1987-05-22

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in Vancouver this afternoon Rick Hansen completes his heart-lifting Man in Motion journey around the world.
For the past two years Rick has demonstrated courage, humour, decency, strength of body, strength of mind, and strength of spirit.
Rick is a hero to physically challenged Canadians, to young people, indeed to all of us. He has taught us respect for others and respect for ourselves. He has taught us the joy of hard work and the value of endurance and perseverance.
I salute Rick Hansen. You know, Mr. Speaker, as I do, that today will be a very special day in Vancouver. Rick has come home, and we are all very proud of him.
We need more nice-guy heroes. We need more heroes like Rick Hansen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

CONGRATULATIONS TO WEIGHTLIFTER LANGIS CfiTE


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the Canadian weight lifting championships were held in the Lac Saint-Jean area. On that occasion, Langis Cote, a young resident of my riding, took first place in the 67.5 kg class, doing so for the third consecutive time.
Mr. Cote's achievements in the sport of weight lifting are a source of pride for our region, but above all, Mr. Speaker, this proves that young Canadian men and women are able to discipline themselves and focus their efforts on the goal they want to achieve. We would do well to follow this example.
In concluding, I want to wish Langis good luck at the European championships in Austria next month.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you remember the case of Toni Corrado, the Air Canada flight attendant who was suspended for 30 days for being critical of the Minister of Transport to a couple of passengers who asked her opinion and turned out to be delegates on their way to the Conservative Convention.
After writing to the Minister of Transport, the letter from the Tory Party workers went straight to Air Canada, which resulted in her receiving a 30-day suspension.
National interest in the case meant that there were many changes to the allegations against Ms. Corrado. Not wanting to appear as though the Conservative Party was against free speech, she received a reduction in her suspension to seven days on the suggestion that she was too persistent in expressing her views.
The House owes a debt of gratitude to the courage of Toni Corrado who refused to accept even a reduced sentence on an unjust charge. She grieved her penalty, and hearings began in Vancouver last week.
The hearings were under way when Air Canada offered Ms. Corrado a settlement, a settlement it could have offered a year ago.
I am pleased to report to the House that the seven-day suspension has been overturned, with complete financial compensation to Ms. Corrado. Her right to free speech has been acknowledged by Air Canada, and she will suffer absolutely no penalty.
Congratulations to Toni Corrado for fighting and winning this good fight.
6328___________________________


EDMONTON VENUE OF NATIONAL RACKET-BALL CHAMPIONSHIPS-TRIBUTE TO VOLUNTARY WORKERS
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, the 1987 National Racket-ball Championships are being held in Edmonton from May 18 to May 23. More than 430 athletes from across Canada will participate. The men's and women's open will include many members of the World Championship Team. The competitions also include events for men aged 55 years and over, as well as events for wheelchair athletes.
Edmonton is noted for successfully sponsoring championship events such as the World University Games, the Commonwealth Games of 1978, and this week the National Racket-ball Championships. Outstanding success has always been achieved due to excellent organization and the commitment of a large body of volunteers.
Committed and dedicated volunteers are essential to ensure the success of events of this magnitude. I speak on behalf of all Edmontonians in paying tribute to the volunteers who contribute their free time for the betterment not only of racket-ball championships but indeed our society.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, on April 8 the Hon. Member for Northumberland- Miramichi (Mr. Jardine) criticized me in the House for taking the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) to task for denying that the Conservative Party had promised a real increase of 6 per cent in defence spending and has never come close.
The Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi even inaccurately stated that Canada's stock in NATO was at an all-time high.
So bad was the statement of the Hon. Member that a retired general wrote the following letter to him and sent a copy to me:
Dear Mr. Jardine:
As a supporter of the Conservative Party, I regret that I must criticize your statement in the House on April 8 wherein you take Mr. Len Hopkins to task for his statement on March 27.
While you may be quite correct in a documentary sense to say that no election promises were made about defence expenditures under a Conservative Government, there were in fact promises made and, to date, unkept.
What's more, 1 would like to see the NATO documentation that puts "Canada's stock ... at an all-time high". With this year's arbitrary cuts in the defence budget and rumoured changes in our force contributions to NATO, I would not be surprised to see our "stock" hit an all-time low before the end of this year.
May 22, 1987
As a member of the Air Force Officers Advisory Group, I am proud to
endorse the position just made by our executive to the Prime Minister. I hope
that you will not be so proud of the "record" that you will not admit that more
funding for defence was promised and is needed.

[ Translation]


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the socialists were up to their old tricks, this time casting doubts on the integrity of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). It was a shabby attempt indeed.
Mr. Speaker, our party and the Liberal Party recruit their supporters, through their riding associations, among all Canadians.
The NDP, however, recruits its membership among radicals and extremists. It uses the money of honest workers through their unions, workers who would otherwise not finance the NDP.
This party is increasing its influence with the unions, unbeknownst to their members. It is being helped to the tune of millions of dollars by the big trade unions, without the workers being informed. It has made a specialty of using other people's money. It does this by taking advantage of hearings held by standing committees, and through the use of mailing privileges and of all the resources available to each Member of this House.
Before attacking and libelling Members of this House, this party should put its own house in order.


NATIONAL ARCHIVES
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, Canada, like other nations, has a National Archives where important documents are stored for posterity so that our history can be recorded and future generations can study and make up their own minds as to our successes and failures in terms of economic, social, cultural and political affairs.
Unfortunately, however, although we have a fine new Archives Act, we have no archives building. The Public Archives share the National Library building and both are forced to rent other space and move documents between buildings. The Public Archives has 17 buildings for storage,

May 22, 1987

and 75 per cent of the documents are actually stored in substandard spaces. This means, in the case of flooding, that documents have been destroyed and others are deteriorating so they will be useless in the future.
If we as Canadians have any respect for ourselves, for our history, and the right of future generations to understand it, we need adequate space for our archives. In short, if we believe in Canada, we must find the means for acquiring a new archives building.


CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, each year the Northwest Territories and Yukon import from the southern provinces over one million dozen eggs.
What happens when citizens of this part of Canada try to establish their own industry? I will tell you what happens, Sir. CEMA, the southern egg cartel, stomps down on them and tries to crush out this initiative. The Territories are refused a quota. Not only that, CEMA seeks court injunctions to prevent territorial eggs being shipped from one part of the Territories to another part on a road that goes through a province.
This constraint to trade and infringement on the freedom of Canadians is unacceptable. The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency is an affront to liberty, and ought to be disbanded forthwith.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians became aware today that an inadvertent mistake appears to have happened whereby booklets published under contract by the Department of Supply and Services for the Immigration Department had an ad soliciting funds for the Conservative Party of Ontario.
While I accept the explanation given in this House by the Minister as being accurate, I would call upon the Minister to make an appropriate statement after Question Period in order to assure all Canadians, Members of this House as well, particularly the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) and I, that, in fact, no examples of these booklets were distributed to potential candidates for immigration, either here in Canada or abroad.
I feel that the House deserves such an explanation from the Minister and I invite her to take but a few minutes after Question Period in order to make such a statement.


NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I had the pleasure of visiting a small community in my constituency by the name of Elgin, in Albert County. Elgin is famous for maple syrup, blueberries, and experienced citizens. The reason for my visit was to meet with a group of people who belong to the 50 Plus Club and provide them with a grant under the New Horizons Program so they could continue with their community work.
The good citizens of Elgin are blessed with an extraordinary amount of good common sense. Since my return to Ottawa they have written me and I would like to share with you the words of Florence Wall, the President of the 50 Plus Club in Elgin, New Brunswick. In her last paragraph she wrote:
Again may we thank you and wish you and your Party continued success in the
good work you are doing to keep Canada a place we are all proud to call home.


HARBOURS AND PORTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in its confusion and bungling the Conservative Government tries to pretend the problems it faces are the fault of the Opposition in the House of Commons. The fact is that the Cabinet has not been able to establish priorities.
For over two months the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) has had proposals before Cabinet dealing with small craft harbours and second phase funding for salmonoid enhancement. Yet Cabinet has not reached a decision. In the meantime our small craft harbours continue to deteriorate. Department officials say $120 million is needed each year to maintain them. This year the Government allocated only $48 million. If this continues, officials warn, dozens of small communities will lose their docking facilities in the next few years.
In the 1984 election the Conservatives promised a properly funded salmonoid enhancement program. They increased licence fees for fishermen to help fund the program but it is stalled in Cabinet.

May 22, 1987
Oral Questions
If the Government wants to regain the confidence of [DOT] <ll20)
Canadians it must get its priorities straight and eliminate the
log-jams in Cabinet.	ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


SCIENCE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a very important event that is taking place this week in the riding of Ottawa-Vanier. I am referring to the annual conference of the Association canadienne-franqaise pour I'avancement des sciences being held at the University of Ottawa. This science conference is important to ensure the continued existence of the French language as a living force in the world of science. We all know how important English is as a language of work and communications in this area. We must promote the use of French in science. For instance, only 5 per cent of the articles published by the National Research Council in 13 scientific journals are in French. This must change. ACFAS, at conferences like the one being held this week, has shown it is possible to do high quality scientific work in French. I want to congratulate and pay tribute to all francophone researchers and wish them a cordial welcome and a pleasant stay with us in Ottawa-Vanier.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to an answer the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gave yesterday in response to a question posed by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). He was taking credit for jobs created in Canada and said the Hon. Member's statement was false. He went on to say:
Some 46 per cent of the jobs created were in Ontario, 28 per cent in Quebec, 22 per cent in western Canada, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, the "and so on" is Atlantic Canada. The three regions that he referred to add up to 96 per cent of the jobs. "And so on" only got 4 per cent of the jobs. If the Prime Minister is going to continue to ignore Atlantic Canada 1 wish he would at least admit that and make mention of it in his answers to questions in the House.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AMERICAN INVESTMENT IN CANADIAN INDUSTRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. For the past three days I have been trying to obtain an answer from the Government as to who was speaking on its behalf with regard to the wide open request made by the United States for American takeovers of Canadian industry.
Simon Reisman, our chief negotiator, is quoted as saying, and I am going to use his words, "-the U.S. side has made it very clear at every level, Presidential, Secretary to Secretary, and at the negotiating table, that they are anxious to talk about investment in the broadest sense". Those are his words as reported in a story filed by Terry Wills of the Montreal Gazette of May 21.
Yet the Minister for International Trade said yesterday that that simply was not true. In response to me yesterday in the House of Commons the Prime Minister said, yes, the President had raised the issue with him, then no, the issue had not been raised with him, all within two answers as recorded in Hansard.
Has the Prime Minister briefed the Minister for International Trade on what the President of the United States had to say to him on the issue of American takeover of Canadian industry and opening up the investment rules? If so, would he explain to the House who is speaking on behalf of the Government?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition made a false charge in the House yesterday when he used the word "unfettered". He had the grace to correct that false charge. He has now made another false charge with regard to the statements of the Prime Minister reported in yesterday's Hansard. I hope he will have the grace to withdraw that false charge.
I hope also, Mr. Speaker, that in the interest of ensuring that this House is able to deal with facts, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues will deal with facts and will not try to create fears or enter falsehoods into the record of the House of Commons.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the words which I have just quoted from Simon Reisman are accurate and also that Hansard bears out the ambiguity of the Prime Minister's responses to me yesterday. I will leave that to every Member of the House to judge.
May 22, 1987


INVESTMENT-INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT WILL NOT REVEAL PUBLICLY WHAT IT IS WILLING TO GIVE TO AMERICANS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister for International Trade met with provincial Trade Ministers who urged her not to give in to the United States and its demands for greater freedom and latitude in taking over Canadian industries.
Even the provincial Governments are aware of U.S. demands in this respect, but the Minister said yesterday that the federal Cabinet had not been informed.
Why does the Government refuse to tell the House and the Canadian people that it is ready to give in to the Americans as far as investment in Canada is concerned?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, another falsehood by the Leader of the Official Opposition. I realize the Liberal Party is desperate, but I trust that in future, the Leader of the Official Opposition will talk about facts and not bandy about the kind of falsehoods we have just heard.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the President talked about the interest of the Americans in the investment question. The Leader of the Official Opposition claimed that the request was for unfettered and wide-open access. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, both allegations by the Leader of the Opposition are false.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, how about the words "in the broadest sense"? Those are Mr. Reisman's words and the words I used are certainly parallel to those.


Mr. McDermid:: Nonsense.


John Napier Turner: They certainly are. Every statement I have quoted can be backed up by a tape.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister contradicted herself. First she said to journalists that the issue had not been raised, a few moments later she said the door is wide open, then she said it was up to the Americans to raise the issue if they wanted to, and then she said she would not consider it. I can give the Right Hon. Minister all those words. They are not falsehoods at all. They are out of the mouth of his colleague. In these circumstances, can you blame Canadians for being confused because the Government of Canada itself is confused? If the Minister is in this benign mood this morning, will he tell us who is speaking for the Government of Canada and what is the position of the Government of Canada?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition does not have to convince me that the words uttered by my colleagues are not falsehoods. We all know that. We also know that they are consistent, the statements of the Minister for International Trade and other Ministers are consistent.
The falsehoods have been uttered by the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Essex-Windsor and by others in the House.
The situation is that the Americans are interested in discussing investment. We are prepared to consider their specific proposals to discuss investment once we have received them in final form. If they are acceptable to Canada, we are prepared to negotiate on that basis. If they are not acceptable to Canada we are not prepared to negotiate on that basis.
We intend to maintain in place protections for vital Canadian interests, as has been made clear by my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, and by the Prime Minister.
I remind the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that all nations, including the United States, have very significant barriers to investment. For example, in the United States, in some 22 of those States, these are state actions, not simply national actions, which limit investment. We intend to make the Americans aware of that.
The only people whom I have heard talking about unfettered rights of investment in Canada by Americans are the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. That might be their policy, but it is not ours.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO CANADIAN NEGOTIATOR
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who said that the Americans have not yet raised the matter. Mr. Reisman, our trade negotiator, is quoted in yesterday's newspapers as saying that the United States is anxious to talk about investment in the broadest sense and, in fact, the matter was raised by the President himself, Secretary of State Shultz, and Secretary of the Treasury, James Baker.
In other words, Mr. Reisman, a man with a very distinguished record, has said that the Americans have already raised these matters about broadening the acceptance of investment in this country. Is Mr. Reisman correct in what he says and, if so, did the Government tell the President, Secretary Shultz and Secretary Baker that we are not interested in broadening the terms of investment and entrenching it in a free trade deal?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is now trying to wiggle away from the words and accusations that were made by his Leader and himself. The record is there.

May 22, 1987
Oral Questions
The Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry will not be able to wiggle away from it.
I will repeat what I said a moment ago. The President and other American officials, and as the Prime Minister said in the Elouse yesterday, have indicated an interest in investment. I am current with all of the debates and all of the exchanges that have taken place. To my knowledge, at no time did anyone suggest unfettered, wide open investment in Canada; anyone, except the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. They might want unfettered American investment in Canada; that is not our position.


Lloyd Axworthy: I simply remind the Secretary of State that those were not our words, but the words of the chief trade negotiator for Canada, Mr. Reisman, who said that the Americans want to raise the question of investment in its broadest sense.


UNITED STATES REPORT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that he is current with everything that is going on. He is probably aware of the report on foreign trade barriers put out last fall by the office of the U.S. trade representative, describing the bilateral negotiations with the United States. It says:
The United States has urged Canada to liberalize the Investment Canada
Act-
It goes on to talk about the areas, such as culture, energy and resources. It states:
The United States will raise its concerns on Canada's treatment of foreign
investment during bilateral free trade negotiations.
My assertion is that the Americans themselves have already said that the matters have been raised and they are asking for liberalization. Having this on the public record, would it not be the proper position of this Government-and it had the opportunity this morning-to simply say that we are not prepared to have foreign investment raised as part of these negotiations other than trade related, that we will not agree to any broadening of the investment package? Why will the Secretary of State for External Affairs not say that now? Why has he refused? Or is in fact the Government preparing to give in and cave in once again?


Charles Joseph Clark: Just so we are clear about this, Mr. Speaker, the word "unfettered", which is false, was not our word. It was the word of the Liberal Party. It is false.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: You sound like a parrot, a broken record.


Charles Joseph Clark: The word "wide-open" which was used by the Liberal Party, and which is false, is not our language. It is the Liberal Party's language.
What has happened, as I have said twice today and as the Prime Minister said yesterday, is that the United States has indicated in general terms an interest in having investment discussed. During the last set of negotiations involving Ambassador Reisman and Ambassador Murphy, there was an oral elaboration by the United States on some of the matters in which it is interested, none of which is unfettered access, none of which constitute wide open access, none of which constitute the kinds of interest that is being used falsely to raise fears by the Liberal Party and by its socialist friends in the House of Commons.
When we have a concrete idea of what it is the Americans are interested in discussing, that will be considered by the Cabinet of Canada and we will then consider whether or not it is in the interests of Canada for our negotiator to proceed with negotiations and consideration of those concrete proposals.


NON-TRADE RELATED INVESTMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly good to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs in such a good mood this morning.
I want to pursue the same subject. As the Minister knows, up to the present the talks on trade in terms of investment have always been restricted to trade related investment. Mr. Reisman has said not once but twice that he has conveyed directly to the Cabinet that the United States wanted to go beyond trade related investment. The Prime Minister, to whom the Minister just alluded, said in the House yesterday: "Now it is wide open investment pursuant to trade related investment which has always been the case". So the Prime Minister is saying that it is restricted to trade related matters, surely, which contradicts what Mr. Reisman is saying. Will the Government now be very clear on this? Is non-trade related investment on the negotiating table with the Americans?


Charles Joseph Clark: Is non-trade related investment on the table?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Charles Joseph Clark: First of all, let me welcome the Leader of the New Democratic Party back from the Province of Quebec. I sincerely hope he has been able to seek to heal the deep breach in his Party on the Meech Lake Accord.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Once he has done that I hope he will turn his attention to the deep breach in his Party on trade questions, the deep breach in his Party on NATO, the deep breach in his Party on NORAD, the deep breach in his Party on other questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Mazankowski:: Cuddle up a little closer, Lloyd.
May 22, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the Right Hon. Minister could conclude the answer to the question.


John Edward Broadbent: Go ahead, Joe, have another go at it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is the answer I gave to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Which was no answer.


Jacques Guilbault: Stonewalling.


John Edward Broadbent: I might be tempted to refer to the breach between the Minister's ears, but I won't.


Mr. Nystrom:: Irreparable.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: The Minister, both in his earlier answers and now, is trying to avoid answering by hurling abuse at the Opposition. That game won't count with the people of Canada, I want to tell the Minister right now.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That's why you are in third place.


John Edward Broadbent: That is exactly why you have dropped down to third place, this kind of snickering, snide evasiveness, that's it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that all Hon. Members would want the Hon. Member for Oshawa to put his question succinctly and clearly and I am sure other Hon. Members would want to hear the Minister respond in exactly the same way.


John Edward Broadbent: If the Minister would control his miasma and answer a straight question, I will give him a straight question.
Does the Minister agree with Mr. Reisman that the Americans have now requested to talk about investment that is not related to trade matters and that he has conveyed that to the Cabinet? Or does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister who said that all the Cabinet is aware of is discussions about trade related investment? On what side of the interesting approach to the truth is the Minister?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not hurling abuse, I am simply drawing the attention of Canadians to a political Party which says one thing on the Meech Lake Agreement in the House of Commons and has its Quebec Party say the exact opposite. That is what I am doing.


John Edward Broadbent: There's a guy who really believes in federalism. I can't believe it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, I believe in federalism, and I believe federalism requires a national Party-
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: -to say the same thing in both languages in all parts of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If I may repeat what I said to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry-


John Horton McDermid: Do it slowly.


Charles Joseph Clark: And I will do it very slowly so that the New Democratic Party Leader can understand and can take notes so he can telephone his Members about it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: What has happened is that there have been proposals-there have been suggestions made by the President of the United States, and by others, indicating their general interest in having investment discussed. We have indicated to them that if they have proposals to make, we look forward to receiving them and we will then judge them once we have received them.
At the last meeting of the negotiators there was an oral indication-not a written indication, an oral indication-by the United States negotiator as to some of the details of what they are interested in, none of which goes so far, anywhere near so far as the false impressions left in the House of Commons by the two opposition Parties.
The process now, as the Leader of the NDP might know, would be that the chief negotiator will make a formal recommendation to the cabinet committee. The cabinet committee will consider whether we want to give to the negotiator the mandate to deal with those issues. We will make that judgment on the basis of Canada's best interest. That, of course, will not conclude the matter. The Cabinet of Canada would retain the right to approve or to reject and, indeed, to oversee and to approve or reject throughout the process anything which might be discussed by the negotiator at the table.


John Edward Broadbent: It has only taken a half hour to get that one fact out of the Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: I gave it to Lloyd.


INQUIRY CONCERNING AMERICAN INTEREST
John Edward Broadbent: We now know that the Government is in fact considering broadening the range of discussion about investment. Once again he has yielded to what the Americans wanted. Will the Minister at least share with the House of Commons the areas requested by the Americans that they want to be put on the table for discussion? Will he at least tell the people of Canada that?


Charles Joseph Clark: From the beginning of this debate when it became clear that the socialist Party had taken an ideological position

May 22, 1987
Oral Questions
to oppose the trade negotiations, it has been seeking to have us reveal the details of the negotiation on the floor of the House of Commons.


John Edward Broadbent: Have a good week-end, Joe. Take a rest.


Charles Joseph Clark: That, obviously, would give away our capacity to make a good deal for Canada. That might be the way Socialists negotiate. That is not the way this Government is going to negotiate, or seek to negotiate a trade arrangement with the United States which can secure Canadian jobs which are now being lost and which could open new opportunities for Canadian industries which need them.


John Edward Broadbent: Have a good week-end, Joe.


ORAL INDICATION GIVEN BY UNITED STATES NEGOTIATOR
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just admitted that in the last meeting between the United States and Canadian trade negotiators, the United States trade negotiator gave an oral indication as to some of the details of what they are interested in with respect to investment in Canada.
I want to ask the Minister to use this opportunity to tell the House and Canadians exactly what was said by the American negotiator in these oral indications.
We are not asking for the Canadian position. We want to know what the Americans are asking for.
Can he tell us today what that is? Give us a straight answer for a change.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition, and I know that he knows about negotiations. I know that he would understand that we could not expect to have a successful negotiation were we to reveal all of our negotiating positions on the floor of the House of Commons. He would also know that we cannot reveal what the other side is putting on the table and expect not to reveal what we are putting on the table. We cannot publicize half of the process, without leading to a situation which would lead, inexorably, to the publicizing of the whole process.
That would damage Canadian interests, and I am sure the House Leader of the Official Opposition would not want that to happen.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO CANADIAN NEGOTIATOR
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the Government is so worried about prejudicing the negotiations- negotiations which so far do not seem to be in the best interests of Canada-why is the chief negotiator going public?
We are raising this subject because of the words used by the chief negotiator, who said that the Americans are calling for "broad investment access to Canada".
Why is there this inconsistency between what he is saying now and what the chief negotiator has said? Why can't he tell us whether the Americans asked that culture be on the table; whether they asked that resources be on the table; whether they asked that this Government unravel its already weak Investment Canada Act?
I ask him again: Give us some straight answers for a change.


Charles Joseph Clark: Just to set the record straight again, the House Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues have not been quoting in this House the words used by the chief negotiator, until today. They were using language to create false impressions, language that was false, and the record in that regard, I think, should be clear.
Our position on culture is known. We are not going to trade away Canadian culture.
Our position on official languages and other fundamental interests in this country is known. It has been the subject of debate in this House for some time.
I do not propose-and I know the House Leader of the Official Opposition would not seriously ask me to do so-to reveal, detail by detail, what is under discussion at the negotiating table, because that would be the way to subvert and destroy the negotiations.


An Hon. Member:: And that is exactly what they want.


Charles Joseph Clark: I hope that that is not what the Liberal Party wants. 1 know that that is what the socialist Party wants. It is not what this Government wants.


ORAL REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY UNITED STATES NEGOTIATOR
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of External Affairs. Since he has indicated to the House that there have been these oral representations clearly made, since he has indicated, as well, that, as a cabinet Minister, clearly these have been communicated to him by the chief trade negotiator, is it not the responsibility of the Government of this country, which is now looking at widening the mandate of the trade talks, to come out and say so clearly to the Canadian people, so that they know what the points are that the Americans want to talk about?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility as a Cabinet to consider proposals that are put forward by the Americans in this negotiation, and to consider them in the context of the Canadian national interest.
May 22, 1987

There has been an oral indication. There will be a consideration by Cabinet of what exactly the Americans are looking for once we know, with absolute precision, what it is the Americans are looking for.
We will carry out our responsibility as the Cabinet of Canada, responsible to this Elouse and responsible, ultimately, to the people of the country, to oversee the negotiations and to protect the Canadian interests.
If individual Canadians want to have some easy guideline as to what the Americans are asking for, the best advice I can give them is never pay attention to, or give credibility to, the representations of the Elon. Member.


Steven W. Langdon: I thank the Minister. A compliment from the Minister is bound to come in the form of an insult.


MANDATE TO CONDUCT NEGOTIATIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Let me ask the
Minister this. If this Government made a determination that it was right to take the country into trade negotiations with an existing mandate, a mandate set out very clearly, why is the Government now prepared to look at changing that mandate, widening it, and giving the United States something further without getting anything in return?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to engage in insults. What I am-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: So that the record is clear, the reason I made the comment I did, Mr. Speaker, is that I have paid close attention to the outrageous and false things the Hon. Member has said about the trade negotiations, and no one who wants to have a reasonable understanding about what is going on should be misled by those unreasonable and false statements that he has been making.
Let me just be clear about what I thought everybody in the House knew about a negotiation: a negotiation is not a static thing. Naturally, there is going to be some movement in the negotiations. There are some matters on which we want movement from the United States that will be proposed before the end of the negotiations. There have been matters proposed since the negotiations began by both sides.
That is in the nature of a negotiation. That would be understood by a Party that was not determined from the outset to sabotage and subvert the trade negotiations, as the Socialist Party has, and is.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if we understood the answers of the right hon. gentleman to the questions of both the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and the Member for Oshawa, the question being whether the Government would consider an American
Oral Questions
request to negotiate investment beyond trade related issues, he responded in the affirmative.
Yesterday the same question was put to his colleague, the Minister for International Trade, and she responded in these terms:
"If the Americans want to go beyond trade-related investment areas, it is up to
them to indicate what they want," she said.
The journalist then asked: "Does that mean you would be willing to consider it?", to which the reply was-and I read from a Canadian Press article:
"No!" Miss Carney replied loudly. "I am getting really annoyed. You are
trying to exterpolate things that I don't say."
Would he over the week-end, once he has had a chance to reflect and perhaps calm down and return to his usual benign mood, talk to his colleague and the Prime Minister and give us, on Monday, what the position of the Government is?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have given to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition what the position of the Government is. He is quoting a journalist. I trust my colleague didn't use the word "exterpolate"; I have not known her to use a word like that before.


An Hon. Member:: Not in public.


Charles Joseph Clark: Not in public. I will check the rest of the record.


An Hon. Member:: It must be a falsehood.


Lloyd Axworthy: There is nothing dirty about that. Is it against the new pornography Bill?


Charles Joseph Clark: So that the Leader of the Opposition can have some confidence, the position of the Government is as I stated it today and as it has been stated by the Minister for International Trade and by the Prime Minister.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is two positions.


John Napier Turner: We have a patchwork quilt now, and we will try to put that together over the weekend, Mr. Speaker. I say that his colleague not only used the word "exterpolate", she probably understands what it means.


MEETING OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL TRADE MINISTERS
John Napier Turner: want to put a further question to the Minister. His colleague met yesterday with her provincial counterparts, with the provincial Trade Ministers. Did she describe to them the nature of the American request to broaden these trade negotiations relating to investment? And if she did, what did she tell them; and if she described in some detail what the Americans had in mind, would he share those thoughts with the House of Commons, so that Members of Parliament as

May 22, 1987
Oral Questions
well as the provincial Governments may know what is going on?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr Speaker, while we are on the subject of patchwork quilts, may I congratulate the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition on his appointment of himself as his Party's spokesman on external affairs and foreign policy.
The Minister for International Trade had discussions with her provincial counterparts yesterday. She is keeping them up to date with the process of the negotiations.
As the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will know, this is an entirely new step, a new process, and indeed a major institutional change in Canadian practice, because in the past, when he was involved in international trade negotiations, the provinces were shut out.
They are not shut out under this Government.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall recognize the Hon. Member for Oshawa in a moment.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. ALEXANDRE SAMBAT, MINISTER OF EDUCATION OF REPUBLIC OF GABON
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our Gallery today of Mr. Alexandre Sambat, Minister of Education of the Republic of Gabon.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM AUSTRALIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Speaker:: I am also pleased to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the Gallery today of a parliamentary delegation from the Australian House of Representatives, led by Mr. Barry Cunningham.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-SCOPE OF INVESTMENT DISCUSSIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue this interesting line of answers which we are getting from the Minister.
Yesterday the Prime Minister contradicted Simon Reisman and, if I heard the Minister correctly today, he has just contradicted the Prime Minister. He has just acknowledged that on non-trade related investment the Cabinet has been informed that the Americans want to talk about it, and the Canadian Government is waiting to hear more specifics on it.
The Prime Minister said yesterday, in reply to a question, that this wasn't the case. He said that what is on the table "is wide open investment pursuant to trade-related investment which has always been the case".
According to the Prime Minister, the discussions are still being restricted to trade-related investment. According to the Minister today, the scope is being broadened. Who is telling the truth in the House of Commons?


Charles Joseph Clark: The falsehood that is being attempted in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, is the attempt to pretend a difference exists between what the Prime Minister said and what I have said. I ask-I won't get into a long debate about it now; the Leader of the New Democratic Party can read. He can take a look at Hansard yesterday-


John Edward Broadbent: I just did.


Charles Joseph Clark: -and Hansard again today indicating my remarks.
Here is the situation. Trade-related investment measures are on the table now. There is a mandate for the negotiator to discuss them. There has been an oral suggestion by the United States, as I have repeated four or five times in this House today, that some other matters should be looked at. They are not yet on the table. They might never be on the table. We in the Cabinet have not yet received a formal, precise indication of what it is the Americans are interested in. Once we receive that, we will consider it-if we give the negotiator-and if it is not in Canada's interest, we will reject it.
Then, after that process is finished, we will indicate to the negotiator what mandate he has at the table. That is the situation. I have described it three or four times today. For those who want to understand it, it is quite clear.


ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM UNITED STATES NEGOTIATOR
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have what may be the last question on this today. I should like to ask the Minister, on this oral communication that was received, could he tell us if the Cabinet and the Prime Minister were informed of this oral communication before yesterday's Question Period?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Prime-the Leader of the Opposition-excuse me, I am getting ahead of himself.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party knows that there is a long-standing practice regarding the confidentiality of matters-
May 22, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: No, no-that come before a Cabinet-that question invites me to break-


John Edward Broadbent: I know the answer now.


Charles Joseph Clark: -asks me to break those rules. The socialist Party have shown a quite consistent contempt for the rules of this House, but I don't want to encourage them in it.


PROPOSED PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM BY AMOCO CANADA-BIDDERS' AGREEMENT
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said many times that in the agreement between Amoco Canada and Dome Petroleum there is the right for other potential bidders to make bids as long as Dome Petroleum does not solicit the bids.
However, at least one of the potential bidders and I think as many as four, including Amoco, have signed confidentiality agreements in order to obtain evaluation material.
One of the requirements of this confidentiality agreement is that a bidder cannot make a bid until the bid has the prior approval of Dome Petroleum.
How can we have other bids when under the confidentiality agreement Dome Petroleum must give prior approval to the bids, but that is soliciting, and under the memorandum of agreement Dome Petroleum cannot solicit other bids?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add to the response that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has given. I think he has been quite clear. Dome may not solicit competing offers but certainly has to consider them if they are presented.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: It is continually not coming to grips with the question.


MINISTER OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS-MEETING WITH AMOCO CANADA REPRESENTATIVES
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister another question. On May 12 he said, relating to the agreement between Dome and Amoco, "they are in a position to make a decision", referring to the shareholders, and "when it is made and the proposal is presented to the Government of Canada, it will be examined in the nornial course as it relates to Investment Canada, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and all other mechanisms in place for that purpose".
Oral Questions
Why did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in light of what the Deputy Prime Minister has said and in light of the comments of the Minister of Energy that this is now in the private sector until it comes to Investment Canada, meet with representatives of Amoco Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I don't know, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is suggesting that elected representatives of the Calgary area are not free to meet with people in the energy sector.
I mean, what is this country coming to? When is a Member of Parliament not able to represent the interests of his constituents by meeting representatives of an energy sector which is very vital and very important?
If the Hon. Member is suggesting that because I may represent a farming district or I might be a farmer myself I cannot take an interest in farm problems, then we are really heading down a slippery slope to chaos in this country.


REASON FOR MEETING WITH MINISTER
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on this matter for the Deputy Prime Minister, and I ask him: Let's not be naive about this matter.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said yesterday that he had met with Amoco, senior executives of Amoco, on the Dome takeover. If it is government policy that the Government has a hands-off approach in this deal, why is it necessary for Amoco to come and lobby the Government, and why is it necessary for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and perhaps other Ministers, to meet with Amoco?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker-


John Horton McDermid: Just stand up and make your charges.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the co-operation of all Hon. Members at the moment to keep their remarks to themselves.
The Chair is in a difficult position, and I know that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway understands that, as does the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. Also I want Hon. Members to understand clearly the difficulty the Chair is in, and I want the public to understand it, because this is a place where vigorous free speech must be defended.
My difficulty is that yesterday, on a matter raised by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, questions which the Chair allowed, a question of privilege has been raised by the Hon. Minister. There was an extensive discussion with respect to whether or not the question asked of the Minister yesterday was appropriate or had indeed infringed against the privileges of the Minister, and some Members went on to suggest that it had gone further than that.

May 22, 1987
Oral Questions
I have not brought down a ruling on that matter yet, as the Elon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway knows, and I regret that I have not been able to do so by this morning. However, I assure the Hon. Member that it is not because of any intention to delay.
An Hon. Member was in somewhat the same position some weeks ago on another matter where a question of privilege was raised and then the next day questions were again asked on the same point. At that time I said that I felt it was not appropriate to continue with those questions at that time until the ruling had come down.
Given the circumstances and given that fact, I want to assure the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway and other Hon. Members who are interested in this issue that I will strive mightily to have a ruling first thing on Tuesday morning. In the meantime, I would ask the co-operation of Hon. Members in respecting the position of the Chair, and to respect the fact that the very propriety of these questions is the subject matter of the dispute which I heard yesterday and on which I must decide.
I am not in any way indicating how I will rule on Tuesday morning, but I would ask that Hon. Members understand the position that we are in in this Chamber.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I will put my supplementary question carefully in order to get the balance between respecting the Chair and the Opposition's right to ask questions in a free and democratic society.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That is a reflection on the Chair.


Charles Joseph Clark: More contempt on the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who is responsible for the conflict of interest guidelines. In the opinion of the Deputy Prime Minister, does he consider it a conflict or even an appearance of conflict-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -when a Minister of the Crown who will be-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Edward Broadbent: Listen to the question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Speaker can rule on my question when I have finished it. I will not be silent on this matter.


An Hon. Member:: Come on, Waddell.


Mr. Daubney:: Have some respect.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a particularly easy matter for Members or the Chair, but it will be easier for all if Members leave it to the Chair to decide. I will hear the question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will repeat the question, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to the conflict of interest guidelines, broadly, for which the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible, in his opinion does he consider it a conflict or even an appearance of conflict when a Minister of the Crown who will be participating in an important national decision has on his or her riding executive as a fund-raiser a senior official of one of the companies which will be affected by such an important national decision?


Mr. Speaker:: The question may or may not, of course, be hypothetical and that is a matter for the Minister to comment on if, in fact, the Minister does want to comment on it.
I do want to point out to Hon. Members that the question we have just heard is not the same question as that put yesterday. It is a question of general application. To the degree that it is, I will allow it to stand. The Hon. Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Hon. Member made reference to an apparent conflict of interest. I certainly do not want to make any comment on that because it may very well reflect upon the admonition you have given in the House.
Suffice it to say that I consider this to be a normal political process. As I understand it, representatives have met with all Calgary area Members of Parliament. They have a vital interest in the energy sector, as the Hon. Leader of the NDP would have a vital interest in the automobile sector.


John Edward Broadbent: We are not making the decision, Don.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sure he from time to time receives representations from that sector in the discharge of his duties as a Member of Parliament for the Oshawa area, as does the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre who represents a farming area. I am sure if Hon. Members are going to be prevented from discharging their responsibilities and obligations as Members of Parliament-


John Edward Broadbent: He is a Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -then we have a really serious problem in this country that has to be dealt with.


John Edward Broadbent: I agree.


Mr. Fulton:: You guys don't know right from wrong.


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell Harney.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the co-operation, which I know I will receive, from all Hon. Members on this matter. I would
May 22, 1987

ask that the matter be left aside now and the Chair can return with a ruling on it. I want to assure Hon. Members that the Chair is very conscious of the undoubted right of the Opposition to seek information; in fact, it is the undoubted duty of the Opposition.


John Edward Broadbent: Right.


Mr. Speaker:: I am also very aware that this is a place of free speech. However, we have our rules. As I say, I am now in the midst of a process where a question of privilege has arisen out of questions asked. That is a matter that I must decide. I shall decide it as quickly as I can and return to the House with that decision.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


FREE TRADE-GOVERNMENT JUSTIFICATION FOR PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the advertising campaign on free trade that is costing us about $12 million, a campaign to try and convince Canadians that the Government of Canada has acted in their interests by giving away Canada's sovereignty to foreign investors. How does the Government intend to justify wasting money on this folder and distributing it in shopping centres, a publication that is full of exaggerated statements? How can it justify this propaganda at a time when spending cut-backs are affecting people who are desperately in need of funds? How can the Government justify this kind of publication at a time when its mandate is still far from certain, when it has nothing to show for its efforts and the talks are still going on? How can it justify this utter waste of money?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I know this is part of the Liberal campaign to spread half-truths and no truths. The Hon. Member this morning said on CBC that this pamphlet in front of us is clearly erroneous. He went on to say that there was no consultative process before the agreement was made in 1985 to proceed with the negotiations.
The former Minister of Trade issued a White Paper and went across this country for months consulting with the provinces and with the private sector. There was a parliamentary committee that spent time looking at the White Paper and made a report to Parliament before the decision was made.
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: And recommended against it.


John Horton McDermid: For heaven's sake, the Member is telling half-truths. What he is saying is absolutely false and he is going around the country spreading false information about this brochure.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary should have listened to the interview instead of getting somebody else who couldn't memorize it trying to repeat it to him.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again for the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the shopping bag stuffer that he offered to Canadians yesterday.
The previous Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said as reported in Hansard, that there will be no more geese flying into the sunset. If it was wrong to have geese flying into the sunset in the name of national unity, what is so right about the turkeys on the other side walking across the U.S. border in a fog in the name of free trade? What is so right about that policy?


John Horton McDermid: It is too bad George Baker isn't here today.


John Napier Turner: And that Crosbie is not here either.


John Horton McDermid: Pardon me, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate.
As I go through this very excellent publication which provides information on the trade negotiations which Canadians have been requesting, I do not see a goose or a turkey in here but I see a lot of very important information which Canadians have been asking for and which they are going to receive.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: We see turkeys over there.


John Horton McDermid: I notice that the Canadian Labour Congress has put out a fancy brochure opposing it. Why doesn't the Hon. Member stand up and talk about that as well?


Mr. Speaker:: The last question will be by the Hon. Member for Levis.

May 22, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Langdon



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Mir. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. On May 20, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides directed a question to the Minister of Public Works, seeking to know why certain Quebec firms had not been given an opportunity to bid on contracts related to computer technology and French teaching to the Canadian military. Among others, he referred to Matrox, DIL International and Technogram. The Minister of Public Works replied that an investigation was under way. Can the Minister tell us what this investigation was all about and, if indeed there was an ongoing investigation, what are the findings?
Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising this question since it enables me to shed light on this contract award. Never was there any question of launching an investigation into the award of this $700,000 contract because it is very much in keeping with our purchasing policy. There was a tender call, 17 firms were asked for bids, including eight from Quebec. Unfortunately the eight Quebec firms decided not to bid and, as a Quebecer, I regret that.
With respect to the suppliers mentioned in Le Devoir, these companies did not care to register on my Department's list of suppliers.
One last comment, Mr. Speaker. 1 would simply remind the House and the people who may be listening to us that anyone who wants to deal with the federal Government should first register on the list of suppliers. The Chicoutimi firm thought it was adding its name to our list when it filled in a Statistics Canada questionnaire. Would anyone having filled in a census questionnaire have the impression that his or her income tax return has been completed? I suggest that one should be serious and register properly if one wants to do business and land contracts.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that I have a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon).



USE OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE-ALLEGED FALSEHOODS

Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to register my concern over the number of statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) accusing me of uttering falsehoods in the House of Commons. First, it is my understanding that is not the type of language which should be used in the House. Second, it is my understanding also that one must do what one can in raising questions on behalf of one's constituents without such language being used in an attempt to attack one.
I therefore respectfully request the Speaker to refer the question of whether falsehoods have been uttered in the course of questions this week, and I assume that is the allegation from the way the Minister put his position; I would like that question referred to the appropriate committee or have the Minister withdraw his comments. I think it is possible to have critical debate in this House without descending to that level.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my support to a reference of this question to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. We have reached a new point of allegations of falsehoods being made, in this case by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) against my Leader and several other Members. Whether or not the technical use of that word in the past has been considered by previous Speakers to be appropriate, its repetitive use against Member after Member asking questions takes it to a new level. I urge you to have this matter referred to that committee so we can look at a new way of treating questions in the House of Commons; decide whether we agree with what has taken place and whether we want this to be continued by Ministers in their answers or, indeed, Members in their questions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important question and 1 am pleased that it has been raised by members of the Opposition. We all know that Canadians take their view of reality, at least some Canadians, from some of what is said on the floor of the House of Commons. If statements that are not true are frequently repeated in the House there is the danger that the Canadian public watching television will come to believe something is true when it is not. A complication in this case, of course, is that at least one of the Parties in the House, the socialist Party, has been quite consistently seeking to have the Government of Canada reveal the details of its negotiating posture in public in a way that would subvert and undermine the negotiating process.


Mr. Murphy:: Another falsehood.


Mr. Beatty:: Look who is using the word "falsehood" on the other side.
May 22, 1987


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member is trying to achieve that result now by an indirect means. Obviously if the matter were referred to a committee the question might arise requiring the Government of Canada to reveal to the committee our position in the negotiations with the U.S. That would achieve the NDP purpose of subverting the negotiations and would not be in the interests of the House, in my judgment.
My understanding of the rules of this place is that one cannot attribute to Members of the House of Commons a deliberate attempt to mislead. I am not sure if it is deliberate. I have not made that accusation. What I can say, Sir, knowing the facts, is that statements have been repeatedly made this week by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Lang-don) and other Members of the House of Commons that are false. If I did not describe them as false Canadians might believe they are true. They are not true. I should not be prevented by the rules of the House of Commons from letting Canadians know that statements that are made which they might accept as true are in fact false.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has raised a very useful point for you to consider. I suppose you might well be advised that technically we are dealing with a point of order rather than a question of privilege. However, that is not really the question.
The question is whether the language used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is unparliamentary and has to be withdrawn. Frankly, there is evidence to support the argument of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor and the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) that the language used by the Minister is unparliamentary. For example, if you look in Beauchesne's it lists words which have been found to be parliamentary and words which have been found to be unparliamentary. You will see on page 107 that apparently a Speaker ruled on December 3, 1976, at page 1640 of Hansard that the word "falsehood" is unparliamentary. However, to be fair, I have to say there is also a ruling in the other direction, about the same period of time.
Therefore, I invite you to carefully review what was said by the Minister and look at the precedents, including this one at page 114, Citation 324:
(1) It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular Members, or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order; much depends upon the tone and manner, and intention, of the person speaking; sometimes upon the person to whom the words are addressed-
And so on.
What I am getting at is that, despite the precedents in question, and even though details have not been set out in Beauchesne's but they are there to be looked at, the matter is not closed. It is open to you to examine the words used by the Minister, not only in light of the precedents based on rulings of your distinguished predecessors but in light of the circumstances. I respectfully submit that, in looking at the context in which the Minister used the word "falsehood", looking at his
Privilege-Mr. Langdon
tone and manner and the other criteria set out in Beauchesne's, it is open to you to find that what the Minister said when he used the word "falsehood" was in fact unparliamentary.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, because I think the point has been made by our side, I would first suggest that the Speaker was following Question Period closely. The evidence of that is that he did interrupt another Hon. Member who was putting a question to remind him to be careful about the subject matter of the question. It should be pointed out that the Speaker, who was following the questions closely, at no time interrupted the Hon. Minister and suggested there was anything unparliamentary in what was said.
I appreciate the House Leader for the Official Opposition bringing forward the fact that the word "falsehood" has been found parliamentary and unparliamentary. That leads me to my next point, which is that in seeking to bring a point of order or a question of privilege my friend from Essex-Windsor was in no way specific about any one phrase or any one sentence which he wishes to use as the foundation for his charge that something is unparliamentary or a question of privilege. Surely one cannot say that all the answers of the Minister today were unparliamentary because they suggested falsehoods. If one wants to lay charges as serious as these one has to be specific and exact in the charge he is trying to make. I think it fails both as a point of order and as a question of privilege.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I did not raise this as a point of order with regard to the question of parliamentary language only, but with regard to the fact that the Minister, at least twice and possibly three times-I will have to check the "blues" to be sure of that-accused me specifically of uttering falsehoods. That seems to me a very clear-cut accusation. If those accusations are to be permitted in the House in the future I think it will take us to a new level of disrespect-


Philip Derek Lewis: You're already there.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: That works both ways.


Steven W. Langdon: -on both sides of the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You had better look at yourself first.


Steven W. Langdon: It will be something we will all live to regret. I think, therefore, that the accusations which have been put quite clearly should be referred to the appropriate committee and that the Minister should be required to justify his statement that I was uttering falsehoods by being brought before that committee and forced to document exactly that which was supposed to be a falsehood which was uttered, unlike, for instance, the very clear statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) yesterday with respect to my city which was completely inaccurate.

May 22, 1987
Statements by Ministers


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, before you hand down your ruling on the use of the word "falsehood" in English and the word faussete in French and whether this constituted unparliamentary language or not, I think there are two aspects to be considered.
First of all, when the Chair examines an incident of this kind to find out whether there was a case of unparliamentary language, it is important to know whether the term was directed to several Members as a group, to a party in general or specifically to one individual. It is clear that in this case, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) directed his comments specifically to the Eton. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and to the Leader of the Opposition.
With respect, I may remind the Chair that these are important considerations.
Furthermore, to determine the intent of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I think it is important to consider the fact that the terms were repeated several times in English and in French.
If the Secretary of State for External Affairs merely wished to get the message across that the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor or the Leader of the Opposition had made statements which in his opinion were not true he did so in more polite terms just a few moments ago when he tried to apologize without altogether doing so he would have used the term once or twice, but in this case, he repeated it eight or 10 times, as we see in Hansard, and he did so in a very accusing tone of voice.
I have to conclude that he was trying to tarnish the reputation of the Leader of the Opposition and that of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor and it is actions of this kind that are traditionally considered to be unparliamentary. Those were my comments, and I hope they will be of some use to the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I will, of course, carefully consider the representations that have been made. I am especially touched by the helpful advice I received from the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) who has very correctly pointed out that it is not just the word, it is the context of the word. There have been different rulings on the same word to be found in the history of procedure of the House of Commons. However, there is a complaint before the House and the Chair will consider it.
Although I am going to reserve on this, I think it is necessary that I do not leave the Chamber with any misunderstanding of the intent of the Right Hon. Minister. I take it from the remarks of the Right Hon. Minister, and I would invite him to comment on what I am going to say if necessary, that it was his intent to say that certain things being said by some other Members were not accurate, and that there was not an intent to say that any inaccuracy was intentionally being bandied
about or used in the debate. There is, of course, a very real difference. The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) might want to make that point absolutely clear before the Chair retires to consider the matter.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that certainly was my intent. Let me also say to you, Sir, as I do not think I need to say, that if my duties carry me away from the House and do not allow me to be present on the day that you make your ruling, if you find that any language of mine has been unparliamentary, I will withdraw, as I have on occasion in the past. I naturally would not anticipate that judgment, but your interpretation of my intent is correct.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Right Hon. gentleman.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House know, an event will take place later today in Vancouver, British Columbia, which marks the end of a world odyssey, an odyssey comparable in achievements to those of other world explorers. Those achievements have graced the pages of history and today a Canadian is being added to that illustrious list. Rick Hansen, welcomed across the world and taken into the hearts and lives of millions, is home at last.
All Members of the House can take pride that our Speaker will be appearing at the Rick Hansen tribute in Vancouver on Saturday representing all of us. This day marks the fulfilment of a dream, a dream that resulted in a remarkable two-year journey around the world. Rick Hansen has demonstrated courage, determination and vision. It is incumbent upon us not only to keep this dream alive but to hasten the day when all disabled Canadians enjoy full and equal participation in Canadian society.
We believe that the public enthusiasm and understanding which has greeted the Man in Motion tour in every region of the country can be harnessed. Together we intend to turn this energy into a positive force.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I am pleased to announce on behalf of the federal Government and particularly my colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie), that the Government will lend its full support to a National Access Awareness Week for disabled persons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 22, 1987


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: This will be an annual event to be held for the first time in 1988. The federal Government, on behalf of Canadians, is pledging its support as a partner in developing and implementing this exciting initiative together with a National Access Awareness Week committee comprised of representatives of disabled persons organizations, labour, business, governments and rehabilitation agencies.
The experience Rick and others have gained confirms our belief that communities working together in partnership with all their members can achieve lasting change. The National Access Awareness Week builds upon that belief and creates an ongoing challenge for the future. I thank Members and all Canadians joining me in this tribute to a great Canadian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, this is a special day in Vancouver, a special day in Canada and, indeed, a special day in the world because Rick Hansen is a world conqueror. Rick Hansen conquered the world and made it smaller and more manageable. Rick Hansen conquered the hearts of Canadians and, indeed, the hearts of people all over the world. Finally, Rick Hansen conquered disability. Because of that, he has done more than any of us can ever do to advance the cause of the disabled.
However, we in this Chamber do have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to see that the dream does not die and that the momentum is not lost.
I welcome the Minister's remarks. I know the generosity of spirit out of which he speaks. I believe that the special week that he has put aside will be an important and significant first step in bringing to the attention of the Canadian people the special situation of disabled people and the necessity of dealing with that.
I also believe that we must do more. I know that the Government gave $1 million to the special fund set up in connection with the Man in Motion tour, but I also know that the budget of the National Medical Research Council has been capped and tied to the private sector. I urge the Minister to take steps to change that and give to the agencies that are doing the research in this important area the necessary tools to do the job.
We know from experience in other areas that there are two requirements we must fulfil as parliamentarians and as a Government to help the disabled. They are money and legislation. I hope that we can put aside funds to aid disabled groups across the country to take affirmative action. I believe that we also need legislation with provisions that not only encourage but demand of the Government and the private sector that they put into practice the principle of affirmative action in hiring the disabled in the workplace. It is not enough to
Petitions
encourage hiring, to promote and monitor it. I believe we need strong legislation to back those objectives.
Permit me to add to the words of my leader earlier today when he said that Rick Hansen is a hero to physically challenged Canadians, young people, us all. We also welcomed him in my area of Canada, at the other end of the country. If I may, I would like to offer Rick Hansen a Newfoundland toast, the hope that the wind will always be in his sails. Rick Hansen, long may your big jib draw.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is a great day for Canadians, particularly disabled Canadians, and it is an absolutely superlative day for Rick Hansen as he at long last arrives home after some 792 days and 40,000 kilometres. It is an incredible feat for any human being, one in which all Canadians will take immense pride.
Rick has said that he was inspired originally by the wonderful work done by Terry Fox, who Canadians will recall set out to bring hope to those seeking a cure for cancer. Rick Hansen has done what we thought at that time would never be duplicated. What Terry Fox did for cancer, in making us aware of the incessant need for us to do more in getting research into that terrible disease, so Rick has drawn the attention not only of Canadians but the world to the problems of those afflicted by spinal cord damage. He was an inspiration to those of us who met him when he was in Ottawa. Many Members of the House had the occasion to see the courage and, frankly, modesty of the man, and his seriousness of purpose. He is an inspiration with that immediate impact of very fine character.

He did raise funds, of course, and hopefully there will be some progress in research in the near future. However, most Canadian men and women will remember the accomplishment itself, as will people worldwide who followed Rick's global tour.

We say to him: "A great job, wonderfully done. You have made all of us proud to be members of this very fine nation".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding from the area of Harrow, Kingsville and Amherstburg. They ask that Parliament support Motion M-37 to allow unborn babies to be protected by the Charter of Rights.

May 22, 1987
Order for Return


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 82 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 82 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	Since September 4, 1984, did Mr. Roger C. Nantel, Nantel Communications and Media Canada receive any money from the Government and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Where contracts involved and, if so, in each case, what was the nature and amount of the contract?
3.	Were such contracts put to public tender and (a) if so, which ones (b) if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.
[ Translation]


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 10 minutes beginning at one o'clock p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Steven W. Langdon: That this House condemn the Government for its refusal to reject flatly U.S. demands for unlimited investment freedom in Canada as part of the free trade negotiations, since these demands would threaten Canadian sovereignty and cultural integrity by removing Canada's ability to review and limit U.S. investment, so as to promote Canadianization and to ensure that U.S. investment does benefit Canadians by creating jobs, enhancing exports, expanding research and development and increasing sourcing from domestic suppliers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have to begin by saying that in many respects it is ridiculous to be debating whether or not this Government is taking yet further steps to weaken investment regulations in this country. The steps which have already been taken over the past few years have been so excessive, so out of tune with the concerns of Canadians and so potentially dangerous to jobs, to the economic sovereignty of our country and its future, that it frankly defies the imagination. Yet it is this Government which has taken those steps to put in place a weak, limp Investment Canada agency which is mainly designed to promote investment rather than to regulate it.
With respect to the free trade discussions, whether we take one set of words, another set of words or yet another set of words, amid all the confusion which has taken place this week, it is absolutely clear that the United States, as it admitted-as it stressed, in fact, in its statements with respect to Canada- that is not satisfied. The U.S. considers these investment barriers which still exist, these mild, meek, Mr. Milquetoast barriers as offensive. So this Government, as has been made clear here this morning, is willing to talk about moving yet further in opening up investment restrictions.
There have been a series of statements from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) throughout this week, a set of defences of foreign investment, which are as inaccurate as one could possibly imagine, which are as far from the truth as one could potentially expect anyone to state in this Chamber, and which are simply parodies of the reality that exists.
The reality is that we as a country are facing a very serious threat to our capacity, economically, to decide where we go in the future. We are facing that threat partly because of legislative changes made by the Government and partly because of a major series of takeovers which have swept across North America. It is not just a Canadian phenomenon; there has been a major series of takeovers particularly prevalent in the record of foreign investment.
As the most recent report of the Investment Canada agency itself makes clear, 94 per cent of the investment that has come into this country has come in, not to expand new businesses, not to establish new jobs and new enterprises for Canadians, but to take over existing Canadian enterprises and, in many cases, as a consequence, to reduce the number of Canadian jobs available within those plants.
In looking at this basic record of investment and this basic record of confusion with respect to the trade talks and what precisely the Government hopes to do in the trade talks with respect to investment, we have to look very carefully at the record of enforcement of Investment Canada. It is Investment Canada itself, as weak-kneed as it is-Mr. Milquetoast-that is at least supposed to provide some kind of defence mechanism to communities. If Investment Canada is not putting into effect the agreements it reaches with foreign firms, if it does not monitor those agreements effectively, then we have a situation which is even worse than the situation which has been
May 22, 1987

legislatively created across the land. We have a situation where the actual activity of the body that is charged to act in this area is itself so weak as to be pitiful. It is so ineffective it frankly dismays any of us who believe in future Canadian control over our economy.
1 want to bring forward to the House today a series of cases we have looked at in some detail. These are cases which demonstrate very clearly the totally weak, ineffective and unacceptable record of Investment Canada with respect to the particular mandate it has. These are cases with which I have had to deal as a Member of Parliament for my region, and as the Member of Parliament responsible for monitoring Investment Canada.
Let me start with the case of a small company called Sheller-Globe of Canada Ltd. It is a small company, but in fact employed 200 workers in the constituencies of the Windsor area. It gave those workers a potential to improve the unacceptable unemployment rate in that part of the country. Those 200 workers produced steering wheels. That company was shut down recently, within the last few weeks in fact, despite the fact that when this takeover was reviewed by Investment Canada itself, commitments were made to new investment by Sheller-Globe of Canada Ltd. to increase use of Canadian parts and services and to additional exports to enhance technological development. Yet despite those commitments, this plant has simply shut down.
We finally managed to get a commitment in committee last week out of Investment Canada to investigate why it is that despite these commitments made so recently, this plant has nevertheless shut its doors and put 200 workers out on the street. I have to say that to this stage we could get absolutely no information from Investment Canada which would indicate that it had monitored whatsoever the commitments the company had made prior to the shutting of its doors in the last few weeks. The company, so far as anyone can tell, had record sales and profits. It worked at more than 100 per cent capacity, six to seven days per week, for the last two years, yet it shut down.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what foreign investment can be about in this country if there is not the sovereign ability of this country to be able to review, to be able to monitor, and to be able to see to it that these companies live up to the commitments that they make when they enter the country. That is one example.
A second example, and one which is equally sad, is the case of Cross-LaSalle, again, a smaller firm. Cross-LaSalle was taken over by Cross and Trecker of the United States, and Cross and Trecker again made certain commitments, commitments which it indicated to Investment Canada it would carry forward.
In this particular case, Cross and Trecker, in 1985, made commitments for new investment, for increased employment,
Supply
for the increased use of Canadian parts and services, and for improved productivity and industrial efficiency.
Despite those commitments, commitments accepted by Investment Canada on June 14, 1985, this plant too shut its doors. It shut its doors in the middle of a strike, consolidating its operations in the United States and costing 40 workers in Windsor their jobs. That is the kind of record, too, which is possible with minimal monitoring by Investment Canada.
In this particular case, just this month that same firm, a firm which claimed so much poverty with respect to its operations that it had to shut down, indicated that it would be making new investments in Georgetown, Kentucky, a right-to-work state in the southern part of the United States, which would provide new jobs for 150 employees.
Once more, we have a clear indication of a lack of monitoring and a clear indication of what can happen if there is not a regime in place which permits close surveillance of foreign investors, surveillance which would ensure that they actually follow through on the commitments they make to this country when they come in here.
If we were to eliminate the commitments entirely, if we were to follow some of the suggestions made by the United States to liberalize yet further, that is, weaken yet further our foreign investment laws, we would find our position in dealing with companies such as these even more abjectly weakened.
Let me give you a third example. This one is in the publishing sector and involves Simon & Schuster. There was a takeover in this sector which my colleague will deal with in more detail, the Gulf and Western takeover of Prentice-Hall. I simply want to make the point that one of the commitments made in that particular takeover, and it was one that was trumpeted very loudly by the Government, was the commitment to see to it that Canadian authors were promoted through Simon & Schuster, the international arm of Gulf and Western.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, the 1987 Simon & Schuster catalogue. The commitment was that for each year for 10 years there would be 10 Canadian authors promoted through this international arm, and yet within this catalogue we have only one Canadian author listed, and that is in relation to a cassette tape, not a book that is being promoted.
Again, we have complete ignorance with respect to the agency involved in so far as the putting into effect of the commitments that have been made. We have talked to the agency about this particular issue. We have talked to officials of the agency, and they have admitted to us that more than a year after the agreement permitting Gulf and Western to purchase Prentice-Hall they still do not have in place an agreement with Gulf and Western with respect to this particular part of the arrangement.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, with specific cases. We could talk about the Dome-Amoco deal and the vicious legal attempts on the part of Amoco to try to make it impossible for

May 22, 1987
Supply
Canadian companies to take over a Canadian company. We could talk about Cadillac-Fairview and what its takeover will mean to thousands of small businessmen and women across this country, who will have to deal with a new foreign owner who happens now to be in control of their mall.
We can talk about these supposed benefits, as our Prime Minister likes to refer to them. But the point, Mr. Speaker, the key point, is that what has to be put into place is a new set of policies.
What this Government has missed right from the beginning, what it has sold us out on right from the beginning, what it has ignored, what it has not understood, is that we face a crisis in this country, a crisis of employment, a crisis of our future, a crisis for many of our children in the future, which has to be met by policies very much different from those which are presently being pursued by this Government; pursued in the free trade negotiations, pursued in the ineffective operation of Investment Canada, and pursued in the legislation that established Investment Canada.
We call, not just for a condemnation of what this Government has done-frankly, this Government is sliding, hopefully, quickly into oblivion-but for a set of new policies, a set of policies, based not on rejection of foreign investment, but on safeguards, on review procedures, on careful work with foreign investors to see that they actually benefit this country in the way that we have indicated in our motion.
We call too for much tougher legislation in the area of foreign investment to permit that kind of surveillance to take place, and to take place effectively. We call too for control with respect to companies leaving the country, and not just those entering the country. That is the wave of the future. And finally, Mr. Speaker, we call above all for communities to have much more control over what is happening to them and the investors within them, because it is those communities which are suffering, as my community has suffered, from the unregulated, unmonitored activities of companies like Cross-LaSalle, and the others to whom I have referred. It is a system which must change for the sake of our future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James).


Mr. James:: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the opportunity to speak to some of the socialist dialogue we have heard to pass. I want to ensure that the record of my community is brought forward.
The Hon. Member referred to the names of some companies. I would like to bring forward the names of the following companies: Imperial Oil, Esso, Dow Chemical, Fiberglas, Cabot Carbon, Sun Oil, Shell Oil, Dupont, Welland Chemical, CIL, and Union Carbide.
I would also like to talk about some instances of American and European companies investing in my community. For
example, Imperial Oil came to Sarnia-Lambton in 1897, and Dow Chemical in the 1940s. At that time they had a handful of workers. Now they employ over 2,500 workers. They are excellent corporate citizens who brought with them maturity from the United States and other countries. They established some of the finest pension programs for workers in all of Canada.
I would not want this opportunity to pass without mentioning the great contribution foreign investment has made to my community, in a less regulated way than what the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) indicated the Government should attempt. I just want to be sure that the record is put before the House today in connection with the contribution of foreign investment to a very important part of Ontario.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my responses to the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) are always coloured by the fact that our communities are downstream from his magnificent chemical plants. We often bear the consequences of being downstream, as was the case with the Dow blob which still continues. We are still cleaning up material from the river bed many months after the first discovery, many months after the first initiatives were taken in respect of the blob.
The key thing I want to say is that the Hon. Member has entirely missed the point of my speech and the point of the motion before us today. Within the New Democratic Party there is not an opposition to foreign investment. There is an opposition to foreign investment coming into the country without any restriction or safeguard. This is why we have fought for legislation to be as effective as possible in respect of foreign companies, and for it to be implemented effectively.
However, I have certainly worked hard to try to bring foreign investors into my constituency or my community, because I think they can make a contribution. Certainly many of the auto plants in my community make a contribution, but they do so in large part because, in the case of auto plants, of the 60 per cent safeguards in the Auto Pact, and in the case of some other companies because of some commitments which they were brought to make under previous legislation and which I would hope they would be brought to make in a forceful manner under future legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell) and, if there is time, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I will try to leave time for the Parliamentary Secretary to make some comments.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) mentioned that Sheller-Globe is shutting down its plant in Windsor. That is very unfortunate, but I would not want the rest of the country to get the impression that Sheller-Globe of Kingsville in my riding is closing down.
May 22, 1987


John Horton McDermid: Or Sheller-Globe in Brampton.


James Eber Caldwell: It is staying open and is very healthy.
I think the Hon. Member has raised some interesting points. I think that maybe there has to be closer monitoring of some of the companies which come in. However, I would not like anyone to get the impression that companies such as Sheller-Globe and some of the others which have closed down in the area came under the policies of Investment Canada. They were under FIR A. They came under the auspices of the previous Government, with all very good intentions. I am not saying that the intentions were not there, but I have had several cases in my riding where companies received very sizable grants to come in and locate in my particular area, a number of years ago, stayed for a year, and then closed down.
For example, in Blenheim, a plant received a $5 million grant from the federal Government and within a year it was out of business. That plant is now operating again. It did not receive any assistance from this Government, but it is a foreign investment and it is doing very well. We must ensure that when we give incentives to these companies they do not just move out the next year.
I also bring to the attention of the Hon. Member and to the rest of the country that Windsor has received more investment over the past two or three years per capita than any other city in Canada, other than Hamilton. Those are not my figures, those are from the Essex-Windsor Industrial Commission. Windsor has been doing very well. The Hon. Member would lead us to believe that Windsor has not been doing very well. Windsor is booming; Essex County and Kent County are booming.
If the Hon. Member recalls, back in 1984 the unemployment rate in Windsor was somewhere around 13 per cent to 14 per cent. It is now down below 10 per cent. Despite that fact, and the Hon. Member asked about it yesterday, it is not the best in Canada, but certainly we are doing very well in the area and have come a long way in the past couple of years in enticing investment into the area.
There is to be more investment, and the Hon. Member knows it. Many inquiries are being made about the Windsor and Essex County area, by investors wanting to come into the area because we have an excellent workforce.
It is unfortunate that companies like Sheller-Globe move out. I am not sure how one stops them. If a company is going to go and wants to go, how does one stop it from going? That is the problem.
1 would agree with the Hon. Member that maybe we should not be giving the incentives to come in when they are not really serious. Maybe they should have to make a commitment to stay when they come in. However, if it is an unprofitable company-and Sheller-Globe was not; it was reasonably profitable-I do not know how one makes it stay. Maybe he has an idea on how we make someone stay who does not want to stay.
Supply


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I should indicate that I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell) has finally seen the light on this issue and is now stating that he is in favour of tighter restrictions being put in place in respect of foreign investment.


John Horton McDermid: That is not what he said.


Steven W. Langdon: That is actually what he said, if you check the "blues".


John Horton McDermid: An old NDP trick.


Steven W. Langdon: That is exactly what he said. In any event, perhaps I could continue.


An Hon. Member:: That is not what he said.


Steven W. Langdon: As I said, check the "blues" and you can make your point at that stage.


John Horton McDermid: I will.


Steven W. Langdon: I would like to say something in respect of one point which my colleague raised. He suggested that these were decisions on the part of FIRA. Both the decisions which dealt with Gulf and Western and with Cross-LaSalle were decisions from the new agency, Investment Canada, and must be taken as reflective of the Government's new policies in this area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated.
It being 1.10 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1.10 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) had completed initial debate at 1.10 p.m. I would like to recognize the next speaker in the debate. The Hon. Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney).


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, my participation in this debate on the motion from the fevered imagination of the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon) will be brief and to the point so we can dismiss this false controversy once and for all. That is the only reason I would leave the most important meeting in Ottawa today with representatives of the 13 other member nations of the Cairns Group of agricultural trading nations. I appreciate the courtesy of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) for allowing me to speak now, in

May 22, 1987
Supply
time to return to the conference where I and my colleagues are representing our country and hosting our international visitors.
The Cairns meeting is making a determined effort to help the hard-pressed farmers of this and other countries, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) noted today in his opening remarks. Canadian farmers know this Government is at the forefront of attempting to solve this and other international trade problems.
There was a time, Mr. Speaker, when the New Democrats, misguided as they often are, were honest and straightforward, but what we have here today is a motion from that Member which Saturday Night magazine described as knowing everything about the economy except how to make it work. It is scare mongering of the worst kind. It has no basis in fact or in logic. Let me once more, as I have in this House before, make the record clear, as plainly and as bluntly as I can, clear enough so that the Members from Essex-Windsor and Winnipeg-Fort Garry can understand it.
I am informed that there is no, and I repeat no, U.S. demand for unlimited or unfettered investment freedom in Canada on the negotiating table. If there were, it would be rejected. We would refuse. Our negotiator knows that. Any such arrangement would have to be reciprocal, and the U.S. itself is in no position to deliver. Indeed, the U.S. itself limits foreign investment in certain key sectors. It restricts access in such areas as aviation, broadcasting and telecommunications, to name but a few.
The trade Bill which recently passed the American House of Representatives calls for a review of foreign investment on the grounds of "national security" and "essential commerce". That Bill would empower the administration to block those investments which might have a negative impact in those areas. This is symbolic of the growing protectionist mood in the United States.
My Cabinet colleagues, including the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), other Ministers and myself, have repeatedly said in this House and elsewhere that any free trade deal with the United States will protect our political sovereignty and our cultural identity. In fact, just two months ago this House overwhelmingly passed a resolution saying just that.
Part of that political sovereignty, of course, is to make decisions in the best economic interests of Canada. Unlike those in the Opposition, this Government does not believe that foreign investment is automatically evil. I am really surprised at the Hon. Member for bringing this motion forward. His own leader in his own riding of Oshawa is heavily dependent upon foreign investment from the U.S. to maintain the jobs of his own voters. I find it so inconsistent that the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) owes his presence in the House to voters who are on the payroll of American companies, yet his Party comes here regularly to dump on American investment and those American companies.
We believe that foreign investment can create jobs, which we all need in Canada. That is why we dismantled the National Energy Program. That is why we changed the Foreign Investment Review Agency to Investment Canada and welcomed foreign investment from all countries to Canada. Last year we had record levels of foreign investment. I spend a lot of my time, as do my Cabinet colleagues, travelling to countries saying, please bring your money to Canada, invest and create new jobs for Canadians. Perhaps the advantages of this approach are finally getting through to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor, because I noticed in his motion he admits, reluctantly, that investment can create jobs.
My colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) will deal with the inaccurate assertions made by the Opposition regarding investment and job creation. The Opposition has referred to Investment Canada's annual report and has misconstrued the meaning of certain statistics contained in it.
The more accurate way to describe what is happening to the economy is to state that 60 per cent of the investment transactions recorded by Investment Canada were acquisitions, and 40 per cent were new businesses. The Opposition has focused, of course, on the asset values and not on the business values. Acquisitions are usually made up of businesses with well established asset bases. Business values reflect only the modest short-term start up costs of new businesses which are established by foreign investment. They do not reflect the growth potential and the employment potential of a new business.
In this regard, from July 1, 1985, to December 31, 1986, the number of new businesses under the Investment Canada Act totalled 573. That is 573 new employers, Mr. Speaker. Those new businesses created new jobs. It shows that the investment climate which this Government has created is attracting investment and creating those jobs which we promised Canadians.
What we have now, by our choice and through our policies, is an open investment climate with protection for key areas. We are having a hard time getting over the bad image left by the previous administration in this area. When I do travel abroad I am always told, "Well, Canada is supposed to be unfriendly to foreign investment. It expropriated property under the National Energy Program and turned away investment". We lost jobs and capital, which we needed, at a great rate. Our oil industry got shut down, which created devastation for whole sectors of our economy.
What is all the furor that we hear from the masters of fear tactics across the way? Is the Opposition opposed to new investment? Is the Hon. Member for Oshawa opposed to foreign investment? If the opposition Members are opposed to the creation of jobs, they will have to answer to the people of Canada.
I want to deal with our negotiator's mandate, which I have dealt with in this House in a very open way on many occasions. As I have said, he has a mandate from Cabinet to discuss
May 22, 1987

trade-related investment measures and to listen to any U.S. proposals that go beyond that. We encourage him to do that. In the last negotiating session the Americans did not present a paper but suggested orally, as reported to us by our negotiators, some of the features on investment which might be incorporated into a bilateral agreement.
To summarize, yes, some investment measures are being discussed. Those are the trade-related investment measures which they have a mandate to discuss. That should be no surprise to the Opposition. In fact, they should welcome it because they are proponents, as are we, of multilateral trade negotiations. They also know that TRIMs, trade-related investment measures, are part of the Uruguay round. We signed the Uruguay round and therefore we are committed to deal with trade-related investment measures on a world-wide scale. Of course we will carry out that commitment on a bilateral basis.
As for other investment issues, as I have said, our negotiators have been given a mandate by Cabinet to listen to the U.S. and find out exactly what is proposed. Of course we know, and this House knows, that the Americans are asking for a broader agreement on investment. The House knows that because I said that here two months ago. I said investment is also on the table. All countries around the world are loosening their investment policies. We did so when FIRA became Investment Canada. The result was a record $6.8 billion worth of investment for 1986.
So far we are dealing only with trade-related investment measures. The Americans want more. We are listening but we have not given the negotiators a general investment mandate. When the negotiating team is satisfied that the U.S. proposals are clearly understood and the implications for Canada have been fully considered by Cabinet a decision will be taken. As in all areas of negotiations, the mandate of the negotiators is determined by Cabinet and discussed with First Ministers and the provinces. My colleagues and I regularly review all aspects of these negotiations.
Let me say in closing that the opposition Parties do a disservice to the people of Canada. They are making baseless accusations and raising unnecessary fears. I suggest that Members opposite let us and the negotiators get on with the job of securing Canada's future through a free trade agreement in our best interests. Canada will judge whether a deal is in the national interest.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister has returned so we have an opportunity to pursue further questions with her concerning the very serious issue of the direction the Government is taking on trade-related investments and the mandate it carries with it.
Supply
The Minister has just finished accusing the Opposition of trying to disrupt the negotiations. I suggest with all due respect to her that if anyone is disrupting the negotiations it is the Keystone Cop operation carried on by the Government. The chief trade negotiator says one thing. That is contradicted by the Minister. That is then modified by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). That is in turn contradicted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). Over the last three or four days we have had five different versions of what is going on. Is it any wonder that questions are raised in the minds, not only of Members of Parliament but the public as to who is really in charge, who knows what is going on, and who will ultimately make some kind of decision? That is the complete picture of how the Government has handled negotiations from day one. It has always been a matter of bewitched, bothered and bewildered rather than one of coherence.
The Minister referred to the question of how Investment Canada is performing its duties and the role of foreign investment. She suggested that we not take asset value as the measurement, even though 94 per cent of it represents acquisitions and takeovers. I would suggest that perhaps the best measure is the employment factor. From the $22 billion invested from June to December something like 5,000 jobs were created. That is, about 300 to 400 jobs a month. Compare that to close to 80,000 positions taken over. What we do not know, and I will elaborate on these remarks when I have a chance, is how much high technology has been stripped away in those takeovers.


Mr. Dick:: Is this a speech?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) has been in the House long enough to know that this is called question and comment.


Paul Wyatt Dick: No question?


Lloyd Axworthy: If he wants to read the rules I will be glad to send him a copy. I do direct a question specifically-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Oh, now a question. Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I am always prepared to take applause even from such dubious sources.
The Minister said the issue is very clear. Yet Mr. Reisman, our chief negotiator, is quoted as saying he wants to be very candid with reporters and the U.S. has, at every level, presidential, cabinet secretary, Secretary Shultz and Secretary Baker, made representations to our Government seeking a broader definition of the term investment. If the President, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury do it, I presume the Government might get the message eventually. How can the Minister stand up and say that the Government is totally oblivious of these American demands-


John Horton McDermid: We did not say that.

May 22, 1987
Supply


Lloyd Axworthy: -when our negotiator has said these matters have already been brought forward at the highest levels? These representations have already been made.
I ask the Minister, have the U.S. President and these other officials brought this matter to the Prime Minister and other cabinet Ministers? Is Cabinet aware of the Americans' intentions? When the representations were made did the Government say no?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Hon. Member to prove that any member of this Government and Cabinet were in any way contradicting each other on this issue.


Jacques Guilbault: Obviously you were away.


Pat Carney: Let me just repeat what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said today in Question Period because I was across the street hosting the Cairns group. He said what I have said, that the Americans have indicated an interest in discussing investment. I said that in the House. I quoted from the record. I just said it again. He said we are prepared to consider those specific proposals once we have received them in final form. That is what I have said. He said at the last meeting the negotiators indicated there was an oral indication, not written, that the U.S. negotiator was interested in some details, but it does not go anywhere near the false impression fostered by the two opposition Parties on "full" and "unfettered access" to Canada.
The Right Hon. Minister also said when we have a concrete idea of what the Americans are interested in discussing it will be considered by Cabinet. He added that if they are acceptable and in the interests of Canada we are prepared to give our negotiator a mandate to negotiate. That is what we have done in other areas. That will not conclude the matter because Cabinet will retain the right to approve or reject and indeed oversee anything which might be discussed by the negotiator at the table.
As I pointed out, these things are all talked through with the provinces. If they are not acceptable to Canada we are not prepared to negotiate on that basis. The Right Hon. Member also said we intend to retain protection for vital Canadian interests as was made clear by myself and the Prime Minister.
1 think if the Hon. Member checks that summary of the Minister's reply in Question Period against my reply and the record he will find that our Ministers have all been singing from the same song sheet and we are not singing bewitched, bothered and bewildered.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister is not singing that song but she is certainly performing it in mime, it seems to me.
I want to turn to what the Minister replied to me earlier this week when I asked her the very straight question:
Why has the Cabinet not said a flat no to the attempt of the United States to
widen this discussion about investment beyond trade related investment?
Her answer at that time was:
-that the kind of question the Hon. Member is suggesting has never been put
to us.
She did not say it has never been put to us in writing, she did not say it has never been put to us by the President of the United States in detail, she did not say it has never been put to us in detailed terms. She said it has never been put to us. That is a direct contradiction to what she has said today, which indicates that those positions were indeed put to us orally by the United States trade negotiator. Indeed, they have been put to us by many others including the United States Trade Commissioner, George Shultz, and the President, as indicated in every report we read in the press.
I suggest that the Minister must bear witness to the truth. She must respect the truth and clearly reflect the truth in answering questions or she will lose completely the very limited trust of the Canadian people which she still has.
The quotation I used comes directly from Hansard and perhaps the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) would like to check it. It is found on page 6241 of Hansard of May 20, 1987, and reflects exactly what I have just read into the record.
1 want to make two points. First, the Minister, unfortunately, because she was not here for the thrust of our critique, has not dealt with the points which made up the supporting basis for my speech. Most important, I want to ask the Minister the question which has been our basic question throughout this week. Why is the Government permitting the United States continually to take the initiative with respect to this subject? Why have we not put forward our position with respect to extending this discussion beyond trade related investment? Why, from our perspective, has the Government not said no? If the Government does not wish to say no, why has it not been prepared to say what we believe should be extended with reference to investment?
The point is that the Minister has continually allowed the other side to take the initiative in these discussions and we as a country are losing. We are worse off as a consequence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated but I will allow the Hon. Minister to answer succinctly.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to answer that kind of outpouring of rhetoric but I will concentrate on a couple of points. The Hon. Member said that I was not here to answer their criticisms in this area. I was in Quebec City meeting with provincial Trade Ministers yesterday. Last night, today and tomorrow 1 am meeting with international Trade Ministers. I am sorry that that is not considered by them to be the proper conduct of my duties.
Second, he asks why we did not run to the table and ask the Americans to please put investment on the table and then we
May 22, 1987

will put investment on the table. That is because it is not on the table, Mr. Speaker. The Americans want to put it on the table, not Canadians. We are quite happy with our open investment climate. Our position, as I have said, is to allow the Americans to put forward what they consider a negotiating proposal. We are not the demanders in this. The Member obviously knows nothing about negotiations. In some areas such as dispute settlement we are the demanders and put the proposal on the table, but where they have an interest they put the proposal on the table.
The Hon. Member referred to bearing witness to the truth and he might live up to his own words. His question was:
Why did the Government not, right at the start, say no to demands that would
tie our freedom so completely, demands with respect to holding restrictions on
investment which are crucial to jobs in Canada?
As I have indicated, the answer is because we never got such a silly request. The negotiators may have. I do not know what proposals float around over the negotiating table, but they were never ever brought to Cabinet in any way. I, as the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee, have never seen these "unfettered" proposals he has raised.
The Hon. Member has not answered the critical question. Is he against foreign investment in Canada? Is he against new jobs in Canada? Is he against General Motors in Oshawa? When he answers those questions we will be willing to listen to his proposals.
Some Hon. [Members: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) on debate.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, throughout Question Period during this past week one particular burning question has been on everyone's mind. Why is the Government hiding? Why is it up on its tippy-toes dancing around trying to obfuscate and evade? We know why the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) does it. He has all those Gucci shoes in his closet. You need 84 pairs of shoes when you are up on your tippy-toes all the time.
However, why are the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie), and the trade negotiator bumping into one another saying we did not talk about it and we are talking about it? We have just heard the Minister saying with false indignation that everything is an open book. If that is the case, the Minister has no alternative other than to fire the trade negotiator because he has obviously contradicted what she, the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State have said.


John Horton McDermid: Where?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Parliamentary Secretary is asking where. I guess he cannot afford two bits to buy a newspaper. I
Supply
will read to him from the Montreal Gazette of May 21, 1987. It reads:
Reisman was asked whether refusal to bargain the U.S. demand for removal of investment barriers would scuttle the talks.
"I think I can be very candid with you on that," he told reporters. "I think the United States side has made it very clear at every level-presidential, (cabinet) secretary to secretary, and at the negotiating table, that they are anxious to talk about investment in the broadest sense.
Surely even the Parliamentary Secretary who has been living in the large shadow of the Minister for International Trade so long that he walks in darkness is able to understand that point of view. The chief negotiator has said that the Americans have brought this to the table, their President has brought it to the Prime Minister, their Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of State have brought it to the Ministers. Yet the Government has not yet gotten the message. Can we believe that? Is it possible to believe that the President of the United States, the great prince of persuasion, has said something that the Prime Minister is incapable of understanding?
We can draw two conclusions. The first is that they are so totally incapable of comprehension that to allow them to continue negotiating free trade with such limited powers of comprehension puts us all in peril. The other conclusion is that the chief negotiator is not saying it as it is or the Minister is not saying it as it is, in which case they should get together and decide who is running trade policy in this country.
This is not a trifling item. We are not talking about something of temporary importance. This is a matter that goes to the very heart of the economic management of this country. The question is whether, as a result of the free trade negotiations, the Government of Canada will agree to pay the price of allowing the broadest possible foreign investment in this country without controls, guidelines or any definition as to whether that investment is in our basic interests.
One of the problems concerning the entire free trade negotiation issue is that we hear much about its benefits but nothing about the price we will have to pay for those benefits. We do not hear that these negotiations may result in Canadians losing their freedom of choice in all areas of public policy, federal and provincial. We do not hear about Canadians losing the right to decide what kind of country we want.
The investment issue is crucial because it dramatizes exactly the price we may have to pay. That is why we must pay attention to this issue and that is why it has dominated Question Period for four days. We want some answers as to whether the Government will indeed be paying that kind of price in order to modify the U.S. trade remedy laws. Will it allow the United States to have total access to foreign investment, as Mr. Reisman says they want, and as the Americans indicated in their own report last fall? Their primary demand is for a policy of investment based upon the principle of national treatment, which means there are no rules

May 22, 1987
Supply
or guidelines. We are witnessing one of the worst cover-ups by the Government because it deals with something that will affect every part of this country.
Let me explain why investment policy is so crucial. The Prime Minister asked how could we be against jobs. The Minister asked how could we be against employment. We brought statistics to the House that were provided by the Government's own agency. In the last 15 months in which Investment Canada has kept records, there has been $22 billion worth of foreign investment, $21 billion of which has gone into takeovers and acquisitions of existing companies. Only 5 per cent of that foreign investment has gone into new business.
Some 80,000 Canadian employees are now under foreign owners, with less than 5,000 jobs in return for that $22 billion. I ask, does that demonstrate that this wide open policy is working to the benefit of Canadians? That does not appear to be the opinion of Investment Canada, given those disproportionate figures. One can only conclude from the figures provided by the Government's own agency that it desires further takeovers and acquisitions of Canadian businesses by foreigners.
Let us take the problem one step further. Some may ask what is wrong with foreign investment. There is nothing wrong with foreign investment, as long as it works toward the production of jobs and increased research and development in this country. Again, the record is not very clear. Investment Canada has yet to turn down or reject any application. Submitting an application to Investment Canada is like putting slush through a goose, because nothing is stopped.
There must be someone working on behalf of Canadians to require companies investing in Canada to ensure that the Canadian subsidiary will be able to export its goods, maintain employment and have a fair share of research and development. They must ensure that foreign investment will not be used, as it has been in the past, to strip companies of their technology, lay off Canadian workers to be replaced by their own, or to simply cut back employment. We must have someone acting on behalf of Canadians to prevent foreign investors from suffocating the opportunity of foreign-owned Canadian companies to export.
That is in fact what is happening, according to the Government's own reports from the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. That Department prepared a series of industry-by-industry reports for Mr. Reisman, and they indicated that Canadian subsidiaries had a far lower record in export performance, conducted far less research and development, and in many cases had laid off Canadian employees, compared to Canadian-owned companies. In other words, the record of Canadian subsidiaries in a number of critical areas of the economy is not as good as those Canadian-owned companies. In fact, the report goes on to state that it is the Canadian-owned companies rather than Canadian subsidiaries that are exporting to Japan, Europe, Latin America and the Pacific Rim.
In fact, in a study by Mr. Samuel Wex that was commissioned by the Institute of Research on Public Policy, the suggestion is that in terms of total economic activity, Canadian-owned subsidiaries have less than 4 per cent of their activity in the export market.
Yet, here we are at a time when Canada faces perhaps the toughest and most competitive world environment, and in which we are imploring companies to create new products, develop new markets and create new jobs for Canadians, and the Government is shooting itself in the foot because it is providing the opportunity for the takeover of Canadian companies that are producing that export market and creating those jobs. It is allowing them to be sold out and simply become rubber stamps for many of the foreign-owned decisionmakers.
I want to give another interesting example of why we should pay attention to the issue of foreign investment. Perhaps the House does not realize that Canada has the highest level of foreign ownership of any country in the world. Over 60 per cent of our manufacturing is dominated by foreign firms. The incidents of foreign manufacturing has increased incredibly over the last two years. In 1984, $3.9 billion left this country by way of dividends to foreign investors. In 1986, it amounted to $5.3 billion.


David Bruce Daubney: That is because the economy is going again.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is money that is not being invested in Canada.


David Bruce Daubney: It is a measure of economic growth.


Lloyd Axworthy: Let us consider the famous example of the Dome takeover by Amoco. That is a company with a wonderful corporate record, with about $30 million or $40 million worth of investment in Canada and $200 million or $300 million returning to the head office by way of dividends.
At the same time that the outflow of money has increased substantially, reinvestment in Canada has been going down. In 1984, $5.3 billion was reinvested in Canada. By 1986, that reinvestment amounted to $4.6 billion. Surely these figures should be a cause of concern and a reason that any further attempt to broaden or open the doors for more takeovers and acquisitions should alarm Canadians.
We are making these points because we will reverse that trend and return the kind of policy that will certainly have foreign investment, but foreign investment that is based upon Canadian interests.


Kenneth Albert James: We saw that.


Lloyd Axworthy: We had foreign investment but the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) will know that companies came in under those provisions which required them to do research and development, to build plants here and create jobs here. The Tories have left the doors wide open and there no longer are controls.
May 22, 1987

If the Government caves in once again and entrenches an "open sesame" policy in a free trade agreement, it will be very difficult to remove. Future governments will want to reserve the right to change the ridiculous, inefficient and irresponsible policy that the Government is following because it is not creating jobs or creating economic strengths, but weakening those very things. We will want to change that when we become the Government. However, if the Government entrenches that open-door policy in a free trade agreement it will be much more difficult for more enlightened Governments of the future to protect interests of Canadian workers and Canadian industries. That is why it is very important that sometime this week-end the Minister for International Trade, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Prime Minister and Mr. Reisman get together in the same room so at least they can come up with the same message and decide what it is they are trying to do. Canadians want a clear picture of exactly what we face.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, after listening to that speech, I think it is obvious why the Liberals are in trouble with policy, not being able to make up their minds as to where they stand or what they want. We know where the socialist from Winnipeg-Fort Garry stands, diametrically opposed to the Liberal from Saint-Henri-Westmount and, we think, is somewhere in the middle of where his Right Hon. Leader stands. We are not sure.
The Liberals are trying to say to the people of Canada that they are receiving conflicting information. I want to read into the record what was said and I want the people of Canada to make that judgment. The Minister said this months ago in a speech in this House. The Liberals cry about this great revelation, that all of a sudden we have trade negotiations going on in Canada. Surprise! Some of it is controversial. Surprise! The country is going to hell in a handbasket they say. The NDP and the Liberals can only cry wolf for just so long until finally it will catch up with them. One of these days people are going to ask where they stand and what they stand for. We got an inkling today. They stand for bringing back the Foreign Investment Review Agency. They want to bring back that old dinosaur which held this country back from creating jobs for such a long period of time. It did not matter where one traveled in the world at that time, people said, "Canada is anti-investment. They don't want our money. They don't want jobs created there". Now the Liberal Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) wants to bring it back. I am glad we finally got a policy out of the Liberal Government. It wants to bring back FIRA.
I want to quote to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry what the Minister said:
Also on the table is investment.
This was months ago, not yesterday. It was not Wednesday. It was months ago.
Supply
All countries around the world are loosening their investment policies. We did so when FIRA became Investment Canada. The result was a record $6.8 billion worth of investment for 1986. So far we are dealing only with trade-related investment measures. The Americans want more. We are listening but we have not given the negotiators a general investment mandate.
There is nothing wrong with that. "The Americans want more", was the quote of months ago. Mr. Reisman said the United States is, "Anxious to talk about investment in the broadest sense". What great revelation is that? The Secretary of State for External Affairs today in the House of Commons in answering questions for 35 minutes on this subject was very up-front. Americans had indicated an interest in discussing investment. We are prepared to consider their specific proposals once we have received them in their final form. There is nothing inconsistent in all these things which have been said, and they have been said for months.
Perhaps I can ask the Hon. Member, other than for political haymaking, why is he bringing this subject up now, trying to befuddle the situation? I believe that if the quotes were checked they would be found to be very consistent. Why would he try to muddy up the waters now except for political purposes? Why has his Leader brought in this "unfettered" and "uncontrolled" nonsense, which are the Liberal's words, not the Conservative's words or our chief negotiator's words?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary, when he began his remark said he now understands why we are in trouble. I thought he meant trouble in the polls. There is only one Party which is in real trouble in the polls and that is the Conservative Party which is running at 23 per cent.


John Horton McDermid: Twenty-six per cent now. We are moving up. Be fair.


Lloyd Axworthy: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. That Party has moved ahead slightly.


John Horton McDermid: The Liberals distort everything.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is substantially behind the Liberals and substantially behind the NDP and has just moved ahead of the "don't know" category which, in the last three months, has had a larger proportion of voter support than the Conservative Party.


John Horton McDermid: We are going up.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact is that if anyone is talking about trouble, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he had better look in his own backyard because if any Party has a problem it is the people opposite.
The Hon. Member says this is no surprise. Of course, it is not, because we have been asking questions about this for two years. We have been asking if the Government is prepared to give up, to surrender, to transfer the right of full investment as a price of free trade negotiation. The Government all along has said, "Now, wait a minute. It is not on the table". There was all this dancing around until this week when we found out from the chief trade negotiator, Mr. Reisman, that in fact it

May 22, 1987
Supply
was no longer a matter of speculation that, indeed, the Americans at the very highest level, the President of the United States, had brought the matter forward.


Mrs. Mailly:: Not on the table.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Hon. Member says, "not on the table". I do not know where the President put it. Perhaps he put in on the Prime Minister head. I do not know how he handed it to him. Perhaps they were sitting on the floor. Maybe that is where it was put. The fact is that Mr. Reisman said without contradiction from anyone opposite that this matter was brought forward by cabinet level Ministers of the U.S. government and by the President of the United States. They have put the matter directly-perhaps not on the table-right on the plate of the Prime Minister. What we wanted to know is did the Prime Minister say, "No, we can't do it. We will not broaden and give you national treatment in investment"?
All the Prime Minister had to do last Tuesday when we asked was to give us a simple answer that, "Yes, the Americans brought that to my attention and I said no". But the Government has never said that. It has danced, jumped, twisted, turned, but has never been prepared to say that when the President asked it did not have the guts to say no.
We know why it did not have the guts because it is going to give away that kind of open access in investment so it can get a deal, so the Prime Minister can save his political skin, he thinks. The Canadian people will not buy it. They will not buy anything this Prime Minister says. That is why that Party is standing at 25 per cent in the polls.


John Horton McDermid: There, you changed it again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 have two more questioners. I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary would restrain himself. I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) and then the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil).


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Liberal spokesman on this subject today, FIRA and Investment Canada, was not at the Standing Committee on DRIE yesterday. We had a witness from the City of Brantford, an economic development officer, speaking on concerns relating to DRIE and foreign investment. His comments were, and they are a matter of record, that nothing was ever accomplished in terms of foreign investment for that community under FIRA. All they were aware of was delay after delay, frustration after frustration. Indeed, he complimented the Government of Canada for its change of position and legislation so we could have Investment Canada.
I would like to move quickly to my own constituency and give the Hon. Member two examples. Westar Pulp Mill is a Canadian owned company in British Columbia. It is B.C. resources owned. It was sold to Bathurst-Consolidated and the Investment Bank of China.
What happened? One of the first initiatives was to seek a small amount of federal assistance to develop a new system of feeding the boiler in that huge pulp mill, so that the end result would be a dramatic reduction in pollution going into the air, leading to acid rain, and pollution going into the water, and the smell. Not only that, the technology that would ensue has world-wide application in 400 different mills, all originating from that investment in technology and science and development at that mill, partially foreign-owned.
Finally we turn to Cominco Ltd., one of the world leaders in the technology of gallium arsenide, of zinc production a potential world leader in lead production. Who do we find marketing that technology? The ownership, as sold off by the CPR, is Teck Corporation, which holds 50 per cent of CPR's shares, Metallgesellshaft of Germany, 25 per cent, and M.I.M. Holdings Limited of Australia, 25 per cent. All three companies are good corporate citizens, putting a totally different complexion on the obtuse statements of the spokesman for the Liberal Party in today's debate.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco). I am surprised he did not bring up the issue of Kootenay Power and Light Company-


Robert Hylton Brisco: I would be delighted to.


Lloyd Axworthy: -which represents, Mr. Speaker, the first time in the history of this country that we are allowing a major public power utility to be taken over by foreign interests.


Robert Hylton Brisco: No, it is not.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 7,000 people signed a petition against that takeover. Investment Canada, this wonderful agency that the Tories put in place, on December 21 last, in the dark of the night, passed on that application, without even considering the evidence from-


An Hon. Member:: They have never been known to meet late at night.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to provide proper information to the Tory MPs. Thank God they can get good information from somewhere. They obviously do not get it from their own sources.
The fact of the matter is, Investment Canada passed on the Kootenay Power and Light application without even bothering to take into consideration the evidence adduced at the hearings of the Public Utilities Commission of B.C. They simply said: "Go ahead, take it over." In that part of B.C. alone, 7,000 people signed a petition to stop the total give-away of a major public utility in Canada.
It seems to me that the Hon. Member opposite should be a lot more concerned about the anger and the indignation of the
May 22, 1987

people in his own constituency at that takeover, that acquisition, because that, Mr. Speaker, is going to be one of the reasons why we will not see him at the next Christmas party.
The Elon. Member has talked about FIRA itself, Mr. Speaker. He said that all of those people out there were trembling with fear and loathing about the record of FIRA; that people were not going to come to Canada.
Let me quote what I would consider to be an acceptable source to Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament, that being the former U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Mr. Robinson. In a Conference Board study, Mr. Robinson, while still the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, is quoted as having said, "Canada remains a very good country for people to invest their money in." In that same study, 333 foreign companies were interviewed as to what they consider to be the major problems in terms of investing in Canada, and only 6.6 per cent said that it had something to do with FIRA. I repeat, 6.6 per cent of the 333 companies interviewed.
What did result, Mr. Speaker-and I will give the Hon. Members opposite the answer-when FIRA was in place, is that jobs were created in Canada. An example is that of the Hyundai car company. Hyundai Corporation, a Korean car manufacturer, wanted access to this market for investment, and a condition of the agreement was that it would create automobile plants in Canada. As a result, the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion was able to announce, on coming into Government, that Hyundai had come to Canada to create a plant. The reason for that, of course, was that FIRA was in place and had set as a condition of investment that jobs be created in Canada.
We do not have those conditions any longer, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we have nothing but takeovers, acquisitions, and shake-downs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil), on a question or comment.


Mr. O'Neil:: Mr. Speaker, as one who comes from an area of the country with the highest unemployment rate in the nation, I cannot help but be struck by the dogma, the ideology which is being put forward to Canadians and to all Members of the House today. Surely there is no serious debate in this country or in this House about the preference for Canadian ownership, Canadian control. I am sure it would be the wish of all of us that all of the products and services we consume be made in this country. But, the reality is that, in my part of the country, as in other parts of the country, Canadian investors did not come forward to develop our human resources, Canadian investors did not come forward to put the unemployed to work.
We are being asked to live with 20 per cent unemployment so that the ideological fantasies of some political Parties in this country can be satisfied. Those with two cars in the driveway and a VCR and a colour television can read their novels and
Supply
think about lofty subjects, but some Canadians have great difficulty meeting their basic economic needs.
For those people to stand today and suggest to Canadians that we do not need stable and secure trading relations with the United States to protect the economic opportunities that we do have and to build upon them is blatantly dishonest. It is well known even in my riding, Mr. Speaker, that much of the employment is dependent upon, not only the presence of foreign corporations and foreign investment, but also the export of products. This kind of rhetoric serves the philosophers well, but it does not serve the interests of ordinary Canadians.
Ordinary Canadians, Mr. Speaker, are seeing this to be nothing more than a philosophical debate, and not a debate about the needs of ordinary Canadians.


Lloyd Axworthy: Let's talk about the view of ordinary Canadians. I take the Hon. Member to be an honest representative of his area. What is he talking about in terms of ordinary Canadians. According to an opinion survey published last week, 65 per cent of Canadians, or approximately two-thirds of ordinary Canadians, do not want further takeovers and acquisitions.
Let us also take a look at the statistics-


An Hon. Member:: What was the question?


Lloyd Axworthy: The question was, "Are you in favour of further takeovers and acquisitions?"


Claudy Mailly: But that is not what he is talking about. He is talking about jobs for people.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am coming to that. The Hon. Member says, "We want to create new jobs." Of the $22 billion in foreign investment, only 5 per cent went to new businesses. It had nothing to do with creating new jobs in Cape Breton. It went to the takeover and acquisition of large companies. The only employment created was for a bunch of lawyers in New York, those working out the mergers and acquisitions. That is where the jobs were going. They were not going to Cape Breton, or other areas of Canada.
I can sympathize with the heartfelt sentiment expressed, Mr. Speaker. As a former Minister of Employment, I worked very hard to create jobs in Cape Breton, and elsewhere. I can only point out that the unemployment rate now is no better than it was back then. In fact, it is a little worse in many regions of the country. What has happened is that this Government has allowed a concentration of wealth in the central part of Canada, leaving the regions to fend for themselves. It is a Government that has no regional development policy. It is denuding and shearing off the capacity of the federal Government to provide instruments of public policy to ensure that there are investments in the regions. This Government is shrinking the capacity of the federal Government to ensure that there is equal distribution of rights and benefits for Canadians.

May 22, 1987
Supply
The Government of Canada is simply becoming a rubber stamp for American acquisitions and is doing nothing to direct both Canadian and foreign investments such that the country generally can equally share in those investments.
The figures are in front of us. I sympathize with the Hon. Member, but I say that if he wants to solve that problem, he has one choice, and that is to leave the Party he belongs to and join a Party that knows about regional development-not one that turns its back on the regions.


An Hon. Member:: You created the problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), on debate.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Government's position on foreign investment seems to be extremely naive. We are not entirely clear where it stands on the free trade negotiations. We have heard many ridiculous statements on what exactly is being demanded of Canada in order to get an agreement on free trade with the United States.
Certainly the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and government Ministers generally have been very strong on the idea that foreign investment, whatever kind, whatever limitations or no limitation, just totally unfettered foreign investment, is good for the country. They seem to think that the more foreign investment we have, the more employment we will have.
We had a completely naive suggestion from the Prime Minister the other day that, for example, the City of Windsor, because it has a lot of foreign investment in the automotive industry, has very low unemployment as a result of the benefits of foreign investment. However, the unemployment rate in Windsor is just at the national average; it is not lower at all.
Let us think of single industry towns where the industry is a foreign-owned company. If there are shut-downs, slow-downs, lay-offs, or basically the company shut down the entire operation to buy a company or to move the manufacturing or processing back to its own country, the jobs are gone.
In the case of research and development we know that foreign-owned companies do not do their research and development in Canada. Financial services and management services are done in the home country, not in the branch plant. This means the more foreign investment, the fewer the jobs, the fewer high quality jobs, research and development jobs, highly skilled jobs, well paying jobs, and more secure jobs in Canada.
With the present foreign investment in Canada today, we should have the lowest rate of unemployment in the entire world if the Government thesis is correct that foreign investment necessarily creates more jobs. It does not. It depends upon the industry. It depends upon many situations.
We need investment. There is a place for foreign investment. We must make decisions to ensure that in any particular case the investment will be good for the country. If it is not, we need the power to say no to that foreign investment and, instead, to encourage Canadian investment.
What do the Americans want in the free trade negotiations and what is the role of investment? I want to talk particularly about the cultural industries. This is an area in which the Americans make a lot of money in Canada. They make their money largely through sales, because in most of these areas there are not any tariffs, quotas, or trade barriers. Free trade negotiations do not mean reducing barriers because there are not any. We have had the anomaly of the book tariff. Fortunately that has gone.
The Americans sell an enormous amount in film, broadcasting, television programming, books, magazines, video cassettes, and so forth to Canadians. They are making a lot of money in trade already.
What they want, realistically, is not more trade or more sales, although they would like that. What they really want is to be able to invest more in our cultural industries. In some of those industries we have limitations on foreign investment. Those limitations on foreign investment have been excellent for Canada. This is the irony.
If the Government took its own advice on this point, it would get rid of all those limitations on foreign investment, if foreign investment were so good for the country.
I want to look at these different industries and at the roles of foreign investment and Canadian investment to see how foreign investment has either served or not served Canadians well.
Let us look at book publishing and magazine publishing. Canadian book publishing is not a strong industry. The most successful, the largest companies, the companies with the largest revenues, the big sellers to our educational network, to provincial boards of education, have been foreign-owned, foreign-controlled companies. They are the big money makers. In fact, most Canadian-authored books are produced by a small number of Canadian-owned companies. If we want to talk about developing our own culture, if we want to talk about access of Canadian authors to getting their works out there to be read by people, we must turn to the Canadian-owned sector.
Canadian-owned companies published 85 per cent of Canadian authored books. Most of the books sold in Canada are foreign produced, so most of the revenues from book sales go back to other countries, and that is largely the United States. The Canadian owned companies happen to be the companies which export the most too.
We are not very big in exporting books, but Canadian-owned, small publishing houses exported 7 per cent of their sales. Large Canadian-owned publishing companies exported 12 per cent of their sales. However, when we look at foreign-owned companies, we see that their exports were only 1.7 per
May 22, 1987

cent of sales. In short, there is scarcely any export from these foreign companies.
If we are to think about a vital industry, an industry which will be exporting, producing jobs in Canada, and getting the creativity and ideas of Canadian authors out to the rest of the world, we must look to the Canadian-owned companies. The American-owned companies are not doing that. If we depended, as the Prime Minister would want us to do, on more foreign investment, we would lose what we have already.
The Government has admitted that Canadian ownership is a good thing in publishing. We have a policy statement dated July 6, 1985 from the previous Minister of Communications in favour of greater Canadian ownership in this industry. The policy statement is a good one, and I commend the Government on it. However, I have to fault the same Government for not implementing or acting on the Canadian book publishing statement. It remains a statement on paper. The reality is that Investment Canada has been weak. It has not forced the divestment which was called for under the policy. It allowed for a considerable period of time to say that it could not act retroactively and that it would not insist upon divestment when there are foreign takeovers.
Even this very weak policy has been objected to by American publishers, by the American Government, and by the American trade negotiator on behalf of American companies. The United States has objected. The Americans are making a fortune in selling books to Canadians. They would like to make more money. They do not want to see these investment opportunities curtailed.
We have a policy to encourage Canadian periodicals and Canadian magazine publishing. We have various subsidies such as a postal subsidy. The Americans have objected to that and said that it is unfair. However, most magazines sold in Canada are not Canadian. Most of them are still foreign. We have an industry which is trying to grow, and it is extremely important that it be given various advantages.
We have requirements on advertising to encourage advertisements being placed in Canadian-owned periodicals as opposed to foreign periodicals. The United States has objected to that. That amount of protectionism, the kind of protectionism which the Government says is evil, has resulted in a thriving industry. It has resulted in Canadian writers, printers, binders, and all such people getting jobs and getting their ideas out there to other Canadians; in uniting Canadians from coast-to-coast; and in getting ideas around. It absolutely requires some rules, regulations, and controls. These are dirty words to the Conservatives, but the results are not bad at all. They are not unfortunate or miserable results; they are excellent results. Ideas are getting around. People are getting jobs. Authors are getting paid. Royalties are being paid. All this is very healthy for that industry.
Another area has actually shown a great deal of success for Canadians as a result of having a Canadian ownership policy. It is something that we would like to be much stronger in the
Supply
case of publishing. I am referring to broadcasting. It is a success story. It did not happen by accident. This was an area in which investment was largely American. A policy decision was taken by the previous Government back in the 1960s to limit foreign investment-it was in fact American, but the limitation was on foreign investment-to only 20 per cent of broadcasting companies. In short, there must be 80 per cent Canadian ownership and control of these companies.
There was a gradual period of divestment. Instead of Canadian banks lending money to Americans to buy into the industry, they lend money to Canadians to buy into it. Now we have a solidly Canadian-owned industry. In the period from 1968 to 1973 earnings in broadcasting increased 700 per cent, thanks to these rules, thanks to this protectionism, thanks to this control. Jobs in broadcasting at least doubled in that period.
We would like to see more of the revenues produced in this very important industry go into Canadian production. There is certainly room for much more Canadian programming on the air. It is not perfect, but we have made some progress. We have made that progress by having Canadian content regulations.
We have had regulations on border advertising in television stations. The Americans are objecting to these regulations. They say that they are unfair. Fair or unfair, it is extremely difficult for a small country, a country one tenth the size of the United States, to compete. There is no level playing field when one team has 10 times the number of players on the other team. Thanks to these regulations, we have a thriving industry.
The Americans make a lot of money on Canadian broadcasting. They make it largely by selling programs to Canadians. Canadians are major purchasers of American programming, but the Americans want more because broadcasting is a very lucrative industry. Canadian-owned companies are expanding and making lots of money and the Americans would like to be able to buy into it. The Americans are not content simply to make money on sales; they want money from investment. The Americans want to be able to buy in. I very much expect that if they were allowed to buy in, we would have a reduction in Canadian programming, whereas we need an increase. If we did not have Canadian ownership and strong measures for Canadian content regulations, we would have even less. With more American ownership, we would not be able to strengthen our position with programming on the air.
Film is an area which is not a success story. Film is a sorry failure. Here I have to blame the previous Government- which I would compliment for its decisions on broadcasting- for its reluctance and refusal to act. Task forces, the arts community and experts in the area have explained what the problem is. For decades the problem has been known, that is, that distribution is controlled overwhelmingly by Americans.

May 22, 1987
Supply
Let me quote from the Raymond Roth report on the film distribution industry:
The Consequences of Foreign Domination.
Distribution feeds the markets. It determines who can see what, when and how. It chooses the films to be imported, thus determining what products the Canadian public will have access to. It determines the marketing strategy for Film in the various medias: theatres, videocassettes, pay and free TV. It determines the scope of their reach across various regions of the country. All of these decisions affect the cultural life of the nation. It is unacceptable that they be made by non-Canadians, purely in their own economic interests.
That analysis is absolutely clear. In the case of film, 97 per cent of the revenues from film go to the United States. They go into film production in the United States. We have some very good Canadian films being produced in Canada, not a large number, but we have some. They scarcely get into the distribution field because the distributors are American-owned. Even Canadian films have to go through an American distribution company to be shown in theatres in Canada. This is a situation that is not allowed in any other country. Canada is simply considered a part of the American market for film distribution purposes. The result is that $1 billion a year gets spent by Canadians going to movies. Instead of the profits from that money going into Canadian production, into hiring Canadian writers, directors, actors, technicians, camera people and so forth, it gets plowed back into American production. So there is a vicious circle and you get more American films which are distributed by American companies.
This task force report came up with some very good recommendations on what to do about it. The first recommendation was for Canadian ownership and control of the Canadian film industry. It states very clearly that it is essential that to have any kind of sane distribution policy there has to be Canadian ownership and control. But what does the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) do about it? She has come up with a different scheme. She has suggested instead that there be a licence import system. This licence import scheme is certainly better than nothing. It would probably mean a reduction in about 10 per cent of the control of Americans in our Canadian film distribution industry. Instead of getting 97 per cent of the profits from Canadians going for films, they will be getting roughly 10 per cent less than that. Roughly 10 per cent of that would then be going to Canadians. That is better than nothing. However, that is a denial of the first principle of the Raymond Roth report which says that we have to have Canadian ownership and control.
When I asked the Minister in committee about it, for example, she pretended not to even know about this recommendation. Her Assistant Deputy Minister seems to have rewritten the report. When he discussed the recommendations of this task force report, he managed to drop the most essential one, the one on Canadian ownership and control. He only talked about the other ones, the ones that are a little bit easier to implement.
Other countries have much better control over film distribution. They have various measures of requirements, quotas and so forth because other countries, small countries like Canada,
small relative to the United States at least, have realized that if they want to have a film industry they need to have some rules to protect it. Small countries simply cannot compete with that massive American market, the massive advantages that that society has in producing and distributing its own films.
We have this excellent report. We have strong recommendations for Canadian ownership and control, but nothing has happened on it. The Minister is not even sure whether Canadian ownership and control ought to be an objective. In other statements that she has made, and when I have asked her, she says that she is going to talk to the American majors and ask for their co-operation. She is going to ask for the cooperation of people who are making a fortune in distributing American films in Canada. She will say: "Please stop making a fortune. Go away. Let Canadians do it". That is not the nature of the beast, Mr. Speaker. Businesses are in business to make money. They make money by distributing American films.
Why should they, out of the goodness of their hearts, simply quit making money in Canada distributing American films? They are not going to. Instead they are lobbying very hard to get rid of or not to have put into place-because it is not quite there yet-the licence import system. They do not even want that, which is a very, very modest measure. They are fighting very hard for it, and we worry about how much influence they will have on this Government. We know that President Reagan himself has raised the issue with the Prime Minister, protecting his old buddies in the Hollywood film industry to see that Hollywood continues to dominate the Canadian film system. So Canadians get very little chance to see the excellent Canadian films that, in fact, are being produced.
I would like now to make a few remarks about the music recording industry, another cultural industry over which we do not have much Canadian control, ownership or presence. An interesting thing happened a number of years ago. The CRTC came up with a requirement for Canadian content in sound recordings for popular music broadcast on the radio. Suddenly, as a result of this regulation-and this is a Government that thinks regulation is evil, awful and does all these terrible things-what happened? We began to get a popular music industry. Our songwriters and singers began to get an outlet for their creative work. People got jobs. Records were produced, thanks to this regulation. But we did not have anything comparable for classical music. We do not have any kind of Canadian classical music industry. Here you can clearly make the comparison. You make a requirement that stimulates an industry. The people are there. They can do it.
We have talent in Canada. It is not as if we are talking about a situation where we have to depend on foreigners to create our culture. We have all kinds of creative talent in the country, singers, directors, writers and all of these people who want to work. We simply require that they be given the opportunity. They will not get the opportunity so far as the distribution companies are concerned because they are controlled by people who are promoting the work of artists in
May 22, 1987

another country. It is the legitimate right of companies to promote the work of their own artists, we don't dispute that. But we do not want our country to be run to the tune of the United States or to the tune of any other country.
One of the speakers this afternoon on this subject of foreign investment talked about the very difficult situation of high unemployment in Cape Breton. The speaker said that we in the New Democratic Party were being ideological in being concerned about foreign investment and seemed to take this very simplistic approach that the more foreign investment there is, the more jobs there are going to be. Unfortunately, that is not true. I was part of the jobs action group that went to Cape Breton and listened to people in local communities. They said very strongly that they wanted to see Canadian control so that money made in the community would stay in the community, be recycled and produce other jobs there. If you have a foreign-owned company, the money goes out in profits. Some of the jobs stay out of the country because they remain in the head office. These are the research and development and the managerial jobs. All of those jobs never get into the community in the first place.
Of course, there is always the risks of shut-downs and layoffs. Foreign ownership means a great deal of vulnerability to a community. The people of Cape Breton told us that they wanted to see more Canadian control so jobs would be created and produced in Canada for Canadians. It is a very practical matter. It is not a matter of ideology. Where we see it will be harmful, we must limit it. Where we see it is going to be useful, where the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, we can make a decision. However, we must retain the power to make that decision.
There are some areas in which we do not allow foreign investment, such as culture and communications. We have these restrictions in broadcasting and are demanding more of it in publishing. We should be demanding more in the film industry. If we give it away in free trade negotiations, we will not have the power to make those kinds of decisions. We have to control these industries and build jobs in them because they are very important. We must have Canadian investment and control so we can promote our own artistic people and our own creative life. We cannot do that if we give away the power to other countries.

I blame this Government for having betrayed its mandate, for having betrayed Canadians in the free trade negotiations. We do need investment, but the kind that will create jobs in Canada, good jobs. For that we must have control, we must be able to choose among purchasing offers; we must be able to say no to banks and private companies like foreign companies-

-the Hon. Member's time has expired. Questions and comments?
Supply


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, there is an old saw that wishing will not make it so. I am afraid the Hon. Member has just proven that her speech was based on wishful thinking. Wishing will not change the fact there are 25 million people in Canada stretched over a vast area and 250 million people in the U.S. Wishing will not allow us to say that we do not want to trade with the Americans because they are so big and powerful and everywhere. Wishing will not change the fact that Canadians seem to be enamoured with things American. When the best seller list comes out at Christmastime-and I know because I am a published author and I went through it-you will see at last some Canadian authors who make it to the top and even stay there for a few weeks. However, as soon as the Christmas rush is over Canadians rush to buy American books. Is it because the big bad Government does not support the Canadian industry? No. As a matter of fact, this Government has supported the industry even more than previous Governments in spite of the need for cutting our spending and trying to bring down the deficit.
What happened when we put a tax on imported books because the Americans were taxing shakes and shingles? The NDP and the Liberals got up in the House and screamed because we were limiting the importation of American books. Why did they do that? Because Canadian booksellers, not big bad American booksellers, were worried about their bottom line. They were selling fewer books because Canadians, in spite of the fact that our books were cheaper, were not buying more Canadian books.
As I say, wishing will not make it so. We are living in the real world. What would the Hon. Member have us do? Should we scramble the airwaves and stop all American influence in Canada? Should we tell Canadians who love to watch American sitcoms that there will be no more cable, no more Cosby Show or all the other shows they love because it is considered unCanadian to look at things American?
That is the kind of policy recommended by the NDP. It would lead us to a controlled environment, a closed society, and we would not be able to enjoy the marvellous outpouring of culture from other countries, including the United States. The Americans are our friends and they are just as interested as Canadians are in their own culture. However, we are 25 million people living next door to a giant. Our very intelligent way of dealing with this problem is not to stick our head in the sand, not to be worried or scared, but to say we will negotiate. These people want something from us, we want something from them.
It has been said all along that our culture is not on the table. All kinds of measures exist in our legislation to protect those industries from being taken over by anyone, including the Americans. I do not understand why the Hon. Member chooses this unrealistic approach to what is a very serious problem with a great potential for creating the jobs we need in Canada, including the Atlantic region which has had an outpouring of billions of dollars and has not been able to create jobs.

May 22, 1987
Supply


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Eton. Member mixes up a whole lot of different issues, but I will try to deal with them one by one.
First, yes, I am very well aware that we have 26 million people and our market is effectively much smaller because we have a francophone and an Anglophone population. For practical purposes, the number is much smaller compared to the U.S., which is 10 times our size. That means we must have practical measures to deal with this enormous imbalance. No one is suggesting that we try to close the borders or scramble messages. This is totally ridiculous. My concern is that we get good Canadian programming on the air which Canadians want to see. It is not a question of being negative about programming from any other country. It is a question of Canadians having the opportunity to see good Canadian programming in Canada.
In being so negative about my remarks, which were about the benefits of having Canadian investment in our cultural industries, is the Hon. Member saying she does not want Canadian investment? Does she want to see more foreign control? It is quite clear that the areas in which we have predominant Canadian investment are thriving. Where we have foreign investment are the areas with a great deal of difficulty.
The Hon. Member raised the matter of book publishing. She said her Government has supported it. I remind her that with the tariff the Government took $12 million from that industry.


Claudy Mailly: On American books.


Lynn McDonald: Not just on American books. It was on English language books which could come from any country.


Claudy Mailly: American books.


Lynn McDonald: It discriminated against Canadian authors published in the U.S. or in co-production arrangements with Canadian and American companies. Canadian authors were discriminated against by this measure.


Claudy Mailly: Wishing will not make it so.


Lynn McDonald: I certainly would like to see more Canadian control and investment in our cultural industries, but I do not want to close the door to people being able to buy what they want in the way of books or magazines from other countries. My concern is that there be good Canadian books and magazines and films that they can see. I do not think there should be a tariff on American, British, French or any other books that come into this country. I do not think there should be taxes on books. I was appalled that the Conservative Government would put a tax on books.
Finally, I simply want to say that if the Hon. Member's point is that she wants to see a loss of control in our cultural industry then she should make it very clear that she is repudiating government policy of increasing control in those areas.


Claudy Mailly: You know very well that that is not what I am saying.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely wish to thank the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) for putting forward this motion today. I am delighted to have the opportunity to set the record straight on the Government's policy on investment.
Let us start first with statistics which have been tossed around this House over the last few days by some members of the Opposition.

It has been asserted, Mr. Speaker, that according to Investment Canada's 1986 Annual Report, 95 per cent of all foreign investment has been acquisitions and only 5 per cent has been new businesses.
Mr. Speaker, this is playing with figures. Those figures are based on asset values, which, taken by themselves can be distorting. Acquisitions involve a mix of small, medium and large businesses with well established asset bases. By contrast, new business values reflect only short-term start-up estimates. These are typically modest and in no way reflect the potential growth and future of the new business. A more accurate way of expressing what is happening in the economy is to state that 60 per cent of the investment transactions recorded by Investment Canada were acquisitions and 40 per cent new businesses.
We all know that new businesses are the major source of new jobs and new technologies. In many acquisitions, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian corporation has been in financial difficulty and the foreign investor has been the source of job preservation.
Foreign investors also bring new capital, new management, new technologies, and access to new markets and thus contribute to Canadian corporate growth.
Using updated figures (July 1, 1985 to March 31, 1987), the number of new businesses coming under the Investment Canada Act totalled 631 and not 573 as previously mentioned. The value of short-term planned investment associated with these proposals amounted to over 1.4 billion dollars with planned employment creation of 10,240.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) mentioned that foreign acquisitions amounted to $20 billion and that once again the Government was selling Canada out. The Member should know that more than $10 billion worth was already owned by foreigners and is only moving from foreign hands to foreign hands. That leaves only
May 22, 1987

$10 billion of foreign acquisitions. The Member should know as well that this has allowed the Government to maintain jobs which were in difficulty.
I should mention as well that the total stock of business capital in this country is $1.5 trillion. When he said that we are selling Canada he should be more informed on economic information. Once again, members of the Opposition are good at playing with figures.

And 1 have to stress that Investment Canada's figures record only a fraction of the investment that is made in Canada. Investment Canada does not take into account either investments by Canadians or investments by the very large community of international investors that are already operating businesses in Canada. The best example, Mr. Speaker, is General Motors' $2 billion investment to modernize its two assembly plants in the riding of my hon. friend from the New Democratic Party, that is Oshawa.
Of course, this investment is not included in the Investment Canada figures mentioned by my hon. friend from Winnipeg- Fort Garry.
I would point out as well, Mr. Speaker, that for 1986, international capital flows into Canada, for direct investment, amounted to $6.8 billion. This, as all Hon. Members should know, is an indisputable record for Canada. Moreover, foreign portfolio investment in Canada almost doubled in 1986 to $25 billion.
Much has been made of the fact no Investment Canada case has been turned down. It must be remembered, however, that the mandate of Investment Canada is to promote investment by Canadians and non-Canadians alike. It is not to block investment, Mr. Speaker, but rather to ensure that foreign investment meets our country's objectives and our government's objectives, that is the objectives Canadians have set for us. Investment Canada encourages international investors to discuss their proposals prior to filling a formal application for review. Numerous investors are taking advantage of this service thus resulting in cases which have a high probability of approval. Frequently there are also informal discussions with investors who are interested in making investments in policy sensitive areas such as the cultural industries and the oil and gas sector. In these areas we have enunciated clear policies.
As a result of discussions involving proposals in these sectors, some investors conclude that their proposals are unlikely to meet the net benefit test and therefore decline to file a formal application. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a much more positive and businesslike manner of safeguarding legitimate Canadian interests.

Now that I have clarified the misunderstanding which has arisen in the House over the past several days I would like to remind opposition Members, who may have forgotten, of what the economic situation was like before September, 1984. In
Supply
1984 we inherited an economy in which the unemployment rate was close to 12 per cent. It is now slightly over 9 per cent. Labour productivity was low, interest rates were high, and the chartered bank prime rate was 13 per cent. It is now 9.5 per cent.
The perception of Canada as a place to invest and do business in was, as we remember, very poor. In 1984, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada eleventh of 22 OECD countries in a competitiveness study. In 1986, Canada had improved its position to sixth. That achievement cannot be attributed to the efforts of the former Government and its policy.
The Government has contributed to a significant recovery in our business and investment climate. Over the past three years Canada's gross domestic product has grown at a rate second only to Japan. Employment growth has been first among all OECD nations. Corporate profit has become stronger and stronger. A recent survey reported that first quarter profits were 55 per cent above the level of the first quarter of 1986. All this has occurred, and yet our inflation rate has remained relatively stable at approximately 4 per cent.
When the Government came to power in 1984, we set out a national agenda which was outlined in two separate Throne Speeches and in the Agenda for Economic Renewal of November, 1984.

Canadians are all familiar with the basic elements of this broad policy. Let me mention them briefly: a basic assault on the federal deficit; a redefinition of the role of Government so that it provides a better framework for growth and job creation; privatization of companies no longer serving public policy needs; comprehensive tax reform; improved incentives for small business and entrepreneurs; a new science and technology policy; removal of obstacles to growth through deregulation, especially in such areas as investment, energy policy, and transportation; a basic reform of the financial services sector; new initiatives in intellectual property rights, including patents and copyright; a new Competition Act that has been introduced and which takes into account the new competitive environment; trade initiatives including strong support for new bilateral discussions at the GATT. In all of this, Mr. Speaker, what we have actually done is to make international competitiveness the conterpiece of our economic policy.
Yes, the centrepiece of this agent for economic renewal is to increase the international competitiveness of the Canadian industry.
Recognizing the importance of investment to Canada's international competitiveness, our Government introduced the Investment Canada Act as its first major piece of legislation. It

May 22, 1987
Supply
was designed to address the irritants which had arisen abroad as well as in Canada with regard to the treatment of nonCanadian investors. As well, the Act was drafted taking into account the new realities of the 1980s and the 1990s. It was not based on the fears of the 1960s and 1970s, which are being recycled in this motion moved by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.
Investment Canada, a new agency established by the Act, has a threefold mandate. First, it is to review major investment in Canada by non-Canadians, to ensure that they are of net benefit to Canada. The factors used by the agency in examining those investments are: The effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada; the degree and significance of participation by Canadians; the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, innovation and product variety; the effect of investment on competition within any industry or industries in Canada; the compatibility of the investment with national and provincial industrial, economic and cultural policies; and the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in the world markets.
In determining the relative merits of investment proposals, the Investment Canada Act calls for a net benefit test. The simplicity and clarity of rules, the timeliness of the decisions, and the fairness of the test have all served to improve greatly the climate for investment, while safeguarding important Canadian interests.
Investment Canada has two more very important functions. It has a role to encourage more investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians. In that regard it works very closely with representatives of the provincial Governments and the private sector and has developed a very good relationship with those partners. Here, the emphasis is on technologybearing investments and on joint venturing, two areas which are critical to Canada's future international competitiveness.

Furthermore, we have witnessed a slowing down of the growth of foreign direct investment, and a change in its sources. Japan has now displaced the U.S.A. as the number one source of foreign direct investment. As well the U.S.A. is now the predominant destination for investment. All of this has resulted in much increased international competition for new foreign investment.
I would like to say a few words about the new international investment environment which has changed considerably over the last two decades. In today's more competitive international environment, the very definition of investment has been broadened to cover the commitment not only of tangible assets such as capital and equipment, but also of non-tangible resources like production know-how and management talent.
What are the implications for Canada? Mr. Speaker, it means that we must become more focussed in our approach. We are concentrating on four main elements which affect our international competitiveness.
Firstly, technology. In today's international economic environment, rapid technological change coupled with the skyrocketing costs of basic research have driven even the largest companies into partnerships. For example, the new global standard for the compact disc is the result of collaboration between Sony of Japan and Philips of the Netherlands. Many corporations, universities and governments create consortia just to spread the costs of basic research and to focus the strategic technologies which underly progress in this industry.
Secondly, entrepreneurship. The entrepreneur manages technology and resources in an innovative way to bring products to market. According to a 1984 OECD report, of the total number of Canadian companies engaged in R&D, 77 per cent are entrepreneurial firms with fewer than 100 employees.
Thirdly, global orientation. The global market-place is a reality. Companies are adopting global strategies that allow them both to source and market on a global basis. Sony's Walkman and Ford's international car are good examples of products made for a global market.
The fourth element is new forms of investment which contribute to the Canadian economy without increasing external control over it. Technological change today demands flexibility which can be better served by various forms of industrial co-operation in order to share and exchange information, to secure a broader supplier base, to spread the costs of basic research, to penetrate foreign markets, or to undertake projects beyond the capacity of any one company.

Contrary to the allegations of the Opposition, Investment Canada does not encourage takeovers. While takeovers have increased in Canada, we are not unique. This is part of a world-wide trend. It is the nature of the current business climate and Canadian businesses are taking part in it as well. McCain's, Papier Cascades, Fleet Aerospace and Peoples Jewellers are only a few examples I could use of dynamic Canadian firms expanding abroad. By focusing only on acquisitions in Canada, the Opposition is ignoring the important new investments which are being made by non-Canadians. These are investments which are creating new jobs and fostering economic growth. The list is very impressive.
Our record in promoting and protecting the interests of Canadians through investment is clear and it is good. We have not only created new jobs, we have also saved jobs which would have been otherwise lost. We are increasing our efforts to attract technology intensive investments that make important contributions to Canadian industrial development.
As the Trade Minister has told the House on several occasions, the kind of disastrous scenario portrayed by the scaremongers on the other side of the House would never be acceptable to us and has never been put to us by the Americans. Ultimately, our new investment policy is the best symbol of our country's fitness and economic success.
May 22, 1987

Supply



[Stage Direction]
The fact that Canada has an agency dedicated to promoting investment represents a new national self-assurance about Canada's economic dynamism. It reflects a powerful impulse to co-operate and to compete in the markets of the world. Canadians are looking for partners. They are willing to forge new economic alliances. They are fit and ready for the challenge of a global economy.
["It being five o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 82(12), proceedings on the motion have expired.\nPursuant to Order made Thursday, May 21, 1987, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 26, 1987, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1)."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before questions and comments, I would like to recognize the Hon. President of the Privy Council.



Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with House Leaders with regard to business for next week and also in connection with the provisional Standing Orders which would expire on May 29, 1987.
I think you will find there is agreement, Mr. Speaker, to the following motion:
That, the order adopted by the House on Tuesday, April 14, 1987, in relation
to the Standing Orders, which was to expire on Friday, May 29, 1987, be
extended to expire when the House adjourns on Friday, June 5, 1987.
While I have the floor I would like to indicate to the House the order of business for next week. Monday, of course, we will meet to hear the President of France, Mr. Mitterrand, at 3 p.m. That will be the only order of business for Monday. Tuesday will be an allotted day. Wednesday we will proceed to Bill C-57. I understand there have been some discussions among all Parties to dispose of that item in all its stages on that day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister, the President of the Privy Council, have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Langdon:
That this House condemn the Government for its refusal to reject flatly U.S. demands for unlimited investment freedom in Canada as part of the free trade negotiations, since these demands would threaten Canadian sovereignty and cultural integrity by removing Canada's ability to review and limit U.S. investment, so as to promote Canadianization and to ensure that U.S. investment does benefit Canadians by creating jobs, enhancing exports, expanding research and development and increasing sourcing from domestic suppliers.
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote, Langelier). I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken up the main bulk of my criticism of Investment Canada with respect to this motion, which is the very poor record, as we have been able to judge it, of monitoring and follow up by Investment Canada to see to it that companies from other countries which make commitments when they come into Canada stick to those commitments.
I cited this morning three particularly dramatic cases of which I will remind the Minister. Sheller-Globe of Canada Ltd., despite stating its commitment to great expansions in Canada, shut down just in the last couple of weeks in Windsor. Cross-LaSalle was taken over by the Cross and Trecker Corporation with the approval, in this case, of Investment Canada. This was a case which came under Investment Canada. It too was shut down in the middle of a strike despite commitments it had made to expand employment. Shortly thereafter it expanded its facilities in the United States in areas represented by right to work laws. I also mentioned the case of the Gulf and Western takeover of Prentice-Hall in which Simon & Schuster promised to promote 10 Canadian authors per year. In committee sessions last week, Investment Canada admitted to us that it has been well over a year since the takeover was approved, but no arrangement has yet been worked out with Simon & Schuster, and, of course, the catalogue of its books for this year, of which I have a copy, do not include any of these promising Canadian authors.

I also have, Mr. Speaker, another question that was put by a man who worked for the Department three and a half years, that is Mr. Paul Stothart who recently left his job with the Department and stated in a study on 21 foreign subsidiairies that those companies provide much fewer jobs in proportion to their sales than do parent companies. This is a question which I have to ask. Is it not possible for Investment Canada to enforce regulations and monitor the situation so that such subsidiaries will create more jobs in Canada because otherwise the lack of job increase will be the consequence of foreign investments. I think that this is very important and this is the

May 22, 1987
Supply
reason why such a motion has been introduced. It is essential to have some control over foreign investments, but it does not mean that all investment will be denied. However, we need an effective control.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will not have time for a supplementary. Are there any other Members who have questions or comments for the Minister? The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote, Langelier).
[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by correcting some of the statements made by the Hon. Member. When we are talking about records or statistics that do not appear to be favourable, I may remind the Hon. Member that the prime objective of investment Canada is to promote foreign investment in Canada, by Canadians and non-Canadians.
As I said earlier, this year, because of certain changes and a new climate of confidence the Government has been able to create, not only with our American allies but throughout the international scene, we have had record investments totalling nearly $7 billion.
The Hon. Member referred to certain commitments that were not met by companies that acquired certain interests in Canada. He was referring to the publishing industry and to Prentice-Hall and Gulf & Western. The Hon. Member pointed out that the duration of the commitment to retransfer equity into Canadian hands was one year. Mr. Speaker, the company's commitment is for two years. The Government's policy to protect our cultural identity says that companies that take over another company must divest their interests within the two years following the takeover, and that is exactly what we are trying to enforce. In the cases mentioned by the Hon. Member, it is exactly that commitment we are trying to enforce, and that is why negotiations are still going on.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that 75 per cent of Investment Canada's budget goes to promotion instead of regulation. Previously, the latter activity tended to stop investment instead of promoting it. When these commitments are made, the Government's reponsibility is to ensure that they constitute a net benefit for Canada. But how do we determine this, Mr. Speaker? It is not uniquely and necessarily in terms of shareholdings, but can be translated into increased productivity and job maintenance, and I wish, just as the Prime Minister himself did so eloquently a little earlier this week, to mention the case of Versatile which has had benefits throughout Canada. This allowed us, among other things, to maintain in the riding represented by my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), over 1,000 jobs which would have been lost otherwise. That is the kind of responsibility and commitment which Investment Canada must pursue to ensure a net benefit for Canada.
In other areas, Mr. Speaker, its mandate will be to protect Canadian ownership of our technology where we already have the expertise. This is something we feel should be protected and which will indeed be protected.
For his information, I would like to indicate to my honourable friend that total investments in Canada amount to $75 billion a year. When considering statistical data, therefore, it is important to keep such things in their proper context. A while ago in my speech, I pointed out that over half of the takeovers these past few years had been of foreign-owned businesses. This means simply a property transfer from one foreign owner to another, Mr. Speaker.
It is therefore necessary to look at the figures and statistical data with the right outlook.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allocated for questions and comments has elapsed. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has the floor.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this afternoon's debate on the motion moved by our colleague of the New Democratic Party on this very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Government of Canada, and especially the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), have neglected their duty throughout this whole free trade exercise. I am not saying this to rile my colleague opposite. I say so, Mr. Speaker, because it is true. I urge the Hon. Member opposite, when he goes back to his riding this weekend, to consider what I have just told him and especially to listen to what I am about to say. I am sure he will agree with me that once again the Prime Minister did let Canadians down.
And the Minister on the other side, who will soon climb aboard his limousine which in all likelihood is parked in front of the building, might consider as he rides in his limousine these very important issues which we-


Claudy Mailly: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Don Boudria: Will you shut up!


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


Claudy Mailly: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but you were distracted in speaking with the Minister-


Don Boudria: The Speaker was not distracted.


Claudy Mailly: The Member opposite has just used language that is not acceptable in this House. He has referred to the fact that the Minister is leaving, and made some derogatory remark about his personal behaviour.
I do not think that is acceptable. He is already deteriorating in tone.
May 22, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will check the "blues". If the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria), who has been here now for a couple of years, did say something that he in his own mind thinks was unparliamentary, I invite him to withdraw it.
If not, I will look at the "blues" and deal with the matter at the next sitting of the House.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, first let me say to the Hon. Member across that I totally disagree with her claim that you were distracted. As we all know, the Speaker is never distracted. It is contempt for the Chair to suggest that the Speaker is distracted. We know that that is not true, and I resent that being said of you, Mr. Speaker.


Claudy Mailly: You are an embarrassment to this House.


Don Boudria: To come back to the point she has raised, as insignificant a point as it is, and as is usually the case when that Member speaks, I merely brought to the attention of the House that I hope that the Minister this week-end, when travelling around in his limousine, would think about the issues that I am about to raise.


John Horton McDermid: What limousine? He drives a Chev.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, what is unparliamentary about a reference to the Minister's limousine, which is probably double-parked or triple-parked outside, in the way that the limousines of Ministers usually are?
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the Hon. Member opposite-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. As I said previously, I will examine the "blues". The debate has been running well this afternoon. It is Friday, May 22, and we still have 50-odd minutes to go. I would hope that Hon. Members would carry on in such a way that we could close off the week in a nice, friendly way.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I promise to speak more slowly in order not to mislead the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly). If I speak more slowly, perhaps she can get a better grasp of what I am saying, and so a better understanding. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to quote the Prime Minister, things he said in the past but, as you will see, did not happen quite the way they should have.

What we are talking about today, Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister's failure to address the issue of the United States
Supply
wanting what I would consider to be unfettered access and unfettered limitation in terms of investments in our country.


John Horton McDermid: Those are your words.


Don Boudria: I wish to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the comments of the Prime Minister in the days when he was the MP for Central Nova. On June 1, 1983, he said, as reported in The Globe and Mail:
This country could not survive with a policy of unfettered free trade. I'm all in favour of eliminating unfair protectionism, where it exists. This is a separate country.
We'd be swamped. We have in many ways a branch-plant economy, in many ways, in certain important sectors. All that would happen with that kind of concept would be the boys cranking up their plants throughout the United States in bad times and shutting their entire branch plants in Canada. It's bad enough as it is ... "
Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that the same fellow who is Prime Minister today is quoted as having said that in 1983! He said further, and again I quote:
And things like auto pacts and fishing treaties, to name but two, are a small price to pay to have a wonderful country like Canada sitting on your doorstep. And so I limit my free-trade concept to strictly bilateral issues that benefit Canada and serve the relationship with the United States too.


John Horton McDermid: That is what we are doing.


Don Boudria: The Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) says that that is great.


John Horton McDermid: I did not say it was great. 1 said that that is exactly what we are doing.


Don Boudria: Well, it is not great, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is not living up to commitments that he himself made.
I know that even the Hon. Member opposite knows better than what he is saying now. Let me again quote the words of the Prime Minister. These are comments made to The Ottawa Citizen by the Prime Minister on July 4, 1985.
We know, of course, the transformation that happened on his taking power. When he took power, his views of Canada and of the world, and particularly his views of the United States, changed dramatically. After all, the United States is very important to the Prime Minister. And even then, Mr. Speaker, he was a little bit more Canadian than some would believe he is now. I read from The Ottawa Citizen article of July 4, 1985:
Mulroney corrected a reporter who asked about the Government's plans for free trade with the United States-"we never discuss free trade," the Prime Minister said.
That was his position at that time: "We never discuss free trade". Remember that, Mr. Speaker, because I will be coming back to it later. He went on to say:
Enhanced trade or trade agreements impact not only on the United States but on our trading relations with allies, upon GATT-(in which Canada is a participant).

May 22, 1987
Supply

I will quote some more, Mr. Speaker. A little later, as reported this time in Le Devoir on July 8, 1985, the Prime Minister said: "I agree-with the term "enhancing in trade relations", but not with the term "free trade"". It is interesting to note how much this Prime Minister has changed.
Let us now see, July 18, 1985

On that date the Prime Minister was saying: "In a discussion paper released last January that formally launched a debate on free trade, the Government stuck to its terminology of a comprehensive bilateral trade arrangement".
Let us see what we have here. We went to improving trade; we went to saying that we were not discussing free trade; we went to amelioration des relations commercialese and then we went to a comprehensive bilateral trade arrangement. This was in the space of about a year and a half. We see that the Prime Minister's position has gradually changed.
We had a debate on free trade in March of this year. I should like to paraphrase what the Prime Minister said at that time about what we were undertaking with the United States: "We are engaging in negotiations for a trading arrangement under Article 24 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade".
When I heard the Prime Minister make those remarks in March, I immediately left my chair-and I am sorry that I missed part of his speech, but I read it the next day-and went to the Library of Parliament to obtain a copy of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Mr. Speaker, do you know what Article 24 is entitled? It is entitled "Territorial Application, Frontier Traffic, Custom Unions, and Free Trade Areas". That is not bad for a fellow who only some time prior was not negotiating a free trade agreement at all. He did not even want anyone to use the term in his presence because it offended him. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, that he said that to The Globe and Mail on June 1, 1983? We were not to discuss free trade in front of him. He did not want to talk about it.
What happened to the Prime Minister over that interval? Obviously, when he was singing with the President on March 17, 1985 in Quebec City that famous song which did irreparable damage to my television set, something happened to the Prime Minister to make him change so that his view went from what it was in 1983 to what it is today.


Claudy Mailly: I hope you do not have any Irish constituents because the song was "When Irish Eyes are Smiling".


Don Boudria: Again I hear the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) making unusual noises across the way. I am sort of looking forward to her contribution in the House, but not all that much because it will probably not happen.
Yesterday the Government released a little booklet, a copy of which I have in hand. It is entitled Trade Negotiations, Securing Canada's Future. It contains the following subtitles: "The Talks: What's at Stake, Jobs for the Future, Opportunities Nationwide, Setting Rules for Services, Improving the GATT". This booklet will be used to stuff shopping bags at shopping centres.
Last night I thought I would read it and that I would be enormously well informed after doing so. However, when I first saw it, I asked myself: Why is the Government exposing itself at this point in the free trade negotiations? Government Members have been telling the House of Commons that they cannot reveal what is in the negotiations because they would be damaging their negotiating position. If that is the case, why are they publishing this booklet on trade negotiations?
Further, seeing that the negotiations are not finished, I really wonder about the wisdom of the Government of Canada spending $12 million of taxpayers' money to convince us that selling our sovereignty to the Americans is good for us. I have some difficulty understanding that.
Nevertheless, I read the booklet last night. I wanted to see what was in it for the people I am called upon to represent in the House of Commons. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I represent an agricultural riding in which there are many dairy farmers, some farmers in the business of egg production and poultry, and generally supply-management agriculture. I had heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) tell us in the past that supply-management would not be negotiated away. We heard the Prime Minister sort of weasel around it but not really ever say that supply-management was not on the negotiating table.
I said to myself that surely the booklet would tell me about supply-management. I turn to page 15, to the paragraph entitled "What About Agriculture?", which reads as follows:
To the extent we can make progress in the Canada-U.S. negotiations in defining allowable subsidies or reducing other non-tariff barriers such as health and technical regulations, it will contribute to the resolution of these problems in the multilateral negotiations.
So far I am wondering what that has to do with agriculture, as you probably are, Mr. Speaker. Further it indicates:
In the bilateral context we are not negotiating the status of farm marketing boards.
A little further on it says:
Both Canada and the U.S. have their own unique systems for marketing farm products in a manner that is responsive to their domestic constituencies. Essentially, agricultural trade issues are global in nature.
I am sure you have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that nowhere in there does it say that supply-management will not be negotiated away.
It talks about marketing boards but not about supply-management. Obviously you know, Mr. Speaker, as do all Members of the House, that that is not necessarily the same thing. Many marketing boards have nothing to do with supply-management at this time.
May 22, 1987

For instance, there are dairy marketing boards, and that is a supply-management commodity. On the other hand, there are marketing boards like the flue-cured tobacco ones, if that is the proper name for them, which do not have a system of supply-management. There are others like the pork producers marketing board which do not have a supply-management component.
This brochure itself cost $350,000 to publish. However, the publicity surrounding this exercise will cost some $12 million, as I said before. Those funds are being spent, and the farmers of my riding do not know whether the Tories across the way will negotiate, give away, and surrender our supply-management system. I say that to the Hon. Member for Gatineau and other Hon. Members across the way. They should be concerned about it. It is important for all Canada.
I should like to refer to another group which is very concerned about free trade. It is not getting any satisfaction from the Government. I am referring to egg producers. I received a package of information from them which contained a subparagraph entitled "Impact: 47 per cent of producers at risk" and indicated:
In order to determine the effect of free trade, the Canadian egg industry compared domestic farm costs with the cost of U.S. eggs transported to major Canadian markets. Canadian producers with costs above those of imported American eggs are at risk. Canadian producers with costs equal to or less than the U.S. landed cost are competitive.
If American eggs were allowed free access to Canada, 47.5 per cent or 930 Canadian producers would be at risk.
I do not want 930 farmers to be put out of business. It is bad enough that the present Government ended the moratorium on farm foreclosures. In the next 12 months 1,000 farms on which the Farm Credit Corporation holds mortgages will end up being the property of the Government of Canada, according to the information given by the FCC at committee yesterday. With that sad state of affairs, I do not want to see any more farmers in trouble.
[ Translation]
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, farmers producing commodities that are now dependent on supply management do not want to see their marketing system traded away or otherwise dismantled in those free trade negotiations.
This is why it is important for this House to take a stand on this issue. It is important that I bring it to the attention of all members in this place.
Mr. Speaker, in October 1986, I received a statement from the Dairy Farmers of Canada, from which I will quote this one paragraph:
"Dairy Farmers wish to express hereby their solid conviction that any dismantling of or disruption in the overall policies and programs currently in place, including the milk supply management program, would be totally unacceptable."
This shows, Mr. Speaker, I am not alone in wanting to keep that system-producers themselves want it. And I urge the Government once more to state once and for all whether their
Supply
industry will be protected. I note unfortunately that my time is coming to an end, or very nearly so. I wish I had more time to comment on that important matter today.
I would like to bring another issue to your attention, Mr. Speaker. People in the dredging business in Canada have not been getting fair access to contracts in the United States or elsewhere. Most countries have protective measures to protect those who are in that dredging business. Here in Canada we do not. People in the dredging business in Canada, because of the Jones Act and other legislation in the U.S., cannot work in the U.S.A. At the same time, the Americans have free access to come here and they do so in connection with many large contracts. I invite the Government of Canada to think about issues like this. It is fine to talk here, as the Conservatives do, suggesting that we will give away this and that to the Americans, but it is time that we started to think that we do not have unfettered access to the American market. It is important for Canadians to assert our sovereignty and to ensure that the Government and the Prime Minister get the message that Members of this House do not want the PM to give away our country.
There are many important issues to be talked about in the free trade negotiations. I am not satisfied with the way things are going. The people whom I represent in the House of Commons are not pleased either. It is time that the Government started to sharpen up in the way it is handling this issue.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, it continues to amaze me to hear the indignation of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and members of the Opposition when they hear that the United States is speaking publicly about concessions that it wants to gain in these negotiations. It seems to me that that would be most predictable and it would be quite surprising if we did not hear Mr. Murphy, the U.S. negotiator, indicate what it is he wants from Canada. When Members speak in this House in the manner in which they do, such as the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, really they are helping Mr. Murphy in great style in his negotiations.
The Hon. Member spoke about the dredging problem. He makes the point about the need for stable, increased and ongoing access to the American market. That is what the negotiations are all about. There is no agreement to criticize. We were in the process of reaching an agreement. To suggest that Canadian farmers or any other group of Canadians will lose a, b, or c as a result of these negotiations is not only premature but it is also blatantly dishonest. These negotiations are taking place in an effort to achieve for all Canadians the opportunity to maintain and enhance economic opportunities.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there was a comment by the Member but no question. However, I will comment briefly on

May 22, 1987
Supply
what the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) has said.
As to the first part of the Member's comment that somehow Mr. Murphy or his cohorts in the U.S. are supposed to be making these public declarations the way they are at the same time as our negotiator is supposed to be keeping quiet, the logic of it somehow escapes me. If they are negotiating in private, they should both do it, and if they are negotiating in public they should both do that as well. It should not be one person operating under one set of rules and another person operating under another set.
In terms of my making comments here in the House of Commons, I would suspect that an American congressman speaking in the United States probably would want to ensure that his area is well protected. He has the right to do so. I have the right just as well to speak here to ensure that the interests of the farmers, the shoe manufacturers, the factory workers and everyone else in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott- Russell who asked me to represent them in the House of Commons are heard here, and that is exactly what I intend to do.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question. I appreciate the Member's representations on behalf of his constituents in the rural communities. I have met with many farm groups, including the milk farmers, not only in my area but across this province and from across Canada.
One of the good things about these negotiations is the consultative process that is going on. It is the biggest consultative process ever put together for a project such as this. It has proved very beneficial and has provided the Government and our negotiators with some very pertinent information.
The final sentence in the speech of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was that the Government had better smarten up and do something. The Government is doing something. We are having negotiations on a bilateral trade agreement with the United States.
The Liberals have not yet decided what their policy is on trade. We hear from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) on one side that he is against the negotiations. We hear from the Hon. Member for St. Henri- Westmount (Mr. Johnston) that he is in favour of the negotiations. The Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) agrees with both of them. We are not sure exactly where the Liberal Party stands or what it would do differently. Would the Liberals negotiate a bilateral agreement with the United States, our largest trading partner and the largest trading bloc in the world today? Or would the Liberals stick with the GATT process, which is a long drawn out one, probably four years to negotiate and a number of years to implement after that? Just exactly what would Liberals do when it comes to trade negotiations? Would they have them or would they run away and hide?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the people who have chosen to run away and hide when issues become a little too contentious are those across the way. They are the ones who made 338 promises and have tried to weasel out of most, if not all of them with the exception of capital punishment, which is probably the only one they should not have delivered.
I do not apologize that we here on this side of the House of Commons are trying to hold this Government accountable. We are trying to tell the Government that it cannot say something in 1983, something different in 84 and something yet different in 1985 and then talk about free trade in 1986. The people of Canada just will not go for that. What we need from the Government is a Government that is honest and sincere with the people, telling them exactly what is going on every step of the way, recognizing that some of the things being negotiated have to be done in private. Any negotiator knows that and all Members of the House of Commons know that.
We need, nevertheless, some basic assurances from the Government. We are not getting them. Not only that, but we are not getting what the same Government and the same Prime Minister promised some time ago. I could reread every single one of those contradictory statements that I read 10 minutes ago. That is not what the Government was elected to do. It was not elected to say one thing and do the opposite. The Government is elected to govern.
Our role here in the House of Commons is to hold the Government accountable. I intend on my part to continue to do that. I do not want to see the supply-management system given away by this Government when it has so far refused to give the assurance that it will not be. I challenge the Hon. Member across the way to show me in the documentation given out in shopping centres yesterday where it says that supply management will be protected. I will even lend him my copy of the document if he does not have one.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a short comment and a question. It seems to me there have been three aspects to this debate. The first is a fight over what the free trade negotiator, Mr. Reisman, has been saying. The Minister claims the Government and Mr. Reisman have been consistent. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) said they were inconsistent and that this was hurting negotiations.
The second aspect is a debate on Investment Canada itself. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) made a case for the fact that Investment Canada is not working properly in monitoring the commitments made by foreign firms involved in takeovers of Canadian firms.
The third aspect is the broad ideological debate on foreign investment. The NDP has, I think, a fairly straightforward position on that. We are not against foreign investment but we think it needs control. The investors have to be forced to reinvest their profits, do research and development in Canada, get Canadians on their boards of directors and as partners,
May 22, 1987

they have to try to buy Canadian, and finally they have to employ Canadians and act like good corporate citizens of Canada.
I have set out what I think is a reasonable position with respect to foreign investment and I point out to the Hon. Member that we are going to have a lot more of it. When the British rule over Hong Kong ends we are going to get a lot of investment from there. That is already happening in western Canada.
Does the Hon. Member agree with those kinds of provisions for the control of foreign investment? Would he take away or add to them? Does he have any further policy suggestions we could use?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in order to save time I will address what the Hon. Member has referred to as the ideological debate over control of foreign investment. As he will know, and I think one of his colleagues raised it, as did the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), Investment Canada has not refused any applicant, according to its annual report. That tells me something. On the one hand, applicants were so fantastic no one dared to refuse them, which is somewhat unlikely. Or, the more likely scenario, the Government has a deliberate policy of not refusing any application. This is for two reasons: First, its own ideological bent; second, because the Government did not want to offend Americans when it was negotiating this trade agreement. Both reasons are wrong, in my view. You never negotiate from a position of weakness no matter what you want to do. To bend over backwards before you start or in the middle of the process is not doing this country any good. The Americans sure did not stop imposing countervailing duties on us while they were negotiating.
As to control, not that I was a part of it but the previous Liberal Government enacted the Foreign Investment Review Act. It may have had flaws. It certainly made a few people in the U.S. get their backs up. Perhaps amendments were required. Some people brought to the attention of this House that someone opening a hotdog stand or what have you had to go through the application process. That may have been unreasonable sometimes, maybe not. After all, the largest chain of restaurants in the world is McDonald's and they sell hamburgers and other fast food. It is an important business. Nevertheless, we need foreign investment legislation similar, perhaps not identical, to FIRA. We need some form of protection.
Second, with respect to research, it is important to note that since the Government has been in office, 94 per cent of the foreign investment went to takeovers only. The Science Council of Canada said quite clearly that in those circumstances you do not get research in branch plants. That is not good for our country. In the debate on Bill C-22, the drug legislation, we wanted guarantees there would be research and not just branch plants.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to represent the Minister of Communications (Ms. MacDonald) in this debate on a question of historic significance for this country.

I am also proud to stand in this House and speak about the achievement of our Government in building a stronger, healthier and more vibrant nation, more secure in its identity than ever before. A nation whose cultural sovereignty has never been more cherished. A nation which recently reached a new maturity, as witness the responsible way the 10 Premiers of our country, representing all of the people of Canada, dealt with the inclusion of my native province in the constitutional Accord. It is also a nation whose artistic and cultural communities have never been accorded a more important place in the priorities of a Government.
Unfortunately, we are debating today a motion which is both misguided and mischievous on such a crucial matter as the economic future of our country. The motion is fundamentally flawed. Why? Because it is intended to create uncertainty. However, I have faith in the people of Canada, unlike the NDP which fears the free expression of the public's choice. I believe in the common sense of the people of Canada and in their sense of purpose and pride. I also believe these grow stronger every day, not weaker.
I am not a timid soul. Neither are most Canadians. Therefore, I am saddened that this motion pretends there is a threat to our nation, that Canada has been presented with demands by the U.S. Government for "unlimited investment freedom in Canada". What absolute nonsense. Yesterday the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) said that our neighbours had asked for "a total unfettered right to buy up any Canadian business they want". Then he said "wide open investment". What do we hear about today? We hear about "unlimited investment" that would "threaten Canadian sovereignty and cultural identity". Yesterday he cited newspaper reports of an interview with our chief trade negotiator, Simon Reisman, and asked why the Government had not said no to suggestions that the American investor should be able to buy Canadian newspapers, radio and television stations, or publishing firms.
The Leader of the Opposition did not read the newspapers very carefully yesterday. I think that happens to him more and more often these days. He should look more closely at those reports, as should all Canadians who are interested in the trade negotiations and the firm commitment of the Government to strengthen and enhance our cultural industries and our national identity.

May 22, 1987
Supply
I would like to quote briefly from an article by Terrence Wills of The Gazette. It reads:
Reisman's mandate does not-
-and I underline the word "not"-
-include bargaining the removal of restrictions on U.S. ownership in areas like Canadian chartered banks, newspapers or radio and TV.
This is a person from the media speaking. The article continues:
Nor is the Canadian team authorized to negotiate elimination of such policies as ensuring Canadian control in book publishing, or a majority of Canadian directors on the boards of foreign companies.
All the poppycock from the Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), who has now left after giving a very low-quality speech as always-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that she should not reflect on attendance in the House. The Hon. Member could be in the lobby watching the Hon. Member on television. I do not think a reflection upon who is and who is not in the House is necessary at this time of the day.


Claudy Mailly: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I got carried away. However, I must note that there is no one on the other side and yet this is an NDP motion. I find it rather spooky to be speaking to my own people. I am preaching to the converted.
As I was saying, the article is quite clear. Mr. Reisman has a clear mandate to maintain and protect Canada's cultural industries. They are not an issue in these talks. This is not news. This has been the stated position of the Government from the very outset of the trade negotiations. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) and many, many Members on this side of the House have made our position known to Canadians, to Americans, and to Members opposite on countless occasions.
Let me remind Members of the words of the Prime Minister in this House in September, 1985. He said:
Our political sovereignty, our system of social programs, our commitment to fight regional disparities, our unique cultural identity, our special linguistic character-these are the essence of Canada. They are not at issue in these negotiations.

I repeat that neither our political sovereignty nor our social programs nor our commitment to fight regional disparity-this on-going Canadian problem we have tried to resolve by spending enormous amounts of money but which is still with us-and certainly not our cultural identity or our language, Mr. Speaker, none of these are at issue in the trade talks.

The motion before us suggests that the Government has not been firm with the Americans on this issue. The movers have surely forgotten the message that the Prime Minister took
directly to the American people in his speech in Chicago in December of 1985 when he said:
When it comes to discussing better trade rules for cultural industries, you will have to understand that what we call cultural sovereignty is as vital to our national life as political sovereignty .... In the United States you cast the net of national security over more areas than we; in Canada we cast the net of cultural sovereignty more widely than you.

That is also what the Minister for International Trade had in mind when she said last October that a clear message had been sent to our negotiators that the present Government's ability to protect and enrich Canadian culture would not be on the table. The essence of our Canadian identity cannot and must not be compromised. That is clear. Or, as was said in this respect by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on another occasion: The question whether certain Canadian cultural industries require certain specific support measures is a matter of internal policy falls outside the purview of trade negotiations.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Government's position has been unequivocal. To suggest otherwise is, as I said, mischievous, which is a polite way of saying that they are stretching the truth. All Members know how many times this matter has been raised in the House and how straightforward we have been in reiterating our fundamental belief in the need to maintain and enhance support measures for the arts in our cultural industries.
Only eight weeks ago the House spent a full day debating a motion of the Minister for International Trade in support of the negotiations. That motion specified very clearly that the Government would continue to protect our political sovereignty, social programs, agricultural marketing systems, the auto industry, and our unique cultural identity.
During that debate the Minister of Communications spoke of the new maturity of our nation, of the inherent strength of our national character, of the self-confidence of a country whose identity is no longer in question. She reminded us all of the richness of our heritage, of the broad sweep of history that has brought together peoples from many cultures to form a unique society proud of its heritage and distinct in its social, cultural and political traditions.
Ours is an outward looking country, a nation whose voices are heard and whose presence is felt around the world and in many fields; in architecture and the arts, in music and dance, in science, in medicine, in engineering and in commerce, to name but a few.

Communications and other cultural ties that are crucial to the unity of our country arise from the make-up of our population, our cultural heritage and the special cultural mosaic and diversity that people from every part of the globe have brought, and continue to bring, to this vast country of ours. Canada plays a unique role in the world, a role of which
May 22, 1987

it can be proud. In fact, our country is both a member of the Commonwealth of English-speaking countries and of La Francophonie, so that it has a privileged relationship with about one hundred countries.
Mr. Speaker, we are also developing privileged ties with the Pacific Rim countries, another group that shares some of our goals and aspirations, including trade and even a desire to improve the standard of living of their people. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) mentioned earlier that he saw this new burst of agreements with Pacific Rim countries more or less as a threat. Mr. Speaker, I can say quite frankly it is not a threat, any more than Quebec's pride and its desire to express its distinct identity within this great country of ours was a threat to this country, and we have acknowledged as much. We know today that by strengthening our regions, our provinces and our cultures we are strengthening the country. So we should not fear the influx of ideas from afar or new alliances that, in fact, can only strengthen our culture and our identity, not harm it.
By recognizing the need for an ongoing dialogue with Quebec, our Goverment was able to achieve a historic breakthrough in its relations with this province. Decisions relating to culture and communications are now prepared in a spirit of cooperation and cordiality, a spirit that never existed previously between Ottawa and Quebec. Indeed the signs are there, Mr. Speaker: the second francophone summit will take place in Canada, yet for 20 years we had not managed to hold such a summit, and here we are working on our second!
Our Government has every reason to be pleased about its record with respect to support for cultural endeavours. It has created cultural agencies, launched assistance programs and adopted regulations and tax measures in this field. There is no denying that such initiatives play an essential role by encouraging and supporting cultural achievements in this country. Our negotiators have said so to the Americans in no uncertain terms. There is no question of putting on the table either these institutions or our sovereign power to take fresh or different measures as the evolution of our situation may require.
Members of the Government have spoken often of the special needs of our artists and creators, and of the need to maintain support programs for the cultural industries. We have done much more than talk. We have demonstrated our commitment through thoughtful, well-planned and concrete measures designed to respond directly to the concerns expressed by the artistic and cultural communities.
When the Government came to office it launched a thorough and intense program of consultations, touching on almost every aspect of the cultural portfolio. We have seen the several reports which have been presented to the House by the standing committee studying the various aspects of culture and communications. They are very thoughtful reports that are
Supply
very useful to the Minister in preparing legislation. Some of this legislation has already been introduced and more will come soon. We are doing more than talk in our attempt to help cultural industries.
We did much more than consult, we acted. Through those actions we have made it clear to Canadians and to the Americans, who are listening, that the ability of Canadians to express themselves to Canada and the world is not negotiable.
Let me remind Members of the House of some of those initiatives in order that we might better judge the motion before us. The Investment Canada Act itself was one of the first major legislative initiatives of the Government. In that Act, cultural concerns were of central importance. Cultural industries have special status under that Act and are subject to more stringent review procedures. The message is very clear.
In a similar vein, the Government adopted a publishing policy to protect the health of the Canadian publishing industry. We have also introduced a strong new book publishing development program, and have increased funding for the Canada Council to support Canadian writers. The Government also introduced a new feature film distribution and production fund and created a fund to support dubbing and subtitling.
We opened the doors to allow the film industry to benefit from other government programs to which it did not have access before. For example, Employment and Immigration Canada's training funds were made available to help Norman Jewison establish a film institute in Toronto.

We have set up the sound recording industry assistance program to encourage the Canadian record sector to produce and market musical programs and products. We have set aside additional funds for the Canada Council to improve access to performing arts throughout Canada, and as much as possible to stabilize the financial situation of artistic concerns. We have approved royalties which compensate Canadian authors when their works are loaned out by public libraries. This had been unheard of, Mr. Speaker. We created a special fund designed to increase the efficiency of and the access to public archives and libraries. We have adopted new measures concerning French language television. We acknowledge the distinct character of French language radio broadcasting, and we give priority to the need to design specific policies to take these realities into account. The Government firmly believes that the choice of French programming available throughout Canada must be improved. Not just in Quebec, everywhere else in Canada! This is why we are involved in TV Ontario's French network at the Canadian level and, at the international level, in the TV-5 network whose programs are aired in Europe and Africa. Mr. Speaker, we belong to the world's great French fraternity.

At the moment, the Government is preparing legislation to license the importation of films into Canada. This legislation will permit Canada, for the first time in almost 60 years, to

May 22, 1987
Supply
exist as a distinct national film market. Previously, Canada did not exist as such a distinct market.
In the field of broadcasting, where the need for balance between Canadian and foreign cultural productions is most critical, we will be conducting a fundamental overhaul of the Broadcasting Act. In a matter of days we will be introducing new copyright legislation.
All of these initiatives cut across the full spectrum of the cultural portfolio. They nurture individual creators and performers, and they foster the economic health of the cultural industries. They are not meant to restrict freedom of choice but to enrich it, by ensuring that each of us as consumers of art work and cultural products will be able to choose from Canadian images, ideas and music as well as from the best from other countries.
These measures are not the work of a Government that takes cultural sovereignty lightly. They are not the work of a Government that would sacrifice national identity for political or economic ends. These are measures that are testimony to the Government's commitment and it is a testimony that has been heard and respected by both sides in these trade talks.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) for her thorough, well researched speech on the negotiations with the United States. I am particularly pleased to hear her references to cultural institutions and the cultural fabric of this country, representing, as she does, a culturally unique part of our Confederation.
Does she foresee a trade agreement to be something analogous to the trading arrangement that is reflected in the Auto Pact? When we in eastern Canada hear the negative remarks about a trade agreement, we look at the Auto Pact and wonder how the Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) can stand in the House to oppose a trade arrangement that will benefit Atlantic Canada in the same way as the Auto Pact benefits his constituency.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, while these two subjects are of different magnitude, they do have many common elements.
The first reaction of the Opposition, including the former Liberal Government and the socialist Opposition, to the proposition of an Auto Pact was one of great dissension, fear and doom and gloom. That is in common with what is happening in this case. There are similarities with the Auto Pact. There is also a great resemblance in the benefits to our country of both arrangements.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being five o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 82(12), proceedings on the motion have expired.
Pursuant to Order made Thursday, May 21, 1987, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 26, 1987, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, May 26, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

[DOT] ("05)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in Vancouver this afternoon Rick Hansen completes his heart-lifting Man in Motion journey around the world.
For the past two years Rick has demonstrated courage, humour, decency, strength of body, strength of mind, and strength of spirit.
Rick is a hero to physically challenged Canadians, to young people, indeed to all of us. He has taught us respect for others and respect for ourselves. He has taught us the joy of hard work and the value of endurance and perseverance.
I salute Rick Hansen. You know, Mr. Speaker, as I do, that today will be a very special day in Vancouver. Rick has come home, and we are all very proud of him.
We need more nice-guy heroes. We need more heroes like Rick Hansen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

CONGRATULATIONS TO WEIGHTLIFTER LANGIS CfiTE


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the Canadian weight lifting championships were held in the Lac Saint-Jean area. On that occasion, Langis Cote, a young resident of my riding, took first place in the 67.5 kg class, doing so for the third consecutive time.
Mr. Cote's achievements in the sport of weight lifting are a source of pride for our region, but above all, Mr. Speaker, this proves that young Canadian men and women are able to discipline themselves and focus their efforts on the goal they want to achieve. We would do well to follow this example.
In concluding, I want to wish Langis good luck at the European championships in Austria next month.



AIR CANADA


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you remember the case of Toni Corrado, the Air Canada flight attendant who was suspended for 30 days for being critical of the Minister of Transport to a couple of passengers who asked her opinion and turned out to be delegates on their way to the Conservative Convention.
After writing to the Minister of Transport, the letter from the Tory Party workers went straight to Air Canada, which resulted in her receiving a 30-day suspension.
National interest in the case meant that there were many changes to the allegations against Ms. Corrado. Not wanting to appear as though the Conservative Party was against free speech, she received a reduction in her suspension to seven days on the suggestion that she was too persistent in expressing her views.
The House owes a debt of gratitude to the courage of Toni Corrado who refused to accept even a reduced sentence on an unjust charge. She grieved her penalty, and hearings began in Vancouver last week.
The hearings were under way when Air Canada offered Ms. Corrado a settlement, a settlement it could have offered a year ago.
I am pleased to report to the House that the seven-day suspension has been overturned, with complete financial compensation to Ms. Corrado. Her right to free speech has been acknowledged by Air Canada, and she will suffer absolutely no penalty.
Congratulations to Toni Corrado for fighting and winning this good fight.
6328___________________________



EDMONTON VENUE OF NATIONAL RACKET-BALL CHAMPIONSHIPS-TRIBUTE TO VOLUNTARY WORKERS

William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, the 1987 National Racket-ball Championships are being held in Edmonton from May 18 to May 23. More than 430 athletes from across Canada will participate. The men's and women's open will include many members of the World Championship Team. The competitions also include events for men aged 55 years and over, as well as events for wheelchair athletes.
Edmonton is noted for successfully sponsoring championship events such as the World University Games, the Commonwealth Games of 1978, and this week the National Racket-ball Championships. Outstanding success has always been achieved due to excellent organization and the commitment of a large body of volunteers.
Committed and dedicated volunteers are essential to ensure the success of events of this magnitude. I speak on behalf of all Edmontonians in paying tribute to the volunteers who contribute their free time for the betterment not only of racket-ball championships but indeed our society.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, on April 8 the Hon. Member for Northumberland- Miramichi (Mr. Jardine) criticized me in the House for taking the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) to task for denying that the Conservative Party had promised a real increase of 6 per cent in defence spending and has never come close.
The Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi even inaccurately stated that Canada's stock in NATO was at an all-time high.
So bad was the statement of the Hon. Member that a retired general wrote the following letter to him and sent a copy to me:
Dear Mr. Jardine:
As a supporter of the Conservative Party, I regret that I must criticize your statement in the House on April 8 wherein you take Mr. Len Hopkins to task for his statement on March 27.
While you may be quite correct in a documentary sense to say that no election promises were made about defence expenditures under a Conservative Government, there were in fact promises made and, to date, unkept.
What's more, 1 would like to see the NATO documentation that puts "Canada's stock ... at an all-time high". With this year's arbitrary cuts in the defence budget and rumoured changes in our force contributions to NATO, I would not be surprised to see our "stock" hit an all-time low before the end of this year.
May 22, 1987
As a member of the Air Force Officers Advisory Group, I am proud to
endorse the position just made by our executive to the Prime Minister. I hope
that you will not be so proud of the "record" that you will not admit that more
funding for defence was promised and is needed.

[ Translation]



POLITICAL PARTIES


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the socialists were up to their old tricks, this time casting doubts on the integrity of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). It was a shabby attempt indeed.
Mr. Speaker, our party and the Liberal Party recruit their supporters, through their riding associations, among all Canadians.
The NDP, however, recruits its membership among radicals and extremists. It uses the money of honest workers through their unions, workers who would otherwise not finance the NDP.
This party is increasing its influence with the unions, unbeknownst to their members. It is being helped to the tune of millions of dollars by the big trade unions, without the workers being informed. It has made a specialty of using other people's money. It does this by taking advantage of hearings held by standing committees, and through the use of mailing privileges and of all the resources available to each Member of this House.
Before attacking and libelling Members of this House, this party should put its own house in order.



NATIONAL ARCHIVES


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, Canada, like other nations, has a National Archives where important documents are stored for posterity so that our history can be recorded and future generations can study and make up their own minds as to our successes and failures in terms of economic, social, cultural and political affairs.
Unfortunately, however, although we have a fine new Archives Act, we have no archives building. The Public Archives share the National Library building and both are forced to rent other space and move documents between buildings. The Public Archives has 17 buildings for storage,

May 22, 1987

and 75 per cent of the documents are actually stored in substandard spaces. This means, in the case of flooding, that documents have been destroyed and others are deteriorating so they will be useless in the future.
If we as Canadians have any respect for ourselves, for our history, and the right of future generations to understand it, we need adequate space for our archives. In short, if we believe in Canada, we must find the means for acquiring a new archives building.



CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, each year the Northwest Territories and Yukon import from the southern provinces over one million dozen eggs.
What happens when citizens of this part of Canada try to establish their own industry? I will tell you what happens, Sir. CEMA, the southern egg cartel, stomps down on them and tries to crush out this initiative. The Territories are refused a quota. Not only that, CEMA seeks court injunctions to prevent territorial eggs being shipped from one part of the Territories to another part on a road that goes through a province.
This constraint to trade and infringement on the freedom of Canadians is unacceptable. The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency is an affront to liberty, and ought to be disbanded forthwith.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, Canadians became aware today that an inadvertent mistake appears to have happened whereby booklets published under contract by the Department of Supply and Services for the Immigration Department had an ad soliciting funds for the Conservative Party of Ontario.
While I accept the explanation given in this House by the Minister as being accurate, I would call upon the Minister to make an appropriate statement after Question Period in order to assure all Canadians, Members of this House as well, particularly the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) and I, that, in fact, no examples of these booklets were distributed to potential candidates for immigration, either here in Canada or abroad.
I feel that the House deserves such an explanation from the Minister and I invite her to take but a few minutes after Question Period in order to make such a statement.



NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I had the pleasure of visiting a small community in my constituency by the name of Elgin, in Albert County. Elgin is famous for maple syrup, blueberries, and experienced citizens. The reason for my visit was to meet with a group of people who belong to the 50 Plus Club and provide them with a grant under the New Horizons Program so they could continue with their community work.
The good citizens of Elgin are blessed with an extraordinary amount of good common sense. Since my return to Ottawa they have written me and I would like to share with you the words of Florence Wall, the President of the 50 Plus Club in Elgin, New Brunswick. In her last paragraph she wrote:
Again may we thank you and wish you and your Party continued success in the
good work you are doing to keep Canada a place we are all proud to call home.



HARBOURS AND PORTS


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, in its confusion and bungling the Conservative Government tries to pretend the problems it faces are the fault of the Opposition in the House of Commons. The fact is that the Cabinet has not been able to establish priorities.
For over two months the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) has had proposals before Cabinet dealing with small craft harbours and second phase funding for salmonoid enhancement. Yet Cabinet has not reached a decision. In the meantime our small craft harbours continue to deteriorate. Department officials say $120 million is needed each year to maintain them. This year the Government allocated only $48 million. If this continues, officials warn, dozens of small communities will lose their docking facilities in the next few years.
In the 1984 election the Conservatives promised a properly funded salmonoid enhancement program. They increased licence fees for fishermen to help fund the program but it is stalled in Cabinet.

May 22, 1987
Oral Questions
If the Government wants to regain the confidence of [DOT] <ll20)
Canadians it must get its priorities straight and eliminate the
log-jams in Cabinet.	ORAL QUESTION PERIOD



SCIENCE


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a very important event that is taking place this week in the riding of Ottawa-Vanier. I am referring to the annual conference of the Association canadienne-franqaise pour I'avancement des sciences being held at the University of Ottawa. This science conference is important to ensure the continued existence of the French language as a living force in the world of science. We all know how important English is as a language of work and communications in this area. We must promote the use of French in science. For instance, only 5 per cent of the articles published by the National Research Council in 13 scientific journals are in French. This must change. ACFAS, at conferences like the one being held this week, has shown it is possible to do high quality scientific work in French. I want to congratulate and pay tribute to all francophone researchers and wish them a cordial welcome and a pleasant stay with us in Ottawa-Vanier.



EMPLOYMENT


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to an answer the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gave yesterday in response to a question posed by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). He was taking credit for jobs created in Canada and said the Hon. Member's statement was false. He went on to say:
Some 46 per cent of the jobs created were in Ontario, 28 per cent in Quebec, 22 per cent in western Canada, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, the "and so on" is Atlantic Canada. The three regions that he referred to add up to 96 per cent of the jobs. "And so on" only got 4 per cent of the jobs. If the Prime Minister is going to continue to ignore Atlantic Canada 1 wish he would at least admit that and make mention of it in his answers to questions in the House.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AMERICAN INVESTMENT IN CANADIAN INDUSTRY

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. For the past three days I have been trying to obtain an answer from the Government as to who was speaking on its behalf with regard to the wide open request made by the United States for American takeovers of Canadian industry.
Simon Reisman, our chief negotiator, is quoted as saying, and I am going to use his words, "-the U.S. side has made it very clear at every level, Presidential, Secretary to Secretary, and at the negotiating table, that they are anxious to talk about investment in the broadest sense". Those are his words as reported in a story filed by Terry Wills of the Montreal Gazette of May 21.
Yet the Minister for International Trade said yesterday that that simply was not true. In response to me yesterday in the House of Commons the Prime Minister said, yes, the President had raised the issue with him, then no, the issue had not been raised with him, all within two answers as recorded in Hansard.
Has the Prime Minister briefed the Minister for International Trade on what the President of the United States had to say to him on the issue of American takeover of Canadian industry and opening up the investment rules? If so, would he explain to the House who is speaking on behalf of the Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition made a false charge in the House yesterday when he used the word "unfettered". He had the grace to correct that false charge. He has now made another false charge with regard to the statements of the Prime Minister reported in yesterday's Hansard. I hope he will have the grace to withdraw that false charge.
I hope also, Mr. Speaker, that in the interest of ensuring that this House is able to deal with facts, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues will deal with facts and will not try to create fears or enter falsehoods into the record of the House of Commons.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the words which I have just quoted from Simon Reisman are accurate and also that Hansard bears out the ambiguity of the Prime Minister's responses to me yesterday. I will leave that to every Member of the House to judge.
May 22, 1987



INVESTMENT-INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT WILL NOT REVEAL PUBLICLY WHAT IT IS WILLING TO GIVE TO AMERICANS

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister for International Trade met with provincial Trade Ministers who urged her not to give in to the United States and its demands for greater freedom and latitude in taking over Canadian industries.
Even the provincial Governments are aware of U.S. demands in this respect, but the Minister said yesterday that the federal Cabinet had not been informed.
Why does the Government refuse to tell the House and the Canadian people that it is ready to give in to the Americans as far as investment in Canada is concerned?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, another falsehood by the Leader of the Official Opposition. I realize the Liberal Party is desperate, but I trust that in future, the Leader of the Official Opposition will talk about facts and not bandy about the kind of falsehoods we have just heard.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the President talked about the interest of the Americans in the investment question. The Leader of the Official Opposition claimed that the request was for unfettered and wide-open access. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, both allegations by the Leader of the Opposition are false.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, how about the words "in the broadest sense"? Those are Mr. Reisman's words and the words I used are certainly parallel to those.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


John Napier Turner: They certainly are. Every statement I have quoted can be backed up by a tape.



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT POSITION

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister contradicted herself. First she said to journalists that the issue had not been raised, a few moments later she said the door is wide open, then she said it was up to the Americans to raise the issue if they wanted to, and then she said she would not consider it. I can give the Right Hon. Minister all those words. They are not falsehoods at all. They are out of the mouth of his colleague. In these circumstances, can you blame Canadians for being confused because the Government of Canada itself is confused? If the Minister is in this benign mood this morning, will he tell us who is speaking for the Government of Canada and what is the position of the Government of Canada?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition does not have to convince me that the words uttered by my colleagues are not falsehoods. We all know that. We also know that they are consistent, the statements of the Minister for International Trade and other Ministers are consistent.
The falsehoods have been uttered by the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Essex-Windsor and by others in the House.
The situation is that the Americans are interested in discussing investment. We are prepared to consider their specific proposals to discuss investment once we have received them in final form. If they are acceptable to Canada, we are prepared to negotiate on that basis. If they are not acceptable to Canada we are not prepared to negotiate on that basis.
We intend to maintain in place protections for vital Canadian interests, as has been made clear by my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, and by the Prime Minister.
I remind the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that all nations, including the United States, have very significant barriers to investment. For example, in the United States, in some 22 of those States, these are state actions, not simply national actions, which limit investment. We intend to make the Americans aware of that.
The only people whom I have heard talking about unfettered rights of investment in Canada by Americans are the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. That might be their policy, but it is not ours.



STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO CANADIAN NEGOTIATOR

Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who said that the Americans have not yet raised the matter. Mr. Reisman, our trade negotiator, is quoted in yesterday's newspapers as saying that the United States is anxious to talk about investment in the broadest sense and, in fact, the matter was raised by the President himself, Secretary of State Shultz, and Secretary of the Treasury, James Baker.
In other words, Mr. Reisman, a man with a very distinguished record, has said that the Americans have already raised these matters about broadening the acceptance of investment in this country. Is Mr. Reisman correct in what he says and, if so, did the Government tell the President, Secretary Shultz and Secretary Baker that we are not interested in broadening the terms of investment and entrenching it in a free trade deal?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is now trying to wiggle away from the words and accusations that were made by his Leader and himself. The record is there.

May 22, 1987
Oral Questions
The Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry will not be able to wiggle away from it.
I will repeat what I said a moment ago. The President and other American officials, and as the Prime Minister said in the Elouse yesterday, have indicated an interest in investment. I am current with all of the debates and all of the exchanges that have taken place. To my knowledge, at no time did anyone suggest unfettered, wide open investment in Canada; anyone, except the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. They might want unfettered American investment in Canada; that is not our position.


Lloyd Axworthy: I simply remind the Secretary of State that those were not our words, but the words of the chief trade negotiator for Canada, Mr. Reisman, who said that the Americans want to raise the question of investment in its broadest sense.



UNITED STATES REPORT

Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that he is current with everything that is going on. He is probably aware of the report on foreign trade barriers put out last fall by the office of the U.S. trade representative, describing the bilateral negotiations with the United States. It says:
The United States has urged Canada to liberalize the Investment Canada
Act-
It goes on to talk about the areas, such as culture, energy and resources. It states:
The United States will raise its concerns on Canada's treatment of foreign
investment during bilateral free trade negotiations.
My assertion is that the Americans themselves have already said that the matters have been raised and they are asking for liberalization. Having this on the public record, would it not be the proper position of this Government-and it had the opportunity this morning-to simply say that we are not prepared to have foreign investment raised as part of these negotiations other than trade related, that we will not agree to any broadening of the investment package? Why will the Secretary of State for External Affairs not say that now? Why has he refused? Or is in fact the Government preparing to give in and cave in once again?


Charles Joseph Clark: Just so we are clear about this, Mr. Speaker, the word "unfettered", which is false, was not our word. It was the word of the Liberal Party. It is false.


Jacques Guilbault: You sound like a parrot, a broken record.


Charles Joseph Clark: The word "wide-open" which was used by the Liberal Party, and which is false, is not our language. It is the Liberal Party's language.
What has happened, as I have said twice today and as the Prime Minister said yesterday, is that the United States has indicated in general terms an interest in having investment discussed. During the last set of negotiations involving Ambassador Reisman and Ambassador Murphy, there was an oral elaboration by the United States on some of the matters in which it is interested, none of which is unfettered access, none of which constitute wide open access, none of which constitute the kinds of interest that is being used falsely to raise fears by the Liberal Party and by its socialist friends in the House of Commons.
When we have a concrete idea of what it is the Americans are interested in discussing, that will be considered by the Cabinet of Canada and we will then consider whether or not it is in the interests of Canada for our negotiator to proceed with negotiations and consideration of those concrete proposals.



NON-TRADE RELATED INVESTMENT

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly good to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs in such a good mood this morning.
I want to pursue the same subject. As the Minister knows, up to the present the talks on trade in terms of investment have always been restricted to trade related investment. Mr. Reisman has said not once but twice that he has conveyed directly to the Cabinet that the United States wanted to go beyond trade related investment. The Prime Minister, to whom the Minister just alluded, said in the House yesterday: "Now it is wide open investment pursuant to trade related investment which has always been the case". So the Prime Minister is saying that it is restricted to trade related matters, surely, which contradicts what Mr. Reisman is saying. Will the Government now be very clear on this? Is non-trade related investment on the negotiating table with the Americans?


Charles Joseph Clark: Is non-trade related investment on the table?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Charles Joseph Clark: First of all, let me welcome the Leader of the New Democratic Party back from the Province of Quebec. I sincerely hope he has been able to seek to heal the deep breach in his Party on the Meech Lake Accord.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Once he has done that I hope he will turn his attention to the deep breach in his Party on trade questions, the deep breach in his Party on NATO, the deep breach in his Party on NORAD, the deep breach in his Party on other questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Cuddle up a little closer, Lloyd.
May 22, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the Right Hon. Minister could conclude the answer to the question.


John Edward Broadbent: Go ahead, Joe, have another go at it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is the answer I gave to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Which was no answer.


Jacques Guilbault: Stonewalling.


John Edward Broadbent: I might be tempted to refer to the breach between the Minister's ears, but I won't.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Irreparable.



MINISTER'S POSITION

John Edward Broadbent: The Minister, both in his earlier answers and now, is trying to avoid answering by hurling abuse at the Opposition. That game won't count with the people of Canada, I want to tell the Minister right now.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That's why you are in third place.


John Edward Broadbent: That is exactly why you have dropped down to third place, this kind of snickering, snide evasiveness, that's it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that all Hon. Members would want the Hon. Member for Oshawa to put his question succinctly and clearly and I am sure other Hon. Members would want to hear the Minister respond in exactly the same way.


John Edward Broadbent: If the Minister would control his miasma and answer a straight question, I will give him a straight question.
Does the Minister agree with Mr. Reisman that the Americans have now requested to talk about investment that is not related to trade matters and that he has conveyed that to the Cabinet? Or does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister who said that all the Cabinet is aware of is discussions about trade related investment? On what side of the interesting approach to the truth is the Minister?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not hurling abuse, I am simply drawing the attention of Canadians to a political Party which says one thing on the Meech Lake Agreement in the House of Commons and has its Quebec Party say the exact opposite. That is what I am doing.


John Edward Broadbent: There's a guy who really believes in federalism. I can't believe it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, I believe in federalism, and I believe federalism requires a national Party-
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: -to say the same thing in both languages in all parts of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If I may repeat what I said to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry-


John Horton McDermid: Do it slowly.


Charles Joseph Clark: And I will do it very slowly so that the New Democratic Party Leader can understand and can take notes so he can telephone his Members about it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: What has happened is that there have been proposals-there have been suggestions made by the President of the United States, and by others, indicating their general interest in having investment discussed. We have indicated to them that if they have proposals to make, we look forward to receiving them and we will then judge them once we have received them.
At the last meeting of the negotiators there was an oral indication-not a written indication, an oral indication-by the United States negotiator as to some of the details of what they are interested in, none of which goes so far, anywhere near so far as the false impressions left in the House of Commons by the two opposition Parties.
The process now, as the Leader of the NDP might know, would be that the chief negotiator will make a formal recommendation to the cabinet committee. The cabinet committee will consider whether we want to give to the negotiator the mandate to deal with those issues. We will make that judgment on the basis of Canada's best interest. That, of course, will not conclude the matter. The Cabinet of Canada would retain the right to approve or to reject and, indeed, to oversee and to approve or reject throughout the process anything which might be discussed by the negotiator at the table.


John Edward Broadbent: It has only taken a half hour to get that one fact out of the Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: I gave it to Lloyd.



INQUIRY CONCERNING AMERICAN INTEREST

John Edward Broadbent: We now know that the Government is in fact considering broadening the range of discussion about investment. Once again he has yielded to what the Americans wanted. Will the Minister at least share with the House of Commons the areas requested by the Americans that they want to be put on the table for discussion? Will he at least tell the people of Canada that?


Charles Joseph Clark: From the beginning of this debate when it became clear that the socialist Party had taken an ideological position

May 22, 1987
Oral Questions
to oppose the trade negotiations, it has been seeking to have us reveal the details of the negotiation on the floor of the House of Commons.


John Edward Broadbent: Have a good week-end, Joe. Take a rest.


Charles Joseph Clark: That, obviously, would give away our capacity to make a good deal for Canada. That might be the way Socialists negotiate. That is not the way this Government is going to negotiate, or seek to negotiate a trade arrangement with the United States which can secure Canadian jobs which are now being lost and which could open new opportunities for Canadian industries which need them.


John Edward Broadbent: Have a good week-end, Joe.



ORAL INDICATION GIVEN BY UNITED STATES NEGOTIATOR

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just admitted that in the last meeting between the United States and Canadian trade negotiators, the United States trade negotiator gave an oral indication as to some of the details of what they are interested in with respect to investment in Canada.
I want to ask the Minister to use this opportunity to tell the House and Canadians exactly what was said by the American negotiator in these oral indications.
We are not asking for the Canadian position. We want to know what the Americans are asking for.
Can he tell us today what that is? Give us a straight answer for a change.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition, and I know that he knows about negotiations. I know that he would understand that we could not expect to have a successful negotiation were we to reveal all of our negotiating positions on the floor of the House of Commons. He would also know that we cannot reveal what the other side is putting on the table and expect not to reveal what we are putting on the table. We cannot publicize half of the process, without leading to a situation which would lead, inexorably, to the publicizing of the whole process.
That would damage Canadian interests, and I am sure the House Leader of the Official Opposition would not want that to happen.



STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO CANADIAN NEGOTIATOR

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the Government is so worried about prejudicing the negotiations- negotiations which so far do not seem to be in the best interests of Canada-why is the chief negotiator going public?
We are raising this subject because of the words used by the chief negotiator, who said that the Americans are calling for "broad investment access to Canada".
Why is there this inconsistency between what he is saying now and what the chief negotiator has said? Why can't he tell us whether the Americans asked that culture be on the table; whether they asked that resources be on the table; whether they asked that this Government unravel its already weak Investment Canada Act?
I ask him again: Give us some straight answers for a change.


Charles Joseph Clark: Just to set the record straight again, the House Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues have not been quoting in this House the words used by the chief negotiator, until today. They were using language to create false impressions, language that was false, and the record in that regard, I think, should be clear.
Our position on culture is known. We are not going to trade away Canadian culture.
Our position on official languages and other fundamental interests in this country is known. It has been the subject of debate in this House for some time.
I do not propose-and I know the House Leader of the Official Opposition would not seriously ask me to do so-to reveal, detail by detail, what is under discussion at the negotiating table, because that would be the way to subvert and destroy the negotiations.


An Hon. Member:: And that is exactly what they want.


Charles Joseph Clark: I hope that that is not what the Liberal Party wants. 1 know that that is what the socialist Party wants. It is not what this Government wants.



ORAL REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY UNITED STATES NEGOTIATOR

Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of External Affairs. Since he has indicated to the House that there have been these oral representations clearly made, since he has indicated, as well, that, as a cabinet Minister, clearly these have been communicated to him by the chief trade negotiator, is it not the responsibility of the Government of this country, which is now looking at widening the mandate of the trade talks, to come out and say so clearly to the Canadian people, so that they know what the points are that the Americans want to talk about?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility as a Cabinet to consider proposals that are put forward by the Americans in this negotiation, and to consider them in the context of the Canadian national interest.
May 22, 1987

There has been an oral indication. There will be a consideration by Cabinet of what exactly the Americans are looking for once we know, with absolute precision, what it is the Americans are looking for.
We will carry out our responsibility as the Cabinet of Canada, responsible to this Elouse and responsible, ultimately, to the people of the country, to oversee the negotiations and to protect the Canadian interests.
If individual Canadians want to have some easy guideline as to what the Americans are asking for, the best advice I can give them is never pay attention to, or give credibility to, the representations of the Elon. Member.


Steven W. Langdon: I thank the Minister. A compliment from the Minister is bound to come in the form of an insult.



MANDATE TO CONDUCT NEGOTIATIONS

Steven W. Langdon: Let me ask the
Minister this. If this Government made a determination that it was right to take the country into trade negotiations with an existing mandate, a mandate set out very clearly, why is the Government now prepared to look at changing that mandate, widening it, and giving the United States something further without getting anything in return?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to engage in insults. What I am-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: So that the record is clear, the reason I made the comment I did, Mr. Speaker, is that I have paid close attention to the outrageous and false things the Hon. Member has said about the trade negotiations, and no one who wants to have a reasonable understanding about what is going on should be misled by those unreasonable and false statements that he has been making.
Let me just be clear about what I thought everybody in the House knew about a negotiation: a negotiation is not a static thing. Naturally, there is going to be some movement in the negotiations. There are some matters on which we want movement from the United States that will be proposed before the end of the negotiations. There have been matters proposed since the negotiations began by both sides.
That is in the nature of a negotiation. That would be understood by a Party that was not determined from the outset to sabotage and subvert the trade negotiations, as the Socialist Party has, and is.



GOVERNMENT POSITION

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if we understood the answers of the right hon. gentleman to the questions of both the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and the Member for Oshawa, the question being whether the Government would consider an American
Oral Questions
request to negotiate investment beyond trade related issues, he responded in the affirmative.
Yesterday the same question was put to his colleague, the Minister for International Trade, and she responded in these terms:
"If the Americans want to go beyond trade-related investment areas, it is up to
them to indicate what they want," she said.
The journalist then asked: "Does that mean you would be willing to consider it?", to which the reply was-and I read from a Canadian Press article:
"No!" Miss Carney replied loudly. "I am getting really annoyed. You are
trying to exterpolate things that I don't say."
Would he over the week-end, once he has had a chance to reflect and perhaps calm down and return to his usual benign mood, talk to his colleague and the Prime Minister and give us, on Monday, what the position of the Government is?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have given to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition what the position of the Government is. He is quoting a journalist. I trust my colleague didn't use the word "exterpolate"; I have not known her to use a word like that before.


An Hon. Member:: Not in public.


Charles Joseph Clark: Not in public. I will check the rest of the record.


An Hon. Member:: It must be a falsehood.


Lloyd Axworthy: There is nothing dirty about that. Is it against the new pornography Bill?


Charles Joseph Clark: So that the Leader of the Opposition can have some confidence, the position of the Government is as I stated it today and as it has been stated by the Minister for International Trade and by the Prime Minister.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is two positions.


John Napier Turner: We have a patchwork quilt now, and we will try to put that together over the weekend, Mr. Speaker. I say that his colleague not only used the word "exterpolate", she probably understands what it means.



MEETING OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL TRADE MINISTERS

John Napier Turner: want to put a further question to the Minister. His colleague met yesterday with her provincial counterparts, with the provincial Trade Ministers. Did she describe to them the nature of the American request to broaden these trade negotiations relating to investment? And if she did, what did she tell them; and if she described in some detail what the Americans had in mind, would he share those thoughts with the House of Commons, so that Members of Parliament as

May 22, 1987
Oral Questions
well as the provincial Governments may know what is going on?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr Speaker, while we are on the subject of patchwork quilts, may I congratulate the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition on his appointment of himself as his Party's spokesman on external affairs and foreign policy.
The Minister for International Trade had discussions with her provincial counterparts yesterday. She is keeping them up to date with the process of the negotiations.
As the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will know, this is an entirely new step, a new process, and indeed a major institutional change in Canadian practice, because in the past, when he was involved in international trade negotiations, the provinces were shut out.
They are not shut out under this Government.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall recognize the Hon. Member for Oshawa in a moment.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. ALEXANDRE SAMBAT, MINISTER OF EDUCATION OF REPUBLIC OF GABON

Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our Gallery today of Mr. Alexandre Sambat, Minister of Education of the Republic of Gabon.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM AUSTRALIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker:: I am also pleased to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the Gallery today of a parliamentary delegation from the Australian House of Representatives, led by Mr. Barry Cunningham.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-SCOPE OF INVESTMENT DISCUSSIONS

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue this interesting line of answers which we are getting from the Minister.
Yesterday the Prime Minister contradicted Simon Reisman and, if I heard the Minister correctly today, he has just contradicted the Prime Minister. He has just acknowledged that on non-trade related investment the Cabinet has been informed that the Americans want to talk about it, and the Canadian Government is waiting to hear more specifics on it.
The Prime Minister said yesterday, in reply to a question, that this wasn't the case. He said that what is on the table "is wide open investment pursuant to trade-related investment which has always been the case".
According to the Prime Minister, the discussions are still being restricted to trade-related investment. According to the Minister today, the scope is being broadened. Who is telling the truth in the House of Commons?


Charles Joseph Clark: The falsehood that is being attempted in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, is the attempt to pretend a difference exists between what the Prime Minister said and what I have said. I ask-I won't get into a long debate about it now; the Leader of the New Democratic Party can read. He can take a look at Hansard yesterday-


John Edward Broadbent: I just did.


Charles Joseph Clark: -and Hansard again today indicating my remarks.
Here is the situation. Trade-related investment measures are on the table now. There is a mandate for the negotiator to discuss them. There has been an oral suggestion by the United States, as I have repeated four or five times in this House today, that some other matters should be looked at. They are not yet on the table. They might never be on the table. We in the Cabinet have not yet received a formal, precise indication of what it is the Americans are interested in. Once we receive that, we will consider it-if we give the negotiator-and if it is not in Canada's interest, we will reject it.
Then, after that process is finished, we will indicate to the negotiator what mandate he has at the table. That is the situation. I have described it three or four times today. For those who want to understand it, it is quite clear.



ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM UNITED STATES NEGOTIATOR

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have what may be the last question on this today. I should like to ask the Minister, on this oral communication that was received, could he tell us if the Cabinet and the Prime Minister were informed of this oral communication before yesterday's Question Period?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Prime-the Leader of the Opposition-excuse me, I am getting ahead of himself.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party knows that there is a long-standing practice regarding the confidentiality of matters-
May 22, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: No, no-that come before a Cabinet-that question invites me to break-


John Edward Broadbent: I know the answer now.


Charles Joseph Clark: -asks me to break those rules. The socialist Party have shown a quite consistent contempt for the rules of this House, but I don't want to encourage them in it.



PROPOSED PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM BY AMOCO CANADA-BIDDERS' AGREEMENT

Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said many times that in the agreement between Amoco Canada and Dome Petroleum there is the right for other potential bidders to make bids as long as Dome Petroleum does not solicit the bids.
However, at least one of the potential bidders and I think as many as four, including Amoco, have signed confidentiality agreements in order to obtain evaluation material.
One of the requirements of this confidentiality agreement is that a bidder cannot make a bid until the bid has the prior approval of Dome Petroleum.
How can we have other bids when under the confidentiality agreement Dome Petroleum must give prior approval to the bids, but that is soliciting, and under the memorandum of agreement Dome Petroleum cannot solicit other bids?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add to the response that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has given. I think he has been quite clear. Dome may not solicit competing offers but certainly has to consider them if they are presented.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: It is continually not coming to grips with the question.



MINISTER OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS-MEETING WITH AMOCO CANADA REPRESENTATIVES

Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister another question. On May 12 he said, relating to the agreement between Dome and Amoco, "they are in a position to make a decision", referring to the shareholders, and "when it is made and the proposal is presented to the Government of Canada, it will be examined in the nornial course as it relates to Investment Canada, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and all other mechanisms in place for that purpose".
Oral Questions
Why did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in light of what the Deputy Prime Minister has said and in light of the comments of the Minister of Energy that this is now in the private sector until it comes to Investment Canada, meet with representatives of Amoco Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I don't know, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is suggesting that elected representatives of the Calgary area are not free to meet with people in the energy sector.
I mean, what is this country coming to? When is a Member of Parliament not able to represent the interests of his constituents by meeting representatives of an energy sector which is very vital and very important?
If the Hon. Member is suggesting that because I may represent a farming district or I might be a farmer myself I cannot take an interest in farm problems, then we are really heading down a slippery slope to chaos in this country.



REASON FOR MEETING WITH MINISTER

Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on this matter for the Deputy Prime Minister, and I ask him: Let's not be naive about this matter.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said yesterday that he had met with Amoco, senior executives of Amoco, on the Dome takeover. If it is government policy that the Government has a hands-off approach in this deal, why is it necessary for Amoco to come and lobby the Government, and why is it necessary for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and perhaps other Ministers, to meet with Amoco?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker-


John Horton McDermid: Just stand up and make your charges.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the co-operation of all Hon. Members at the moment to keep their remarks to themselves.
The Chair is in a difficult position, and I know that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway understands that, as does the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. Also I want Hon. Members to understand clearly the difficulty the Chair is in, and I want the public to understand it, because this is a place where vigorous free speech must be defended.
My difficulty is that yesterday, on a matter raised by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, questions which the Chair allowed, a question of privilege has been raised by the Hon. Minister. There was an extensive discussion with respect to whether or not the question asked of the Minister yesterday was appropriate or had indeed infringed against the privileges of the Minister, and some Members went on to suggest that it had gone further than that.

May 22, 1987
Oral Questions
I have not brought down a ruling on that matter yet, as the Elon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway knows, and I regret that I have not been able to do so by this morning. However, I assure the Hon. Member that it is not because of any intention to delay.
An Hon. Member was in somewhat the same position some weeks ago on another matter where a question of privilege was raised and then the next day questions were again asked on the same point. At that time I said that I felt it was not appropriate to continue with those questions at that time until the ruling had come down.
Given the circumstances and given that fact, I want to assure the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway and other Hon. Members who are interested in this issue that I will strive mightily to have a ruling first thing on Tuesday morning. In the meantime, I would ask the co-operation of Hon. Members in respecting the position of the Chair, and to respect the fact that the very propriety of these questions is the subject matter of the dispute which I heard yesterday and on which I must decide.
I am not in any way indicating how I will rule on Tuesday morning, but I would ask that Hon. Members understand the position that we are in in this Chamber.



CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES

Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I will put my supplementary question carefully in order to get the balance between respecting the Chair and the Opposition's right to ask questions in a free and democratic society.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is a reflection on the Chair.


Charles Joseph Clark: More contempt on the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who is responsible for the conflict of interest guidelines. In the opinion of the Deputy Prime Minister, does he consider it a conflict or even an appearance of conflict-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -when a Minister of the Crown who will be-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Edward Broadbent: Listen to the question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Speaker can rule on my question when I have finished it. I will not be silent on this matter.


An Hon. Member:: Come on, Waddell.


David Bruce Daubney: Have some respect.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a particularly easy matter for Members or the Chair, but it will be easier for all if Members leave it to the Chair to decide. I will hear the question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will repeat the question, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to the conflict of interest guidelines, broadly, for which the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible, in his opinion does he consider it a conflict or even an appearance of conflict when a Minister of the Crown who will be participating in an important national decision has on his or her riding executive as a fund-raiser a senior official of one of the companies which will be affected by such an important national decision?


Mr. Speaker:: The question may or may not, of course, be hypothetical and that is a matter for the Minister to comment on if, in fact, the Minister does want to comment on it.
I do want to point out to Hon. Members that the question we have just heard is not the same question as that put yesterday. It is a question of general application. To the degree that it is, I will allow it to stand. The Hon. Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Hon. Member made reference to an apparent conflict of interest. I certainly do not want to make any comment on that because it may very well reflect upon the admonition you have given in the House.
Suffice it to say that I consider this to be a normal political process. As I understand it, representatives have met with all Calgary area Members of Parliament. They have a vital interest in the energy sector, as the Hon. Leader of the NDP would have a vital interest in the automobile sector.


John Edward Broadbent: We are not making the decision, Don.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sure he from time to time receives representations from that sector in the discharge of his duties as a Member of Parliament for the Oshawa area, as does the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre who represents a farming area. I am sure if Hon. Members are going to be prevented from discharging their responsibilities and obligations as Members of Parliament-


John Edward Broadbent: He is a Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -then we have a really serious problem in this country that has to be dealt with.


John Edward Broadbent: I agree.


James Ross Fulton: You guys don't know right from wrong.


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell Harney.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the co-operation, which I know I will receive, from all Hon. Members on this matter. I would
May 22, 1987

ask that the matter be left aside now and the Chair can return with a ruling on it. I want to assure Hon. Members that the Chair is very conscious of the undoubted right of the Opposition to seek information; in fact, it is the undoubted duty of the Opposition.


John Edward Broadbent: Right.


Mr. Speaker:: I am also very aware that this is a place of free speech. However, we have our rules. As I say, I am now in the midst of a process where a question of privilege has arisen out of questions asked. That is a matter that I must decide. I shall decide it as quickly as I can and return to the House with that decision.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.



FREE TRADE-GOVERNMENT JUSTIFICATION FOR PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the advertising campaign on free trade that is costing us about $12 million, a campaign to try and convince Canadians that the Government of Canada has acted in their interests by giving away Canada's sovereignty to foreign investors. How does the Government intend to justify wasting money on this folder and distributing it in shopping centres, a publication that is full of exaggerated statements? How can it justify this propaganda at a time when spending cut-backs are affecting people who are desperately in need of funds? How can the Government justify this kind of publication at a time when its mandate is still far from certain, when it has nothing to show for its efforts and the talks are still going on? How can it justify this utter waste of money?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I know this is part of the Liberal campaign to spread half-truths and no truths. The Hon. Member this morning said on CBC that this pamphlet in front of us is clearly erroneous. He went on to say that there was no consultative process before the agreement was made in 1985 to proceed with the negotiations.
The former Minister of Trade issued a White Paper and went across this country for months consulting with the provinces and with the private sector. There was a parliamentary committee that spent time looking at the White Paper and made a report to Parliament before the decision was made.
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: And recommended against it.


John Horton McDermid: For heaven's sake, the Member is telling half-truths. What he is saying is absolutely false and he is going around the country spreading false information about this brochure.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary should have listened to the interview instead of getting somebody else who couldn't memorize it trying to repeat it to him.



GOVERNMENT POLICY

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again for the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the shopping bag stuffer that he offered to Canadians yesterday.
The previous Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said as reported in Hansard, that there will be no more geese flying into the sunset. If it was wrong to have geese flying into the sunset in the name of national unity, what is so right about the turkeys on the other side walking across the U.S. border in a fog in the name of free trade? What is so right about that policy?


John Horton McDermid: It is too bad George Baker isn't here today.


John Napier Turner: And that Crosbie is not here either.


John Horton McDermid: Pardon me, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate.
As I go through this very excellent publication which provides information on the trade negotiations which Canadians have been requesting, I do not see a goose or a turkey in here but I see a lot of very important information which Canadians have been asking for and which they are going to receive.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: We see turkeys over there.


John Horton McDermid: I notice that the Canadian Labour Congress has put out a fancy brochure opposing it. Why doesn't the Hon. Member stand up and talk about that as well?


Mr. Speaker:: The last question will be by the Hon. Member for Levis.

May 22, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Langdon



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Mir. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. On May 20, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides directed a question to the Minister of Public Works, seeking to know why certain Quebec firms had not been given an opportunity to bid on contracts related to computer technology and French teaching to the Canadian military. Among others, he referred to Matrox, DIL International and Technogram. The Minister of Public Works replied that an investigation was under way. Can the Minister tell us what this investigation was all about and, if indeed there was an ongoing investigation, what are the findings?
Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising this question since it enables me to shed light on this contract award. Never was there any question of launching an investigation into the award of this $700,000 contract because it is very much in keeping with our purchasing policy. There was a tender call, 17 firms were asked for bids, including eight from Quebec. Unfortunately the eight Quebec firms decided not to bid and, as a Quebecer, I regret that.
With respect to the suppliers mentioned in Le Devoir, these companies did not care to register on my Department's list of suppliers.
One last comment, Mr. Speaker. 1 would simply remind the House and the people who may be listening to us that anyone who wants to deal with the federal Government should first register on the list of suppliers. The Chicoutimi firm thought it was adding its name to our list when it filled in a Statistics Canada questionnaire. Would anyone having filled in a census questionnaire have the impression that his or her income tax return has been completed? I suggest that one should be serious and register properly if one wants to do business and land contracts.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that I have a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon).



USE OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE-ALLEGED FALSEHOODS

Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to register my concern over the number of statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) accusing me of uttering falsehoods in the House of Commons. First, it is my understanding that is not the type of language which should be used in the House. Second, it is my understanding also that one must do what one can in raising questions on behalf of one's constituents without such language being used in an attempt to attack one.
I therefore respectfully request the Speaker to refer the question of whether falsehoods have been uttered in the course of questions this week, and I assume that is the allegation from the way the Minister put his position; I would like that question referred to the appropriate committee or have the Minister withdraw his comments. I think it is possible to have critical debate in this House without descending to that level.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my support to a reference of this question to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. We have reached a new point of allegations of falsehoods being made, in this case by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) against my Leader and several other Members. Whether or not the technical use of that word in the past has been considered by previous Speakers to be appropriate, its repetitive use against Member after Member asking questions takes it to a new level. I urge you to have this matter referred to that committee so we can look at a new way of treating questions in the House of Commons; decide whether we agree with what has taken place and whether we want this to be continued by Ministers in their answers or, indeed, Members in their questions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important question and 1 am pleased that it has been raised by members of the Opposition. We all know that Canadians take their view of reality, at least some Canadians, from some of what is said on the floor of the House of Commons. If statements that are not true are frequently repeated in the House there is the danger that the Canadian public watching television will come to believe something is true when it is not. A complication in this case, of course, is that at least one of the Parties in the House, the socialist Party, has been quite consistently seeking to have the Government of Canada reveal the details of its negotiating posture in public in a way that would subvert and undermine the negotiating process.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Another falsehood.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Look who is using the word "falsehood" on the other side.
May 22, 1987


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member is trying to achieve that result now by an indirect means. Obviously if the matter were referred to a committee the question might arise requiring the Government of Canada to reveal to the committee our position in the negotiations with the U.S. That would achieve the NDP purpose of subverting the negotiations and would not be in the interests of the House, in my judgment.
My understanding of the rules of this place is that one cannot attribute to Members of the House of Commons a deliberate attempt to mislead. I am not sure if it is deliberate. I have not made that accusation. What I can say, Sir, knowing the facts, is that statements have been repeatedly made this week by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Lang-don) and other Members of the House of Commons that are false. If I did not describe them as false Canadians might believe they are true. They are not true. I should not be prevented by the rules of the House of Commons from letting Canadians know that statements that are made which they might accept as true are in fact false.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has raised a very useful point for you to consider. I suppose you might well be advised that technically we are dealing with a point of order rather than a question of privilege. However, that is not really the question.
The question is whether the language used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is unparliamentary and has to be withdrawn. Frankly, there is evidence to support the argument of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor and the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) that the language used by the Minister is unparliamentary. For example, if you look in Beauchesne's it lists words which have been found to be parliamentary and words which have been found to be unparliamentary. You will see on page 107 that apparently a Speaker ruled on December 3, 1976, at page 1640 of Hansard that the word "falsehood" is unparliamentary. However, to be fair, I have to say there is also a ruling in the other direction, about the same period of time.
Therefore, I invite you to carefully review what was said by the Minister and look at the precedents, including this one at page 114, Citation 324:
(1) It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular Members, or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order; much depends upon the tone and manner, and intention, of the person speaking; sometimes upon the person to whom the words are addressed-
And so on.
What I am getting at is that, despite the precedents in question, and even though details have not been set out in Beauchesne's but they are there to be looked at, the matter is not closed. It is open to you to examine the words used by the Minister, not only in light of the precedents based on rulings of your distinguished predecessors but in light of the circumstances. I respectfully submit that, in looking at the context in which the Minister used the word "falsehood", looking at his
Privilege-Mr. Langdon
tone and manner and the other criteria set out in Beauchesne's, it is open to you to find that what the Minister said when he used the word "falsehood" was in fact unparliamentary.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, because I think the point has been made by our side, I would first suggest that the Speaker was following Question Period closely. The evidence of that is that he did interrupt another Hon. Member who was putting a question to remind him to be careful about the subject matter of the question. It should be pointed out that the Speaker, who was following the questions closely, at no time interrupted the Hon. Minister and suggested there was anything unparliamentary in what was said.
I appreciate the House Leader for the Official Opposition bringing forward the fact that the word "falsehood" has been found parliamentary and unparliamentary. That leads me to my next point, which is that in seeking to bring a point of order or a question of privilege my friend from Essex-Windsor was in no way specific about any one phrase or any one sentence which he wishes to use as the foundation for his charge that something is unparliamentary or a question of privilege. Surely one cannot say that all the answers of the Minister today were unparliamentary because they suggested falsehoods. If one wants to lay charges as serious as these one has to be specific and exact in the charge he is trying to make. I think it fails both as a point of order and as a question of privilege.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I did not raise this as a point of order with regard to the question of parliamentary language only, but with regard to the fact that the Minister, at least twice and possibly three times-I will have to check the "blues" to be sure of that-accused me specifically of uttering falsehoods. That seems to me a very clear-cut accusation. If those accusations are to be permitted in the House in the future I think it will take us to a new level of disrespect-


Philip Derek Lewis: You're already there.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That works both ways.


Steven W. Langdon: -on both sides of the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You had better look at yourself first.


Steven W. Langdon: It will be something we will all live to regret. I think, therefore, that the accusations which have been put quite clearly should be referred to the appropriate committee and that the Minister should be required to justify his statement that I was uttering falsehoods by being brought before that committee and forced to document exactly that which was supposed to be a falsehood which was uttered, unlike, for instance, the very clear statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) yesterday with respect to my city which was completely inaccurate.

May 22, 1987
Statements by Ministers


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, before you hand down your ruling on the use of the word "falsehood" in English and the word faussete in French and whether this constituted unparliamentary language or not, I think there are two aspects to be considered.
First of all, when the Chair examines an incident of this kind to find out whether there was a case of unparliamentary language, it is important to know whether the term was directed to several Members as a group, to a party in general or specifically to one individual. It is clear that in this case, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) directed his comments specifically to the Eton. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and to the Leader of the Opposition.
With respect, I may remind the Chair that these are important considerations.
Furthermore, to determine the intent of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I think it is important to consider the fact that the terms were repeated several times in English and in French.
If the Secretary of State for External Affairs merely wished to get the message across that the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor or the Leader of the Opposition had made statements which in his opinion were not true he did so in more polite terms just a few moments ago when he tried to apologize without altogether doing so he would have used the term once or twice, but in this case, he repeated it eight or 10 times, as we see in Hansard, and he did so in a very accusing tone of voice.
I have to conclude that he was trying to tarnish the reputation of the Leader of the Opposition and that of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor and it is actions of this kind that are traditionally considered to be unparliamentary. Those were my comments, and I hope they will be of some use to the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I will, of course, carefully consider the representations that have been made. I am especially touched by the helpful advice I received from the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) who has very correctly pointed out that it is not just the word, it is the context of the word. There have been different rulings on the same word to be found in the history of procedure of the House of Commons. However, there is a complaint before the House and the Chair will consider it.
Although I am going to reserve on this, I think it is necessary that I do not leave the Chamber with any misunderstanding of the intent of the Right Hon. Minister. I take it from the remarks of the Right Hon. Minister, and I would invite him to comment on what I am going to say if necessary, that it was his intent to say that certain things being said by some other Members were not accurate, and that there was not an intent to say that any inaccuracy was intentionally being bandied
about or used in the debate. There is, of course, a very real difference. The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) might want to make that point absolutely clear before the Chair retires to consider the matter.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that certainly was my intent. Let me also say to you, Sir, as I do not think I need to say, that if my duties carry me away from the House and do not allow me to be present on the day that you make your ruling, if you find that any language of mine has been unparliamentary, I will withdraw, as I have on occasion in the past. I naturally would not anticipate that judgment, but your interpretation of my intent is correct.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Right Hon. gentleman.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House know, an event will take place later today in Vancouver, British Columbia, which marks the end of a world odyssey, an odyssey comparable in achievements to those of other world explorers. Those achievements have graced the pages of history and today a Canadian is being added to that illustrious list. Rick Hansen, welcomed across the world and taken into the hearts and lives of millions, is home at last.
All Members of the House can take pride that our Speaker will be appearing at the Rick Hansen tribute in Vancouver on Saturday representing all of us. This day marks the fulfilment of a dream, a dream that resulted in a remarkable two-year journey around the world. Rick Hansen has demonstrated courage, determination and vision. It is incumbent upon us not only to keep this dream alive but to hasten the day when all disabled Canadians enjoy full and equal participation in Canadian society.
We believe that the public enthusiasm and understanding which has greeted the Man in Motion tour in every region of the country can be harnessed. Together we intend to turn this energy into a positive force.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I am pleased to announce on behalf of the federal Government and particularly my colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie), that the Government will lend its full support to a National Access Awareness Week for disabled persons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 22, 1987


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: This will be an annual event to be held for the first time in 1988. The federal Government, on behalf of Canadians, is pledging its support as a partner in developing and implementing this exciting initiative together with a National Access Awareness Week committee comprised of representatives of disabled persons organizations, labour, business, governments and rehabilitation agencies.
The experience Rick and others have gained confirms our belief that communities working together in partnership with all their members can achieve lasting change. The National Access Awareness Week builds upon that belief and creates an ongoing challenge for the future. I thank Members and all Canadians joining me in this tribute to a great Canadian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, this is a special day in Vancouver, a special day in Canada and, indeed, a special day in the world because Rick Hansen is a world conqueror. Rick Hansen conquered the world and made it smaller and more manageable. Rick Hansen conquered the hearts of Canadians and, indeed, the hearts of people all over the world. Finally, Rick Hansen conquered disability. Because of that, he has done more than any of us can ever do to advance the cause of the disabled.
However, we in this Chamber do have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to see that the dream does not die and that the momentum is not lost.
I welcome the Minister's remarks. I know the generosity of spirit out of which he speaks. I believe that the special week that he has put aside will be an important and significant first step in bringing to the attention of the Canadian people the special situation of disabled people and the necessity of dealing with that.
I also believe that we must do more. I know that the Government gave $1 million to the special fund set up in connection with the Man in Motion tour, but I also know that the budget of the National Medical Research Council has been capped and tied to the private sector. I urge the Minister to take steps to change that and give to the agencies that are doing the research in this important area the necessary tools to do the job.
We know from experience in other areas that there are two requirements we must fulfil as parliamentarians and as a Government to help the disabled. They are money and legislation. I hope that we can put aside funds to aid disabled groups across the country to take affirmative action. I believe that we also need legislation with provisions that not only encourage but demand of the Government and the private sector that they put into practice the principle of affirmative action in hiring the disabled in the workplace. It is not enough to
Petitions
encourage hiring, to promote and monitor it. I believe we need strong legislation to back those objectives.
Permit me to add to the words of my leader earlier today when he said that Rick Hansen is a hero to physically challenged Canadians, young people, us all. We also welcomed him in my area of Canada, at the other end of the country. If I may, I would like to offer Rick Hansen a Newfoundland toast, the hope that the wind will always be in his sails. Rick Hansen, long may your big jib draw.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is a great day for Canadians, particularly disabled Canadians, and it is an absolutely superlative day for Rick Hansen as he at long last arrives home after some 792 days and 40,000 kilometres. It is an incredible feat for any human being, one in which all Canadians will take immense pride.
Rick has said that he was inspired originally by the wonderful work done by Terry Fox, who Canadians will recall set out to bring hope to those seeking a cure for cancer. Rick Hansen has done what we thought at that time would never be duplicated. What Terry Fox did for cancer, in making us aware of the incessant need for us to do more in getting research into that terrible disease, so Rick has drawn the attention not only of Canadians but the world to the problems of those afflicted by spinal cord damage. He was an inspiration to those of us who met him when he was in Ottawa. Many Members of the House had the occasion to see the courage and, frankly, modesty of the man, and his seriousness of purpose. He is an inspiration with that immediate impact of very fine character.

He did raise funds, of course, and hopefully there will be some progress in research in the near future. However, most Canadian men and women will remember the accomplishment itself, as will people worldwide who followed Rick's global tour.

We say to him: "A great job, wonderfully done. You have made all of us proud to be members of this very fine nation".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITIONS
James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding from the area of Harrow, Kingsville and Amherstburg. They ask that Parliament support Motion M-37 to allow unborn babies to be protected by the Charter of Rights.

May 22, 1987
Order for Return


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 82 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 82 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	Since September 4, 1984, did Mr. Roger C. Nantel, Nantel Communications and Media Canada receive any money from the Government and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Where contracts involved and, if so, in each case, what was the nature and amount of the contract?
3.	Were such contracts put to public tender and (a) if so, which ones (b) if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.
[ Translation]


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 10 minutes beginning at one o'clock p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Steven W. Langdon: That this House condemn the Government for its refusal to reject flatly U.S. demands for unlimited investment freedom in Canada as part of the free trade negotiations, since these demands would threaten Canadian sovereignty and cultural integrity by removing Canada's ability to review and limit U.S. investment, so as to promote Canadianization and to ensure that U.S. investment does benefit Canadians by creating jobs, enhancing exports, expanding research and development and increasing sourcing from domestic suppliers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have to begin by saying that in many respects it is ridiculous to be debating whether or not this Government is taking yet further steps to weaken investment regulations in this country. The steps which have already been taken over the past few years have been so excessive, so out of tune with the concerns of Canadians and so potentially dangerous to jobs, to the economic sovereignty of our country and its future, that it frankly defies the imagination. Yet it is this Government which has taken those steps to put in place a weak, limp Investment Canada agency which is mainly designed to promote investment rather than to regulate it.
With respect to the free trade discussions, whether we take one set of words, another set of words or yet another set of words, amid all the confusion which has taken place this week, it is absolutely clear that the United States, as it admitted-as it stressed, in fact, in its statements with respect to Canada- that is not satisfied. The U.S. considers these investment barriers which still exist, these mild, meek, Mr. Milquetoast barriers as offensive. So this Government, as has been made clear here this morning, is willing to talk about moving yet further in opening up investment restrictions.
There have been a series of statements from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) throughout this week, a set of defences of foreign investment, which are as inaccurate as one could possibly imagine, which are as far from the truth as one could potentially expect anyone to state in this Chamber, and which are simply parodies of the reality that exists.
The reality is that we as a country are facing a very serious threat to our capacity, economically, to decide where we go in the future. We are facing that threat partly because of legislative changes made by the Government and partly because of a major series of takeovers which have swept across North America. It is not just a Canadian phenomenon; there has been a major series of takeovers particularly prevalent in the record of foreign investment.
As the most recent report of the Investment Canada agency itself makes clear, 94 per cent of the investment that has come into this country has come in, not to expand new businesses, not to establish new jobs and new enterprises for Canadians, but to take over existing Canadian enterprises and, in many cases, as a consequence, to reduce the number of Canadian jobs available within those plants.
In looking at this basic record of investment and this basic record of confusion with respect to the trade talks and what precisely the Government hopes to do in the trade talks with respect to investment, we have to look very carefully at the record of enforcement of Investment Canada. It is Investment Canada itself, as weak-kneed as it is-Mr. Milquetoast-that is at least supposed to provide some kind of defence mechanism to communities. If Investment Canada is not putting into effect the agreements it reaches with foreign firms, if it does not monitor those agreements effectively, then we have a situation which is even worse than the situation which has been
May 22, 1987

legislatively created across the land. We have a situation where the actual activity of the body that is charged to act in this area is itself so weak as to be pitiful. It is so ineffective it frankly dismays any of us who believe in future Canadian control over our economy.
1 want to bring forward to the House today a series of cases we have looked at in some detail. These are cases which demonstrate very clearly the totally weak, ineffective and unacceptable record of Investment Canada with respect to the particular mandate it has. These are cases with which I have had to deal as a Member of Parliament for my region, and as the Member of Parliament responsible for monitoring Investment Canada.
Let me start with the case of a small company called Sheller-Globe of Canada Ltd. It is a small company, but in fact employed 200 workers in the constituencies of the Windsor area. It gave those workers a potential to improve the unacceptable unemployment rate in that part of the country. Those 200 workers produced steering wheels. That company was shut down recently, within the last few weeks in fact, despite the fact that when this takeover was reviewed by Investment Canada itself, commitments were made to new investment by Sheller-Globe of Canada Ltd. to increase use of Canadian parts and services and to additional exports to enhance technological development. Yet despite those commitments, this plant has simply shut down.
We finally managed to get a commitment in committee last week out of Investment Canada to investigate why it is that despite these commitments made so recently, this plant has nevertheless shut its doors and put 200 workers out on the street. I have to say that to this stage we could get absolutely no information from Investment Canada which would indicate that it had monitored whatsoever the commitments the company had made prior to the shutting of its doors in the last few weeks. The company, so far as anyone can tell, had record sales and profits. It worked at more than 100 per cent capacity, six to seven days per week, for the last two years, yet it shut down.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what foreign investment can be about in this country if there is not the sovereign ability of this country to be able to review, to be able to monitor, and to be able to see to it that these companies live up to the commitments that they make when they enter the country. That is one example.
A second example, and one which is equally sad, is the case of Cross-LaSalle, again, a smaller firm. Cross-LaSalle was taken over by Cross and Trecker of the United States, and Cross and Trecker again made certain commitments, commitments which it indicated to Investment Canada it would carry forward.
In this particular case, Cross and Trecker, in 1985, made commitments for new investment, for increased employment,
Supply
for the increased use of Canadian parts and services, and for improved productivity and industrial efficiency.
Despite those commitments, commitments accepted by Investment Canada on June 14, 1985, this plant too shut its doors. It shut its doors in the middle of a strike, consolidating its operations in the United States and costing 40 workers in Windsor their jobs. That is the kind of record, too, which is possible with minimal monitoring by Investment Canada.
In this particular case, just this month that same firm, a firm which claimed so much poverty with respect to its operations that it had to shut down, indicated that it would be making new investments in Georgetown, Kentucky, a right-to-work state in the southern part of the United States, which would provide new jobs for 150 employees.
Once more, we have a clear indication of a lack of monitoring and a clear indication of what can happen if there is not a regime in place which permits close surveillance of foreign investors, surveillance which would ensure that they actually follow through on the commitments they make to this country when they come in here.
If we were to eliminate the commitments entirely, if we were to follow some of the suggestions made by the United States to liberalize yet further, that is, weaken yet further our foreign investment laws, we would find our position in dealing with companies such as these even more abjectly weakened.
Let me give you a third example. This one is in the publishing sector and involves Simon & Schuster. There was a takeover in this sector which my colleague will deal with in more detail, the Gulf and Western takeover of Prentice-Hall. I simply want to make the point that one of the commitments made in that particular takeover, and it was one that was trumpeted very loudly by the Government, was the commitment to see to it that Canadian authors were promoted through Simon & Schuster, the international arm of Gulf and Western.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, the 1987 Simon & Schuster catalogue. The commitment was that for each year for 10 years there would be 10 Canadian authors promoted through this international arm, and yet within this catalogue we have only one Canadian author listed, and that is in relation to a cassette tape, not a book that is being promoted.
Again, we have complete ignorance with respect to the agency involved in so far as the putting into effect of the commitments that have been made. We have talked to the agency about this particular issue. We have talked to officials of the agency, and they have admitted to us that more than a year after the agreement permitting Gulf and Western to purchase Prentice-Hall they still do not have in place an agreement with Gulf and Western with respect to this particular part of the arrangement.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, with specific cases. We could talk about the Dome-Amoco deal and the vicious legal attempts on the part of Amoco to try to make it impossible for

May 22, 1987
Supply
Canadian companies to take over a Canadian company. We could talk about Cadillac-Fairview and what its takeover will mean to thousands of small businessmen and women across this country, who will have to deal with a new foreign owner who happens now to be in control of their mall.
We can talk about these supposed benefits, as our Prime Minister likes to refer to them. But the point, Mr. Speaker, the key point, is that what has to be put into place is a new set of policies.
What this Government has missed right from the beginning, what it has sold us out on right from the beginning, what it has ignored, what it has not understood, is that we face a crisis in this country, a crisis of employment, a crisis of our future, a crisis for many of our children in the future, which has to be met by policies very much different from those which are presently being pursued by this Government; pursued in the free trade negotiations, pursued in the ineffective operation of Investment Canada, and pursued in the legislation that established Investment Canada.
We call, not just for a condemnation of what this Government has done-frankly, this Government is sliding, hopefully, quickly into oblivion-but for a set of new policies, a set of policies, based not on rejection of foreign investment, but on safeguards, on review procedures, on careful work with foreign investors to see that they actually benefit this country in the way that we have indicated in our motion.
We call too for much tougher legislation in the area of foreign investment to permit that kind of surveillance to take place, and to take place effectively. We call too for control with respect to companies leaving the country, and not just those entering the country. That is the wave of the future. And finally, Mr. Speaker, we call above all for communities to have much more control over what is happening to them and the investors within them, because it is those communities which are suffering, as my community has suffered, from the unregulated, unmonitored activities of companies like Cross-LaSalle, and the others to whom I have referred. It is a system which must change for the sake of our future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James).


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the opportunity to speak to some of the socialist dialogue we have heard to pass. I want to ensure that the record of my community is brought forward.
The Hon. Member referred to the names of some companies. I would like to bring forward the names of the following companies: Imperial Oil, Esso, Dow Chemical, Fiberglas, Cabot Carbon, Sun Oil, Shell Oil, Dupont, Welland Chemical, CIL, and Union Carbide.
I would also like to talk about some instances of American and European companies investing in my community. For
example, Imperial Oil came to Sarnia-Lambton in 1897, and Dow Chemical in the 1940s. At that time they had a handful of workers. Now they employ over 2,500 workers. They are excellent corporate citizens who brought with them maturity from the United States and other countries. They established some of the finest pension programs for workers in all of Canada.
I would not want this opportunity to pass without mentioning the great contribution foreign investment has made to my community, in a less regulated way than what the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) indicated the Government should attempt. I just want to be sure that the record is put before the House today in connection with the contribution of foreign investment to a very important part of Ontario.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my responses to the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) are always coloured by the fact that our communities are downstream from his magnificent chemical plants. We often bear the consequences of being downstream, as was the case with the Dow blob which still continues. We are still cleaning up material from the river bed many months after the first discovery, many months after the first initiatives were taken in respect of the blob.
The key thing I want to say is that the Hon. Member has entirely missed the point of my speech and the point of the motion before us today. Within the New Democratic Party there is not an opposition to foreign investment. There is an opposition to foreign investment coming into the country without any restriction or safeguard. This is why we have fought for legislation to be as effective as possible in respect of foreign companies, and for it to be implemented effectively.
However, I have certainly worked hard to try to bring foreign investors into my constituency or my community, because I think they can make a contribution. Certainly many of the auto plants in my community make a contribution, but they do so in large part because, in the case of auto plants, of the 60 per cent safeguards in the Auto Pact, and in the case of some other companies because of some commitments which they were brought to make under previous legislation and which I would hope they would be brought to make in a forceful manner under future legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell) and, if there is time, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I will try to leave time for the Parliamentary Secretary to make some comments.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) mentioned that Sheller-Globe is shutting down its plant in Windsor. That is very unfortunate, but I would not want the rest of the country to get the impression that Sheller-Globe of Kingsville in my riding is closing down.
May 22, 1987


John Horton McDermid: Or Sheller-Globe in Brampton.


James Eber Caldwell: It is staying open and is very healthy.
I think the Hon. Member has raised some interesting points. I think that maybe there has to be closer monitoring of some of the companies which come in. However, I would not like anyone to get the impression that companies such as Sheller-Globe and some of the others which have closed down in the area came under the policies of Investment Canada. They were under FIR A. They came under the auspices of the previous Government, with all very good intentions. I am not saying that the intentions were not there, but I have had several cases in my riding where companies received very sizable grants to come in and locate in my particular area, a number of years ago, stayed for a year, and then closed down.
For example, in Blenheim, a plant received a $5 million grant from the federal Government and within a year it was out of business. That plant is now operating again. It did not receive any assistance from this Government, but it is a foreign investment and it is doing very well. We must ensure that when we give incentives to these companies they do not just move out the next year.
I also bring to the attention of the Hon. Member and to the rest of the country that Windsor has received more investment over the past two or three years per capita than any other city in Canada, other than Hamilton. Those are not my figures, those are from the Essex-Windsor Industrial Commission. Windsor has been doing very well. The Hon. Member would lead us to believe that Windsor has not been doing very well. Windsor is booming; Essex County and Kent County are booming.
If the Hon. Member recalls, back in 1984 the unemployment rate in Windsor was somewhere around 13 per cent to 14 per cent. It is now down below 10 per cent. Despite that fact, and the Hon. Member asked about it yesterday, it is not the best in Canada, but certainly we are doing very well in the area and have come a long way in the past couple of years in enticing investment into the area.
There is to be more investment, and the Hon. Member knows it. Many inquiries are being made about the Windsor and Essex County area, by investors wanting to come into the area because we have an excellent workforce.
It is unfortunate that companies like Sheller-Globe move out. I am not sure how one stops them. If a company is going to go and wants to go, how does one stop it from going? That is the problem.
1 would agree with the Hon. Member that maybe we should not be giving the incentives to come in when they are not really serious. Maybe they should have to make a commitment to stay when they come in. However, if it is an unprofitable company-and Sheller-Globe was not; it was reasonably profitable-I do not know how one makes it stay. Maybe he has an idea on how we make someone stay who does not want to stay.
Supply


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I should indicate that I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell) has finally seen the light on this issue and is now stating that he is in favour of tighter restrictions being put in place in respect of foreign investment.


John Horton McDermid: That is not what he said.


Steven W. Langdon: That is actually what he said, if you check the "blues".


John Horton McDermid: An old NDP trick.


Steven W. Langdon: That is exactly what he said. In any event, perhaps I could continue.


An Hon. Member:: That is not what he said.


Steven W. Langdon: As I said, check the "blues" and you can make your point at that stage.


John Horton McDermid: I will.


Steven W. Langdon: I would like to say something in respect of one point which my colleague raised. He suggested that these were decisions on the part of FIRA. Both the decisions which dealt with Gulf and Western and with Cross-LaSalle were decisions from the new agency, Investment Canada, and must be taken as reflective of the Government's new policies in this area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated.
It being 1.10 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1.10 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) had completed initial debate at 1.10 p.m. I would like to recognize the next speaker in the debate. The Hon. Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney).


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, my participation in this debate on the motion from the fevered imagination of the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon) will be brief and to the point so we can dismiss this false controversy once and for all. That is the only reason I would leave the most important meeting in Ottawa today with representatives of the 13 other member nations of the Cairns Group of agricultural trading nations. I appreciate the courtesy of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) for allowing me to speak now, in

May 22, 1987
Supply
time to return to the conference where I and my colleagues are representing our country and hosting our international visitors.
The Cairns meeting is making a determined effort to help the hard-pressed farmers of this and other countries, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) noted today in his opening remarks. Canadian farmers know this Government is at the forefront of attempting to solve this and other international trade problems.
There was a time, Mr. Speaker, when the New Democrats, misguided as they often are, were honest and straightforward, but what we have here today is a motion from that Member which Saturday Night magazine described as knowing everything about the economy except how to make it work. It is scare mongering of the worst kind. It has no basis in fact or in logic. Let me once more, as I have in this House before, make the record clear, as plainly and as bluntly as I can, clear enough so that the Members from Essex-Windsor and Winnipeg-Fort Garry can understand it.
I am informed that there is no, and I repeat no, U.S. demand for unlimited or unfettered investment freedom in Canada on the negotiating table. If there were, it would be rejected. We would refuse. Our negotiator knows that. Any such arrangement would have to be reciprocal, and the U.S. itself is in no position to deliver. Indeed, the U.S. itself limits foreign investment in certain key sectors. It restricts access in such areas as aviation, broadcasting and telecommunications, to name but a few.
The trade Bill which recently passed the American House of Representatives calls for a review of foreign investment on the grounds of "national security" and "essential commerce". That Bill would empower the administration to block those investments which might have a negative impact in those areas. This is symbolic of the growing protectionist mood in the United States.
My Cabinet colleagues, including the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), other Ministers and myself, have repeatedly said in this House and elsewhere that any free trade deal with the United States will protect our political sovereignty and our cultural identity. In fact, just two months ago this House overwhelmingly passed a resolution saying just that.
Part of that political sovereignty, of course, is to make decisions in the best economic interests of Canada. Unlike those in the Opposition, this Government does not believe that foreign investment is automatically evil. I am really surprised at the Hon. Member for bringing this motion forward. His own leader in his own riding of Oshawa is heavily dependent upon foreign investment from the U.S. to maintain the jobs of his own voters. I find it so inconsistent that the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) owes his presence in the House to voters who are on the payroll of American companies, yet his Party comes here regularly to dump on American investment and those American companies.
We believe that foreign investment can create jobs, which we all need in Canada. That is why we dismantled the National Energy Program. That is why we changed the Foreign Investment Review Agency to Investment Canada and welcomed foreign investment from all countries to Canada. Last year we had record levels of foreign investment. I spend a lot of my time, as do my Cabinet colleagues, travelling to countries saying, please bring your money to Canada, invest and create new jobs for Canadians. Perhaps the advantages of this approach are finally getting through to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor, because I noticed in his motion he admits, reluctantly, that investment can create jobs.
My colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) will deal with the inaccurate assertions made by the Opposition regarding investment and job creation. The Opposition has referred to Investment Canada's annual report and has misconstrued the meaning of certain statistics contained in it.
The more accurate way to describe what is happening to the economy is to state that 60 per cent of the investment transactions recorded by Investment Canada were acquisitions, and 40 per cent were new businesses. The Opposition has focused, of course, on the asset values and not on the business values. Acquisitions are usually made up of businesses with well established asset bases. Business values reflect only the modest short-term start up costs of new businesses which are established by foreign investment. They do not reflect the growth potential and the employment potential of a new business.
In this regard, from July 1, 1985, to December 31, 1986, the number of new businesses under the Investment Canada Act totalled 573. That is 573 new employers, Mr. Speaker. Those new businesses created new jobs. It shows that the investment climate which this Government has created is attracting investment and creating those jobs which we promised Canadians.
What we have now, by our choice and through our policies, is an open investment climate with protection for key areas. We are having a hard time getting over the bad image left by the previous administration in this area. When I do travel abroad I am always told, "Well, Canada is supposed to be unfriendly to foreign investment. It expropriated property under the National Energy Program and turned away investment". We lost jobs and capital, which we needed, at a great rate. Our oil industry got shut down, which created devastation for whole sectors of our economy.
What is all the furor that we hear from the masters of fear tactics across the way? Is the Opposition opposed to new investment? Is the Hon. Member for Oshawa opposed to foreign investment? If the opposition Members are opposed to the creation of jobs, they will have to answer to the people of Canada.
I want to deal with our negotiator's mandate, which I have dealt with in this House in a very open way on many occasions. As I have said, he has a mandate from Cabinet to discuss
May 22, 1987

trade-related investment measures and to listen to any U.S. proposals that go beyond that. We encourage him to do that. In the last negotiating session the Americans did not present a paper but suggested orally, as reported to us by our negotiators, some of the features on investment which might be incorporated into a bilateral agreement.
To summarize, yes, some investment measures are being discussed. Those are the trade-related investment measures which they have a mandate to discuss. That should be no surprise to the Opposition. In fact, they should welcome it because they are proponents, as are we, of multilateral trade negotiations. They also know that TRIMs, trade-related investment measures, are part of the Uruguay round. We signed the Uruguay round and therefore we are committed to deal with trade-related investment measures on a world-wide scale. Of course we will carry out that commitment on a bilateral basis.
As for other investment issues, as I have said, our negotiators have been given a mandate by Cabinet to listen to the U.S. and find out exactly what is proposed. Of course we know, and this House knows, that the Americans are asking for a broader agreement on investment. The House knows that because I said that here two months ago. I said investment is also on the table. All countries around the world are loosening their investment policies. We did so when FIRA became Investment Canada. The result was a record $6.8 billion worth of investment for 1986.
So far we are dealing only with trade-related investment measures. The Americans want more. We are listening but we have not given the negotiators a general investment mandate. When the negotiating team is satisfied that the U.S. proposals are clearly understood and the implications for Canada have been fully considered by Cabinet a decision will be taken. As in all areas of negotiations, the mandate of the negotiators is determined by Cabinet and discussed with First Ministers and the provinces. My colleagues and I regularly review all aspects of these negotiations.
Let me say in closing that the opposition Parties do a disservice to the people of Canada. They are making baseless accusations and raising unnecessary fears. I suggest that Members opposite let us and the negotiators get on with the job of securing Canada's future through a free trade agreement in our best interests. Canada will judge whether a deal is in the national interest.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister has returned so we have an opportunity to pursue further questions with her concerning the very serious issue of the direction the Government is taking on trade-related investments and the mandate it carries with it.
Supply
The Minister has just finished accusing the Opposition of trying to disrupt the negotiations. I suggest with all due respect to her that if anyone is disrupting the negotiations it is the Keystone Cop operation carried on by the Government. The chief trade negotiator says one thing. That is contradicted by the Minister. That is then modified by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). That is in turn contradicted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). Over the last three or four days we have had five different versions of what is going on. Is it any wonder that questions are raised in the minds, not only of Members of Parliament but the public as to who is really in charge, who knows what is going on, and who will ultimately make some kind of decision? That is the complete picture of how the Government has handled negotiations from day one. It has always been a matter of bewitched, bothered and bewildered rather than one of coherence.
The Minister referred to the question of how Investment Canada is performing its duties and the role of foreign investment. She suggested that we not take asset value as the measurement, even though 94 per cent of it represents acquisitions and takeovers. I would suggest that perhaps the best measure is the employment factor. From the $22 billion invested from June to December something like 5,000 jobs were created. That is, about 300 to 400 jobs a month. Compare that to close to 80,000 positions taken over. What we do not know, and I will elaborate on these remarks when I have a chance, is how much high technology has been stripped away in those takeovers.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Is this a speech?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) has been in the House long enough to know that this is called question and comment.


Paul Wyatt Dick: No question?


Lloyd Axworthy: If he wants to read the rules I will be glad to send him a copy. I do direct a question specifically-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Oh, now a question. Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I am always prepared to take applause even from such dubious sources.
The Minister said the issue is very clear. Yet Mr. Reisman, our chief negotiator, is quoted as saying he wants to be very candid with reporters and the U.S. has, at every level, presidential, cabinet secretary, Secretary Shultz and Secretary Baker, made representations to our Government seeking a broader definition of the term investment. If the President, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury do it, I presume the Government might get the message eventually. How can the Minister stand up and say that the Government is totally oblivious of these American demands-


John Horton McDermid: We did not say that.

May 22, 1987
Supply


Lloyd Axworthy: -when our negotiator has said these matters have already been brought forward at the highest levels? These representations have already been made.
I ask the Minister, have the U.S. President and these other officials brought this matter to the Prime Minister and other cabinet Ministers? Is Cabinet aware of the Americans' intentions? When the representations were made did the Government say no?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Hon. Member to prove that any member of this Government and Cabinet were in any way contradicting each other on this issue.


Jacques Guilbault: Obviously you were away.


Pat Carney: Let me just repeat what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said today in Question Period because I was across the street hosting the Cairns group. He said what I have said, that the Americans have indicated an interest in discussing investment. I said that in the House. I quoted from the record. I just said it again. He said we are prepared to consider those specific proposals once we have received them in final form. That is what I have said. He said at the last meeting the negotiators indicated there was an oral indication, not written, that the U.S. negotiator was interested in some details, but it does not go anywhere near the false impression fostered by the two opposition Parties on "full" and "unfettered access" to Canada.
The Right Hon. Minister also said when we have a concrete idea of what the Americans are interested in discussing it will be considered by Cabinet. He added that if they are acceptable and in the interests of Canada we are prepared to give our negotiator a mandate to negotiate. That is what we have done in other areas. That will not conclude the matter because Cabinet will retain the right to approve or reject and indeed oversee anything which might be discussed by the negotiator at the table.
As I pointed out, these things are all talked through with the provinces. If they are not acceptable to Canada we are not prepared to negotiate on that basis. The Right Hon. Member also said we intend to retain protection for vital Canadian interests as was made clear by myself and the Prime Minister.
1 think if the Hon. Member checks that summary of the Minister's reply in Question Period against my reply and the record he will find that our Ministers have all been singing from the same song sheet and we are not singing bewitched, bothered and bewildered.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister is not singing that song but she is certainly performing it in mime, it seems to me.
I want to turn to what the Minister replied to me earlier this week when I asked her the very straight question:
Why has the Cabinet not said a flat no to the attempt of the United States to
widen this discussion about investment beyond trade related investment?
Her answer at that time was:
-that the kind of question the Hon. Member is suggesting has never been put
to us.
She did not say it has never been put to us in writing, she did not say it has never been put to us by the President of the United States in detail, she did not say it has never been put to us in detailed terms. She said it has never been put to us. That is a direct contradiction to what she has said today, which indicates that those positions were indeed put to us orally by the United States trade negotiator. Indeed, they have been put to us by many others including the United States Trade Commissioner, George Shultz, and the President, as indicated in every report we read in the press.
I suggest that the Minister must bear witness to the truth. She must respect the truth and clearly reflect the truth in answering questions or she will lose completely the very limited trust of the Canadian people which she still has.
The quotation I used comes directly from Hansard and perhaps the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) would like to check it. It is found on page 6241 of Hansard of May 20, 1987, and reflects exactly what I have just read into the record.
1 want to make two points. First, the Minister, unfortunately, because she was not here for the thrust of our critique, has not dealt with the points which made up the supporting basis for my speech. Most important, I want to ask the Minister the question which has been our basic question throughout this week. Why is the Government permitting the United States continually to take the initiative with respect to this subject? Why have we not put forward our position with respect to extending this discussion beyond trade related investment? Why, from our perspective, has the Government not said no? If the Government does not wish to say no, why has it not been prepared to say what we believe should be extended with reference to investment?
The point is that the Minister has continually allowed the other side to take the initiative in these discussions and we as a country are losing. We are worse off as a consequence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated but I will allow the Hon. Minister to answer succinctly.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to answer that kind of outpouring of rhetoric but I will concentrate on a couple of points. The Hon. Member said that I was not here to answer their criticisms in this area. I was in Quebec City meeting with provincial Trade Ministers yesterday. Last night, today and tomorrow 1 am meeting with international Trade Ministers. I am sorry that that is not considered by them to be the proper conduct of my duties.
Second, he asks why we did not run to the table and ask the Americans to please put investment on the table and then we
May 22, 1987

will put investment on the table. That is because it is not on the table, Mr. Speaker. The Americans want to put it on the table, not Canadians. We are quite happy with our open investment climate. Our position, as I have said, is to allow the Americans to put forward what they consider a negotiating proposal. We are not the demanders in this. The Member obviously knows nothing about negotiations. In some areas such as dispute settlement we are the demanders and put the proposal on the table, but where they have an interest they put the proposal on the table.
The Hon. Member referred to bearing witness to the truth and he might live up to his own words. His question was:
Why did the Government not, right at the start, say no to demands that would
tie our freedom so completely, demands with respect to holding restrictions on
investment which are crucial to jobs in Canada?
As I have indicated, the answer is because we never got such a silly request. The negotiators may have. I do not know what proposals float around over the negotiating table, but they were never ever brought to Cabinet in any way. I, as the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee, have never seen these "unfettered" proposals he has raised.
The Hon. Member has not answered the critical question. Is he against foreign investment in Canada? Is he against new jobs in Canada? Is he against General Motors in Oshawa? When he answers those questions we will be willing to listen to his proposals.
Some Hon. [Members: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) on debate.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, throughout Question Period during this past week one particular burning question has been on everyone's mind. Why is the Government hiding? Why is it up on its tippy-toes dancing around trying to obfuscate and evade? We know why the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) does it. He has all those Gucci shoes in his closet. You need 84 pairs of shoes when you are up on your tippy-toes all the time.
However, why are the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie), and the trade negotiator bumping into one another saying we did not talk about it and we are talking about it? We have just heard the Minister saying with false indignation that everything is an open book. If that is the case, the Minister has no alternative other than to fire the trade negotiator because he has obviously contradicted what she, the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State have said.


John Horton McDermid: Where?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Parliamentary Secretary is asking where. I guess he cannot afford two bits to buy a newspaper. I
Supply
will read to him from the Montreal Gazette of May 21, 1987. It reads:
Reisman was asked whether refusal to bargain the U.S. demand for removal of investment barriers would scuttle the talks.
"I think I can be very candid with you on that," he told reporters. "I think the United States side has made it very clear at every level-presidential, (cabinet) secretary to secretary, and at the negotiating table, that they are anxious to talk about investment in the broadest sense.
Surely even the Parliamentary Secretary who has been living in the large shadow of the Minister for International Trade so long that he walks in darkness is able to understand that point of view. The chief negotiator has said that the Americans have brought this to the table, their President has brought it to the Prime Minister, their Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of State have brought it to the Ministers. Yet the Government has not yet gotten the message. Can we believe that? Is it possible to believe that the President of the United States, the great prince of persuasion, has said something that the Prime Minister is incapable of understanding?
We can draw two conclusions. The first is that they are so totally incapable of comprehension that to allow them to continue negotiating free trade with such limited powers of comprehension puts us all in peril. The other conclusion is that the chief negotiator is not saying it as it is or the Minister is not saying it as it is, in which case they should get together and decide who is running trade policy in this country.
This is not a trifling item. We are not talking about something of temporary importance. This is a matter that goes to the very heart of the economic management of this country. The question is whether, as a result of the free trade negotiations, the Government of Canada will agree to pay the price of allowing the broadest possible foreign investment in this country without controls, guidelines or any definition as to whether that investment is in our basic interests.
One of the problems concerning the entire free trade negotiation issue is that we hear much about its benefits but nothing about the price we will have to pay for those benefits. We do not hear that these negotiations may result in Canadians losing their freedom of choice in all areas of public policy, federal and provincial. We do not hear about Canadians losing the right to decide what kind of country we want.
The investment issue is crucial because it dramatizes exactly the price we may have to pay. That is why we must pay attention to this issue and that is why it has dominated Question Period for four days. We want some answers as to whether the Government will indeed be paying that kind of price in order to modify the U.S. trade remedy laws. Will it allow the United States to have total access to foreign investment, as Mr. Reisman says they want, and as the Americans indicated in their own report last fall? Their primary demand is for a policy of investment based upon the principle of national treatment, which means there are no rules

May 22, 1987
Supply
or guidelines. We are witnessing one of the worst cover-ups by the Government because it deals with something that will affect every part of this country.
Let me explain why investment policy is so crucial. The Prime Minister asked how could we be against jobs. The Minister asked how could we be against employment. We brought statistics to the House that were provided by the Government's own agency. In the last 15 months in which Investment Canada has kept records, there has been $22 billion worth of foreign investment, $21 billion of which has gone into takeovers and acquisitions of existing companies. Only 5 per cent of that foreign investment has gone into new business.
Some 80,000 Canadian employees are now under foreign owners, with less than 5,000 jobs in return for that $22 billion. I ask, does that demonstrate that this wide open policy is working to the benefit of Canadians? That does not appear to be the opinion of Investment Canada, given those disproportionate figures. One can only conclude from the figures provided by the Government's own agency that it desires further takeovers and acquisitions of Canadian businesses by foreigners.
Let us take the problem one step further. Some may ask what is wrong with foreign investment. There is nothing wrong with foreign investment, as long as it works toward the production of jobs and increased research and development in this country. Again, the record is not very clear. Investment Canada has yet to turn down or reject any application. Submitting an application to Investment Canada is like putting slush through a goose, because nothing is stopped.
There must be someone working on behalf of Canadians to require companies investing in Canada to ensure that the Canadian subsidiary will be able to export its goods, maintain employment and have a fair share of research and development. They must ensure that foreign investment will not be used, as it has been in the past, to strip companies of their technology, lay off Canadian workers to be replaced by their own, or to simply cut back employment. We must have someone acting on behalf of Canadians to prevent foreign investors from suffocating the opportunity of foreign-owned Canadian companies to export.
That is in fact what is happening, according to the Government's own reports from the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. That Department prepared a series of industry-by-industry reports for Mr. Reisman, and they indicated that Canadian subsidiaries had a far lower record in export performance, conducted far less research and development, and in many cases had laid off Canadian employees, compared to Canadian-owned companies. In other words, the record of Canadian subsidiaries in a number of critical areas of the economy is not as good as those Canadian-owned companies. In fact, the report goes on to state that it is the Canadian-owned companies rather than Canadian subsidiaries that are exporting to Japan, Europe, Latin America and the Pacific Rim.
In fact, in a study by Mr. Samuel Wex that was commissioned by the Institute of Research on Public Policy, the suggestion is that in terms of total economic activity, Canadian-owned subsidiaries have less than 4 per cent of their activity in the export market.
Yet, here we are at a time when Canada faces perhaps the toughest and most competitive world environment, and in which we are imploring companies to create new products, develop new markets and create new jobs for Canadians, and the Government is shooting itself in the foot because it is providing the opportunity for the takeover of Canadian companies that are producing that export market and creating those jobs. It is allowing them to be sold out and simply become rubber stamps for many of the foreign-owned decisionmakers.
I want to give another interesting example of why we should pay attention to the issue of foreign investment. Perhaps the House does not realize that Canada has the highest level of foreign ownership of any country in the world. Over 60 per cent of our manufacturing is dominated by foreign firms. The incidents of foreign manufacturing has increased incredibly over the last two years. In 1984, $3.9 billion left this country by way of dividends to foreign investors. In 1986, it amounted to $5.3 billion.


David Bruce Daubney: That is because the economy is going again.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is money that is not being invested in Canada.


David Bruce Daubney: It is a measure of economic growth.


Lloyd Axworthy: Let us consider the famous example of the Dome takeover by Amoco. That is a company with a wonderful corporate record, with about $30 million or $40 million worth of investment in Canada and $200 million or $300 million returning to the head office by way of dividends.
At the same time that the outflow of money has increased substantially, reinvestment in Canada has been going down. In 1984, $5.3 billion was reinvested in Canada. By 1986, that reinvestment amounted to $4.6 billion. Surely these figures should be a cause of concern and a reason that any further attempt to broaden or open the doors for more takeovers and acquisitions should alarm Canadians.
We are making these points because we will reverse that trend and return the kind of policy that will certainly have foreign investment, but foreign investment that is based upon Canadian interests.


Kenneth Albert James: We saw that.


Lloyd Axworthy: We had foreign investment but the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) will know that companies came in under those provisions which required them to do research and development, to build plants here and create jobs here. The Tories have left the doors wide open and there no longer are controls.
May 22, 1987

If the Government caves in once again and entrenches an "open sesame" policy in a free trade agreement, it will be very difficult to remove. Future governments will want to reserve the right to change the ridiculous, inefficient and irresponsible policy that the Government is following because it is not creating jobs or creating economic strengths, but weakening those very things. We will want to change that when we become the Government. However, if the Government entrenches that open-door policy in a free trade agreement it will be much more difficult for more enlightened Governments of the future to protect interests of Canadian workers and Canadian industries. That is why it is very important that sometime this week-end the Minister for International Trade, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Prime Minister and Mr. Reisman get together in the same room so at least they can come up with the same message and decide what it is they are trying to do. Canadians want a clear picture of exactly what we face.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, after listening to that speech, I think it is obvious why the Liberals are in trouble with policy, not being able to make up their minds as to where they stand or what they want. We know where the socialist from Winnipeg-Fort Garry stands, diametrically opposed to the Liberal from Saint-Henri-Westmount and, we think, is somewhere in the middle of where his Right Hon. Leader stands. We are not sure.
The Liberals are trying to say to the people of Canada that they are receiving conflicting information. I want to read into the record what was said and I want the people of Canada to make that judgment. The Minister said this months ago in a speech in this House. The Liberals cry about this great revelation, that all of a sudden we have trade negotiations going on in Canada. Surprise! Some of it is controversial. Surprise! The country is going to hell in a handbasket they say. The NDP and the Liberals can only cry wolf for just so long until finally it will catch up with them. One of these days people are going to ask where they stand and what they stand for. We got an inkling today. They stand for bringing back the Foreign Investment Review Agency. They want to bring back that old dinosaur which held this country back from creating jobs for such a long period of time. It did not matter where one traveled in the world at that time, people said, "Canada is anti-investment. They don't want our money. They don't want jobs created there". Now the Liberal Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) wants to bring it back. I am glad we finally got a policy out of the Liberal Government. It wants to bring back FIRA.
I want to quote to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry what the Minister said:
Also on the table is investment.
This was months ago, not yesterday. It was not Wednesday. It was months ago.
Supply
All countries around the world are loosening their investment policies. We did so when FIRA became Investment Canada. The result was a record $6.8 billion worth of investment for 1986. So far we are dealing only with trade-related investment measures. The Americans want more. We are listening but we have not given the negotiators a general investment mandate.
There is nothing wrong with that. "The Americans want more", was the quote of months ago. Mr. Reisman said the United States is, "Anxious to talk about investment in the broadest sense". What great revelation is that? The Secretary of State for External Affairs today in the House of Commons in answering questions for 35 minutes on this subject was very up-front. Americans had indicated an interest in discussing investment. We are prepared to consider their specific proposals once we have received them in their final form. There is nothing inconsistent in all these things which have been said, and they have been said for months.
Perhaps I can ask the Hon. Member, other than for political haymaking, why is he bringing this subject up now, trying to befuddle the situation? I believe that if the quotes were checked they would be found to be very consistent. Why would he try to muddy up the waters now except for political purposes? Why has his Leader brought in this "unfettered" and "uncontrolled" nonsense, which are the Liberal's words, not the Conservative's words or our chief negotiator's words?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary, when he began his remark said he now understands why we are in trouble. I thought he meant trouble in the polls. There is only one Party which is in real trouble in the polls and that is the Conservative Party which is running at 23 per cent.


John Horton McDermid: Twenty-six per cent now. We are moving up. Be fair.


Lloyd Axworthy: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. That Party has moved ahead slightly.


John Horton McDermid: The Liberals distort everything.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is substantially behind the Liberals and substantially behind the NDP and has just moved ahead of the "don't know" category which, in the last three months, has had a larger proportion of voter support than the Conservative Party.


John Horton McDermid: We are going up.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact is that if anyone is talking about trouble, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he had better look in his own backyard because if any Party has a problem it is the people opposite.
The Hon. Member says this is no surprise. Of course, it is not, because we have been asking questions about this for two years. We have been asking if the Government is prepared to give up, to surrender, to transfer the right of full investment as a price of free trade negotiation. The Government all along has said, "Now, wait a minute. It is not on the table". There was all this dancing around until this week when we found out from the chief trade negotiator, Mr. Reisman, that in fact it

May 22, 1987
Supply
was no longer a matter of speculation that, indeed, the Americans at the very highest level, the President of the United States, had brought the matter forward.


Claudy Mailly: Not on the table.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Hon. Member says, "not on the table". I do not know where the President put it. Perhaps he put in on the Prime Minister head. I do not know how he handed it to him. Perhaps they were sitting on the floor. Maybe that is where it was put. The fact is that Mr. Reisman said without contradiction from anyone opposite that this matter was brought forward by cabinet level Ministers of the U.S. government and by the President of the United States. They have put the matter directly-perhaps not on the table-right on the plate of the Prime Minister. What we wanted to know is did the Prime Minister say, "No, we can't do it. We will not broaden and give you national treatment in investment"?
All the Prime Minister had to do last Tuesday when we asked was to give us a simple answer that, "Yes, the Americans brought that to my attention and I said no". But the Government has never said that. It has danced, jumped, twisted, turned, but has never been prepared to say that when the President asked it did not have the guts to say no.
We know why it did not have the guts because it is going to give away that kind of open access in investment so it can get a deal, so the Prime Minister can save his political skin, he thinks. The Canadian people will not buy it. They will not buy anything this Prime Minister says. That is why that Party is standing at 25 per cent in the polls.


John Horton McDermid: There, you changed it again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 have two more questioners. I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary would restrain himself. I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) and then the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil).


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Liberal spokesman on this subject today, FIRA and Investment Canada, was not at the Standing Committee on DRIE yesterday. We had a witness from the City of Brantford, an economic development officer, speaking on concerns relating to DRIE and foreign investment. His comments were, and they are a matter of record, that nothing was ever accomplished in terms of foreign investment for that community under FIRA. All they were aware of was delay after delay, frustration after frustration. Indeed, he complimented the Government of Canada for its change of position and legislation so we could have Investment Canada.
I would like to move quickly to my own constituency and give the Hon. Member two examples. Westar Pulp Mill is a Canadian owned company in British Columbia. It is B.C. resources owned. It was sold to Bathurst-Consolidated and the Investment Bank of China.
What happened? One of the first initiatives was to seek a small amount of federal assistance to develop a new system of feeding the boiler in that huge pulp mill, so that the end result would be a dramatic reduction in pollution going into the air, leading to acid rain, and pollution going into the water, and the smell. Not only that, the technology that would ensue has world-wide application in 400 different mills, all originating from that investment in technology and science and development at that mill, partially foreign-owned.
Finally we turn to Cominco Ltd., one of the world leaders in the technology of gallium arsenide, of zinc production a potential world leader in lead production. Who do we find marketing that technology? The ownership, as sold off by the CPR, is Teck Corporation, which holds 50 per cent of CPR's shares, Metallgesellshaft of Germany, 25 per cent, and M.I.M. Holdings Limited of Australia, 25 per cent. All three companies are good corporate citizens, putting a totally different complexion on the obtuse statements of the spokesman for the Liberal Party in today's debate.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco). I am surprised he did not bring up the issue of Kootenay Power and Light Company-


Robert Hylton Brisco: I would be delighted to.


Lloyd Axworthy: -which represents, Mr. Speaker, the first time in the history of this country that we are allowing a major public power utility to be taken over by foreign interests.


Robert Hylton Brisco: No, it is not.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 7,000 people signed a petition against that takeover. Investment Canada, this wonderful agency that the Tories put in place, on December 21 last, in the dark of the night, passed on that application, without even considering the evidence from-


An Hon. Member:: They have never been known to meet late at night.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to provide proper information to the Tory MPs. Thank God they can get good information from somewhere. They obviously do not get it from their own sources.
The fact of the matter is, Investment Canada passed on the Kootenay Power and Light application without even bothering to take into consideration the evidence adduced at the hearings of the Public Utilities Commission of B.C. They simply said: "Go ahead, take it over." In that part of B.C. alone, 7,000 people signed a petition to stop the total give-away of a major public utility in Canada.
It seems to me that the Hon. Member opposite should be a lot more concerned about the anger and the indignation of the
May 22, 1987

people in his own constituency at that takeover, that acquisition, because that, Mr. Speaker, is going to be one of the reasons why we will not see him at the next Christmas party.
The Elon. Member has talked about FIRA itself, Mr. Speaker. He said that all of those people out there were trembling with fear and loathing about the record of FIRA; that people were not going to come to Canada.
Let me quote what I would consider to be an acceptable source to Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament, that being the former U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Mr. Robinson. In a Conference Board study, Mr. Robinson, while still the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, is quoted as having said, "Canada remains a very good country for people to invest their money in." In that same study, 333 foreign companies were interviewed as to what they consider to be the major problems in terms of investing in Canada, and only 6.6 per cent said that it had something to do with FIRA. I repeat, 6.6 per cent of the 333 companies interviewed.
What did result, Mr. Speaker-and I will give the Hon. Members opposite the answer-when FIRA was in place, is that jobs were created in Canada. An example is that of the Hyundai car company. Hyundai Corporation, a Korean car manufacturer, wanted access to this market for investment, and a condition of the agreement was that it would create automobile plants in Canada. As a result, the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion was able to announce, on coming into Government, that Hyundai had come to Canada to create a plant. The reason for that, of course, was that FIRA was in place and had set as a condition of investment that jobs be created in Canada.
We do not have those conditions any longer, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we have nothing but takeovers, acquisitions, and shake-downs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil), on a question or comment.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, as one who comes from an area of the country with the highest unemployment rate in the nation, I cannot help but be struck by the dogma, the ideology which is being put forward to Canadians and to all Members of the House today. Surely there is no serious debate in this country or in this House about the preference for Canadian ownership, Canadian control. I am sure it would be the wish of all of us that all of the products and services we consume be made in this country. But, the reality is that, in my part of the country, as in other parts of the country, Canadian investors did not come forward to develop our human resources, Canadian investors did not come forward to put the unemployed to work.
We are being asked to live with 20 per cent unemployment so that the ideological fantasies of some political Parties in this country can be satisfied. Those with two cars in the driveway and a VCR and a colour television can read their novels and
Supply
think about lofty subjects, but some Canadians have great difficulty meeting their basic economic needs.
For those people to stand today and suggest to Canadians that we do not need stable and secure trading relations with the United States to protect the economic opportunities that we do have and to build upon them is blatantly dishonest. It is well known even in my riding, Mr. Speaker, that much of the employment is dependent upon, not only the presence of foreign corporations and foreign investment, but also the export of products. This kind of rhetoric serves the philosophers well, but it does not serve the interests of ordinary Canadians.
Ordinary Canadians, Mr. Speaker, are seeing this to be nothing more than a philosophical debate, and not a debate about the needs of ordinary Canadians.


Lloyd Axworthy: Let's talk about the view of ordinary Canadians. I take the Hon. Member to be an honest representative of his area. What is he talking about in terms of ordinary Canadians. According to an opinion survey published last week, 65 per cent of Canadians, or approximately two-thirds of ordinary Canadians, do not want further takeovers and acquisitions.
Let us also take a look at the statistics-


An Hon. Member:: What was the question?


Lloyd Axworthy: The question was, "Are you in favour of further takeovers and acquisitions?"


Claudy Mailly: But that is not what he is talking about. He is talking about jobs for people.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am coming to that. The Hon. Member says, "We want to create new jobs." Of the $22 billion in foreign investment, only 5 per cent went to new businesses. It had nothing to do with creating new jobs in Cape Breton. It went to the takeover and acquisition of large companies. The only employment created was for a bunch of lawyers in New York, those working out the mergers and acquisitions. That is where the jobs were going. They were not going to Cape Breton, or other areas of Canada.
I can sympathize with the heartfelt sentiment expressed, Mr. Speaker. As a former Minister of Employment, I worked very hard to create jobs in Cape Breton, and elsewhere. I can only point out that the unemployment rate now is no better than it was back then. In fact, it is a little worse in many regions of the country. What has happened is that this Government has allowed a concentration of wealth in the central part of Canada, leaving the regions to fend for themselves. It is a Government that has no regional development policy. It is denuding and shearing off the capacity of the federal Government to provide instruments of public policy to ensure that there are investments in the regions. This Government is shrinking the capacity of the federal Government to ensure that there is equal distribution of rights and benefits for Canadians.

May 22, 1987
Supply
The Government of Canada is simply becoming a rubber stamp for American acquisitions and is doing nothing to direct both Canadian and foreign investments such that the country generally can equally share in those investments.
The figures are in front of us. I sympathize with the Hon. Member, but I say that if he wants to solve that problem, he has one choice, and that is to leave the Party he belongs to and join a Party that knows about regional development-not one that turns its back on the regions.


An Hon. Member:: You created the problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), on debate.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Government's position on foreign investment seems to be extremely naive. We are not entirely clear where it stands on the free trade negotiations. We have heard many ridiculous statements on what exactly is being demanded of Canada in order to get an agreement on free trade with the United States.
Certainly the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and government Ministers generally have been very strong on the idea that foreign investment, whatever kind, whatever limitations or no limitation, just totally unfettered foreign investment, is good for the country. They seem to think that the more foreign investment we have, the more employment we will have.
We had a completely naive suggestion from the Prime Minister the other day that, for example, the City of Windsor, because it has a lot of foreign investment in the automotive industry, has very low unemployment as a result of the benefits of foreign investment. However, the unemployment rate in Windsor is just at the national average; it is not lower at all.
Let us think of single industry towns where the industry is a foreign-owned company. If there are shut-downs, slow-downs, lay-offs, or basically the company shut down the entire operation to buy a company or to move the manufacturing or processing back to its own country, the jobs are gone.
In the case of research and development we know that foreign-owned companies do not do their research and development in Canada. Financial services and management services are done in the home country, not in the branch plant. This means the more foreign investment, the fewer the jobs, the fewer high quality jobs, research and development jobs, highly skilled jobs, well paying jobs, and more secure jobs in Canada.
With the present foreign investment in Canada today, we should have the lowest rate of unemployment in the entire world if the Government thesis is correct that foreign investment necessarily creates more jobs. It does not. It depends upon the industry. It depends upon many situations.
We need investment. There is a place for foreign investment. We must make decisions to ensure that in any particular case the investment will be good for the country. If it is not, we need the power to say no to that foreign investment and, instead, to encourage Canadian investment.
What do the Americans want in the free trade negotiations and what is the role of investment? I want to talk particularly about the cultural industries. This is an area in which the Americans make a lot of money in Canada. They make their money largely through sales, because in most of these areas there are not any tariffs, quotas, or trade barriers. Free trade negotiations do not mean reducing barriers because there are not any. We have had the anomaly of the book tariff. Fortunately that has gone.
The Americans sell an enormous amount in film, broadcasting, television programming, books, magazines, video cassettes, and so forth to Canadians. They are making a lot of money in trade already.
What they want, realistically, is not more trade or more sales, although they would like that. What they really want is to be able to invest more in our cultural industries. In some of those industries we have limitations on foreign investment. Those limitations on foreign investment have been excellent for Canada. This is the irony.
If the Government took its own advice on this point, it would get rid of all those limitations on foreign investment, if foreign investment were so good for the country.
I want to look at these different industries and at the roles of foreign investment and Canadian investment to see how foreign investment has either served or not served Canadians well.
Let us look at book publishing and magazine publishing. Canadian book publishing is not a strong industry. The most successful, the largest companies, the companies with the largest revenues, the big sellers to our educational network, to provincial boards of education, have been foreign-owned, foreign-controlled companies. They are the big money makers. In fact, most Canadian-authored books are produced by a small number of Canadian-owned companies. If we want to talk about developing our own culture, if we want to talk about access of Canadian authors to getting their works out there to be read by people, we must turn to the Canadian-owned sector.
Canadian-owned companies published 85 per cent of Canadian authored books. Most of the books sold in Canada are foreign produced, so most of the revenues from book sales go back to other countries, and that is largely the United States. The Canadian owned companies happen to be the companies which export the most too.
We are not very big in exporting books, but Canadian-owned, small publishing houses exported 7 per cent of their sales. Large Canadian-owned publishing companies exported 12 per cent of their sales. However, when we look at foreign-owned companies, we see that their exports were only 1.7 per
May 22, 1987

cent of sales. In short, there is scarcely any export from these foreign companies.
If we are to think about a vital industry, an industry which will be exporting, producing jobs in Canada, and getting the creativity and ideas of Canadian authors out to the rest of the world, we must look to the Canadian-owned companies. The American-owned companies are not doing that. If we depended, as the Prime Minister would want us to do, on more foreign investment, we would lose what we have already.
The Government has admitted that Canadian ownership is a good thing in publishing. We have a policy statement dated July 6, 1985 from the previous Minister of Communications in favour of greater Canadian ownership in this industry. The policy statement is a good one, and I commend the Government on it. However, I have to fault the same Government for not implementing or acting on the Canadian book publishing statement. It remains a statement on paper. The reality is that Investment Canada has been weak. It has not forced the divestment which was called for under the policy. It allowed for a considerable period of time to say that it could not act retroactively and that it would not insist upon divestment when there are foreign takeovers.
Even this very weak policy has been objected to by American publishers, by the American Government, and by the American trade negotiator on behalf of American companies. The United States has objected. The Americans are making a fortune in selling books to Canadians. They would like to make more money. They do not want to see these investment opportunities curtailed.
We have a policy to encourage Canadian periodicals and Canadian magazine publishing. We have various subsidies such as a postal subsidy. The Americans have objected to that and said that it is unfair. However, most magazines sold in Canada are not Canadian. Most of them are still foreign. We have an industry which is trying to grow, and it is extremely important that it be given various advantages.
We have requirements on advertising to encourage advertisements being placed in Canadian-owned periodicals as opposed to foreign periodicals. The United States has objected to that. That amount of protectionism, the kind of protectionism which the Government says is evil, has resulted in a thriving industry. It has resulted in Canadian writers, printers, binders, and all such people getting jobs and getting their ideas out there to other Canadians; in uniting Canadians from coast-to-coast; and in getting ideas around. It absolutely requires some rules, regulations, and controls. These are dirty words to the Conservatives, but the results are not bad at all. They are not unfortunate or miserable results; they are excellent results. Ideas are getting around. People are getting jobs. Authors are getting paid. Royalties are being paid. All this is very healthy for that industry.
Another area has actually shown a great deal of success for Canadians as a result of having a Canadian ownership policy. It is something that we would like to be much stronger in the
Supply
case of publishing. I am referring to broadcasting. It is a success story. It did not happen by accident. This was an area in which investment was largely American. A policy decision was taken by the previous Government back in the 1960s to limit foreign investment-it was in fact American, but the limitation was on foreign investment-to only 20 per cent of broadcasting companies. In short, there must be 80 per cent Canadian ownership and control of these companies.
There was a gradual period of divestment. Instead of Canadian banks lending money to Americans to buy into the industry, they lend money to Canadians to buy into it. Now we have a solidly Canadian-owned industry. In the period from 1968 to 1973 earnings in broadcasting increased 700 per cent, thanks to these rules, thanks to this protectionism, thanks to this control. Jobs in broadcasting at least doubled in that period.
We would like to see more of the revenues produced in this very important industry go into Canadian production. There is certainly room for much more Canadian programming on the air. It is not perfect, but we have made some progress. We have made that progress by having Canadian content regulations.
We have had regulations on border advertising in television stations. The Americans are objecting to these regulations. They say that they are unfair. Fair or unfair, it is extremely difficult for a small country, a country one tenth the size of the United States, to compete. There is no level playing field when one team has 10 times the number of players on the other team. Thanks to these regulations, we have a thriving industry.
The Americans make a lot of money on Canadian broadcasting. They make it largely by selling programs to Canadians. Canadians are major purchasers of American programming, but the Americans want more because broadcasting is a very lucrative industry. Canadian-owned companies are expanding and making lots of money and the Americans would like to be able to buy into it. The Americans are not content simply to make money on sales; they want money from investment. The Americans want to be able to buy in. I very much expect that if they were allowed to buy in, we would have a reduction in Canadian programming, whereas we need an increase. If we did not have Canadian ownership and strong measures for Canadian content regulations, we would have even less. With more American ownership, we would not be able to strengthen our position with programming on the air.
Film is an area which is not a success story. Film is a sorry failure. Here I have to blame the previous Government- which I would compliment for its decisions on broadcasting- for its reluctance and refusal to act. Task forces, the arts community and experts in the area have explained what the problem is. For decades the problem has been known, that is, that distribution is controlled overwhelmingly by Americans.

May 22, 1987
Supply
Let me quote from the Raymond Roth report on the film distribution industry:
The Consequences of Foreign Domination.
Distribution feeds the markets. It determines who can see what, when and how. It chooses the films to be imported, thus determining what products the Canadian public will have access to. It determines the marketing strategy for Film in the various medias: theatres, videocassettes, pay and free TV. It determines the scope of their reach across various regions of the country. All of these decisions affect the cultural life of the nation. It is unacceptable that they be made by non-Canadians, purely in their own economic interests.
That analysis is absolutely clear. In the case of film, 97 per cent of the revenues from film go to the United States. They go into film production in the United States. We have some very good Canadian films being produced in Canada, not a large number, but we have some. They scarcely get into the distribution field because the distributors are American-owned. Even Canadian films have to go through an American distribution company to be shown in theatres in Canada. This is a situation that is not allowed in any other country. Canada is simply considered a part of the American market for film distribution purposes. The result is that $1 billion a year gets spent by Canadians going to movies. Instead of the profits from that money going into Canadian production, into hiring Canadian writers, directors, actors, technicians, camera people and so forth, it gets plowed back into American production. So there is a vicious circle and you get more American films which are distributed by American companies.
This task force report came up with some very good recommendations on what to do about it. The first recommendation was for Canadian ownership and control of the Canadian film industry. It states very clearly that it is essential that to have any kind of sane distribution policy there has to be Canadian ownership and control. But what does the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) do about it? She has come up with a different scheme. She has suggested instead that there be a licence import system. This licence import scheme is certainly better than nothing. It would probably mean a reduction in about 10 per cent of the control of Americans in our Canadian film distribution industry. Instead of getting 97 per cent of the profits from Canadians going for films, they will be getting roughly 10 per cent less than that. Roughly 10 per cent of that would then be going to Canadians. That is better than nothing. However, that is a denial of the first principle of the Raymond Roth report which says that we have to have Canadian ownership and control.
When I asked the Minister in committee about it, for example, she pretended not to even know about this recommendation. Her Assistant Deputy Minister seems to have rewritten the report. When he discussed the recommendations of this task force report, he managed to drop the most essential one, the one on Canadian ownership and control. He only talked about the other ones, the ones that are a little bit easier to implement.
Other countries have much better control over film distribution. They have various measures of requirements, quotas and so forth because other countries, small countries like Canada,
small relative to the United States at least, have realized that if they want to have a film industry they need to have some rules to protect it. Small countries simply cannot compete with that massive American market, the massive advantages that that society has in producing and distributing its own films.
We have this excellent report. We have strong recommendations for Canadian ownership and control, but nothing has happened on it. The Minister is not even sure whether Canadian ownership and control ought to be an objective. In other statements that she has made, and when I have asked her, she says that she is going to talk to the American majors and ask for their co-operation. She is going to ask for the cooperation of people who are making a fortune in distributing American films in Canada. She will say: "Please stop making a fortune. Go away. Let Canadians do it". That is not the nature of the beast, Mr. Speaker. Businesses are in business to make money. They make money by distributing American films.
Why should they, out of the goodness of their hearts, simply quit making money in Canada distributing American films? They are not going to. Instead they are lobbying very hard to get rid of or not to have put into place-because it is not quite there yet-the licence import system. They do not even want that, which is a very, very modest measure. They are fighting very hard for it, and we worry about how much influence they will have on this Government. We know that President Reagan himself has raised the issue with the Prime Minister, protecting his old buddies in the Hollywood film industry to see that Hollywood continues to dominate the Canadian film system. So Canadians get very little chance to see the excellent Canadian films that, in fact, are being produced.
I would like now to make a few remarks about the music recording industry, another cultural industry over which we do not have much Canadian control, ownership or presence. An interesting thing happened a number of years ago. The CRTC came up with a requirement for Canadian content in sound recordings for popular music broadcast on the radio. Suddenly, as a result of this regulation-and this is a Government that thinks regulation is evil, awful and does all these terrible things-what happened? We began to get a popular music industry. Our songwriters and singers began to get an outlet for their creative work. People got jobs. Records were produced, thanks to this regulation. But we did not have anything comparable for classical music. We do not have any kind of Canadian classical music industry. Here you can clearly make the comparison. You make a requirement that stimulates an industry. The people are there. They can do it.
We have talent in Canada. It is not as if we are talking about a situation where we have to depend on foreigners to create our culture. We have all kinds of creative talent in the country, singers, directors, writers and all of these people who want to work. We simply require that they be given the opportunity. They will not get the opportunity so far as the distribution companies are concerned because they are controlled by people who are promoting the work of artists in
May 22, 1987

another country. It is the legitimate right of companies to promote the work of their own artists, we don't dispute that. But we do not want our country to be run to the tune of the United States or to the tune of any other country.
One of the speakers this afternoon on this subject of foreign investment talked about the very difficult situation of high unemployment in Cape Breton. The speaker said that we in the New Democratic Party were being ideological in being concerned about foreign investment and seemed to take this very simplistic approach that the more foreign investment there is, the more jobs there are going to be. Unfortunately, that is not true. I was part of the jobs action group that went to Cape Breton and listened to people in local communities. They said very strongly that they wanted to see Canadian control so that money made in the community would stay in the community, be recycled and produce other jobs there. If you have a foreign-owned company, the money goes out in profits. Some of the jobs stay out of the country because they remain in the head office. These are the research and development and the managerial jobs. All of those jobs never get into the community in the first place.
Of course, there is always the risks of shut-downs and layoffs. Foreign ownership means a great deal of vulnerability to a community. The people of Cape Breton told us that they wanted to see more Canadian control so jobs would be created and produced in Canada for Canadians. It is a very practical matter. It is not a matter of ideology. Where we see it will be harmful, we must limit it. Where we see it is going to be useful, where the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, we can make a decision. However, we must retain the power to make that decision.
There are some areas in which we do not allow foreign investment, such as culture and communications. We have these restrictions in broadcasting and are demanding more of it in publishing. We should be demanding more in the film industry. If we give it away in free trade negotiations, we will not have the power to make those kinds of decisions. We have to control these industries and build jobs in them because they are very important. We must have Canadian investment and control so we can promote our own artistic people and our own creative life. We cannot do that if we give away the power to other countries.

I blame this Government for having betrayed its mandate, for having betrayed Canadians in the free trade negotiations. We do need investment, but the kind that will create jobs in Canada, good jobs. For that we must have control, we must be able to choose among purchasing offers; we must be able to say no to banks and private companies like foreign companies-

-the Hon. Member's time has expired. Questions and comments?
Supply


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, there is an old saw that wishing will not make it so. I am afraid the Hon. Member has just proven that her speech was based on wishful thinking. Wishing will not change the fact there are 25 million people in Canada stretched over a vast area and 250 million people in the U.S. Wishing will not allow us to say that we do not want to trade with the Americans because they are so big and powerful and everywhere. Wishing will not change the fact that Canadians seem to be enamoured with things American. When the best seller list comes out at Christmastime-and I know because I am a published author and I went through it-you will see at last some Canadian authors who make it to the top and even stay there for a few weeks. However, as soon as the Christmas rush is over Canadians rush to buy American books. Is it because the big bad Government does not support the Canadian industry? No. As a matter of fact, this Government has supported the industry even more than previous Governments in spite of the need for cutting our spending and trying to bring down the deficit.
What happened when we put a tax on imported books because the Americans were taxing shakes and shingles? The NDP and the Liberals got up in the House and screamed because we were limiting the importation of American books. Why did they do that? Because Canadian booksellers, not big bad American booksellers, were worried about their bottom line. They were selling fewer books because Canadians, in spite of the fact that our books were cheaper, were not buying more Canadian books.
As I say, wishing will not make it so. We are living in the real world. What would the Hon. Member have us do? Should we scramble the airwaves and stop all American influence in Canada? Should we tell Canadians who love to watch American sitcoms that there will be no more cable, no more Cosby Show or all the other shows they love because it is considered unCanadian to look at things American?
That is the kind of policy recommended by the NDP. It would lead us to a controlled environment, a closed society, and we would not be able to enjoy the marvellous outpouring of culture from other countries, including the United States. The Americans are our friends and they are just as interested as Canadians are in their own culture. However, we are 25 million people living next door to a giant. Our very intelligent way of dealing with this problem is not to stick our head in the sand, not to be worried or scared, but to say we will negotiate. These people want something from us, we want something from them.
It has been said all along that our culture is not on the table. All kinds of measures exist in our legislation to protect those industries from being taken over by anyone, including the Americans. I do not understand why the Hon. Member chooses this unrealistic approach to what is a very serious problem with a great potential for creating the jobs we need in Canada, including the Atlantic region which has had an outpouring of billions of dollars and has not been able to create jobs.

May 22, 1987
Supply


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Eton. Member mixes up a whole lot of different issues, but I will try to deal with them one by one.
First, yes, I am very well aware that we have 26 million people and our market is effectively much smaller because we have a francophone and an Anglophone population. For practical purposes, the number is much smaller compared to the U.S., which is 10 times our size. That means we must have practical measures to deal with this enormous imbalance. No one is suggesting that we try to close the borders or scramble messages. This is totally ridiculous. My concern is that we get good Canadian programming on the air which Canadians want to see. It is not a question of being negative about programming from any other country. It is a question of Canadians having the opportunity to see good Canadian programming in Canada.
In being so negative about my remarks, which were about the benefits of having Canadian investment in our cultural industries, is the Hon. Member saying she does not want Canadian investment? Does she want to see more foreign control? It is quite clear that the areas in which we have predominant Canadian investment are thriving. Where we have foreign investment are the areas with a great deal of difficulty.
The Hon. Member raised the matter of book publishing. She said her Government has supported it. I remind her that with the tariff the Government took $12 million from that industry.


Claudy Mailly: On American books.


Lynn McDonald: Not just on American books. It was on English language books which could come from any country.


Claudy Mailly: American books.


Lynn McDonald: It discriminated against Canadian authors published in the U.S. or in co-production arrangements with Canadian and American companies. Canadian authors were discriminated against by this measure.


Claudy Mailly: Wishing will not make it so.


Lynn McDonald: I certainly would like to see more Canadian control and investment in our cultural industries, but I do not want to close the door to people being able to buy what they want in the way of books or magazines from other countries. My concern is that there be good Canadian books and magazines and films that they can see. I do not think there should be a tariff on American, British, French or any other books that come into this country. I do not think there should be taxes on books. I was appalled that the Conservative Government would put a tax on books.
Finally, I simply want to say that if the Hon. Member's point is that she wants to see a loss of control in our cultural industry then she should make it very clear that she is repudiating government policy of increasing control in those areas.


Claudy Mailly: You know very well that that is not what I am saying.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely wish to thank the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) for putting forward this motion today. I am delighted to have the opportunity to set the record straight on the Government's policy on investment.
Let us start first with statistics which have been tossed around this House over the last few days by some members of the Opposition.

It has been asserted, Mr. Speaker, that according to Investment Canada's 1986 Annual Report, 95 per cent of all foreign investment has been acquisitions and only 5 per cent has been new businesses.
Mr. Speaker, this is playing with figures. Those figures are based on asset values, which, taken by themselves can be distorting. Acquisitions involve a mix of small, medium and large businesses with well established asset bases. By contrast, new business values reflect only short-term start-up estimates. These are typically modest and in no way reflect the potential growth and future of the new business. A more accurate way of expressing what is happening in the economy is to state that 60 per cent of the investment transactions recorded by Investment Canada were acquisitions and 40 per cent new businesses.
We all know that new businesses are the major source of new jobs and new technologies. In many acquisitions, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian corporation has been in financial difficulty and the foreign investor has been the source of job preservation.
Foreign investors also bring new capital, new management, new technologies, and access to new markets and thus contribute to Canadian corporate growth.
Using updated figures (July 1, 1985 to March 31, 1987), the number of new businesses coming under the Investment Canada Act totalled 631 and not 573 as previously mentioned. The value of short-term planned investment associated with these proposals amounted to over 1.4 billion dollars with planned employment creation of 10,240.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) mentioned that foreign acquisitions amounted to $20 billion and that once again the Government was selling Canada out. The Member should know that more than $10 billion worth was already owned by foreigners and is only moving from foreign hands to foreign hands. That leaves only
May 22, 1987

$10 billion of foreign acquisitions. The Member should know as well that this has allowed the Government to maintain jobs which were in difficulty.
I should mention as well that the total stock of business capital in this country is $1.5 trillion. When he said that we are selling Canada he should be more informed on economic information. Once again, members of the Opposition are good at playing with figures.

And 1 have to stress that Investment Canada's figures record only a fraction of the investment that is made in Canada. Investment Canada does not take into account either investments by Canadians or investments by the very large community of international investors that are already operating businesses in Canada. The best example, Mr. Speaker, is General Motors' $2 billion investment to modernize its two assembly plants in the riding of my hon. friend from the New Democratic Party, that is Oshawa.
Of course, this investment is not included in the Investment Canada figures mentioned by my hon. friend from Winnipeg- Fort Garry.
I would point out as well, Mr. Speaker, that for 1986, international capital flows into Canada, for direct investment, amounted to $6.8 billion. This, as all Hon. Members should know, is an indisputable record for Canada. Moreover, foreign portfolio investment in Canada almost doubled in 1986 to $25 billion.
Much has been made of the fact no Investment Canada case has been turned down. It must be remembered, however, that the mandate of Investment Canada is to promote investment by Canadians and non-Canadians alike. It is not to block investment, Mr. Speaker, but rather to ensure that foreign investment meets our country's objectives and our government's objectives, that is the objectives Canadians have set for us. Investment Canada encourages international investors to discuss their proposals prior to filling a formal application for review. Numerous investors are taking advantage of this service thus resulting in cases which have a high probability of approval. Frequently there are also informal discussions with investors who are interested in making investments in policy sensitive areas such as the cultural industries and the oil and gas sector. In these areas we have enunciated clear policies.
As a result of discussions involving proposals in these sectors, some investors conclude that their proposals are unlikely to meet the net benefit test and therefore decline to file a formal application. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a much more positive and businesslike manner of safeguarding legitimate Canadian interests.

Now that I have clarified the misunderstanding which has arisen in the House over the past several days I would like to remind opposition Members, who may have forgotten, of what the economic situation was like before September, 1984. In
Supply
1984 we inherited an economy in which the unemployment rate was close to 12 per cent. It is now slightly over 9 per cent. Labour productivity was low, interest rates were high, and the chartered bank prime rate was 13 per cent. It is now 9.5 per cent.
The perception of Canada as a place to invest and do business in was, as we remember, very poor. In 1984, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada eleventh of 22 OECD countries in a competitiveness study. In 1986, Canada had improved its position to sixth. That achievement cannot be attributed to the efforts of the former Government and its policy.
The Government has contributed to a significant recovery in our business and investment climate. Over the past three years Canada's gross domestic product has grown at a rate second only to Japan. Employment growth has been first among all OECD nations. Corporate profit has become stronger and stronger. A recent survey reported that first quarter profits were 55 per cent above the level of the first quarter of 1986. All this has occurred, and yet our inflation rate has remained relatively stable at approximately 4 per cent.
When the Government came to power in 1984, we set out a national agenda which was outlined in two separate Throne Speeches and in the Agenda for Economic Renewal of November, 1984.

Canadians are all familiar with the basic elements of this broad policy. Let me mention them briefly: a basic assault on the federal deficit; a redefinition of the role of Government so that it provides a better framework for growth and job creation; privatization of companies no longer serving public policy needs; comprehensive tax reform; improved incentives for small business and entrepreneurs; a new science and technology policy; removal of obstacles to growth through deregulation, especially in such areas as investment, energy policy, and transportation; a basic reform of the financial services sector; new initiatives in intellectual property rights, including patents and copyright; a new Competition Act that has been introduced and which takes into account the new competitive environment; trade initiatives including strong support for new bilateral discussions at the GATT. In all of this, Mr. Speaker, what we have actually done is to make international competitiveness the conterpiece of our economic policy.
Yes, the centrepiece of this agent for economic renewal is to increase the international competitiveness of the Canadian industry.
Recognizing the importance of investment to Canada's international competitiveness, our Government introduced the Investment Canada Act as its first major piece of legislation. It

May 22, 1987
Supply
was designed to address the irritants which had arisen abroad as well as in Canada with regard to the treatment of nonCanadian investors. As well, the Act was drafted taking into account the new realities of the 1980s and the 1990s. It was not based on the fears of the 1960s and 1970s, which are being recycled in this motion moved by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.
Investment Canada, a new agency established by the Act, has a threefold mandate. First, it is to review major investment in Canada by non-Canadians, to ensure that they are of net benefit to Canada. The factors used by the agency in examining those investments are: The effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada; the degree and significance of participation by Canadians; the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, innovation and product variety; the effect of investment on competition within any industry or industries in Canada; the compatibility of the investment with national and provincial industrial, economic and cultural policies; and the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in the world markets.
In determining the relative merits of investment proposals, the Investment Canada Act calls for a net benefit test. The simplicity and clarity of rules, the timeliness of the decisions, and the fairness of the test have all served to improve greatly the climate for investment, while safeguarding important Canadian interests.
Investment Canada has two more very important functions. It has a role to encourage more investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians. In that regard it works very closely with representatives of the provincial Governments and the private sector and has developed a very good relationship with those partners. Here, the emphasis is on technologybearing investments and on joint venturing, two areas which are critical to Canada's future international competitiveness.

Furthermore, we have witnessed a slowing down of the growth of foreign direct investment, and a change in its sources. Japan has now displaced the U.S.A. as the number one source of foreign direct investment. As well the U.S.A. is now the predominant destination for investment. All of this has resulted in much increased international competition for new foreign investment.
I would like to say a few words about the new international investment environment which has changed considerably over the last two decades. In today's more competitive international environment, the very definition of investment has been broadened to cover the commitment not only of tangible assets such as capital and equipment, but also of non-tangible resources like production know-how and management talent.
What are the implications for Canada? Mr. Speaker, it means that we must become more focussed in our approach. We are concentrating on four main elements which affect our international competitiveness.
Firstly, technology. In today's international economic environment, rapid technological change coupled with the skyrocketing costs of basic research have driven even the largest companies into partnerships. For example, the new global standard for the compact disc is the result of collaboration between Sony of Japan and Philips of the Netherlands. Many corporations, universities and governments create consortia just to spread the costs of basic research and to focus the strategic technologies which underly progress in this industry.
Secondly, entrepreneurship. The entrepreneur manages technology and resources in an innovative way to bring products to market. According to a 1984 OECD report, of the total number of Canadian companies engaged in R&D, 77 per cent are entrepreneurial firms with fewer than 100 employees.
Thirdly, global orientation. The global market-place is a reality. Companies are adopting global strategies that allow them both to source and market on a global basis. Sony's Walkman and Ford's international car are good examples of products made for a global market.
The fourth element is new forms of investment which contribute to the Canadian economy without increasing external control over it. Technological change today demands flexibility which can be better served by various forms of industrial co-operation in order to share and exchange information, to secure a broader supplier base, to spread the costs of basic research, to penetrate foreign markets, or to undertake projects beyond the capacity of any one company.

Contrary to the allegations of the Opposition, Investment Canada does not encourage takeovers. While takeovers have increased in Canada, we are not unique. This is part of a world-wide trend. It is the nature of the current business climate and Canadian businesses are taking part in it as well. McCain's, Papier Cascades, Fleet Aerospace and Peoples Jewellers are only a few examples I could use of dynamic Canadian firms expanding abroad. By focusing only on acquisitions in Canada, the Opposition is ignoring the important new investments which are being made by non-Canadians. These are investments which are creating new jobs and fostering economic growth. The list is very impressive.
Our record in promoting and protecting the interests of Canadians through investment is clear and it is good. We have not only created new jobs, we have also saved jobs which would have been otherwise lost. We are increasing our efforts to attract technology intensive investments that make important contributions to Canadian industrial development.
As the Trade Minister has told the House on several occasions, the kind of disastrous scenario portrayed by the scaremongers on the other side of the House would never be acceptable to us and has never been put to us by the Americans. Ultimately, our new investment policy is the best symbol of our country's fitness and economic success.
May 22, 1987

Supply



[Stage Direction]
The fact that Canada has an agency dedicated to promoting investment represents a new national self-assurance about Canada's economic dynamism. It reflects a powerful impulse to co-operate and to compete in the markets of the world. Canadians are looking for partners. They are willing to forge new economic alliances. They are fit and ready for the challenge of a global economy.
["It being five o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 82(12), proceedings on the motion have expired.\nPursuant to Order made Thursday, May 21, 1987, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 26, 1987, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1)."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before questions and comments, I would like to recognize the Hon. President of the Privy Council.



Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with House Leaders with regard to business for next week and also in connection with the provisional Standing Orders which would expire on May 29, 1987.
I think you will find there is agreement, Mr. Speaker, to the following motion:
That, the order adopted by the House on Tuesday, April 14, 1987, in relation
to the Standing Orders, which was to expire on Friday, May 29, 1987, be
extended to expire when the House adjourns on Friday, June 5, 1987.
While I have the floor I would like to indicate to the House the order of business for next week. Monday, of course, we will meet to hear the President of France, Mr. Mitterrand, at 3 p.m. That will be the only order of business for Monday. Tuesday will be an allotted day. Wednesday we will proceed to Bill C-57. I understand there have been some discussions among all Parties to dispose of that item in all its stages on that day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister, the President of the Privy Council, have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Langdon:
That this House condemn the Government for its refusal to reject flatly U.S. demands for unlimited investment freedom in Canada as part of the free trade negotiations, since these demands would threaten Canadian sovereignty and cultural integrity by removing Canada's ability to review and limit U.S. investment, so as to promote Canadianization and to ensure that U.S. investment does benefit Canadians by creating jobs, enhancing exports, expanding research and development and increasing sourcing from domestic suppliers.
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote, Langelier). I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken up the main bulk of my criticism of Investment Canada with respect to this motion, which is the very poor record, as we have been able to judge it, of monitoring and follow up by Investment Canada to see to it that companies from other countries which make commitments when they come into Canada stick to those commitments.
I cited this morning three particularly dramatic cases of which I will remind the Minister. Sheller-Globe of Canada Ltd., despite stating its commitment to great expansions in Canada, shut down just in the last couple of weeks in Windsor. Cross-LaSalle was taken over by the Cross and Trecker Corporation with the approval, in this case, of Investment Canada. This was a case which came under Investment Canada. It too was shut down in the middle of a strike despite commitments it had made to expand employment. Shortly thereafter it expanded its facilities in the United States in areas represented by right to work laws. I also mentioned the case of the Gulf and Western takeover of Prentice-Hall in which Simon & Schuster promised to promote 10 Canadian authors per year. In committee sessions last week, Investment Canada admitted to us that it has been well over a year since the takeover was approved, but no arrangement has yet been worked out with Simon & Schuster, and, of course, the catalogue of its books for this year, of which I have a copy, do not include any of these promising Canadian authors.

I also have, Mr. Speaker, another question that was put by a man who worked for the Department three and a half years, that is Mr. Paul Stothart who recently left his job with the Department and stated in a study on 21 foreign subsidiairies that those companies provide much fewer jobs in proportion to their sales than do parent companies. This is a question which I have to ask. Is it not possible for Investment Canada to enforce regulations and monitor the situation so that such subsidiaries will create more jobs in Canada because otherwise the lack of job increase will be the consequence of foreign investments. I think that this is very important and this is the

May 22, 1987
Supply
reason why such a motion has been introduced. It is essential to have some control over foreign investments, but it does not mean that all investment will be denied. However, we need an effective control.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will not have time for a supplementary. Are there any other Members who have questions or comments for the Minister? The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote, Langelier).
[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by correcting some of the statements made by the Hon. Member. When we are talking about records or statistics that do not appear to be favourable, I may remind the Hon. Member that the prime objective of investment Canada is to promote foreign investment in Canada, by Canadians and non-Canadians.
As I said earlier, this year, because of certain changes and a new climate of confidence the Government has been able to create, not only with our American allies but throughout the international scene, we have had record investments totalling nearly $7 billion.
The Hon. Member referred to certain commitments that were not met by companies that acquired certain interests in Canada. He was referring to the publishing industry and to Prentice-Hall and Gulf & Western. The Hon. Member pointed out that the duration of the commitment to retransfer equity into Canadian hands was one year. Mr. Speaker, the company's commitment is for two years. The Government's policy to protect our cultural identity says that companies that take over another company must divest their interests within the two years following the takeover, and that is exactly what we are trying to enforce. In the cases mentioned by the Hon. Member, it is exactly that commitment we are trying to enforce, and that is why negotiations are still going on.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that 75 per cent of Investment Canada's budget goes to promotion instead of regulation. Previously, the latter activity tended to stop investment instead of promoting it. When these commitments are made, the Government's reponsibility is to ensure that they constitute a net benefit for Canada. But how do we determine this, Mr. Speaker? It is not uniquely and necessarily in terms of shareholdings, but can be translated into increased productivity and job maintenance, and I wish, just as the Prime Minister himself did so eloquently a little earlier this week, to mention the case of Versatile which has had benefits throughout Canada. This allowed us, among other things, to maintain in the riding represented by my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), over 1,000 jobs which would have been lost otherwise. That is the kind of responsibility and commitment which Investment Canada must pursue to ensure a net benefit for Canada.
In other areas, Mr. Speaker, its mandate will be to protect Canadian ownership of our technology where we already have the expertise. This is something we feel should be protected and which will indeed be protected.
For his information, I would like to indicate to my honourable friend that total investments in Canada amount to $75 billion a year. When considering statistical data, therefore, it is important to keep such things in their proper context. A while ago in my speech, I pointed out that over half of the takeovers these past few years had been of foreign-owned businesses. This means simply a property transfer from one foreign owner to another, Mr. Speaker.
It is therefore necessary to look at the figures and statistical data with the right outlook.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allocated for questions and comments has elapsed. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has the floor.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this afternoon's debate on the motion moved by our colleague of the New Democratic Party on this very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Government of Canada, and especially the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), have neglected their duty throughout this whole free trade exercise. I am not saying this to rile my colleague opposite. I say so, Mr. Speaker, because it is true. I urge the Hon. Member opposite, when he goes back to his riding this weekend, to consider what I have just told him and especially to listen to what I am about to say. I am sure he will agree with me that once again the Prime Minister did let Canadians down.
And the Minister on the other side, who will soon climb aboard his limousine which in all likelihood is parked in front of the building, might consider as he rides in his limousine these very important issues which we-


Claudy Mailly: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Don Boudria: Will you shut up!


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


Claudy Mailly: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but you were distracted in speaking with the Minister-


Don Boudria: The Speaker was not distracted.


Claudy Mailly: The Member opposite has just used language that is not acceptable in this House. He has referred to the fact that the Minister is leaving, and made some derogatory remark about his personal behaviour.
I do not think that is acceptable. He is already deteriorating in tone.
May 22, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will check the "blues". If the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria), who has been here now for a couple of years, did say something that he in his own mind thinks was unparliamentary, I invite him to withdraw it.
If not, I will look at the "blues" and deal with the matter at the next sitting of the House.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, first let me say to the Hon. Member across that I totally disagree with her claim that you were distracted. As we all know, the Speaker is never distracted. It is contempt for the Chair to suggest that the Speaker is distracted. We know that that is not true, and I resent that being said of you, Mr. Speaker.


Claudy Mailly: You are an embarrassment to this House.


Don Boudria: To come back to the point she has raised, as insignificant a point as it is, and as is usually the case when that Member speaks, I merely brought to the attention of the House that I hope that the Minister this week-end, when travelling around in his limousine, would think about the issues that I am about to raise.


John Horton McDermid: What limousine? He drives a Chev.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, what is unparliamentary about a reference to the Minister's limousine, which is probably double-parked or triple-parked outside, in the way that the limousines of Ministers usually are?
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the Hon. Member opposite-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. As I said previously, I will examine the "blues". The debate has been running well this afternoon. It is Friday, May 22, and we still have 50-odd minutes to go. I would hope that Hon. Members would carry on in such a way that we could close off the week in a nice, friendly way.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I promise to speak more slowly in order not to mislead the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly). If I speak more slowly, perhaps she can get a better grasp of what I am saying, and so a better understanding. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to quote the Prime Minister, things he said in the past but, as you will see, did not happen quite the way they should have.

What we are talking about today, Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister's failure to address the issue of the United States
Supply
wanting what I would consider to be unfettered access and unfettered limitation in terms of investments in our country.


John Horton McDermid: Those are your words.


Don Boudria: I wish to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the comments of the Prime Minister in the days when he was the MP for Central Nova. On June 1, 1983, he said, as reported in The Globe and Mail:
This country could not survive with a policy of unfettered free trade. I'm all in favour of eliminating unfair protectionism, where it exists. This is a separate country.
We'd be swamped. We have in many ways a branch-plant economy, in many ways, in certain important sectors. All that would happen with that kind of concept would be the boys cranking up their plants throughout the United States in bad times and shutting their entire branch plants in Canada. It's bad enough as it is ... "
Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that the same fellow who is Prime Minister today is quoted as having said that in 1983! He said further, and again I quote:
And things like auto pacts and fishing treaties, to name but two, are a small price to pay to have a wonderful country like Canada sitting on your doorstep. And so I limit my free-trade concept to strictly bilateral issues that benefit Canada and serve the relationship with the United States too.


John Horton McDermid: That is what we are doing.


Don Boudria: The Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) says that that is great.


John Horton McDermid: I did not say it was great. 1 said that that is exactly what we are doing.


Don Boudria: Well, it is not great, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is not living up to commitments that he himself made.
I know that even the Hon. Member opposite knows better than what he is saying now. Let me again quote the words of the Prime Minister. These are comments made to The Ottawa Citizen by the Prime Minister on July 4, 1985.
We know, of course, the transformation that happened on his taking power. When he took power, his views of Canada and of the world, and particularly his views of the United States, changed dramatically. After all, the United States is very important to the Prime Minister. And even then, Mr. Speaker, he was a little bit more Canadian than some would believe he is now. I read from The Ottawa Citizen article of July 4, 1985:
Mulroney corrected a reporter who asked about the Government's plans for free trade with the United States-"we never discuss free trade," the Prime Minister said.
That was his position at that time: "We never discuss free trade". Remember that, Mr. Speaker, because I will be coming back to it later. He went on to say:
Enhanced trade or trade agreements impact not only on the United States but on our trading relations with allies, upon GATT-(in which Canada is a participant).

May 22, 1987
Supply

I will quote some more, Mr. Speaker. A little later, as reported this time in Le Devoir on July 8, 1985, the Prime Minister said: "I agree-with the term "enhancing in trade relations", but not with the term "free trade"". It is interesting to note how much this Prime Minister has changed.
Let us now see, July 18, 1985

On that date the Prime Minister was saying: "In a discussion paper released last January that formally launched a debate on free trade, the Government stuck to its terminology of a comprehensive bilateral trade arrangement".
Let us see what we have here. We went to improving trade; we went to saying that we were not discussing free trade; we went to amelioration des relations commercialese and then we went to a comprehensive bilateral trade arrangement. This was in the space of about a year and a half. We see that the Prime Minister's position has gradually changed.
We had a debate on free trade in March of this year. I should like to paraphrase what the Prime Minister said at that time about what we were undertaking with the United States: "We are engaging in negotiations for a trading arrangement under Article 24 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade".
When I heard the Prime Minister make those remarks in March, I immediately left my chair-and I am sorry that I missed part of his speech, but I read it the next day-and went to the Library of Parliament to obtain a copy of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Mr. Speaker, do you know what Article 24 is entitled? It is entitled "Territorial Application, Frontier Traffic, Custom Unions, and Free Trade Areas". That is not bad for a fellow who only some time prior was not negotiating a free trade agreement at all. He did not even want anyone to use the term in his presence because it offended him. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, that he said that to The Globe and Mail on June 1, 1983? We were not to discuss free trade in front of him. He did not want to talk about it.
What happened to the Prime Minister over that interval? Obviously, when he was singing with the President on March 17, 1985 in Quebec City that famous song which did irreparable damage to my television set, something happened to the Prime Minister to make him change so that his view went from what it was in 1983 to what it is today.


Claudy Mailly: I hope you do not have any Irish constituents because the song was "When Irish Eyes are Smiling".


Don Boudria: Again I hear the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) making unusual noises across the way. I am sort of looking forward to her contribution in the House, but not all that much because it will probably not happen.
Yesterday the Government released a little booklet, a copy of which I have in hand. It is entitled Trade Negotiations, Securing Canada's Future. It contains the following subtitles: "The Talks: What's at Stake, Jobs for the Future, Opportunities Nationwide, Setting Rules for Services, Improving the GATT". This booklet will be used to stuff shopping bags at shopping centres.
Last night I thought I would read it and that I would be enormously well informed after doing so. However, when I first saw it, I asked myself: Why is the Government exposing itself at this point in the free trade negotiations? Government Members have been telling the House of Commons that they cannot reveal what is in the negotiations because they would be damaging their negotiating position. If that is the case, why are they publishing this booklet on trade negotiations?
Further, seeing that the negotiations are not finished, I really wonder about the wisdom of the Government of Canada spending $12 million of taxpayers' money to convince us that selling our sovereignty to the Americans is good for us. I have some difficulty understanding that.
Nevertheless, I read the booklet last night. I wanted to see what was in it for the people I am called upon to represent in the House of Commons. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I represent an agricultural riding in which there are many dairy farmers, some farmers in the business of egg production and poultry, and generally supply-management agriculture. I had heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) tell us in the past that supply-management would not be negotiated away. We heard the Prime Minister sort of weasel around it but not really ever say that supply-management was not on the negotiating table.
I said to myself that surely the booklet would tell me about supply-management. I turn to page 15, to the paragraph entitled "What About Agriculture?", which reads as follows:
To the extent we can make progress in the Canada-U.S. negotiations in defining allowable subsidies or reducing other non-tariff barriers such as health and technical regulations, it will contribute to the resolution of these problems in the multilateral negotiations.
So far I am wondering what that has to do with agriculture, as you probably are, Mr. Speaker. Further it indicates:
In the bilateral context we are not negotiating the status of farm marketing boards.
A little further on it says:
Both Canada and the U.S. have their own unique systems for marketing farm products in a manner that is responsive to their domestic constituencies. Essentially, agricultural trade issues are global in nature.
I am sure you have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that nowhere in there does it say that supply-management will not be negotiated away.
It talks about marketing boards but not about supply-management. Obviously you know, Mr. Speaker, as do all Members of the House, that that is not necessarily the same thing. Many marketing boards have nothing to do with supply-management at this time.
May 22, 1987

For instance, there are dairy marketing boards, and that is a supply-management commodity. On the other hand, there are marketing boards like the flue-cured tobacco ones, if that is the proper name for them, which do not have a system of supply-management. There are others like the pork producers marketing board which do not have a supply-management component.
This brochure itself cost $350,000 to publish. However, the publicity surrounding this exercise will cost some $12 million, as I said before. Those funds are being spent, and the farmers of my riding do not know whether the Tories across the way will negotiate, give away, and surrender our supply-management system. I say that to the Hon. Member for Gatineau and other Hon. Members across the way. They should be concerned about it. It is important for all Canada.
I should like to refer to another group which is very concerned about free trade. It is not getting any satisfaction from the Government. I am referring to egg producers. I received a package of information from them which contained a subparagraph entitled "Impact: 47 per cent of producers at risk" and indicated:
In order to determine the effect of free trade, the Canadian egg industry compared domestic farm costs with the cost of U.S. eggs transported to major Canadian markets. Canadian producers with costs above those of imported American eggs are at risk. Canadian producers with costs equal to or less than the U.S. landed cost are competitive.
If American eggs were allowed free access to Canada, 47.5 per cent or 930 Canadian producers would be at risk.
I do not want 930 farmers to be put out of business. It is bad enough that the present Government ended the moratorium on farm foreclosures. In the next 12 months 1,000 farms on which the Farm Credit Corporation holds mortgages will end up being the property of the Government of Canada, according to the information given by the FCC at committee yesterday. With that sad state of affairs, I do not want to see any more farmers in trouble.
[ Translation]
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, farmers producing commodities that are now dependent on supply management do not want to see their marketing system traded away or otherwise dismantled in those free trade negotiations.
This is why it is important for this House to take a stand on this issue. It is important that I bring it to the attention of all members in this place.
Mr. Speaker, in October 1986, I received a statement from the Dairy Farmers of Canada, from which I will quote this one paragraph:
"Dairy Farmers wish to express hereby their solid conviction that any dismantling of or disruption in the overall policies and programs currently in place, including the milk supply management program, would be totally unacceptable."
This shows, Mr. Speaker, I am not alone in wanting to keep that system-producers themselves want it. And I urge the Government once more to state once and for all whether their
Supply
industry will be protected. I note unfortunately that my time is coming to an end, or very nearly so. I wish I had more time to comment on that important matter today.
I would like to bring another issue to your attention, Mr. Speaker. People in the dredging business in Canada have not been getting fair access to contracts in the United States or elsewhere. Most countries have protective measures to protect those who are in that dredging business. Here in Canada we do not. People in the dredging business in Canada, because of the Jones Act and other legislation in the U.S., cannot work in the U.S.A. At the same time, the Americans have free access to come here and they do so in connection with many large contracts. I invite the Government of Canada to think about issues like this. It is fine to talk here, as the Conservatives do, suggesting that we will give away this and that to the Americans, but it is time that we started to think that we do not have unfettered access to the American market. It is important for Canadians to assert our sovereignty and to ensure that the Government and the Prime Minister get the message that Members of this House do not want the PM to give away our country.
There are many important issues to be talked about in the free trade negotiations. I am not satisfied with the way things are going. The people whom I represent in the House of Commons are not pleased either. It is time that the Government started to sharpen up in the way it is handling this issue.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, it continues to amaze me to hear the indignation of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and members of the Opposition when they hear that the United States is speaking publicly about concessions that it wants to gain in these negotiations. It seems to me that that would be most predictable and it would be quite surprising if we did not hear Mr. Murphy, the U.S. negotiator, indicate what it is he wants from Canada. When Members speak in this House in the manner in which they do, such as the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, really they are helping Mr. Murphy in great style in his negotiations.
The Hon. Member spoke about the dredging problem. He makes the point about the need for stable, increased and ongoing access to the American market. That is what the negotiations are all about. There is no agreement to criticize. We were in the process of reaching an agreement. To suggest that Canadian farmers or any other group of Canadians will lose a, b, or c as a result of these negotiations is not only premature but it is also blatantly dishonest. These negotiations are taking place in an effort to achieve for all Canadians the opportunity to maintain and enhance economic opportunities.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there was a comment by the Member but no question. However, I will comment briefly on

May 22, 1987
Supply
what the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) has said.
As to the first part of the Member's comment that somehow Mr. Murphy or his cohorts in the U.S. are supposed to be making these public declarations the way they are at the same time as our negotiator is supposed to be keeping quiet, the logic of it somehow escapes me. If they are negotiating in private, they should both do it, and if they are negotiating in public they should both do that as well. It should not be one person operating under one set of rules and another person operating under another set.
In terms of my making comments here in the House of Commons, I would suspect that an American congressman speaking in the United States probably would want to ensure that his area is well protected. He has the right to do so. I have the right just as well to speak here to ensure that the interests of the farmers, the shoe manufacturers, the factory workers and everyone else in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott- Russell who asked me to represent them in the House of Commons are heard here, and that is exactly what I intend to do.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question. I appreciate the Member's representations on behalf of his constituents in the rural communities. I have met with many farm groups, including the milk farmers, not only in my area but across this province and from across Canada.
One of the good things about these negotiations is the consultative process that is going on. It is the biggest consultative process ever put together for a project such as this. It has proved very beneficial and has provided the Government and our negotiators with some very pertinent information.
The final sentence in the speech of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was that the Government had better smarten up and do something. The Government is doing something. We are having negotiations on a bilateral trade agreement with the United States.
The Liberals have not yet decided what their policy is on trade. We hear from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) on one side that he is against the negotiations. We hear from the Hon. Member for St. Henri- Westmount (Mr. Johnston) that he is in favour of the negotiations. The Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) agrees with both of them. We are not sure exactly where the Liberal Party stands or what it would do differently. Would the Liberals negotiate a bilateral agreement with the United States, our largest trading partner and the largest trading bloc in the world today? Or would the Liberals stick with the GATT process, which is a long drawn out one, probably four years to negotiate and a number of years to implement after that? Just exactly what would Liberals do when it comes to trade negotiations? Would they have them or would they run away and hide?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the people who have chosen to run away and hide when issues become a little too contentious are those across the way. They are the ones who made 338 promises and have tried to weasel out of most, if not all of them with the exception of capital punishment, which is probably the only one they should not have delivered.
I do not apologize that we here on this side of the House of Commons are trying to hold this Government accountable. We are trying to tell the Government that it cannot say something in 1983, something different in 84 and something yet different in 1985 and then talk about free trade in 1986. The people of Canada just will not go for that. What we need from the Government is a Government that is honest and sincere with the people, telling them exactly what is going on every step of the way, recognizing that some of the things being negotiated have to be done in private. Any negotiator knows that and all Members of the House of Commons know that.
We need, nevertheless, some basic assurances from the Government. We are not getting them. Not only that, but we are not getting what the same Government and the same Prime Minister promised some time ago. I could reread every single one of those contradictory statements that I read 10 minutes ago. That is not what the Government was elected to do. It was not elected to say one thing and do the opposite. The Government is elected to govern.
Our role here in the House of Commons is to hold the Government accountable. I intend on my part to continue to do that. I do not want to see the supply-management system given away by this Government when it has so far refused to give the assurance that it will not be. I challenge the Hon. Member across the way to show me in the documentation given out in shopping centres yesterday where it says that supply management will be protected. I will even lend him my copy of the document if he does not have one.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: they have to try to buy Canadian, and finally they have to employ Canadians and act like good corporate citizens of Canada.
I have set out what I think is a reasonable position with respect to foreign investment and I point out to the Hon. Member that we are going to have a lot more of it. When the British rule over Hong Kong ends we are going to get a lot of investment from there. That is already happening in western Canada.
Does the Hon. Member agree with those kinds of provisions for the control of foreign investment? Would he take away or add to them? Does he have any further policy suggestions we could use?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in order to save time I will address what the Hon. Member has referred to as the ideological debate over control of foreign investment. As he will know, and I think one of his colleagues raised it, as did the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), Investment Canada has not refused any applicant, according to its annual report. That tells me something. On the one hand, applicants were so fantastic no one dared to refuse them, which is somewhat unlikely. Or, the more likely scenario, the Government has a deliberate policy of not refusing any application. This is for two reasons: First, its own ideological bent; second, because the Government did not want to offend Americans when it was negotiating this trade agreement. Both reasons are wrong, in my view. You never negotiate from a position of weakness no matter what you want to do. To bend over backwards before you start or in the middle of the process is not doing this country any good. The Americans sure did not stop imposing countervailing duties on us while they were negotiating.
As to control, not that I was a part of it but the previous Liberal Government enacted the Foreign Investment Review Act. It may have had flaws. It certainly made a few people in the U.S. get their backs up. Perhaps amendments were required. Some people brought to the attention of this House that someone opening a hotdog stand or what have you had to go through the application process. That may have been unreasonable sometimes, maybe not. After all, the largest chain of restaurants in the world is McDonald's and they sell hamburgers and other fast food. It is an important business. Nevertheless, we need foreign investment legislation similar, perhaps not identical, to FIRA. We need some form of protection.
Second, with respect to research, it is important to note that since the Government has been in office, 94 per cent of the foreign investment went to takeovers only. The Science Council of Canada said quite clearly that in those circumstances you do not get research in branch plants. That is not good for our country. In the debate on Bill C-22, the drug legislation, we wanted guarantees there would be research and not just branch plants.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to represent the Minister of Communications (Ms. MacDonald) in this debate on a question of historic significance for this country.

I am also proud to stand in this House and speak about the achievement of our Government in building a stronger, healthier and more vibrant nation, more secure in its identity than ever before. A nation whose cultural sovereignty has never been more cherished. A nation which recently reached a new maturity, as witness the responsible way the 10 Premiers of our country, representing all of the people of Canada, dealt with the inclusion of my native province in the constitutional Accord. It is also a nation whose artistic and cultural communities have never been accorded a more important place in the priorities of a Government.
Unfortunately, we are debating today a motion which is both misguided and mischievous on such a crucial matter as the economic future of our country. The motion is fundamentally flawed. Why? Because it is intended to create uncertainty. However, I have faith in the people of Canada, unlike the NDP which fears the free expression of the public's choice. I believe in the common sense of the people of Canada and in their sense of purpose and pride. I also believe these grow stronger every day, not weaker.
I am not a timid soul. Neither are most Canadians. Therefore, I am saddened that this motion pretends there is a threat to our nation, that Canada has been presented with demands by the U.S. Government for "unlimited investment freedom in Canada". What absolute nonsense. Yesterday the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) said that our neighbours had asked for "a total unfettered right to buy up any Canadian business they want". Then he said "wide open investment". What do we hear about today? We hear about "unlimited investment" that would "threaten Canadian sovereignty and cultural identity". Yesterday he cited newspaper reports of an interview with our chief trade negotiator, Simon Reisman, and asked why the Government had not said no to suggestions that the American investor should be able to buy Canadian newspapers, radio and television stations, or publishing firms.
The Leader of the Opposition did not read the newspapers very carefully yesterday. I think that happens to him more and more often these days. He should look more closely at those reports, as should all Canadians who are interested in the trade negotiations and the firm commitment of the Government to strengthen and enhance our cultural industries and our national identity.

May 22, 1987
Supply
I would like to quote briefly from an article by Terrence Wills of The Gazette. It reads:
Reisman's mandate does not-
-and I underline the word "not"-
-include bargaining the removal of restrictions on U.S. ownership in areas like Canadian chartered banks, newspapers or radio and TV.
This is a person from the media speaking. The article continues:
Nor is the Canadian team authorized to negotiate elimination of such policies as ensuring Canadian control in book publishing, or a majority of Canadian directors on the boards of foreign companies.
All the poppycock from the Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), who has now left after giving a very low-quality speech as always-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that she should not reflect on attendance in the House. The Hon. Member could be in the lobby watching the Hon. Member on television. I do not think a reflection upon who is and who is not in the House is necessary at this time of the day.


Claudy Mailly: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I got carried away. However, I must note that there is no one on the other side and yet this is an NDP motion. I find it rather spooky to be speaking to my own people. I am preaching to the converted.
As I was saying, the article is quite clear. Mr. Reisman has a clear mandate to maintain and protect Canada's cultural industries. They are not an issue in these talks. This is not news. This has been the stated position of the Government from the very outset of the trade negotiations. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) and many, many Members on this side of the House have made our position known to Canadians, to Americans, and to Members opposite on countless occasions.
Let me remind Members of the words of the Prime Minister in this House in September, 1985. He said:
Our political sovereignty, our system of social programs, our commitment to fight regional disparities, our unique cultural identity, our special linguistic character-these are the essence of Canada. They are not at issue in these negotiations.

I repeat that neither our political sovereignty nor our social programs nor our commitment to fight regional disparity-this on-going Canadian problem we have tried to resolve by spending enormous amounts of money but which is still with us-and certainly not our cultural identity or our language, Mr. Speaker, none of these are at issue in the trade talks.

The motion before us suggests that the Government has not been firm with the Americans on this issue. The movers have surely forgotten the message that the Prime Minister took
directly to the American people in his speech in Chicago in December of 1985 when he said:
When it comes to discussing better trade rules for cultural industries, you will have to understand that what we call cultural sovereignty is as vital to our national life as political sovereignty .... In the United States you cast the net of national security over more areas than we; in Canada we cast the net of cultural sovereignty more widely than you.

That is also what the Minister for International Trade had in mind when she said last October that a clear message had been sent to our negotiators that the present Government's ability to protect and enrich Canadian culture would not be on the table. The essence of our Canadian identity cannot and must not be compromised. That is clear. Or, as was said in this respect by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on another occasion: The question whether certain Canadian cultural industries require certain specific support measures is a matter of internal policy falls outside the purview of trade negotiations.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Government's position has been unequivocal. To suggest otherwise is, as I said, mischievous, which is a polite way of saying that they are stretching the truth. All Members know how many times this matter has been raised in the House and how straightforward we have been in reiterating our fundamental belief in the need to maintain and enhance support measures for the arts in our cultural industries.
Only eight weeks ago the House spent a full day debating a motion of the Minister for International Trade in support of the negotiations. That motion specified very clearly that the Government would continue to protect our political sovereignty, social programs, agricultural marketing systems, the auto industry, and our unique cultural identity.
During that debate the Minister of Communications spoke of the new maturity of our nation, of the inherent strength of our national character, of the self-confidence of a country whose identity is no longer in question. She reminded us all of the richness of our heritage, of the broad sweep of history that has brought together peoples from many cultures to form a unique society proud of its heritage and distinct in its social, cultural and political traditions.
Ours is an outward looking country, a nation whose voices are heard and whose presence is felt around the world and in many fields; in architecture and the arts, in music and dance, in science, in medicine, in engineering and in commerce, to name but a few.

Communications and other cultural ties that are crucial to the unity of our country arise from the make-up of our population, our cultural heritage and the special cultural mosaic and diversity that people from every part of the globe have brought, and continue to bring, to this vast country of ours. Canada plays a unique role in the world, a role of which
May 22, 1987

it can be proud. In fact, our country is both a member of the Commonwealth of English-speaking countries and of La Francophonie, so that it has a privileged relationship with about one hundred countries.
Mr. Speaker, we are also developing privileged ties with the Pacific Rim countries, another group that shares some of our goals and aspirations, including trade and even a desire to improve the standard of living of their people. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) mentioned earlier that he saw this new burst of agreements with Pacific Rim countries more or less as a threat. Mr. Speaker, I can say quite frankly it is not a threat, any more than Quebec's pride and its desire to express its distinct identity within this great country of ours was a threat to this country, and we have acknowledged as much. We know today that by strengthening our regions, our provinces and our cultures we are strengthening the country. So we should not fear the influx of ideas from afar or new alliances that, in fact, can only strengthen our culture and our identity, not harm it.
By recognizing the need for an ongoing dialogue with Quebec, our Goverment was able to achieve a historic breakthrough in its relations with this province. Decisions relating to culture and communications are now prepared in a spirit of cooperation and cordiality, a spirit that never existed previously between Ottawa and Quebec. Indeed the signs are there, Mr. Speaker: the second francophone summit will take place in Canada, yet for 20 years we had not managed to hold such a summit, and here we are working on our second!
Our Government has every reason to be pleased about its record with respect to support for cultural endeavours. It has created cultural agencies, launched assistance programs and adopted regulations and tax measures in this field. There is no denying that such initiatives play an essential role by encouraging and supporting cultural achievements in this country. Our negotiators have said so to the Americans in no uncertain terms. There is no question of putting on the table either these institutions or our sovereign power to take fresh or different measures as the evolution of our situation may require.
Members of the Government have spoken often of the special needs of our artists and creators, and of the need to maintain support programs for the cultural industries. We have done much more than talk. We have demonstrated our commitment through thoughtful, well-planned and concrete measures designed to respond directly to the concerns expressed by the artistic and cultural communities.
When the Government came to office it launched a thorough and intense program of consultations, touching on almost every aspect of the cultural portfolio. We have seen the several reports which have been presented to the House by the standing committee studying the various aspects of culture and communications. They are very thoughtful reports that are
Supply
very useful to the Minister in preparing legislation. Some of this legislation has already been introduced and more will come soon. We are doing more than talk in our attempt to help cultural industries.
We did much more than consult, we acted. Through those actions we have made it clear to Canadians and to the Americans, who are listening, that the ability of Canadians to express themselves to Canada and the world is not negotiable.
Let me remind Members of the House of some of those initiatives in order that we might better judge the motion before us. The Investment Canada Act itself was one of the first major legislative initiatives of the Government. In that Act, cultural concerns were of central importance. Cultural industries have special status under that Act and are subject to more stringent review procedures. The message is very clear.
In a similar vein, the Government adopted a publishing policy to protect the health of the Canadian publishing industry. We have also introduced a strong new book publishing development program, and have increased funding for the Canada Council to support Canadian writers. The Government also introduced a new feature film distribution and production fund and created a fund to support dubbing and subtitling.
We opened the doors to allow the film industry to benefit from other government programs to which it did not have access before. For example, Employment and Immigration Canada's training funds were made available to help Norman Jewison establish a film institute in Toronto.

We have set up the sound recording industry assistance program to encourage the Canadian record sector to produce and market musical programs and products. We have set aside additional funds for the Canada Council to improve access to performing arts throughout Canada, and as much as possible to stabilize the financial situation of artistic concerns. We have approved royalties which compensate Canadian authors when their works are loaned out by public libraries. This had been unheard of, Mr. Speaker. We created a special fund designed to increase the efficiency of and the access to public archives and libraries. We have adopted new measures concerning French language television. We acknowledge the distinct character of French language radio broadcasting, and we give priority to the need to design specific policies to take these realities into account. The Government firmly believes that the choice of French programming available throughout Canada must be improved. Not just in Quebec, everywhere else in Canada! This is why we are involved in TV Ontario's French network at the Canadian level and, at the international level, in the TV-5 network whose programs are aired in Europe and Africa. Mr. Speaker, we belong to the world's great French fraternity.

At the moment, the Government is preparing legislation to license the importation of films into Canada. This legislation will permit Canada, for the first time in almost 60 years, to

May 22, 1987
Supply
exist as a distinct national film market. Previously, Canada did not exist as such a distinct market.
In the field of broadcasting, where the need for balance between Canadian and foreign cultural productions is most critical, we will be conducting a fundamental overhaul of the Broadcasting Act. In a matter of days we will be introducing new copyright legislation.
All of these initiatives cut across the full spectrum of the cultural portfolio. They nurture individual creators and performers, and they foster the economic health of the cultural industries. They are not meant to restrict freedom of choice but to enrich it, by ensuring that each of us as consumers of art work and cultural products will be able to choose from Canadian images, ideas and music as well as from the best from other countries.
These measures are not the work of a Government that takes cultural sovereignty lightly. They are not the work of a Government that would sacrifice national identity for political or economic ends. These are measures that are testimony to the Government's commitment and it is a testimony that has been heard and respected by both sides in these trade talks.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) for her thorough, well researched speech on the negotiations with the United States. I am particularly pleased to hear her references to cultural institutions and the cultural fabric of this country, representing, as she does, a culturally unique part of our Confederation.
Does she foresee a trade agreement to be something analogous to the trading arrangement that is reflected in the Auto Pact? When we in eastern Canada hear the negative remarks about a trade agreement, we look at the Auto Pact and wonder how the Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) can stand in the House to oppose a trade arrangement that will benefit Atlantic Canada in the same way as the Auto Pact benefits his constituency.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, while these two subjects are of different magnitude, they do have many common elements.
The first reaction of the Opposition, including the former Liberal Government and the socialist Opposition, to the proposition of an Auto Pact was one of great dissension, fear and doom and gloom. That is in common with what is happening in this case. There are similarities with the Auto Pact. There is also a great resemblance in the benefits to our country of both arrangements.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being five o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 82(12), proceedings on the motion have expired.
Pursuant to Order made Thursday, May 21, 1987, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 26, 1987, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 26, 1987