July 4, 1972

IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Orders of the day.

Topic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   POSSIBLE REPLACEEMENT OF CENTURION TANK BY SCORPION-CONTRACT DETAILS-MANUFACTURE IN CANADA
Permalink

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT


The House resumed, from Monday, June 26, 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, and Motions Nos. 4 and 18.


NDP

Max Saltsman

New Democratic Party

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the amendment incorporating the principle that there should be consultation with the provinces on matters related to foreign takeovers. I say that because, too often, this principle has been neglected. When we discussed this bill in committee, the question as to whether provinces should be heard arose. I was assured, and had reason to believe, that the provinces had been consulted regarding this bill and that there was some kind of agreement regarding foreign takeovers.

Our experience since then has shown that there has not been any consultations with the provinces and that this bill, whatever its value may be, is a bill that has been introduced by the federal government without consultation with the provinces. Throughout the discussions on foreign ownership and takeovers, the federal government did not appear willing to become involved with the provinces on this matter. I think that was regrettable. In the final analysis, one of two things must happen if there is to be a policy on foreign ownership. Either the provinces must agree to it, or the provinces will be confronted with it. The federal government, in acting, will need to go over the heads of the provincial governments and appeal directly to the people of Canada.

Foreign Takeovers Review Act

I realise that the insistence upon consultation with the provinces may create difficulty for the federal government because many provinces are strongly opposed to any restrictions on foreign ownership, and takeovers in particular. British Columbia does not seem to be happy about the idea, neither does Alberta. The Mantimes are too desperate to look any gift horse in the mouth. The debate over foreign ownership appears to arise mainly in a couple of the prairie provinces and in the great province of Ontario. This being the case, it would be a great error to try to slide into a policy without consulting the provinces. Sooner or later a conflict is bound to arise between the federal government and one or more of the provincial governments should the federal government intend to act at all. Before we can advance further, it may, I suggest, be necessary to bring about a polarization of opinion on the question of foreign ownership.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, in your wisdom, you might try to do something about the acoustics in the chamber.

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

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I thank the hon. member for bringing this to my attention. I suggest to hon. members that if they wish to carry on conversations they should do so in the lobby or behind the curtains.

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. Saltsman:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The federal government realizes, perhaps, that unless there is a polarization of views, people expressing themselves for or against in a positive way, we shall never be able to dead effectively with the issue of foreign ownership. In the case of Quebec, the policy of the government was to force a polarization of opinion in the province; the people of Quebec will have to choose whether or not Quebec is to stay in Canada. At the moment, the situation looks encouraging. For a long time we carried on pretending there was really no problem in Quebec-that with the help of quiet diplomacy things would work themselves out. But that was not the wisest course to take. Until people are confronted with a choice, no decision can be reached. A similar situation arises in connection with foreign ownership. 1 realize that many difficulties will present themselves if the amendment we are discussing is accepted. On the other hand, I believe it is necessary to confront this issue head on.

When the House was debating tax reform, members of this party called attention over and over again to the necessity of taxing all industries equally. We argued that the resource industries in particular should pay their full share of taxation to the federal government. It is often said that if the resource industries do not pay their full share of taxation to the federal government they are escaping scot-free. In fact, what happens just as often is that when the federal government decides not to tax on behalf of the people of Canada as a whole the provinces move in to take the available revenue. This creates a situation in which some provinces accumulate wealth for themselves. In Ontario, where the principal occupation is manufacturing, the taxes on the manufacturing industry which goes to the federal government are spread across the country and the rich province of Ontario thus helps to support the poorer provinces of Canada. This is the way it should be.

But when resources are not taxed as heavily as they might be, the rich provinces, Alberta, for instance, try to take as much of the revenue as possible for themselves. A good many people who live in Alberta will, doubtless, say: They are our resources and we are entitled to the revenue. But every government in Canada could argue that the wealth it produces is a product of its resources, or its talent, and that it is entitled to all the benefits. This is not the basis upon which we are trying to build up our society, however. We are trying to build it on the basis of sharing and, for the reason I have explained, when the government does not tax equally we are not sharing equally. Oil and gas have now been discovered in the Maritimes and the maritime provinces want to keep the revenue themselves. Why should they not do so? After all, this is what Alberta has been saying for years, as well as other provinces, to the extent that they possess such resources. On this basis the Maritimes are fully justified in insisting that the benefits from offshore mineral rights should accrue to them. The federal government contends that the revenue must be shared with others. But it has failed to follow the principle of taxing resource industries equitably across the country and in these circumstances it is difficult for the federal government to argue convincingly that maritime resources should be shared with the rest of Canada. This is the problem which the federal government has created for itself.

As I said earlier, we are all aware that great difficulties will arise when an attempt is made to negotiate the foreign ownership and takeover issue with the provinces. But I believe these conflicts of opinion should be brought into the open so that they can be discussed and dealt with. This is really the point of the amendment. I do not really believe that the amendment, if accepted, will make things easier either for the federal government or for the provinces. It may be we are in trouble now because in the past we have looked for the easy way out instead of trying to do the proper thing. I am suggesting that we agree to the amendment, face the problem and oblige the federal government to discuss with the provinces the whole question of foreign ownership and takeovers so that we can reach a settlement which will be of benefit to this country and, more especially, lead to the establishment of an intelligent policy of foreign ownership. It will probably mean that some day a way will have to be found to share all of the resources of this country among the people. Whether they are resources in Alberta arising from mineral deposits or whether they are resources in Ontario in the form of manufacturing, they will have to be distributed across the country if we are to solve the long standing difficulties existing between the provinces themselves and between the provinces as a whole and the federal government. The sooner there is consultation with the provinces and they are asked to consider foreign ownership and foreign takeovers, the closer will draw the day when an intelligent policy is devised.

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

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) who proposed this motion is absent today. He is a member of the board of governors of the University of New Brunswick, and the board is

meeting today to choose a new president. Obviously he finds his presence is required in Fredericton rather than here today.

This is a debate that was unannounced beforehand and which in any event seems to be serving a rather ulterior purpose for the government. Ostensibly we are being held here to deal with the dock strike in Montreal, but instead-and despite vehement protestations to the contrary-the government is carrying on with its normal legislative program and we do not know when we are going to deal with the dock strike. So much for the credibility of the government in setting down a motion in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the right hon. gentleman's statements on television and to private members, that this House was going to complete its deliberations on Friday. We understand the seriousness of the labour problems in Montreal, but I want the minister to tell the house straightforwardly how long this pretext that we are here to deal with the dock strike is going to continue and whether we are going to deal with this and other legislation purely on an ad hoc basis?

This situation typifies the government's mishandling of the business so far. There was no question of there being ample time to consider this legislation prior to June 30 so that we might accept it. In the first place, it is badly drafted legislation which embraces, in many instances, utterly false concepts. It is then presented to us almost on the eve of the close of the session, the government having full knowledge of the number of supply or allotted days that had to be called in June. Although there was nothing the government could do about that rule, it blithely put forward this legislation which involves a most important principle, namely, whether the government of Canada can unilaterally set itself up as an economic czar, or create the office of an economic czar through the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), with regard to the development of industry and growth of business across the country involving a very limited degree of foreign ownership, as outlined in the bill.

The amendments to clause 2 of the bill, and the amendment that has been put forward by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, crystallize the fundamental question underlying this bill, which is how much unilateral authority the government believes it has in relation to the economic development of this country. This amendment provides that there must be some degree of consultation with the provinces. My colleague questioned the minister about this as will be seen by reading page 24:13 of volume 24 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on June 20. The minister gave a reply that can be contrasted with that of his colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray), who had consulted the provinces. To the surprise of every member of the committee, the latter minister refused to give any indication of the attitude of the provinces, except to say in a general way that some were in agreement and some were not. The minister wasted the time of the committee during one evening's session, and it is no wonder that my colleague for Fundy-Royal quit the meeting. It was a disgusting performance and an effrontery to the committee that the minister spoke in this manner.

Foreign Takeovers Review Act

His colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I will say, was much more forthcoming, though he did not indicate that a particular province made any particular point. I think he should have done so, since I read in a daily newspaper in my home city of Edmonton that the government of Alberta had taken the stand that it wanted full consultation. I agree with that stand. There is no way the government of Canada can declare that, by virtue of section 91 of the British North America Act, it has jurisdiction to move into this area unilaterally. One can only move in unilaterally in the same way that one can try to butt down a brick wall with one's head. The brick wall is not knocked over; the only thing that suffers is the head. This is what the federal government is trying to do in this case.

The minister has indicated that his officials will consult with the provinces, but I should like to know what sort of mechanism there is for this. We have the minister's word that there will be consultation, but if this minister is moved to some other portfolio, some other minister in the future may say that he could not care less about consultation, that there does not have to be any consultation with the provinces. Perhaps some form letter is to be sent out to a provincial authority, to some as yet undefined ministry. The minister has not indicated with whom or with what department of the provincial government there will be consultation. Is it to be a secretary-treasurer, a minister of mines and minerals, or will it be through a minister of intergovernmental affairs? We have no indication with whom the consultations will take place. If the minister will forgive my saying so, I think he is doing some wishful thinking in this regard. He is really grasping at straws. Why is it necessary that there should be this consultation? Unless the minister has indicated something that is not factual, the registrar's bureau of which he speaks, and which the deputy minister indicated would be manned by about 28 people, does not contain one-tenth of the people with the expertise required to deal with the problems that exist in the provinces.

I have taken pains to point out my grave doubts as to whether the government of Canada has the constitutional right to deal with a company or a business interest, and this could be an individual, that is in the hands of a provincially incorporated company or a foreign company registered under the foreign companies provisions of the provincial act under which the business is conducted entirely within the province in question. The same holds true in respect of a business organization which may be a partnership and is taken over by foreign interest. There is no way that can be touched.

If this measure were the result of a substantial degree of agreement with the provinces beforehand, then I think one could say that the worrisome problems of takeovers might be dealt with in an efficacious manner. I share with the minister his concern about takeovers which are the result of a U.S. conglomerate acquiring the assets, or a portion of them, of any corporation which involves Canadian companies. I have been concerned about this for years, and long before this minister came into the House. I have been concerned about estate taxes and the fire sales of Canadian businesses to interests abroad,

July 4, 1972

Foreign Takeovers Review Act

because we have forced these businesses to be the sacrificial lambs of some governmental greed for revenue. One might have been able to rationalize this problem in respect of succession duties with the provinces. We know that the province of Alberta has said it will not impose succession duties in order to have an advantage over other provinces. British Columbia has moved in that direction and Quebec has said it is hopeful it can move that way. The same is true of Ontario.

What a mish-mash; what a jungle, and just after a commission has considered the problem of taxation for years and recommended that there be some rationalization of our taxation system this government makes changes in the estate and income tax provisions. It has been like a kid with a big spanner let loose on some delicate machinery. It tinkers here and smashes there, but the net result is bad. Now, we can see the fruits of the government's lack of consultation and its unilateral action. I know the temptation is great to move into this provincial field. Provincial governments are elected by the same people who elect the representatives in this House, and to whom this government is responsible. One would think this government was responsible to itself only and did not have to answer to the Canadian people. This government seems to think it can fly in the face of provincial governments which represent the same citizens.

As I said on a previous occasion, does this government think that provincial representatives are from outer Slo-bovia? This government seems to act that way, but I suggest to the minister he will have to indicate how he can act with expertise, without consultation, in dealing with the disposition of oil lands, leases and interests in the production of oil and gas. Where does the minister expect to find the expertise to deal with the disposition of timber interests in British Columbia or in Ontario? How does he intend to deal with potash in Saskatchewan? These are matters in respect of which there will be very serious questions asked, and I am not satisfied that the proper answers are forthcoming. The Atlantic provinces' interests are entirely different from those in the province of Alberta. We have heard the representations from those provinces loud and clear, yet I suggest these matters will be resolved by some economic Czar here in Ottawa. I make that suggestion because a provision has been included that a transaction will have to be of significant benefit to Canada. Who will make that decision except the minister? He will make a recommendation to his Cabinet colleagues who will pass an order in council in respect of these transactions.

I have not spoken yet about the administrative side of the fantastic bottleneck this legislation may create. We are not dealing with some 150 actual takeovers, we are dealing with hundreds and hundreds of transactions. If that is not so then the minister's advisers have been hiding their heads in the sand, or are lost on a cloud in cuckoo land. This measure will involve hundreds of transactions; as a matter of fact, even thousands. Some may argue that the transactions may be rebuttable, but that means the individual firm must undertake the burden of proof. There is always uncertainty, but I should have thought the government would accept the amendment from the committee in my name which was suggested by a number of public real estate companies in Canada. The burden

should not be upon those conducting the transaction to show there is significant benefit to Canada, the burden should be on the government to show there is a significant negative effect rather than a benefit. Why should the people have to prove this to the government? Why is the onus on the individual?

The philosophy of this administration militates against the individual and benefits the God-Almighty state. We are mere numbers. We are now regimented more and more. The burden of proof shall be on those in business who are carrying out these transactions. It will be up to them to prove that the transaction is of significant benefit to Canada. Even in the case of a neutral transaction, an exchange of portfolio investments, the burden of proof is still there and is mandatory. Who among the advisers shall be qualified to advise the minister? Is this another area in which special representations will have to be made? If Bill C-259, shall we say, created a lifetime pension scheme for tax lawyers and tax accountants, this bill will be manna from Heaven for corporation lawyers as they beat their way to Ottawa on so many transactions which may be the subject of careful scrutiny and study by the Minister.

Then, what about the, shall we say, indefinite pressure which could be brought to bear concerning this or that transaction and whether or not it is of significant benefit to Canada. Such a judgment would depend upon who saw whom or who had what for breakfast. The decision would come down in that way. In my estimation, the burden must be on the Crown if it is to administer the legislation this way. The burden should be on the Crown to prove the disadvantage of the transaction and to negative the transaction.

I see you are becoming anxious about my time, Mr. Speaker. I wish to finish by saying the amendment put forward by my colleague from Fundy-Royal points out one of the fundamental difficulties in respect of this bill which has not been resolved. If this provision is not incorporated in the bill, more and more trouble will be created with the provinces and goodness gracious, I say on behalf of the Canadian people that there has been enough trouble between the provincial and federal governments involving well meaning but bull-headed people.

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

Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I should in the first place thank the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for some of his comments on the importance of Bill C-201. So many people have stated that the bill was a pip-squeak or nothing, etc., that it is good to hear an hon. member acknowledge the importance of the concepts involved and admit that the application of that bill will be quite difficult. I am one of those who have said so on many occasions since the beginning of the debate. In fact, the consideration of takeovers from an administrative point of view would be so complex, that if the government had wanted to go any further, it would have been reluctant to do so, due to the tremendous administrative task involved. I therefore thank the hon. member for Edmonton West for having used this argument in my stead,

July 4, 1972

because I tried to do it several times without much success, I confess. However I am not going to go as far as the hon. member for Edmonton West concerning the debate on the constitutionality of Bill C-201 nor concerning the point he raised as to whether the way of taxation would not be better to defend the Canadian interests than that of the examination of takeovers. I do not agree with him either concerning his request to get the opinion of the provinces. As I said in committee, provincial politicians have excellent channels of communication with the people and when they want to say to the federal government where to go or what they think of certain federal initiatives, they usually find a way to do it without our having to show them the proper way. So, if some provinces have not said in public all that they have told the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray), it is because they did not want to reveal their attitude. What they have said in public was what they wanted the people to know regarding their position.

Nor do I follow the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) in his analysis of Canadian federalism as regards foreign investment. I shall only keep to the two amendments now before us, and to remind hon. members about them, I shall read them. The amendment of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) aims at changing clause 2(2) concerning factors to be considered in rulings on the approval of takeovers. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal suggests the following addition and I quote:

after consultation by the Minister with each province that is likely to be significantly affected . . . the effect of the acquisition on the industrial and economic policies of each such province.

In other words, should we accept such an amendment, the federal government would have in each case of takeover to consider the effect of that acquisition on the economic and industrial policies of each province "significantly affected" by the said takeover.

Amendment No. 18 which we are also considering provides that the minister, in conducting a review of a takeover, and I quote:

-shall consult with the appointed representative of the province or provinces concerned with the proposed acquisition.

These two amendments are joined for discussion.

In committee, Mr. Speaker, I tried to indicate the reason why it was impossible for the federal government to commit itself to formal, compulsory consultation because this would be giving in a significant way to the province or provinces concerned an explicit or implicit right of veto over a takeover.

I indicated however that the government was committed to a maximum of consultations, of informal consultations having to do specifically with a particular takeover, and also general consultations having to do with takeovers as a whole with respect to policy.

In committee, we also adopted an amendment that has become sub-clause (2) of clause 13, if I remember well, which does away with the obligation that the minister had previously of securing the consent of the parties concerned in a takeover before consulting the provinces.

Foreign Takeovers Review Act

Because of representations made by some provinces and of opinions expressed by some members of the committee, the matter was put aside.

The bill in its present form empowers the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to consult with the provinces in future cases of takeovers. However, subsection (2) of clause 13 does indicate the following:

on such terms and conditions and under such circumstances as are approved by the Minister.

In other words, the Minister is free to consult with the provinces or not, according to circumstances.

The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal-again it must be re-read if it has not been done already-is not very accurate on certain points which I wish to emphasize to some extent. Unfortunately, he did not do so himself when he moved it. I am very sorry he did not have the time to do it. That was on June 26. He did not tell us then whether or not the consultation with the province or provinces concerned would be compulsory. He did not say anything about that, at least not according to his remarks. If the hon. member for Edmonton West thinks that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal made himself clearer than I think, than I claim he did, then he should point it out to me.

According to this amendment, we do not know whether the consultation will be compulsory or not. Does the hon. member know?

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

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):

Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what my colleague would say, but it seems to me the expression "after consultation" presupposes that there has been consultation. There must have been some consultation.

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

Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Pepin:

Consultation would be compulsory, then.

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

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):

It would seem so.

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

Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Pepin:

I would also think so, but I would not dare pass judgment without knowing exactly what the hon. member for Fundy-Royal had in mind.

The question that follows is this: does the province or do the provinces affected, to use the words of the amendment, have the implicit or explicit right to veto the decision of the federal government?

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

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):

The answer is no.

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

Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Pepin:

The answer is no. Very well. In that case the consultation is simply informal.

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

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):

The consultation is compulsory.

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

Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Pepin:

Then, consultation is mandatory.

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

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):

Yes.

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

Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Pepin:

I only say that there might be some circumstances where such consultation could well be impossible or even undesirable. Briefly, this is what I mean:

In certain cases, the takeover might very well be unimportant whereas in others, it would be such an obvious bad move that it would therefore not be necessary to

July 4, 1972

Foreign Takeovers Review Act

consult with the provinces concerned before refusing it. In other cases-which also could very well arise-time might be lacking. Urgent cases might very well come up which would not allow us to enter into formal consultations with all the provinces concerned.

That is all; I am speaking in all sincerity and frankness.

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

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):

And the provinces?

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

July 4, 1972