June 26, 1972

PRIVILEGE

MR. KNOWLES (WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE)-DIVISION ON ESTIMATE FOR SENATE EXPENDITURES AS RECORDED IN "HANSARD"

NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, notice of which I sent to Your Honour under the provisions of Standing Order 17(2).

Last Thursday mgm, in fact at about two-thirty o'clock on Friday morning, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) made the point that a vote once cast must stand and cannot be changed.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. KNOWLES (WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE)-DIVISION ON ESTIMATE FOR SENATE EXPENDITURES AS RECORDED IN "HANSARD"
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

But I wasn't upheld.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. KNOWLES (WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE)-DIVISION ON ESTIMATE FOR SENATE EXPENDITURES AS RECORDED IN "HANSARD"
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Therefore I should like to draw the attention of Your Honour, the right hon. member for Prince Albert and other members of the House to the fact that as recorded on pages 3433 and 3444 of Hansard for Thursday, June 22, 1972, all of the Progressive Conservatives who were present voted with us against the entire appropriation for the maintenance of the Senate.

I have been trying for a long while to get support for this proposition. I welcome the fact that the Tories have now voted that way. Mind you, I am sorry for the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Deakon) and the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan) because they are recorded as having voted for the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I expect you may tell me that this is an error in Hansard. I certainly do not blame Hansard for any confusion during that long, sad night. But the point I wish to make is that in view of the dictum pronounced the other night by the right hon. member for Prince Albert I assume that the vote of the Official Opposition against the Senate must stand.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. KNOWLES (WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE)-DIVISION ON ESTIMATE FOR SENATE EXPENDITURES AS RECORDED IN "HANSARD"
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member can get any amusement out of that facetious statement, I have no objection. I shall not waffle.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. KNOWLES (WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE)-DIVISION ON ESTIMATE FOR SENATE EXPENDITURES AS RECORDED IN "HANSARD"
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. KNOWLES (WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE)-DIVISION ON ESTIMATE FOR SENATE EXPENDITURES AS RECORDED IN "HANSARD"
Permalink

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

METHOD OF CONSIDERATION OF REPORT STAGE MOTIONS ON FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW BILL

IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Order. My understanding is that the House is to proceed this morning with consideration of the

motions respecting Bill C-201. Perhaps the Chair might make some brief observations in relation to proposed or suggested groupings of some of these motions. I do not expect that all of them will be disposed of this morning, so there will be opportunities during the hours and perhaps days ahead to review possible groupings of these different motions.

In any event, after looking at these motions over the weekend the Chair would like to suggest that motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 21 and 28 be combined for the purpose of debate, and that a division on motion No. 1 would also dispose of the other four motions. These motions appear to relate to the same matter. I think it would be difficult to have different debates on each one of these motions. I would think that one debate could very well cover the field of discussion in relation to Nos. 1, 2, 3, 21 and 28.

The next group would be motions Nos. 4 and 18 which could be combined for the purpose of debate, and a division on motion No. 4 would also dispose of motion No. 18.

Motions Nos. 5 to 9 inclusive might also be combined for the purpose of debate. Motion No. 5 might be disposed of separately. A division on motion No. 6 would also dispose of motions Nos. 7, 8 and 9. I do not think I should attempt to cover the whole field at this time, but perhaps I should at this point refer to motion No. 9. The printed version of this motion is incorrect. The corrected version should read as follows:

That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended as follows:

In subparagraph 3(3)(c) by substituting the figure 10 per cent for the figure 5 per cent in line 31; and in line 36 by substituting the figure 40 per cent for the figure 20 per cent.

Perhaps we might leave it at that for the moment and review the matter later after we have disposed of some of the motions to which I have alluded. Further groupings might be considered by hon. members in the meantime.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   METHOD OF CONSIDERATION OF REPORT STAGE MOTIONS ON FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW BILL
Permalink
PC

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have found some difficulty in relating the amendments as they appear on the notice paper. They obviously relate to lineation and pagination of the reprinted bill, but in the haste of trying to get on with this debate hon. members, unfortunately, have not received the reprinted bill. My staff has been having a terrible time trying to tie in these amendments to the appropriate sections.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   METHOD OF CONSIDERATION OF REPORT STAGE MOTIONS ON FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW BILL
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

My understanding is that the reprinted bill is included in the files that hon. members have at their desks at the present time. Perhaps we might deal only with the first one of the groupings which I think is quite obvious to any hon. member. This would give hon. mem-

3472

June 26, 1972

Foreign Takeovers Review Act

bers an opportunity to think about the other groupings to which I have referred. In other words, I think there should be no objection to the suggestion that Nos. 1, 2, 3, 21 and 28 be combined for purposes of debate and be the subject on one division.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   METHOD OF CONSIDERATION OF REPORT STAGE MOTIONS ON FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW BILL
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, we accept the suggestion that motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 21 and 28 be combined for the purposes of debate. While that debate is going on, Your Honour, we will be able to study the other groupings that Your Honour has suggested. We may agree to them as well but possibly we can defer our acceptance until later.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   METHOD OF CONSIDERATION OF REPORT STAGE MOTIONS ON FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW BILL
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

A memorandum will be circulated among the House leaders in order that hon. members who are interested may suggest further groupings in advance. These will be proposed from the Chair in due course, but it might give hon. members a chance to look at the different motions and decide whether the groupings suggested by the Chair are logical and acceptable to hon. members.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   METHOD OF CONSIDERATION OF REPORT STAGE MOTIONS ON FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW BILL
Permalink
PC

Gerald William Baldwin (Official Opposition House Leader; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Baldwin:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the NDP proposes to withdraw any of its amendments in view of the development over the weekend?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   METHOD OF CONSIDERATION OF REPORT STAGE MOTIONS ON FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW BILL
Permalink

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT


The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-201, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

We will proceed with motion Nos. 1, 2, 3, 21 and 28. Mr. Saltsman, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves:

That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by inserting the following words after the word "economic" in subsection (1) of clause 2 on line 13 on page 1:

", political and social".

Mr. Burton, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves:

That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by inserting the following words after the word "Canada" in subsection (1) of clause 2 on line 1 on page 2:

"and is likely to enhance the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment".

Mr. Knight, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves:

That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by

certain persons, be amended by inserting therein, immediately preceding paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of clause 2 on page 2 the following:

"(a) the likelihood that the acquisition will enhance the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment;"

and by renumbering the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Mr. Knight, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves:

That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons be amended by inserting the following words after the word "Canada" in clause 9, subsection (1) on line 44 of page 17:

"and is likely to enhance the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment".

Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves:

That Bill C-201, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be amended by inserting the following words after the word "Canada" in subsection (6) of clause 18 on lines 20 and 21 on page 27:

"and is likely to enhance the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment".

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO CONTROL FOREIGN TAKEOVERS OF CANADIAN COMPANIES
Permalink
NDP

Max Saltsman

New Democratic Party

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):

Mr. Speaker, in moving motion No. 1, that the words "political and social" be added following the word "economic" in clause 2, I want to make the point that unless these words are included the bill is a fabce. One of the reasons we are concerned about foreign ownership is that the so-called decisions affecting foreign ownership have been made on purely economic grounds or on what appear to be purely economic grounds.

The argument has always been that foreign ownership makes us richer and therefore, regardless of the consequences for the work structure and regardless of the political costs, it is desirable. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the word "economic" were to stand alone in the preamble outlining the purpose of the bill, we would be right back where we were before except that the government now has legislation to justify doing what it has always done-permit unlimited foreign ownership in Canada. The criteria for permitting foreign ownership must be broader than economic. There are important arguments against foreign ownership on economic grounds alone, but I believe the criteria must go beyond that and so I have put forward this amendment.

We think it is important that this bill receive full debate. It has not received full debate because the government drummed it through the committee. They made no bones about their haste in getting it through the committee and curtailing the number of witnesses to appear there. Their argument was that the bill was so important that it had to be dealt with in that manner. I have not been able to accept that argument, nor have many other people in Canada. In its present form the bill is hardly worth passing; it is meaningless and in some ways it will be a step backward.

In looking at some of the actions that this government has taken regarding foreign ownership let us consider two cases that come to mind. There was the incident involving Denison Mines when the government stepped in-

June 26, 1972

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO CONTROL FOREIGN TAKEOVERS OF CANADIAN COMPANIES
Permalink

June 26, 1972