -
-now under consideration-
-be amended in Clause 47 by striking out line 36 at page 51 and substituting the following therefor:
June 5, 1986

"graphs (a) to (c), including the concentration of corporate ownership by one or more individuals to levels which the Director finds excessive,*.

The amendment speaks of corporate concentration, and that is the point I would like to address in my brief remarks. Preventing interlocking directorships and corporate concentrations per se is a preoccupation of many Hon. Members of Parliament including myself. I believe the finance committee has eloquently addressed that subject and is dealing with the approach of self-dealing that flows from the concentration of power.
I would like to remind the House that some useful comments were put to the committee and indeed cited in the House. I would like to cite one comment which put forward very adequately and eloquently the point I wish to make. Mr. Justice Wyzanski of the U.S. Federal Court had this to say:
Concentration of power, no matter how beneficially they appear to have acted, nor what advantages they seem to possess, are inherently dangerous. Their good behaviour in the past may not be continued; and if their strength were hereafter grasped by presumptuous hands, there would be no automatic check and balance from equal forces in the industrial market... Dispersal of private economic power is thus one of the ways to preserve the system of private enterprise.
I think that comment puts it better than I could. Indeed, we must address the question of corporate concentration. I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North for giving us the opportunity to make a few comments about it.
I believe that free enterprise is better protected and expressed if we do not allow corporate giants to be created. As I said, the status quo could become a difficult and dangerous problem. Therefore, we have an obligation to state clearly that Parliament views the concentration of powers in the corporate field as a dangerous and possibly difficult situation with which to deal.
In conclusion, we will support this amendment and vote in favour of it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Competition Tribunal Act
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Motions Nos. 9 and 10 which have been grouped for debate and will be voted upon separately.


André Ouellet: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47 by adding immediately after line 32 at page 53 the following:
"(/) any history of anti-competitive behaviour on the part of any party to the merger or proposed merger;"


David Orlikow: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47 by adding immediately after line 42 at page 53 the following:
"(/) and to the extent to which concentration of corporate ownership is in the public interest, by avoiding conflicts of interest between merged financial and non-financial commercial operations, and by providing lower prices, innovation, employment and other public benefits through economic efficiency."


André Ouellet: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the clauses concerning mergers are probably among the most important of this Competition Tribunal Act. I am glad that mergers no longer come under criminal law.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the clause concerning mergers in Bill C-91 is probably one of the most important in this Bill. I am delighted that the Government has elected to follow-up on this recommendation that mergers no longer come under criminal law but under civil law. In this operation, however, the Government seems to have overlooked a number of factors which the previous Bill introduced by former Minister Judy Erola had taken into account. That is why, during the Parliamentary Committee study, I moved a number of amendments to increase the number of factors. As a matter of fact, Bill C-29 contained no fewer than 12 factors to be considered at the time of a merger while the original Bill C-91 presently before us contained only six. During the Committee hearings, several witnesses came forward to indicate that this part of the legislation was not as strong and adequate as former Bill C-29. I am glad to see that the Government has accepted two amendments which I had moved at the time, that is, any likelihood that the merger or proposed merger will or would result in the removal of a vigourous and effective competitor, and the second amendment, the nature and extent of change and innovation in a relevant market. Those amendments are important because they allow for a specific identification of the factors to be considered in cases of mergers. I appreciate the Government wanted to condense the 12 factors in Bill C-29 into the six factors in this legislation. But it is my view that the Act should include among the factors that may be considered, not only those that might encourage the tribunal to accept the merger but also to list a number of factors that could lead the court to reject the merger. It is with that in mind that I proposed this series of amendments.

June 5, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
Now, there is another factor on which I am calling the attention of the House today, and which is just as important in my view. It is the one you just read, Mr. Speaker, under which any history of anti-competitive behaviour on the part of any party to the merger should be considered by the Tribunal.
I know some Hon. Members opposite will say this may never happen again, and that a company which might have broken the law in the past could very well show an exemplary behaviour afterwards. But unfortunately this is not always the case. With this amendment, I am trying to establish a factor under which people in the Tribunal might consider whether indeed they are dealing with a company that in the past has exercised good will, prudence and respect for the laws of the land or whether the Tribunal is dealing with a company which in the past has had an anti-competitive behaviour.
As I understand it, the purpose of Bill C-91 is not to closely scrutinize every single merger. Only those involving turnovers in excess of $400 million will be looked at. In a similar vein, I believe that as a result of this amendment the members of the tribunal would weigh this factor only in cases where there is strong evidence of prior anti-competitive behaviour which is deemed to have been constant or important enough to be taken under consideration. Naturally, companies which may have erred in the past but which showed good will afterwards will be allowed to merge. But since the tribunal is a new jurisdiction, I would suggest that our duty as legislators is to facilitate the job of the tribunal members and indicate to them that, in our opinion as legislators, the anti-competitive behaviour of a party to the merger, or of one of the two companies involved, may be considered on the same basis and in the same way as any other factor which is already included in the Bill as introduced by the Minister.
I think it is important-and I will conclude on this note-for the Government to realize that the absence of this factor is not a problem which can simply be disregarded. Adding such prior anti-competitive behaviour as a factor is not a cranky suggestion.
In my remarks on second reading I said there was nothing to justify the absence of certain factors. Several witnesses raised this point in briefs to the committee, particularly Professor Stanbury and the Consumers' Association of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that four or five of my colleagues who took the floor in the second reading debate expressed regret that this factor was not included among those considered in this part of the legislation.
Therefore I urge the Government to give serious consideration to this amendment. I hope it will be accepted so that my NDP colleagues and I might give our support to this measure.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am proposing that Clause 47 of Bill C-91 be amended as follows:
"(/) and to the extent to which concentration of corporate ownership is in the public interest, by avoiding conflicts of interest between merged financial and non-financial commercial operations, and by providing lower prices, innovation, employment and other public benefits through economic efficiency."
The new subsection which I am proposing would provide a means by which the appropriateness of conglomerate mergers could be judged. The public interest test, which is used by many public regulatory agencies, which I have included in this amendment, was proposed by competition lawyer Gordon Kaiser in his testimony to the committee. He said in part:
It is essential that there be a facility or mechanism to have these transactions reviewed with proper public input prior to their consummation. The proper test, of course, is not whether competition is being limited substantially in a specific product market but whether the transactions are in the public interest generally. A number of regulatory tribunals review acquisitions involving regulated companies and determine whether the acquisitions are in the public interest.
The remaining parts of the test which I am proposing would deal with some of the conglomerate issues on which the committee heard a good deal of testimony from a number of witnesses including the Canadian Labour Congress, the Consumers Association, Professor Brecher, Professor Stanbury and Mr. Kaiser. The following are some of the issues which could be dealt with if this amendment were included in the Bill: First, divorcing financial and non-financial operations of conglomerate business and commercial lending agencies. This would be done to ensure that Genstar buying Canada Permanent and Imasco buying Genstar to get Canada Trust would be considered for the anti-competitive aspects which they will undoubtedly generate, namely the ability to self-deal with other people's money to advance corporate interests in a way which no competitor is able to do. I understand that we are dealing with conglomerate corporations which now control assets of $50 billion or more. They are as big or bigger than some of the big five banks.
We also propose that conglomerate mergers be judged by the public benefits which they could and should provide. For example, do they provide lower prices, innovation in the market-place, more employment and other benefits which the companies should be only too happy to tell us about if that is what they are going to achieve? What we have seen in conglomerate mergers to date is not very reassuring. We have seen big pay-outs to senior executives and board members for their stock options. The Genstar twins have denied press reports that they could clear $40 million or $50 million each in the Imasco takeover of Genstar. However, they have been very careful not to tell anyone how much they will in fact be able to make.
Let us look at what is happening in the battle to take over Hiram Walker. The three top officers of Hiram Walker have been guaranteed a salary of $500,000 a year for the next three years whether or not they stay with the company after the takeover is completed. Besides that, they have been given options to buy shares in the company for substantially less than the market price. They will be able to make several million dollars each in that way. It is too easy for companies simply to strip the assets and sell them in order to get back the money they spent in acquisition costs. This amendment would emphasize public benefit in conglomerate mergers and all mergers would benefit from having such a test applied.
June 5, 1986	COMMONS DEBATES
Members of Parliament, the Government and the people of Canada should be asking what questions we should be asking in regard to conglomerate concentration and what questions the director of investigation and the tribunal should ask on our behalf in regard to conglomerate mergers if they are to take their jobs seriously and get the information they need in order to judge, as we believe they should be able to, whether a takeover of a large corporation by another corporation in a different field is of benefit to the people.
Fortunately, the House of Commons Finance Committee will be examining the officers of Brascan and Genstar next week. My colleague, the Member of Parliament for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), who is our spokesperson on finance, has prepared a list of questions, which he has already sent to the officers of Brascan, which he wants them to answer when they appear before the committee next week. The questions he asks should be asked by the people of Canada, the Government, the director of investigation and the tribunal whenever a large corporation proposes to take over another large corporation.
I will put these questions on the record. We propose that Brascan, or any corporation in this situation, should answer the following questions. What are the companies in which Brascan has an equity position that results in effective control of that company? What is the percentage of voting shares that Brascan holds in each case? When were these companies acquired? What was the price paid at the time of acquisition for each of these companies? What were the strategic benefits to the company as they perceived them to be that led to these acquisitions, i.e. tax benefits, diversification, etc.? What tax savings were there, if any, in making each of these acquisitions?
I remind Members of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary that in the takeover of Gulf by Olympia & York they were able to use the Egyptian bump to benefit to the extent of some $500 million in tax savings. Most Canadians would appreciate a very small fraction of such a tax benefit.
What benefits were paid to senior officers of the acquired companies? I have already mentioned the benefits which the officers of Genstar and Hiram Walker are going to get. What was the number of employees in each of the acquired companies before the acquisition? What is the number of employees in each of the acquired companies today? In other words, are there more people or less people working for these companies? If there are less people, of what benefit is that to the country?
How much money was allocated for each company for research and development before the takeover? How much money is being allocated by each of these companies for research and development today? In other words, are they doing any more in the way of research and development to make the companies, and therefore the country, more efficient, innovative and able to compete in international markets? Has there been any reduction in the cost of production by any of these companies since they were acquired? Has there been any
Competition Tribunal Act
reduction in prices to consumers by any of these companies since their acquisition?
We should be asking some very important questions on behalf of all Canadians. What benefits or improvements in their lives, if any, result from the mergers we have seen in recent years, or do all the benefits go to the initiators and promoters of these mergers? We have been told that we must move from the resource-based industries which have been the foundation of the economy of this country for most of the years that it has been a country. We have told that they must become more efficient and innovative and move to newer fields of endeavour to which the world is moving in communications, computers, steel, aluminum and ceramics. If we are to provide jobs for Canadians in the labour market now and those entering it in the very near future, that is what we have to do. Yet, instead we see our captains of industry and finance increasingly involved in takeovers, a policy which has been described as paper entrepreneurship. It benefits only a few powerful individuals and corporations.
Where is the effort to help the small independent businesses which we know have provided most of the new jobs in recent years? Where are the plans to help the slow growth regions of Canada? They are certainly not in the thinking of these conglomerates. That is why we believe the kind of amendment I have moved is of crucial importance if this Bill is to do what it is supposed to do.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, being as brief as I can, I would first like to address Motion No. 9 presented by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). The motion recommends that the tribunal consider, as a factor in its deliberations on whether or not to allow a merger, the history of the anti-competitive behaviour of the parties to the merger. This was deleted from the list of factors which appeared in Bill C-29 introduced by the previous Government because past behaviour is not necessarily a good indication of future behaviour. I suggest to the House that the tribunal may consider any other relevant factor, including the past behaviour of parties to the merger. For that reason I recommend that the House reject Motion No. 9.
As to Motion No. 10 moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) it recommends adding to the list of factors for the tribunal to consider under the merger provision a factor which, as drafted, has no place in this Bill. It deals primarily with concentration of ownership and control of financial institutions by non-financial corporations. As I already indicated, if this House believes those issues should be added by legislation, they should be dealt with in other appropriate legislation. The motion also includes factors which are already explicitly included and are implicit considerations the tribunal will most certainly take into account where it is appropriate. For those reasons I recommend that the House reject Motion No. 10.

June 5, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 10 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The discussion is now on Motion No. 11.


David Orlikow: Motion No. 11
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47 by adding immediately after line 20 at page 60 the following:
"79.1(1) The Director
(a) upon his own initiative may, and upon direction from the Minister shall, carry out an inquiry concerning the existence and effect of conditions or practices relating to any product that may be subject of trade or commerce and which conditions or practices are related to monopolistic situations or restraint of trade, and
(6) upon direction from the Minister shall carry out a general inquiry into any matter that the Minister certifies in the direction to be related to the policy and objectives of this Act.
(2) It is the duty of the Tribunal to consider any evidence or material brought before it under subsection (1) together with such further evidence or material as the Tribunal considers advisable and that such evidence or material be made public by the Tribunal unless the Tribunal decides it is in the public interest that the evidence or material be kept confidential."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that both Professor Irving Brecher and Professor David McQueen made the plea that independent inquiries should continue to be carried out on competition issues. This amendment, suggested by the Consumers' Association, would bring back from the old law the Section 47 inquiries which the director could undertake on investigation of a monopolistic situation. In the hearings which the committee held to discuss this Bill, Professor Brecher testified as follows:
It is argued in the blue book of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that, since the Tribunal is a judicial or quasi-judicial body, there is no need to have a general research section; hence, it should be repealed. This, to my mind, is about as good a non sequitur as one could find. I do not see how one follows from the other.
It is true there is a reference to the Commission in section 47, but that could certainly be deleted. It is still important, indeed vital, I believe, for the Director and for the Minister to be able to sponsor or to launch or to encourage general inquiries into the state of competition and to problem areas like conglomerates, problems in the media, mass media industry, and a variety of other things which are extremely important in this field.
So I urge in the strongest possible terms that reconsideration be given to this and that section 47 in the appropriate place be restored to the Bill.
This is the appropriate place. Professor McQueen, in a written submission to the committee, said:
-I see no good reason for depriving the new tribunal of the power now exercised by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to conduct general inquiries into competition matters. Some of those published inquiries are among the most informative documents we possess in this field in Canada. The inquiry into prescription drugs and their prices was a particular standout in that respect. Such inquiries should continue to be sponsored by some detached and credible body, and I do not see why that body should not be this tribunal, supported by a modest staff.
The Consumers' Association is a very responsible organization, although often, in my view, too cautious. However, this is an amendment which it suggests and it is supported by Professor Brecher and Professor McQueen. Both of those people are highly respected academics who have spent a great deal of time and effort in thinking about the problem of competition and how to ensure that we have real competition and people benefit from it. Both suggest that we need this kind of authority for the tribunal and the Director of Investigations to be able to do their jobs adequately in order to protect the interests of Canadians in a more effective way. Yet we see the Government refusing to agree to what we consider to be a very moderate and sensible proposal. Because the Government is taking that very narrow approach we are very skeptical that it is really very serious about getting this law passed and giving the tribunal and the director the ability to do the job which the Bill requires them to do.
June 5, 1986


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with Motion No. 11 and Motion No. 12 moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I would like to suggest that Motion No. 11 would in effect reinstitute the research inquiry power in the Act under the provision dealing with the Competition Tribunal. The reason Section 47 of the Combines Investigation Act was repealed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that we are dealing with Motion No. 11 only. He said Motions Nos. 11 and 12.1 think that he should just stay with Motion No. 11, if I may suggest it to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. I think that we are going to be voting on it separately, so therefore I would appreciate it very much if he would stay with Motion No. 11. That will keep the ball game straight here, and then we can carry on with Motion No. 12 next.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I am still on Motion No. 11, so I will refrain from mentioning Motion No. 12 until later.
The reason Section 47 of the Combines Investigation Act was repealed was to ensure that the tribunal's function would be strictly adjudicative. Not only is this desirable in terms of the impartiality of the tribunal, but I suggest to the House that it helps guarantee its constitutionality. In the future, should situations arise where research inquiries into the state of competition in a particular industry are necessary, the Government then can rely on general provisions of the Inquiries Act for creation of an ad hoc commission of inquiry. For these reasons I urge the House to reject Motion No. 11.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 11. Mr. Orlikow moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47 by adding immediately after line 20 at page 60 the following:
"79.1(1) The Director
(a) upon his own initiative may, and upon direction from the Minister shall, carry out an inquiry concerning the existence and effect of conditions or practices relating to any product that may be subject of trade or commerce and which conditions or practices are related to monopolistic situations or restraint of trade, and
Competition Tribunal Act
(b) upon direction from the Minister shall carry out a general inquiry into any matter that the Minister certifies in the direction to be related to the policy and objectives of this Act.
(2) It is the duty of the Tribunal to consider any evidence or material brought before it under subsection (1) together with such further evidence or material as the Tribunal considers advisable and that such evidence or material be made public by the Tribunal unless the Tribunal decides it is in the public interest that the evidence or material be kept confidential."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. Orlikow) negatived.


David Orlikow: Motion No. 12
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47
(a) by striking out line 26 at page 62 and substituting the following therefor: "rations would exceed 15 mil-".
(f>) by striking out line 34 at page 62 and substituting the following therefor: "(/(would exceed $15 million":
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am not very optimistic that the Government will agree to support this amendment. Let me just point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that both the Consumers'	Association	and	the Canadian Federation	of
Independent	Business prefer the $15 million figure which I am
proposing in this amendment, as it takes into account a number of smaller businesses which are often merger targets. They believe that the $35 million ceiling which is in the Bill at the present time, is too high. The Government amendments for acquisitions	which must	be	reported to the Director	ofInvestigation simply limit the amount to Canadian assets, which may make much larger companies unreviewable. That is all the more reason to adopt the views of the Consumers' Association	of Canada	and	the Canadian Federation	of
Independent Business.

June 5, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
As I say, I am puzzled as to why the Government would not incorporate in the Bill this proposal made, not by me originally, but by the Consumers' Association and the CFIB. As this debate continues I become more and more convinced that the Government has no real intention or desire to see this Bill work effectively in dealing with a monopoly situation.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, on Motion No. 12 the Hon. Member is proposing to amend the pre-notification provision for the acquisition of voting shares by reducing the threshold from $35 million to $15 million. I have difficulty understanding why the Hon. Member is suggesting that the threshold for the acquisition of voting shares should be different from the one for the acquisition of assets, as this will surely be the effect of this proposal.
I believe that the effect of this motion will be to create confusion, and it may provide an incentive to restructure transactions to avoid pre-notification. For these reasons I cannot support this motion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to prolong this debate unnecessarily, but since my colleague from Winnipeg North spoke very briefly I thought I would simply add a few comments to fill up his time allotment.
I think that there are two points that have to be made. One is the fact that in certain parts of Canada traditionally the size of corporations tends to be smaller. I am referring, of course, to the corporations existing in the hinterlands where we are very concerned about the level or need for competition and the concern of what continuous corporate amalgamations, takeovers and mergers mean in terms of lessening competition in the hinterland regions of the country.
When you consider that both the Consumers' Association and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business suggested a $15 million figure, I suspect that that was one of the concerns that they had in mind.
When you look at what is going on today in the Province of Alberta, and you look at the mergers that are taking place there, almost by definition most of the mergers that are taking place these days are in the category around the $15 million mark. These tend to reflect the small Canadian independent companies that, under the present situation in the traditional oil patch are simply finding it impossible to continue and are essentially at the mercy of any company which wishes to come in and take them over.
Considering that this simply aids and abets the process of the takeover of small Canadian companies, it is something that we should consider when we vote on this particular amendment.
The other point that my colleague from Winnipeg North made was that the government amendments for acquisition, which must be reported to the Director of Investigation, simply limit the amount to those assets that are in Canada. Now, what this means then is that if a corporation has a small asset base in Canada but a large asset base in Hong Kong, Japan, the Phillipines or some other country, it will not come under scrutiny. In other words, it will not be considered a company with a large enough asset base here in Canada. Consequently, the Director of Investigation will not be alerted to this particular takeover or merger.
We find that to be rather illogical when you consider that the role of the multinationals surely is one that we all are interested in and concerned about in terms of the impact that this has in terms of enlarging their sphere of influence in our own economy. Of all the western industrialized nations, we happen to have significantly more foreign ownership and foreign control of our economy than any other country. This will simply say that if you are a multinational corporation with a small Canadian asset base, if you wish to make acquisitions in Canada you will not be subject to the watchful eye of the Director of Investigation. For that reason, my honourable friend from Winnipeg North decided that this was an appropriate motion for our consideration.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing, I guess, with debate on Motions Nos. 13 and 14, and I will put my remarks together-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have not dispensed with No. 12. Order, please.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 12. Mr. Orlikow moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47
(a)	by striking out line 26 at page 62 and substituting the following therefor: "rations would exceed 15 mil-".
(b)	by striking out line 34 at page 62 and substituting the following therefor: "(/')wou!d exceed $15 million":
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
June 5, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 12 (Mr. Orlikow) negatived.


David Orlikow: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47 by striking out line 21 at page 77 and substituting the following therefor:
"tribunal, may, and".



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer)- External relations-Size of Polish consulate in Etobicoke- Lakeshore; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Health-Ban on tobacco advertising requested. (b) Hazardous products designation inquiry; the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)- Benefits for widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 years- Exclusion of single, divorced and separated persons.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-91, an Act to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 13 (Mr. Orlikow) (p. 14021).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must also include Motion No. 14 which has been grouped for debate.


David Orlikow: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47 by striking out lines 7 to 9 at page 78 and substituting the following therefor:
"tribunal, may make representations to and"
He said: Mr. Speaker, I moved these amendments because we look on this Bill as pemitting further federal intrusion into areas which come under provincial jurisdiction. They deal in part with the same subject in Motion No. 3.
Competition Tribunal Act
The amendments were put forward in a letter from Mr. Mackling, the Minister for Telecommunications in Manitoba, to the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote). Part of the letter explains the reason for this amendment and demonstrates the concern of the Government of Manitoba about a situation that occurred some time ago.
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the same concern would be expressed at least by the Governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta because there was an occasion when CN-CP attempted to enter into competition for long distance telephone business with the existing trans-Canada system. This involved the whole question of telephone rates and the relationship of household rates, small business rates, and local service rates to long distance rates.
The former Director of Investigation took it upon himself to make a case for permitting CN-CP to enter into the long distance telephone business.
The Manitoba Government, acting for the publicly owned Manitoba Telephone System, was very disturbed by that intervention. Therefore, the Minister from Manitoba wrote to the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I want to quote part of his letter which explains Manitoba's concerns. He said in part:
With regard to the mandate given to the Director of Investigation and Research in sections 97 and 98-
These are sections of the Act still in effect.
-my predecessor in this portfolio, Hon. Eugene Kostyra, has sent you copies of correspondence identifying the Government of Manitoba s concern with the role played by the Director on his own initiative in telecommunications regulatory hearings. The introduction of competition into telecommunications services has the potential for such an enormous impact on all telecommunications users, it is a policy matter which should be decided by Ministers, not through the regulatory process. The Government of Manitoba has joined with your colleague, the Honourable Marcel Masse, and the majority of other provincial governments in determining that telecommunications policy should be established not by regulatory agencies, but rather through federal-provincial co-operation at the ministerial level. It is therefore unacceptable for an agency of the federal Department of Consumer Affairs to be given a mandate to access public funds on its own initiative to advocate one approach to industrial organization policy without regard for other aspects, such as consumers' interests and the development of an efficient and cost-effective telecommunications system. Regulators such as the CRTC and the Manitoba PUB-
That is, Public Utility Board.
-are charged with the responsibility of reviewing each case in the public interest, and they have established procedures to provide financial assistance to any independent intervenors who provide worthwhile input to regulatory hearings, regardless of the interests which they represent. Under this system, there is no evidence that those who advocate competition within the industry are in any way underrepresented or unable to present their case adequately, and there is no evidence that the Director is making effective use of taxpayers' funds by participating in the CRTC's hearings on his own initiative.
With respect to section 98, the Government of Manitoba would find it totally unacceptable for an agency of the federal Government to intervene on his own initiative to provide policy recommendations in a provincial regulatory hearing.
It is our contention that, if the federal government wishes to comment on provincial policies, such debate should take place between and among elected officials. Honourable Marcel Masse joined with all provincial and territorial Ministers responsible for telecommunications to establish a co-operative process to review telecommunications policy across Canada. The inevitable effect of Bill C-91 in its present form would be to complicate and perhaps jeopardize these important and sensitive discussions. Therefore, I respectfully urge you to:

June 5, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
1.	Ensure that regulated activities of Crown Corporations are explicitly excluded from the purview of the Competition Act, and
2.	Eliminate the Director's mandate in sections 97 and 98 to expend public funds to make representations on his own initiative in respect of competition to boards, commissions or tribunals.
We consider this to be a very important matter. The Government of Manitoba made representations on the question of telecommunications to the federal Ministers who were involved. I am certain that other provinces would do the same if, for example, the director were to intervene in the activities of marketing boards. The provincial Governments which set up marketing boards that try to meet the needs of producers and consumers would be just as upset as the Government of Manitoba was when the director intervened in the telecommunications question.
It is my recollection that when we were discussing this matter in committee we were told that this question, which was raised by the Government of Manitoba, had been dealt with, and that the clause of the present Bill met the concerns raised by the Government of Manitoba. Since that was my information, I let it go through. However, after going through this clause by clause, we heard from the Government of Manitoba that it is not satisfied. Since the Government is not satisfied and I believe it has made a very valid case for its position, I moved the amendments which we are now discussing.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with Motion No. 13 first. The existing legislation gives the director the right to make representations for federal boards, commissions or other tribunals on his own initiative.
The effect of the Hon. Member's motion would be that the director would only be allowed to make such representations at the request of the particular board, commission or tribunal or on direction from the Minister. The Government does not believe it would be appropriate to restrict the powers of the director in this way, as it would not serve the over-all public interest in competition. I would strongly urge the House to reject this motion.
Let me move on to Motion No. 14. This proposed amendment would unnecessarily lessen the ability of the director to intervene before provincial regulatory boards to advocate competition considerations where relevant. This could lead to less competition in some provincially regulated industries.
There is no rationale for such an amendment since Bill C-91 requires that the director obtain the consent of the provincial
board when he, on his own initiative, intends to make representations before it. Therefore, any abuse of the director's ability to intervene is prevented. For that reason, I suggest that the House reject Motion No. 14.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 13. Mr. Orlikow moved:
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47 by striking out line 21 at page 77 and substituting the following therefor:
"tribunal, may, and".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 13 (Mr. Orlikow) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 14. Mr. Orlikow moved:
Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47 by striking out lines 7 to 9 at page 78 and substituting the following therefor:
"tribunal, may make reprsentations to and".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 14 (Mr. Orlikow) negatived.
June 5, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House will now proceed to taking the deferred divisions at the report stage of the Bill now before the House.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first vote will be on Motion No. 6. Mr. Ouellet, seconded by Mr. Gauthier, moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47 by adding immediately after line 14 at page 41 the following:
"(7) For the purposes of subsection (4) in its application to market restriction, where there is an agreement between the "first" person and the "second" person, both defined in subsection (6), whereby these persons are deemed to be affiliated for the purposes of subsection (6) in respect of food or drink, and where the "first" person supplies or causes to be supplied to the "second" person food or drink in a packing or container other than a packing or container produced or made by the "second" person in his own plan and where this food or drink is distributed in this packing or container by the "second" person in association with the trade mark mentioned in subsection (6), the "first" person and "second" person are deemed, in respect of this distribution, to be affiliated."


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
Perhaps I should advise the House that the other motions are Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10. Is there a disposition in this regard?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I believe it would be possible, if Your Honour checked, to apply the vote just taken to the remaining votes and to have them recorded as if they were actually taken.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us do this simply. I take it the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) is rising on a point of order to indicate that he missed the previous vote and that he wishes to be counted in the remaining votes.


John Horton McDermid: Exactly, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Similarly with the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and with the Hon. Member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mrs. Landry)?


Miss Carney:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Landry:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) seeking the floor for the same purpose?


Mr. MacLellan:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- The Sydneys wants his vote recorded in the affirmative and the other three in the negative. Therefore it is understood that with those additions, the vote on Motion No. 6, as amended, will apply to Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10.
The next vote is on Motion No. 7. Mr. Ouellet, seconded by Mr. Gauthier, moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47 by adding immediately after line 11 at page 42 the following:
"(/) restriction, by a supplier, of the available margin to his customers
("intermediate customer"), by inciting, requiring or compelling an intermediate customer to resell the products bought by an intermediate customer from a

June 5, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
third party ("last favoured customer"), under arrangements or terms resulting in discounts, rebates, allowances, price concessions or other advantages ("bonuses") offered directly or indirectly to a last favoured customer for purchase of identical products intended to be resold to other third parties that are not favoured."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 8. Mr. Orlikow moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47 by striking out line 36 at page 51 and substituting the following therefor:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 9. Mr. Ouellet moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47 by adding immediately after line 32 at page 53 the following:
"(/) any history of anti-competitive behaviour on the part of any party to the merger or proposed merger;"
June 5, 1986

Competition Tribunal Act


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion defeated.
The next vote is on Motion No. 10. Mr. Orlikow moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-91, be amended in Clause 47 by adding immediately after line 42 at page 53 the following:
"(/) and to the extent to which concentration of corporate ownership is in the public interest, by avoiding conflicts of interest between merged financial and non-financial commercial operations, and by providing lower prices, innovation, employment and other public benefits through economic
efficiency."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment defeated.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.

June 5, 1986
Business of the House


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, i am sorry to interrupt this debate because I know Members will want to speak on it, but I think this is an appropriate time for me to announce the business of the House. I thank all Members for their co-operation in proceeding to third reading. I think there may be a disposition to conclude third reading today.
On that basis, the first item of business tomorrow will be second reading of Bill C-95, the Bill with respect to the archives. Following second reading of that Bill, Bill C-90, an Act respecting pension plans, will be called. Should debate on Bill C-90 be concluded prior to four o'clock in the afternoon, it would be my intention to call Bill C-103. We have an understanding that if the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) completes her remarks, and it is the will of the House at that time, we would adjourn business for the day at that point.
Monday and Tuesday of next week will be the two final days of Supply in the current trimester. Pursuant to our new rules this means that the House will meet for an extended sitting on Tuesday.
With respect to the rest of the week, I have been meeting with my colleagues in the opposition Parties to discuss the legislation on the Order Paper to see what legislation might be passed prior to the adjournment of the House at the end of this month. I hope that as those negotiations proceed I will be in a position to report to the House the order of business. Hopefully we can deal with a reasonable package of legislation.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify one matter. While it is true that we have agreed it would be possible to adjourn after the Minister's speech on Bill C-103, it is not absolutely essential that that occur. It may be that Members will wish, because of the time available, to proceed with it beyond the Minister's speech. I just wanted to be sure no one misunderstood.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cote (Langelier) that Bill C-91, an Act to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that we are going to proceed to 5.14 p.m. by extension of the allotted time. I think there is some kind of arrangement that all three Parties will share equally in the time. I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary, the Member speaking for
the Liberals and the Member speaking for the NDP will get equal time for debate in the time remaining until 5.14.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm that that is my understanding of how the debate on third reading will proceed. It is a pleasure to speak to Members of this House on the subject of Bill C-91, the proposed Competition Act and Competition Tribunal Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fairness to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, would those who have other meetings to go to please do so. Order, please.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing with third reading of the proposed Competition Act and Competition Tribunal Act. I am sure that many Hon. Members share with me a real sense of achievement. We are making major changes to the Competition Act which reflect the excellent cooperation of all Parties as we have considered hundreds of representations and many letters and telegrams from persons interested in being involved in the decision on this Bill. There is no question in my mind that the amendments approved by the committee and reconfirmed in this House will enhance the effectiveness of the proposed law.
This new competition law is aimed at enhancing trade, assisting Canadian industry in meeting foreign competition at home and abroad and, most important, protecting small business and consumers, placing greater reliance on market forces and the private sector for economic renewal and strengthening the market-place as the trend toward deregulation continues.
Careful review and consideration of past attempts at competition law reform and a dedication to consultation from the blueprint stage have been instrumental in producing the Bill which is before us today. First, the new competition law will establish a Competition Tribunal to adjudicate noncriminal competition matters. Second, with respect to mergers and abuse of dominant position, the Bill proposes to repeal the existing criminal law provisions replacing them with civil law provisions. Third, the Bill will substantially increase the maximum penalty for conspiracy designed to lessen competition. Fourth, bank mergers and agreements will be subject to the new law as will Crown corporations which compete with private business.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, with the Bill now back in the House we are witnessing the combination of a democratic process that has involved discussion, consultation and a thorough review of the legislation at committee. The amendments accepted by the committee clearly indicate a commitment by its members to take into account the concerns of Members of this House and those expressed by individuals, groups and organizations. Because such reform is now long overdue, I want to assure Hon. Members, and particularly the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), and the business community, that the Government is prepared to put the merger provisions into effect when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
June 5, 1986

This Bill owes its effectiveness to the many who took a very active part in the reform process. The diligence of the Members of this House, of committee members and interested parties from all sectors has given us the potential to help ensure increased economic benefits for all Canadians. I now urge this House to support this Bill so that we may realize that potential as soon as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), I would indicate to Members that there are some people here who would like to hear the debate that is going on. If Members have other conversations to carry on, would they please take them behind the curtain.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to deal on third reading with Bill C-91. During consideration of this Bill by a Parliamentary Committee, we have come to realize that beyond political differences, it is sometimes possible for a group of Members to work together to improve a legislation.
On behalf of my Party, at the second reading stage, I had indicated that, in my opinion, this Bill was not the appropriate response to the competition problems in the Canadian economy, but that we all agreed that this Bill was a step in the right direction and that it was certainly better than the current legislation. We said at a time that we would try to move amendments in Committee to improve the legislation.
In light of the efforts made in Committee, I must say that I was agreeably surprised by the Government and by the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary in particular, because they have accepted a fair number of the amendments I have proposed on behalf of organization representatives, consumers or individuals interested in Bill C-91 who appeared as witnesses before the Committee.
In its final form, Bill C-91 is not perfect, but thanks to the amendments proposed and accepted, I am more convinced now that this legislation is superior to the existing one. Therefore, I strongly believe that we would act irresponsibly if, as Members of this House, we did not take this opportunity to approve this Bill and give Canada and Canadians a legal frameworks in the area of competition. That is why, as Members of the Opposition, contrary to what happened in the past, we are willing to help the Government and cooperate with it to expedite the adoption of this Bill.
My position is especially important because, throughout the consideration of this Bill, one of my greatest concerns was to ensure that the interests of small and medium size businesses, and above all those of Canadians consumers would be taken into account. Mr. Speaker, my extensive political experience,
Competition Tribunal Act
especially as Minister, former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, have convinced me that the current Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) must have received additional representations from pressure groups, first of all on the Bill, and then during the study in Committee which saw the Bill being amended a number of times to reinforce its provisions.
I must state for the record that I am pleased with the attitude taken by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I want to congratulate him for standing up, and I want to tell the Minister to keep up the good works. I wish the Minister will not worry too much if he is assailed by people who are dissatisfied with the Bill, and indeed that he will not backtrack under pressures from some important pressure groups in Canada that might be a little disappointed at the passing of Bill C-91.
Especially, I ask the Minister not to backtrack because the legislation that will go through this House now will be sent to the Senate. This will be the last opportunity for large pressure groups to try and minimize the impact of the Act, and I hope the Minister will resist those last minute pressures.
To conclude, I would like to use my last remaining seconds to mention the most valuable help provided to me by some people. I would like to thank especially Mr. Mel Cappe, from Consumers and Corporate Affairs, who has been available, very open and very cooperative throughout the discussion of the Bill.
I would also like to thank Professor Stanbury, from the University of British Columbia, who for a number of years has been a leader in the analysis of this legislation in the academic community and who has inspired our work in Committee.
I would also like to thank Solicitor Gordon Kaiser, whose very important and worthwhile evidence has helped me in the consideration and preparation of the amendments to the Bill.
I must also mention the evidence given by Mr. Daniel Martin Bellemare, who is from the school of that great promoter of American consumers' rights, Ralph Nader, and brought to the Committee a refreshing point of view.
I also wish to thank Mr. Larry Wilson, who agree to give evidence and express the views of a member of a Commission responsible for examining the Competition Act and occasionally ruling on it.
I would have liked the Chairman or other senior members of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to give evidence on behalf of the Commission. Apparently this was impossible for a number of reasons, but, at any rate, I am grateful for the thrust and the quality of Mr. Wilson's evidence.
14028

June 5, 1986
Competition Tribunal Act
Finally I would like to say that as a Member I was asked on very short notice to replace my colleague from Saint-Michel- Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) who would have looked after this matter. 1 also got her assistant, Mr. Maurice Gingues, who works for the Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic and who did not spare any effort to help me do my job. Mr. Gingues did not work with newspaper clippings as is often done, he did serious research and I must say he was of great help to me in drafting the amendments I introduced in committee.
I also want to thank Miss Carolyn Green of the Liberal Party research office who made an outstanding comparison between this Bill C-91 and previous Bills introduced by the Liberal Party on various occasions. This background work gave us a much better idea of Bill C-91.
It is rather interesting to note that, in many respects, the Bill we are about to adopt is much like the Bill our colleague Mr. Basford had introduced in the late 60s. Indeed I might sum up the main elements of that Bill, Bill C-256, which at the time met with strong opposition from business circles. What was this famous Bill all about? First, the transfer of offences related to monopolies and mergers from criminal to civil courts; second, the creation of a new tribunal empowered to prevent mergers and certain domineering practices of major companies; third, the registration of domestic mergers involving sales of more than $5 million at that time; fourth, provisions allowing exemptions for companies operating outside Canada and others which wanted to specialize their products on the domestic market; fifth, criteria related to the proceedings and the decision-making process of the Tribunal which would have been authorized to issue rulings before mergers or other potentially anti-competitive practices actually took place.
Those are some of the elements of Bill C-256 which I am glad to see today in Bill C-91, and others which 15 years later can still be described as being ahead of their time. Mr. Speaker, if over the years the Liberal Government was unable to pass legislation in the field of competition as it wanted to, it may be that at the time the Opposition was not quite as cooperative as we are prepared to be today. I am delighted about this historic moment when we will finally have competition legislation which deals with mergers, and particularly with the anti-competitive behaviour and practices of certain major companies, which have cornered the Canadian market.
I commend the Minister for his flexibility, I thank him for accepting several of the amendments introduced by the Liberal Party, and I can assure you that we will vote in favour of this legislation which, I believe, will serve the interests of the Canadian public, the Canadian consumers, small and medium-size businesses, in a word, in the best interests of the whole country.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, when this Bill was brought forward it was given very lukewarm support by a number of organizations and individuals. After studying it they came to the conclusion that it was better than
nothing and the law which had been in place for a number of years was really worth virtually nothing. When those organizations and individuals first looked at the Bill they said it was so bad they could not support it as it was then. Among those organizations were the Petroleum Marketers' Association, representing small business people in the petroleum business, and Professor Irving Brecher, a career student of competition law. However, as we heard testimony from witnesses appearing before the committee, particularly those putting forward the views of small business, there were some amendments which persuaded some groups to support the Bill even though they were not satisfied. We tried to support those groups by moving amendments which were proposed by the Consumers' Association, by Professor Stanbury, by the independent petroleum marketers, but unfortunately most of the amendments which we put forth on their behalf were turned down.
We were not surprised about that because the history of competition reform in Canada is, to say the least, a sad one. This Bill is the fifth attempt to get a Bill. The first four attempts were made by the former Liberal Government. Not one of them got to the House, not one of them was passed. The reason this happened was the powerful business and financial interests who have the most say-in fact some people would argue, with a good deal of merit, that they have more power and more decision-making say about what happens in this country than the Parliament of Canada.
We are not surprised that this Bill does not do as much as it should because we know that while the Conservative Party, before it became the Government, promised that it would consult very widely, in fact, when it came to this Bill the Minister's real consultations took place only with the Big Five; the Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Grocery Products Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Bar Association. What they wanted was essentially incorporated in this Bill. The proof of that is the fact that they really did not oppose this Bill as they had the other four Bills.
When we knew the Government intended to bring forth a Bill, we tried to persuade the Minister to have real consultation. We sent him a list of organizations with which he should consult. We sent him a list of seven academics who had done major studies of competition programs and competition policies and what was needed to be in the competition Bill. Their views were not really considered. They were not incorporated into this Bill. Any Member who disagrees merely needs to look at the record of the committee hearings.
The biggest missing factor, one which is of the utmost importance, is the question of conglomerates and mergers. These have been taking place at an accelerated rate. The Government, as far as I can see, has no intention to deal with this, despite the fact that there is no evidence that the mergers which have taken place add anything to the productivity of this country, add anything to new forms of production or add anything to increased employment. I say to the Government that we are bitterly disappointed with this Bill.
June 5, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SUGGESTED GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN INDUSTRIAL DECLINE OF EAST MONTREAL
Jean-Claude Malépart: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of intervening in the matter of the industrial decline of the eastern sector of Montreal by designating the said area (Zone 4), and by granting contracts to Versatile-Vickers, Bombardier, C.S.W. and other endangered industries.
He said: As you have just mentioned, Mr. Speaker, this is a positive, not a negative motion. It invites all the Members of this House to ask the Government to help the people of Eastern Montreal who, for various reasons, have been affected by industrial closures.
First, I would like to give some background of the events in Eastern Montreal. Following the announcement of the closure of the Gulf refinery, of Bombardier, of the Vickers shipyards, of Canadian Steel Wheel, of Canadian Foundry, of SKD and of Daoust, and at the request of the Bombardier people and my colleague for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), certain Liberal Members, including the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), accepted to support the Bombardier workers in their representations to the Government to obtain contracts and avoid the closure of their plant.
Being a responsible opposition and at the request of my colleagues, we indicated to the Bombardier employees and all the other workers that, to avoid their efforts being viewed only as a protest, a Survival Committee for Eastern Montreal should be established to oppose the closure of these seven plants and the loss of 5,000 direct and indirect jobs. This Survival Committee was created eight months ago. It has had seven meetings. Last week, at its seventh meeting, we looked at the economic situation in Eastern Montreal. I would like to note that the members of the Survival Committee are mostly workers, representatives of the employees of these industries, citizens, representatives of the industrial community, representatives of the commercial association of Sidac Masson, and Eastern Montreal politicians at the municipal, federal and provincial levels.
Regional Development
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the representatives of the workers, such as Mr. Chouinard, Mr. Baril from the Gulf refinery, Mr. Beaubien from Vickers and Mr. Dugas who represented the workers of Bombardier, Canadian Steel Wheel and Canadian Foundry. Thanks to the work and efforts not only of the Survival Committee, but most important, of the employees and employers of these industries, we were able to avoid the closure of Bombardier. Instead of 450 jobs, there are now 650 at Bombardier, and the possibility of 100 more.
At Canadian Steel Wheel, there are still 200 jobs, and at Canadian Foundry, 100. This last industry is threatened. I have some solutions to propose.
Unfortunately, as concerns Versatile-Vickers, as of last week, 300 employees had lost their jobs in the space of three weeks, and the union president told me that, by July, the other 350 jobs would have disappeared if the Government did not take action to provide shipbuilding contracts for the company.
As concerns the Gulf refinery, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate some of the Conservative Members for their efforts, but unfortunately, the refinery is now closed. The whole country saw what happened. We even saw a Minister resign because of the decision of the Government, and another Conservative Member of Parliament has recently decided to resign and sit as an independant.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) and the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin) on their dedication to the cause of helping the people of Montreal East.
Mr. Speaker, in looking back, if there had been no intervention by anyone at all in the case of Montreal East, we would have lost 2,370 jobs outright. We have been able to save or prevent the loss of 1,500 jobs which are still there today.
Regarding the matter of the Gulf refinery, Mr. Speaker, we owe a special word of thanks to the Government of Quebec and its Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Caccia) who, immediately after the federal Government's negative reaction, was alone in taking a positive stance and making representations to management, and at this very moment, there is a possibility of preventing the loss, of saving 100 jobs, and further negotiations are going on to save another 150 jobs.
Mr. Speaker, that is the situation today. In my speech this afternoon, I am speaking on behalf of the citizens of Montreal East, of several Members and municipal councillors from Montreal East and of the Liberal caucus-I am reminded of this by my hon. friend from Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I must say that at our last meeting, everyone agreed that as far as Montreal East was concerned, the federal Government had failed.

June 5, 1986
Regional Development
Mr. Speaker, I could spend all my time criticizing and looking at what happened in the past. However, I don't think the 300 employees at Versatile-Vickers, and all the other employees at Gulf and Bombardier who want to save their jobs, want us to make political speeches just to say whose fault it was and when we lost the most jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Government will have an opportunity in the weeks and months to come to set up a form of assistance for Montreal East. First of all, we know that the Government of Quebec is going to announce an enterprise zone for Montreal East. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, although the Quebec Government's plan is excellent, if there is no coordination with the federal Government's decision to designate Montreal East as Zone 4 and a designated area, and the efforts of the federal and provincial Governments and also the municipal Government-
Mr. Speaker, this kind of program could be announced and made available to businesses in Montreal East, with the possibility of creating up to 6,000 jobs. Subsequently, it could be used as a pilot project. Then we could assess it, and perhaps Montreal East would become what it was before, and get back to normal.
Mr. Speaker, I know that later on, the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) will speak in this debate, and I am delighted to see that in this important matter, the Government has called on one of its big guns, instead of merely hotting out one of its backbenchers. I dare hope that through the intervention of the Minister of Public Works, whom I hold in high esteem, the Federal Government will be able to announce concrete measures before the beginning of the Montreal Economic Summit. The first concrete measure would be to designate the Montreal East area as a "Zone 4". The second would be to make sure, as promised by the federal Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes), to advance the date in 1986 and to award the contract for repair of the Algonquin ship under the Trump Program, to a Montreal firm as early as November 1986. These are promises which the Minister has made here to the employees.
Mr. Speaker, I think also of another commitment which the Minister should confirm, namely, that the Government will ensure that contracts for the building of railway engines are awarded to the Bombardier company in Montreal East.
As to the negotiation with Gabon-yes, Mr. Speaker, I have still two minutes left-Gabon and Mexico, the employee representatives were telling me that we are not hearing any more news concerning this.
But why the "designated area", Mr. Speaker? It is to make sure that, if the Bombardier firm must adapt in order to change its orientation and vocation, the Government may grant it additional moneys to do so.
Mr. Speaker, together with my colleagues the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) who is not here now and even my
colleague the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), we have worked for eight months on the Montreal East dossier. I want to thanks for their assistance members of the Quebec National Assembly, both from the Parti Quebecois and Liberal Party: there was no conflict there. On the other hand, I am sorry to report the only conflicts which existed within the committee were between Progressive Conservative Party Members. First of all, there was one between the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Jacques) and the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) and the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin).
Mr. Speaker, I was talking today with two Hon. Members, one Progressive Conservative, and one who is now sitting an Independent. It will be necessary for the survival committee to transform itself into an affirmative development committee for Montreal East, including all interested parties. I can assure you that today all these people were in agreement, and I hope that the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) will be able to announce in a few minutes that there will be concrete action for the development of the eastern sector of Montreal: Designated area, contract for the Versatile-Vickers yards and contracts for Bombardier. Mr. Speaker, the time at my disposal has expired.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to hide the fact that I am interested in the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). I am always anxious to congratulate Hon. Members who take an interest in their own areas. At the same time, I would like the same Members to have a more comprehensive view of the help that may be provided to our own areas, our respective constituencies, within the overall picture. Sure enough, it may be easier to condemn the Government of the day. That is a role I played for a long time. I very well remember that, on occasion, solutions are much harder to come by. This is something I remember, and surely the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) knows what I mean.
Mr. Speaker, what is important in my view is that each and every Member of Parliament, whatever his constituency, will try and exercise objectivity as to the interests and responsibilities that were placed upon us by the people's choice at a certain point in time.
Mr. Speaker, it is tempting of course for a Member of Parliament occasionally to reach beyond the limits of decency in the remarks being made here in this House. If one wishes to make a quick little exercise that does not go too far back, one will realize it is not easy for the Government at this point to satisfy the appetites of the entire population. It is also clear, as the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie will agree, that he has just as much as I do, an obligation to support a rationalization of expenditures, a reduction in the deficit that cannot but create for instance much more serious problems than the ones we are facing now.
June 5, 1986

The financial conditions which we inherited from the previous Government is forcing us to ask the people of this country to make certain sacrifices to restore lost wealth and redistribute it more evenly among needy ridings.
1 understand quite well the situation of Montreal East. I also understand quite well the areas where, for instance, unemployment exceeds 20 and 25 per cent. We could of course designate areas throughout Canada but it is not always the most effective solution.
As far as Montreal East is concerned, if we are to be somewhat unbiased, we will admit that this Government has made tremendous efforts throughout the metropolitain area of Montreal. Members of Parliament are not always involved in such things.
Personally, I could also complain that I have not seen any plant providing 1000 or 500 jobs spring up in my riding during the past 16 or 17 months. No. However, I am pleased to see today that close to 700,000 jobs have been created by the private sector in Canada. Jobs have been created in the various provinces. The Greater Montreal area has not been neglected, Mr. Speaker. Quite the contrary. I do not blame the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) for reminding the Government of its responsibilities or for seeking help for his riding. Yet, I should like him to possibly recognize that the private sector which is now playing the part it should have played all along, has created between 600,000 and
700,000	new jobs across Canada. Montreal has not been forgotten because, as the Hon. Member will certainly recognize, unemployment in the Greater Montreal area alone has decreased by 1.2 per cent. Over 100,000 new jobs have been created in the province of Quebec and, I believe, 39,000 in the Greater Montreal area.
Also, a number of important projects have been announced. We have demonstrated our interest for Montrealers, especially those residing in the eastern section, by setting up an interdepartmental committee, chaired by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). I know my colleague wanted to reply personally to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, but because he was prevented by his outside obligations from doing so, 1 have agreed to try and reply objectively to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie and possibly reassure Montrealers by saying that we hope we can reduce further the unemployment level, something we have already managed to do.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for this Government-and I hope the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie will remember that-to accept lessons from an Opposition which will go down in history as responsible for losing 100,000 jobs a year over the past 15 years.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be malicious and I certainly do not want to be accused of partisanry, but there are some things which should be said, and the hon. Member for Saint-
Regional Development
Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) will know what I mean. Certain things have to be said. We have had some results. For many years, we had a Government which I have reason to remember and which I saw myself in this House for at least 18 years except for nine months, and during that time, the number of unemployed increased to 1.5 million. I think that Montreal and especially the eastern sector suffered under the previous Government. The hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie speaks about certain industries, such as Canadian Steel Wheel or Foundry, and says that there are only about 100 or 200 jobs left in these industries, but I must say that, according to my information, the number of jobs had already begun to go down 10 years ago.
It is therefore not the fault of this Government which, for nearly 17 months, has being trying every day to correct the mistakes made by the previous Government. In spite of all that, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition even tries to suggest that we are causing problems for the elderly and that we are not sensitive to their needs. That is shameful and indecent.
In view of all this, Mr. Speaker, I say once more that I am quite glad that this Government is my Government, that it can claim to have created over 600,000 new jobs, brought interests rates down lower than since 1979, I believe, succeeded at bringing down inflation to under 4 per cent, had the confidence of businessmen as shown by the present level of investment and opened up to the private sector.
Last February, if I may give a few examples to the hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie since he has forgotten to mention them, and I know that it was an involuntary omission on his part, our Government announced two important investment projects which will create 2,500 jobs in the high technology sector at Pratt and Whitney and SPAR Aerospace.


An Hon. Member:: That is on the south shore.


Roch La Salle: It is not far from Eastern Montreal to the south shore, Mr. Speaker. I know people in Joliette who work in Montreal. In fact, they are quite happy to do so and I am happy for them.
In those circumstances, although I am not saying that the invitation by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Ste-Marie today is a negative step, I simply wish to insist, Mr. Speaker, that for the past 17 months we have been busy redirecting our economy and putting Canada back on the road to prosperity, as well as restoring the status that Montreal had lost under the previous administration.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, when the head offices started to move from Montreal, it was not the Progressive Conservative Party that ruled-


André Ouellet: It was your Pequiste friends.


Roch La Salle: -and some people even revelled in labelling Ottawa "French power". Well, Mr. Speaker, that "French power" is what caused those head offices to leave-

June 5, 1986
Regional Development


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Roch La Salle: And the Hon. Member for Papineau remembers vividly the problems he faced at the time, which he was unable to control, and which caused Montreal to lose its metropolitan image. That is not the result of the present Government's action. We made a commitment, and these will be my final words, the Prime Minister of Canada pledged first to restore communication between Quebec and Ottawa, and that has been achieved, Mr. Speaker, there is a renewed sense, among a majority of Quebecers, of faith in a Federal organization which is not only generous, but also respectful of every part of Quebec including Montreal East. Those commitments were carried through and will be carried forward, and I trust the Hon. Member for Montreal-Ste-Marie will eventually want to congratulate us for what we have done for the great Metropolitan Montreal.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the eloquence of the speaker who has just resumed his seat but, just the same, I will point out to him that it is always the privilege of a newly elected Government to blame the previous one for the problems it has inherited. However, this Government has been in power for 20 months now and even if the problems of east-end Montreal cropped up under the Liberal Government, the problems in the shipyards, in the textile and other industries now on the wane, have continued, Mr. Speaker, under this Government and I can tell you that even if some jobs were created in Canada since September 1984, they were not created in Montreal.
Today, in Toronto, the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.4 per cent and in Ontario to 6.8 per cent. Those are fine results for Ontario, but in Quebec the unemployment rate is still at II per cent and even in Montreal the great metropolis of Quebec, the unemployment rate is about 15 per cent and it is still higher in east-end Montreal. This is why we see that in the polls, in spite of their 56 or 57 members in Quebec, the Tories are falling in the good opinion of Quebecers. Today, the SORECOM poll indicates that if an election were held now, a great percentage of Quebecers would vote for the Liberal Party, but 30 per cent of Quebecers would vote for the NDP and 28 per cent for the Conservative Party. They have fallen back to the third place in spite of their 57 members and this shows the failure of the Conservative Government to deal not only with the economic development of east-end Montreal, but also with that of the entire province. They lack capability and it hurts, Mr. Speaker. Where are those strong cabinet members responsible for defending Quebecers? Where are the powerful men and women in the Cabinet needed to create the economic policies, to restore Quebec's economic health? As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, instead of helping the economy east-end Montreal the Conservatives are hurting that economy. Looking at the economic structure of that major area of our largest city, we see that shipyards, textile and footwear industries and refineries are very important to that area's
industrial base. What have the Conservatives done for refineries in Montreal? They shut down the Gulf refinery. What did they do with the footwear industry? They opened the doors to all sorts of imports, to the prejudice of the Quebec footwear industries, including those in east-end Montreal. What did they do for the textile industry? For the textile industry, Mr. Speaker, they did nothing. They put off acting on all requests made by the clothing and textile industry for a policy that would guarantee a certain percentage of that market to Canadians. Here is an industry that is centered mainly in the Province of Quebec. It provides 20 per cent of all manufacturing jobs in Montreal.
I toured that industry in Montreal and I can state that despite a general improvement in Canadian industry, despite a certain reduction in the unemployment rate in Canada, here is an industry that is still completely depressed in Montreal. What are the Conservatives doing with all those Members from Quebec? Nothing at all.
The former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion had promised us a policy. This Government has now been in power for 21 months, and it has had nothing to announce. The Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion are fighting hard within the Cabinet, and nothing has come out to ensure the survival of that industry that is so important for all Quebecers, especially for the Montreal area.
With respect to shipyards, the motion put forward by my friend for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) said the repair contracts should be granted to the Versatile Vickers shipyard in Montreal. But the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie ignores the fact that there are also concerns for the future of that important industry in Quebec and Sorel. I personally went to Sorel last Thursday, and I met workers there. I toured that important shipyard that has been serving Canadians for 50 years.
I wonder what criteria this Government used in deciding on the future of a major industry where employment has dropped 50 per cent in two years: from 14,000 to 6,500 employees. On whom was the future of the industry to depend? On Mr. Peter Paul Saunders, President of Versatile-Vickers, who lives in Vancouver, is not part of the Quebec industrial milieu and who owns two of Quebec's three shipyards, Marine Industries being the third. I put the question to the Minister today: Why didn't Mr. Saunders talk to the directors of Marine Industries, since it is the other shipbuilding company? I did not get an answer, Mr. Speaker. Instead of simply awarding a contract to Montreal East, we must have a policy that will provide for a Canadian merchant marine and employment for all our shipyards, not just those in the province of Quebec. But this Government is not doing a thing.
Did they meet the sacred and solemn commitments made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign in August 1984? they did not. They ignored all the promises they made to this major industry.
June 5, 1986

Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad story. The Minister who just spoke gave the House the assurance that he was delighted a certain number of jobs had been created in this country. For Quebecers, however, those jobs are elsewhere. They are certainly not in Montreal East. He said they created 100,000 jobs in Quebec, but Quebec has a job creation rate one half the rate in the rest of the country. Montreal's job creation rate is also much lower than the rest of the country's. He said they were going to create 2,500 jobs in the hi-tech sector at SPAR Aerospace and similar companies. He ignores the fact that shutdowns in Montreal East have cost us 5,000 jobs and that the jobs being created now do not pay as well as the jobs that are disappearing. People who were working for $10, $12, $14 and $15 an hour in industry are now working at MacDonald's, in restaurants, and in the tourist sector, jobs that are not negligible but only pay $6, $7 or $8 an hour. That is the future for Montreal under this Government.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it is a new Government's prerogative to censor the previous Government. However, this is no longer a new Government. This Government had the responsibility of changing Quebec's industrial future, of changing a situation where historically, under the Liberals, Quebec was always ignored because of the focus on the Golden Horseshoe in Southern Ontario. This must change. Quebec must become a truly equal partner with the rest of the country, and especially with Ontario. I say this as a former leader of a provincial party in Ontario and as a Member from that province. And I believe this strongly and sincerely.
I also want to remind everyone in the House that our Party has developed policies especially for Quebec and that this is why the latest polls put us in second place in Quebec, in front of the Progressive Conservatives. After the next elections, our Party will have representatives in this place to defend the workers of Eastern Montreal and all Quebec.
Many Conservatives will be defeated because of the failure of their Cabinet to defend the interests of Montrealers and Quebecers.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to take part in this debate to support the motion of my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Some Hon. Members:: Ha, ha!


André Ouellet: It seems obvious that the Conservative Members who are now laughing on the other side feel no responsibility to the people who are now unemployed in Eastern Montreal and who have been asking this Government to take action for weeks.


Maurice Tremblay: We certainly did not learn responsibility from you!


André Ouellet: I see that the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay), who has become an expert in fisticuffs, is trying to intervene on our behalf-
Regional Development


Maurice Tremblay: Question of privilege, Mr. Speaker!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry. Is the Hon. Member rising on a point of order?


Maurice Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the Hon. Member who is rising on a point of order in his seat? Order, please. If the Hon. Member has a point of order he must return to his own seat to raise it. The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


Maurice Tremblay: I understand, but if I may
explain-


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I see that some Conservative Members are trying to waste the time allotted to us to discuss a most important proposal which concerns the interests-


Maurice Tremblay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, when one refers to a sense of responsibility and one has occupied a chair... and one has exercised ... in such a way, one should not allow oneself to do that.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, making such obvious innuendos-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member... Order. Order, please. Enough is enough-


Maurice Tremblay: I may not be as sophisticated as the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) but-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member resume his seat, please.
That is a point of debate; it is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Papineau.


Mr. Della Noce:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism) (Mr. Della Noce) on a point of order.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you did not hear what the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) just said, but it is a low blow and he is intelligent enough to know what he is doing. He must withdraw his remarks!

June 5, 1986
Regional Development


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Chair understands. There has been calmness in the Chamber today. I understand that there can be very heated debate at this time of the day. However, I would like the Hon. Member to know that what he raises is still a point of debate and not a point of order. As long as language that is unparliamentary is not used then that is fine. However, if the Hon. Member starts to use unparliamentary language, then I will bring him to order.
This is Private Members' hour and Hon. Members are wasting their own time. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will have the floor next. I am at the disposal of Hon. Members. However, I would appreciate very much if Hon. Members would be calm and enter into debate as it should be entered into. The Hon. Member for Papineau.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: I appreciate your understanding, Mr. Speaker, and I hope these untimely interventions will not be included in my allotted time.
I was saying that the motion of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie-


Maurice Tremblay: We do not all act the same way. What do you want me to tell you? The Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)-


André Ouellet: There must be something wrong with the Member for Lotbiniere. Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the motion clearly urges the Government to consider the advisability of intervening in the matter of the industrial decline of the eastern sector of Montreal by designating the said area (Zone 4), which would promote economic development and job creation in that area which has been severely affected ever since the Conservative Party took office. This would also make it easier for Versatile-Vickers, Bombardier and C.S.W. to land contracts. Since the Conservatives took over these companies have not been awarded contracts as they used to get from the federal Government.
Now it is unfortunate that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), who is supposed to be the Minister in charge of a committee which will be asked to find solutions to the problems in east-Montreal, is not here today to take part in this debate. I deeply sympathize with the Minister of Public Works who at the last minute has had to uphold an indefensible cause. It is obvious that the Minister is always away when there is a difficult problem to be solved. We know it. He was not in Montreal when his colleague announced the closing-down of the Gulf refinery in east-end Montreal. The President of the Treasury Board was absent then and again today while my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie is raising in the House a very important point. The President of the Treasury Board who should be looking after that case is away.
I can understand why he is not here and why his colleague, the Minister of Public Works is left to defend the case because he did not give him the information he needed. The Minister of Public Works has just stated in reply to my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie: "You have forgotten a ratten
important contract granted in east-end Montreal which will solve the problem." He was referring to that small grant given to Pratt & Whitney and to SPAR Aerospace Now SPAR Aerospace has contradicted the Minister when the announcement was made, as the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Bissonnette) was bragging and trying to make us believe that hundreds of jobs would be created with a grant which had only been extended under a number of programs set up between SPAR Aerospace and the former Liberal Government. Indeed, that grant had nothing to do with the program and the problems existing in east-end Montreal, as everybody knows. I see the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Cadieux) is here. That important industry is not in east-end Montreal, but rather in west-end Montreal.
I am very pleased that this Conservative Government has continued those grants to SPAR Aerospace, which is located in west-end Montreal, and to Pratt & Whitney which is located on the South Shore, because in both cases that program was initiated under the previous Liberal administration and deserves to be maintained. But what they failed to honour is the series of promises made by the previous Government to companies in east-end Montreal. My colleague for Montreal- Sainte-Marie is perfectly right when he suggests that Bombardier and Vickers were betrayed with the cancellation of agreements that existed under the previous Liberal Government. Because the Liberals ensured that the three Quebec shipyards would be granted contracts, that we would help the Lauzon shipyard, the Sorel shipyard and the one in Montreal, the Versatile Vickers shipyard in east-end Montreal.
But the promises made by the previous Government to the Vickers' workers in east-end Montreal have not been honoured by this Conservative Government. The same goes for Bombardier. And with respect to that industry, which went into operation early in this century, which has always been granted locomotive building contracts, which has always been awarded contracts by the Government to provide employment for hundreds of specialized workers, both at Bombardier's and the forge or the foundry, never in the past did a Canadian Government abdicate its responsibilities toward those companies, those specialized workers.
What we say is that the Conservative Government does not have a procurement policy in the area of transportation. We say that the Conservative Government tried to stop committing funds to support the purchase by Crown corporations, the Canadian National, VIA Rail, of the locomotives and the rolling stock which would enable employees in Montreal East to work in dignity.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) may find some comfort in a long speech in which he tells us that many jobs were created in Canada, but he should keep in mind that because of the lack of action of his Government in Montreal East, one Minister, one of his colleagues, resigned from the Conservative Cabinet and one Hon. Member from Montreal East does not sit anymore as a Conservative.
June 5, 1986

In conclusion, I will say that I am somewhat surprised to see the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party realize all of a sudden, at the last second, at the 23-rd hour, that he has an interest for Quebec. The Hon. Member from Ontario who spoke before me cannot deceive us, Mr. Speaker. His newfound interest in this issue does not suit the legitimate aspirations which were so well represented by the efforts of this committee for the survival of Montreal East under the able leadership of my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), who is a real advocate and a true representative of the workers from Montreal East. I trust much more the Hon. member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie than-
[DOT]	(1750)

-than late-coming members of the New Democratic Party from Ontario.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to talk about the motion of my colleague from Montreal- Sainte-Marie, but first of all, I must make a remark that I have not had an opportunity to make earlier. I heard the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). I have heard the reply made by the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), our Minister of Public Works. I have also heard the remarks made by my colleague the Hon. Member for Papineau, and although I must confess that his ending was very good he does not nearly measure up to our Minister of Public Works, because he started with a very cheap shot by directing that kind of innuendo to one of my colleagues who might have had a small personal experience which does not concern the House at all and of which they should like to make a sort of scandal.
That is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, because the issue which was raised today is that of Montreal East. I am quite willing to deal with the situation in Montreal East generally, and especially with a problem which 1 know very well, that of the refineries in Montreal East, including the Gulf refinery.
Mr. Speaker, I have been involved for several years in the Montreal East area. I have organized groups too, just as my colleague the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie has, and that does not go back only to 1984, but as far as 20 years ago. I have also witnessed the closing of several refineries in Montreal East. There have been 13 refineries closed in Canada. The Gulf refinery, unfortunately, was the 13th.
[DOT]	(1800)
The Texaco refinery closed in February 1983. The BP refinery closed in June 1983. The Esso refinery closed in October 1983. The Gulf refinery closed very recently, and nobody is talking about that anymore. I wonder where was the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who is blaming us for being the champions of inaction. Where was his Party in 1983? Was not his Party in power while 12 refineries were
Regional Development
being closed in Canada? Where was the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) when the last refinery, the Texaco one, closed in 1983 and we asked for his help? He even refused to come and see us. Where was the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme)? Where was the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)? I suppose he was playing golf, because I had seen him playing golf at the time. He does not hit with his fists, he prefers to hit balls, that is his choice and I respect that.
But while the Texaco workers were losing their jobs, the Party which was in power before us was totally inactive and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie was not silent: he was mute, it was absolutely impossible to have him speak out. Yet, today, he speaks out and he is worse than Mr. Pavarotti: His tenor voice can constantly be heard all over Montreal East.
Mr. Speaker, there was recently a television program called Le Point originating in Montreal. There was there one of their colleagues or former colleagues whom they have lost as we did, but this colleague preferred to resign: I mean Mr. Jean Chretien, the former Liberal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Well, on that program entitled Le Point run by the French network of CBC, Mr. Chretien clearly acknowledged that the closure could be anticipated several years earlier. He acknowledged that on the CBC television program Le Point, which has to be one of the serious programs of the French network of CBC.
Also in Montreal East, Mr. Speaker, we had those famous grants offered by the Government to convert heating systems into electrical or gas heating systems. I was one of the victims of that advertising campaign. I got $1500 to remove my oil system and get connected to the famous James Bay network. So 1 went for James Bay, without thinking that some day as a result of that a friend of mine, a citizen of Duvernay, would lose his job because the Gulf Company would close down. The Liberal Government had not warned us about that aspect of our grants. At the time, they also said: save energy.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, I was a mechanic for 20 years. They told us: The famous 450 cubic inch gaz guzzlers are no good anymore, they are too big, we have to buy four cylinders. Instead of getting six miles per gallon, you will be doing 40 miles per gallon, and we did. There was a tremendous advertising impact. We were told: Let us no longer depend on the Arabs for our heating, let us get plugged on the James Bay project, one of the largest in the world. And so we did. Now today, Mr. Speaker, we have a declining market, we have a market where offer and demand are lower than they used to be, and that is the price we have to pay for that kind of things. In English, they say: "You can't have it both ways". Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the price we have to pay for our industry. They also say that in this respect, we need strong medicine and not superficial medication, and it is well-known that strong

June 5, 1986
Regional Development
medication is often the most bitter to swallow. I remember when my mother forced me to gulp down syrup that tasted almost like poison, but I was cured by the next day. That was probably one of the best medications ever. Eating sweets solves nothing! But my colleague may have forgotten that back in 1975, 41 refineries were in operation in Canada. Today, unfortunately, or fortunately for those who have hydro power, fortunately maybe for Mr. Bourassa, there are 28 left out of those 41. There are only 28 refineries left in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, when those refineries closed down, the Progressive Conservatives were not in power. In 1980, the Gulf refinery in Point Tupper was closed; in 1978, the Texaco refinery in Port Credit, Ontario; in 1976, Petro-Canada in Newfoundland; in 1984, Texaco in Edmonton, Alberta. We also had Ultramar in 1983. In Calgary, the Gulf refinery closed down in 1983; in Saint-Boniface, in September 1983 ... Shell in July 1983. Yet in 1983, the Progressive Conservative Party had not yet won the elections, it was still campaigning. It was trying to set up a team and win the elections.
Mr. Speaker, I would have a lot to say about the Gulf case. I could go on for at least two hours. Let me tell you about the famous survival Committee of East Montreal which my colleague appropriately set up. I attended its meeting several times.


An Hon. Member:: Once!


Vincent Della Noce: Twice. My colleague for Montreal-Ste-Marie is wrong once again, Mr. Speaker. He says: Once. But it was indeed twice. What happened then? My colleague has darn good ideas, but he has a big drawback, he always invites convenient people. He never invited anyone else but unions. That workers are losing their jobs is a sad thing. Unions have their way of looking at things, and I respect those ways. And we cannot reflect other cases were 300 jobs, or maybe 200 when the case is over, are lost, or maybe even no jobs will be lost when everything is settled. But anyway, in this refinery, they lost 2,000 jobs. What happened? There were unions, friends, Liberal Members. My colleague the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) joined us. There was the other one from Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) who came to help the Minister with his coat. That was a nice show on TV. It was all on TV, Mr. Speaker! Great fun! But they forgot one guy, they forgot two guys. They forgot the one who was supposed to buy the Gulf refinery, who was supposed to bring in $120 million, who promised me and my colleague the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin) on that night, on TV, in front of the Chairman of my caucus, the guy who said: Yes, we will provide $120 million. But no, at the last minute, they failed us. So they were never invited, but they say they have a buyer. Even journalists were in on this and never told the truth. They do not know the truth. My colleague has forgotten why I was the only one from this side and that I believed I was on the right side because nobody else but me held the truth. My colleague forgot to invite the person who was supposed to buy. There was no buyer for Gulf. That is the truth! My colleague
knows it too well. Come on! I know my time has expired, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: But I want the House to understand, I want my colleagues ... but I see that there is only one Member, and I will not refer to him by name, but I would have liked to see all Government Members from Montreal in the House. I see one Member whose riding is on Montreal island, and I wish him good luck in this summer's Cabinet shuffle. I know he is in the House, he is the chairman of the Quebec caucus. But I would have liked all my colleagues, all the Government Members from the east-end of Montreal to be here since we are talking about the survival of our region.
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that if this House does not understand, if the Government does not understand, I, for one, did understand how those workers felt when I met with them. 1 could read in their eyes the fear of losing their jobs. After meeting with these labour leaders we were painly aware of the problems which exist in the east-end of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, before closing because I will cut my remarks short, I want to tell you, that I am ready to read again the motion and to sit down with my colleagues and invite them to say: That, in the opinion of this House- we should take this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I will read again the motion, and I call on all my colleagues on the Government side to join me in saying:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of intervening in the matter of the industrial decline of the eastern sector of Montreal by designating the said area (Zone 4), and by granting contracts to Versatile-Vickers, Bombardier, C.S.W. and other endangered industries.
I invite them, Mr. Speaker, to join us in a unanimous vote, to say "yes", we hope, and I ask them to immediately say: "Yes, we want it!"


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the period provided for Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order paper.